Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Possible Anti Gay Views and Allegations of Racism?

I made a section stating that Hoppe hand "anti-gay" views because he compares homosexuality to pedophilia and calls it a perversion. The full quote (which can be seen in Hoppe's book here) is as follows:

"the anarchistic upshot of the libertarian doctrine appealed to the countercultural left. For did not the illegitimacy of the state…imply that everyone was at liberty to choose his very own nonaggressive lifestyle? Did this not imply that vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, drug use, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality, insofar as they were victimless crimes, were no offenses at all but perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles?”

Look at Wikipedia's definition of "anti-gay." If Hoppe's view of homosexuality (as a "perversion" and "abnormality" comparable to pedophilia) don't fit that definition, virtually no view that doesn't directly advocate violence against gays does.

That section also notes that Hoppe has been accused of racism for advocating a "systematic pro-European" immigration bias due to what he perceives to be the superior character and intelligence of Europeans. It does not state that he is a racist, merely that he has been accused of racism (as any Google search will show), since there is more ambiguity there than on the homosexuality issue. Steeletrap (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap has made some WP:BOLD edits, and I have reverted. With WP:BLP in mind and WP:BRD as the method we should follow, I posit that the quotes provided above are not complete enough to evaluate. Moreover, we may have WP:SYN issues. E.g., does Hoppe actually have anti-homosexual views or is he discussing these topics in an intellectual manner? – S. Rich (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Srich, it's clear from the full context that his view is that homosexuality is a perversion akin to pedophilia (that is, it is clear that he is not considering that notion intellectually or describing the views of others). Read the full context (the surrounding pages) and that, in my view, becomes a matter beyond reasonable doubt. (See:http://books.google.com/books?id=qARC56X5vxcC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=%22systematic+pro-European%22&source=bl&ots=gwN3h9tbEe&sig=VDqd4S7xtALO2ldnnXeWU-Pq4AE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MvVuUfi5DoGO2gWz74HADQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=pedophilia&f=false) I find it hard to understand your blanket deletion (as opposed to modification) of my edit; aren't those statements relevant to Hoppe's thought? . Steeletrap (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This page has 74 editors watching it, so I expect some of them will chime in. If they don't, I'll post a note on the WikiProject Libertarianism talk page. Also, if we don't get responses, I will respond specifically.

For the record, here is my original edit the Srich deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&oldid=550859252 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As the particular quote is at the top of page 206 it is difficult to get its full context. Page 205 is not available by Google books. (And, at the moment, I'm too cheap to spend $9.99 for the eBook!) From what I see, he is asking a rhetorical question. Even so, what do the WP:SECONDARY sources say about Hoppe's views? They are the ones we must go with. – S. Rich (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any academic "secondary sources" other than reviews from Hoppe's colleagues at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. (Update: page 22 of this article (highly sympathetic to Hoppe) by Mises Institute Senior Fellow Walter Block, explicitly referring to quote about "physically removing" advocates of homosexuality, characterizes Hoppe's views as: "call[ing] for homosexuals and others to be banned from polite society.") I must say I simply can't imagine how one can read that page any other way, given that Hoppe's "rhetorical question" is followed by his plain assertion that "not surprisingly then, from the outset the libertarian movement attracted an unusually high number of abnormal and perverse followers." (this sentence makes no sense if it does not parallel the previous sentence, which labeled homosexuals with drug addicts and pedophiles as perverse and abnormal.) Also, what is your justification for removing Hoppe's (well-covered on popular libertarian websites, and (update) characterized in an academic article by (Hoppe-sympathist) Walter Block as advocating "banning" gays from polite society) comment about physically removing "advocates of homosexuality" from society? Steeletrap (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, I am taking your arguments most seriously. I have found one instance where Hoppe was accused of making anti-gay statements. In 2004 he had made remarks about how gays spend and saving money. One report says an investigation by the University of Nevada-Las Vegas cleared him of any wrongdoing. ["MU faculty rip provost hopeful over UNLV flap." Columbia Daily Tribune (Columbia, MO). McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. 2005. Retrieved April 17, 2013 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-132101011.html]. This report is contrasted by another one, as to same incident, that said he was sanctioned. ["Awards spotlight politically wrong; Uproars in academia questioned.(NATION)." The Washington Times (Washington, DC). News World Communications, Inc. 2005. Retrieved April 17, 2013 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-131085007.html] And a third source says the UNLV Provost found against Hoppe, but the University President dismissed allegation on appeal. [Snyder, Martin D.. "Birds of a Feather?." Academe. American Association of University Professors. 2005. Retrieved April 17, 2013 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-829841891.html]. Two reviews of Democracy, The God... do not mention any sex related topics. There are 29 other results from HighBeam, but I have not looked at them given the titles and introductory paragraphs available. All in all, given the lack of supporting WP:RS, I don't think we can use the isolated quote from Democracy to say he was anti-gay. We need secondary sources. I'll look at the Block material later today or tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Srich, do I understand correctly the University upheld his right (as a matter of academic freedom) to state his views but did not comment on the views themselves? Is this correct? If so, that finding would not establish that Hoppe's views are not, by Steeltrap's standard, worthy of inclusion in the article. SPECIFICO talk 01:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you access the HighBeam links? While I was looking at Hoppe in general (and came up with those 3 articles about UNLV), I'm more concerned that Steeletrap wants to use the particular material from page 206 of Democracy. Is s/he putting a spin on it? (I don't want to tax my intellect to much -- not much is available to spare.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have HighBeam. My casual recollection is that Hoppe drew quite a bit of controversy, including within the Austrian and conservative communities, with these views. That said I have no sources and just happened to see this because I had edited something on the Hoppe article relating to economics a while back. The source looked OK to me, but I did not scrutinize it. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Srich, that he was found (after significant hearings) not to have violated university policy doesn't mean he isn't anti-gay. That's a total non-sequittur. Steeletrap (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, consider this. He made some statements, and the UNLV Provost signed a letter about the statements. The UNLV President, on appeal, dismissed the charges, basically throwing out the charges. Due process, in the academic setting, was achieved. That being the case, we as WP editors cannot say Hoppe is anti-gay because of this alleged incident at UNLV. The charge was determined to be unfounded and we do not have RS to the contrary. Nor can we use his rhetorical sentence in the book, particularly because we do not have full access to the proceeding page. We certainly cannot interpret the sentence on our own as anti-gay because it is rhetorical. Now if there were SECONDARY sources that say "Hoppe has anti-gay feelings because he said such-and-such in Democracy" (or other places), we could use those sources. But for us to read that book, a primary source, and interpret the statement as anti-gay, is not allowed. We gotta avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN. Perhaps he's anti-gay -- well, where is the RS that shows this? Given that we have a BLP, we gotta make sure that each article statement is properly sourced. – S. Rich (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even raise the UNLV disciplinary issue in my edit; that's a much more ambiguous situation and it is already covered extensively in the piece. My edit is about Hoppe's advocacy for "physically removing ... advocates of homosexuality" from society (which is interpreted in an even more restrictive way than I do by his friend and Mises Institute Colleague Walter Block, who says in an academic Mises Institute article (which I cite above) that Hoppe (in that quotation) is calling for gays to be "banned" from polite society. It also draws upon Hoppe's calling homosexuality a "perversity" comparable to pedophilia. I'm trying to assume good faith here -- and will not get into an editing war -- but am also getting a little frustrated to be honest. I see this as a very clear-cut issue: he clearly says homosexuality is a perversity akin to pedophilia and wants to physically remove "advocates from homosexuality" from society (as even his friends and colleagues concede). That -- not an inaptly used example to illustrate the concept of time preference -- is why Hoppe can be fairly described as anti-gay; use another term, or say "allegedly anti-gay" if you must, but to expunge this stuff altogether is a distortion of Hoppe's views. You can read the full context in the google books link; you can reference the above-mentioned article by the Mises Institute's most profilic living scholar, Walter Block; or you can google around and find a boatload of other sources saying the same thing. Steeletrap (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't be frustrated . It's just that he does not clearly say gayness is a perversion in Democray. Nor did he make anti-gay comments at UNLV. I'll look at the Block comments a bit later tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned with your views on Hoppe. To make a blanket statement that he didn't "make anti-gay comments at UNLV" disturbs me 1) because his comments would be considered anti-gay by a great many (probably most) people, to the extent that he was formally subject to university discipline (though he wasn't suspended); yet instead of saying it is an ambiguous situation, you categorically dismiss it. 2) I didn't (at all) bring up the UNLV issue in support of my edit, and it frankly seems like you're trying to "head off" any criticism of Hoppe by defending him on that. Steeletrap (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

On the racism issue, this quotation from Hoppe is instructive. "It would be an error, for instance, to illustrate my theory of comparative government by contrasting European monarchies with African democracies or African monarchies with European democracies. Since Caucasians have, on the average, a significantly lower degree of time preference than Negroids,4 any such comparison would amount to a systematic distortion of the evidence. By contrasting European monarchies to African democracies, the theoretically predicted differences between monarchical and democratic rule would become systematically overstated, and by contrasting African monarchies with European democracies, the differences would become systematically understated." (Source: Page 5 of http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/benegas.pdf) His "source" for this claim is J. Phillipe Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior, an unapologetic defense of unreconstructed racist biology. Revealingly, he simply cites the book as a whole, rather than a particular segment of it. Steeletrap (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the reverted text has stood up and can be reinstated in the article at this time. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Re UNLV, we have some people who say that Hoppe's statement was anti-gay, but the decision-maker in the matter, the UNLV President, dismissed the case and the letter of instruction from the Provost was removed from Hoppe's record. So we are left with the allegation from the original student. Could we write something like this: "Hoppe is anti-gay because a student in one of his lectures perceived certain comments as anti-gay and reported them as such. An investigation by the Provost resulted in a "letter of instruction", thereby proving that Hoppe is anti-gay." Absolutely not. Are his comments in Democracy anti-gay? Well, if they are widely perceived as anti-gay we need to know {{who}} the people are making the assertion. (I'll try to look at the Block and racism material later today.)

SPECIFICO, are you referring to the Democracy edit? Including it is WP:OR. – S. Rich (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Srich, again, no one is basing the anti-gay statement on the UNLV issue. That wasn't cited in the version you reverted. This is a red herring that has nothing to do with the claims of my edit, and misleads those who haven't yet read it. The claim that Hoppe is anti-gay which are rooted in Hoppe's 1) calling for homosexuals to be "banned .... from polite society" (as interpreted by an academic article by his friend and Mises Institute colleague Walter Block) 2) likening homosexuality to a perversity akin to pedophilia in Democracy. Please drop the UNLV thing as that is an ambiguous situation that was never mentioned or alluded or cited in my edit. (Also, if you're interested in the racism issue, please read Hoppe's quote above on "negroids" and the full article accompanying it (which is freely available online.) Also: I am glad that SPECIFICO agrees with my edit. How/when can we decide to restore it in lieu of an editing war? In making the decision, might we involve some (politically neutral) editors to ensure NPOV? Steeletrap (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no harm in an RfC or a post at the OR resolution board. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Please. That would be very helpful if you could do that (I'm a noob and am worried I'd screw it up). I am very concerned with a lack of NPOV on consensus of edits articles related to Ludwig Von Mises Institute fellows. Virtually all of these articles were either created or substantially by a former employee of the Institute and are largely edited by ideological sympathists (i.e., anarchist libertarians who believe in Austrian Economics). That doesn't prove bias in and of itself, but it provides a compelling reason to seek neutral arbitration. Steeletrap (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. I just made another edit expressing my final suggestions for revised changes to the piece. It now reflects secondary articles -- academic whenever possible -- illustrating Hoppe's views. I won't get into an editing war if this is taken down, and I understand if small revisions to the wording want to be made or additional context provided. But I can't imagine with the big issue is given that it now conforms to the policies that have been raised (i.e. isn't individual research). If it is taken down, I won't (for the sake of not inflaming the community) put it back up. But when deciding whether my revisions should stay or go, people should refer to the last version I produced (which contains ample secondary sources, in contrast to the previous one reverted by Srich) to see what my proposed changes are. I also reproduce them below. Steeletrap (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In Democracy: The God That Failed, Hoppe calls homosexuality as a “perversion,” likening it to pedophilia as a “victimless crime” that nonetheless is a perverse “abnormality.”[15][16] In the same book, Hoppe also argues that “They--the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism--will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain” the “libertarian order” which Hoppe favors.[17] Walter Block, a friend and colleague of Hoppe's at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, criticizes Hoppe's comments as calling for "homosexuals ... to be banned from polite society" and therefore being incompatible with libertarianism.[18] Defenders of Hoppe claim he is referring only to “advocates” of homosexuality rather than to all homosexuals, and that the “removal” of the former would be non-aggressive if it is done in accordance with private property rights. [19] Hoppe has also been accused of racism for (among other things) advocating for a “systematic pro-European immigration bias.”[20] Hoppe’s view in this regard is rooted in his belief that Europeans exhibit “all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure.”[21] Citing J. Phillipe Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior, Hoppe has also expressed his view that "Caucasians have, on the average, a significantly lower degree of time preference than Negroids."[22] Steeletrap (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Before we go into an RfC or OR resolution process, let's hash this out a bit more. (And in this regard I am happy to drop the UNLV issue.) Referring to the original reverted edit, we have 3 paragraphs:

1. The first issue is the Democracy statement. Steeletrap has said the book/remark was "widely perceived" as anti-gay. If so, the WP:BURDEN is on him/her to tell us who perceived the remark as anti-gay. If that is done, I'm happy to include it in this article and the Democracy article.
2. The next issue is the "'libertarian order' which Hoppe [supposedly] favors." This is supported by a quotation from Hoppe. I submit that this too is WP:OR because we do not know who the critics are. E.g., we only have the statement "Critics allege", followed by the Hoppe quote. The paragraph closes with Kinsella's commentary. It is difficult to parse who is saying what, but it looks like Kinsella is quoting Hoppe in much of the commentary. So we have a WP paragraph 1. commenting on what Kinsella says 2. about what critics say 3. about what Hoppe says. (Please, take my brain out of this frying-pan!)
3. Third is the accusation that Hoppe is racist because he is pro-European. (Last paragraph) This is supported by a quote from Hoppe, but not by anything from those who accuse him. Again, I submit that this is OR – S. Rich (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we really need RfC/OR because we're not speaking the same language here. Most of your points don't even address any of the justifications for my claims, but instead appeal to (much weaker) potential justifications for Hoppe's being racist/anti-gay (like the UNLV thing or Hoppe being "pro-european"), which I don't even raise in the piece. (I think this applies to your critique with one exception: I agree that "widely perceived" is an empirically speculative term that should be dropped.) That Hoppe's statements were perceived by a great many libertarians to be anti-gay can easily be confirmed by a google search, or by the secondary sources I cite in the latest version. The Walter Block and Kinsella articles both make it plain that Hoppe favors an order which forcibly removes "advocates of homosexuality." Kinsella (who defends Hoppe's statement) differs from block in saying this applies only to some "advocates" of homosexuality (whereas Block seems to think it applies to homosexuals more broadly), but they both agree on this basic interpretation. The accusation of racism is NOT rooted in Hoppe's claim that immigration should be mostly European. It's rooted in his belief -- expressed in a crystal clear fashion -- that non-whites have inferior intelligence and character structure. (Also see his citation of a book which promotes genetic determinism with respect to race and IQ, in support of his (Hoppe's) claim that "negroids" (his term) have higher time preferences than whites.) Finally, please refer to the latest version of my edit (reproduced above) rather than the previous one in addressing your criticism. Steeletrap (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see my article tags. Perhaps they will attract other editors. Improvements and continued commentary on this talk page are certainly welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added a lot of citations and removed vague claims. Check it out and let me know if you think this is ready to be approved. (or, if not, what further changes need to be made)Steeletrap (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think phrases of the form "XXX such as YYY" are problematic because although in common speech it means "XXX and others" the literal meaning, i.e. the criterion for inclusion in the cohort, is unstated. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, SPECIFICO. I just list YYY (Tom Palmer, Ghertner) believe Z (Hoppe is a racist) rather than explicate "XXX (libertarians) such as YYY (P/G) believe Z (Hoppe is a racist). Steeletrap (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning Up Alleged Racism and Homophobia Section

I sourced the claim that Race, Evolution, and Human Behavior is (as my paraphrase has it) an "explicit defense of unreconstructed biological racism." (I think that's what you were concerned with when you claimed "not in citation?" The Horwitz claim is in the first citation; he makes his criticism of Hoppe for citing Rushton in the comments section of Palmer's blog. On the Palmer article, control f for "Horwitz" and you'll find his criticism of Hoppe for citing Rushton. I submit that it's relevant to the issue at hand that a major libertarian academic would make this criticism publicly.) I think it's relevant that, as you (Srich) concede, Block has stated he "abhors" homosexuality (and expresses contempt for queer study theorists and "advocates of homosexuality" in the article in which he criticizes Hoppe), because it shows that even a fellow anti-gay academic has a problem with Hoppe's "physically removed" statement. You also wanted me to specify Walter Block as someone who accuses Hoppe of condoning aggressive violence against homosexuals. I don't understand why "verification is needed" for the claim that Hoppe advocates a "systematic pro-European immigration bias." Have you read the piece cited? If so, do you see possible reasonable interpretations other than Hoppe supporting such a bias? Steeletrap (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• If I might provide some "outside" advice: The first line of that section needs to go. It's is absolutely original research to preface a section so named with a quote from a primary source and our own conclusion about what that quote means. It may very well mean what we are suggesting, but it's not our job to suggest it. For that, we need reliable secondary sources.

The subsequent sections are better, though they contain some dubious referencing which really needs to be cleaned up. I'm going to go ahead and remove that first line. We can always add a line which says, AA responded to Hoppe's claim in Democracy that xx, suggesting Hoppe was yy and yy. We cannot just say - Hoppe said xx and so must have thought yy. Stalwart111 02:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, so with the above in mind I have had a crack at cleaning up the first half of that section. Would appreciate some feedback. I should point out that I'm not an economist and have no real interest in any of the content itself. I have approached the edit from a purely "Wikipedian" perspective; fixing links and language and references without paying a lot of attention to the content itself. I could just as easily have been editing an article about motorbikes or cheese. Stalwart111 03:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, and I've now deleted that second section entirely. It is nowhere near well sourced enough for inclusion and it is almost pure original research. Views are attributed to Steven Horwitz, but none of those sources are by Horwitz himself. Instead, the passage relies on a comment posted to someone else's blog. We can't source criticism in a BLP to a source like that. Besides which, this is A discussing B citing C and suggesting that some think C might be a racist. That doesn't mean A has suggested B is a racist, only that citing C possibly wasn't a good idea. In fact, in the very next line he says, "that by itself doesn’t make him wrong or a racist". So even if we could cite that comment (we shouldn't) it still wouldn't be okay for sourcing the claim that he thinks Hoppe is a racist. Stalwart111 03:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. One reason I tagged the Horwitz material was a lack of verification that it came from that Steve Horwitz. More importantly, as you say, the OR cannot stay. WP is not the place to WP:RGW. And prohibiting OR helps us avoid that pitfall. – S. Rich (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Stalwart, forgive a slightly off-topic comment, but I see you are experienced with BLP articles. Aside from the section you are working on, I am concerned that this article is largely sourced to blog, and other non-RS material and primary sources. It would be great if you could go over the article from the top if you have time. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think SPECIFICO is chomping at the bit to do some editing. (Am I right? ) But he wants to avoid EC. Me? I'm going to wait till tomorrow. Happy editing, guys! – S. Rich (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not in this case, Srich. I am uneasy about all the blog sources and primary sources but I don't know anything about Hoppe or the issues and I recognize an expert editor like Stalwart when he appears. SPECIFICO talk 04:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about "expert" - my experience with 21st century economists would certainly be considered "very limited". But BLP principles remain the same - claims about living people must be verified by multiple reliable sources with proper deference to WP:WEIGHT. I actually have no doubt that we could find enough reliable sources to substantiate a section on accusations of racism, but the sources put forward were nowhere near adequate. The big problem with articles about modern academics is that they are often sourced to material written by the subject him/herself with an interpretation from whichever editor added the material. Usually those editors are from the same field and have a genuine interest (sometimes a COI) in the subject and so the interpretation is close to accurate (at least accurate in terms of the subject's point of view). But in reality, those are not sources we can use to verify claims in BLPs. We can't simply cite a passage from one of Hoppe's books as a source for claims like, "Hope believed x" or "Hoppe asserted y" (except in particular cases where he actually says, quite clearly, "I believe..." or something). We need for someone else to have said, "In Hoppe's book, he asserts y", in a book of their own. Then we can make that claim and cite that source. Stalwart111 04:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well put. Looking at this article, it's not clear to me whether Hoppe is a notable scholar or a crackpot who is known only to colleagues and cronies. Again, it would be great if you could apply the principles just stated to the balance of the article. SPECIFICO talk 04:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll do my best but I don't think it will be a one-dayer (ah, cricket and economics!). Again, like many academics, there are probably going to be those who consider him a "crank" (Tom G. Palmer openly says so) and those who think he is an enlightened scholar for the ages. Just a matter of finding a balance. Stalwart111 05:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Okay then. I've started a bit of a clean-up; mostly fixing references and removing dead links for now but I've also started re-writing sections. I've tried to focus those sections that have {{main}} templates on responses to Hoppe and the publication of his ideas, rather than responses to the ideas themselves. Those ideas/publications have their own articles and responses to the ideas themselves can go there. This article should be focussed on commentary on Hoppe himself, though obviously that commentary will stem from his ideas. If that makes sense?

Given my near-total lack of experience with such subjects, perhaps it would be good if those contributing to this conversation could help out with some sources. Removing the dead-links and useless stuff means there are a few gaps. Some of the remaining ones are... less than stellar. So if anyone has anything useful, feel free to thrown it in! Stalwart111 07:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I understand. The problem with noting that Hoppe compares homosexuality with pedophilia and calls it a "perversion" is based on original research, while the Horwitz criticism comes from a comment to a blog post (which, I suppose, might possibly not be him). I think I've misconstrued the intentions of some of these edits, due to my being unfamiliar with the Wiki rules (and assuming that colloquial common-sense standards applied). Sorry! I understand why the latest version has been changed. However, having established this new section, maybe we can take down the characterization of the homopohobia part as contentious? Steeletrap (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologise! Yeah, it's original research while it's our interpretation, no matter how accurate or learned that interpretation might be. As soon as someone reliable publishes said interpretation in a reliable source, we can use it. I don't think there is much doubt that the Horwitz who commented is the Horwitz in question but that would still be self-published (and, yeah, I suppose we don't know it's him). I'm not sure what you mean about the "contentious" bit but if there's a template there that shouldn't be, or something else, you should feel free to change it. Stalwart111 14:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well, there have been some great edits throughout the day (overnight for me) - really impressive, collegial stuff. I did move the whole-of-article BLP tag to the top of the page. Agree there are some primary sources (though this is okay if balanced with secondary ones which I think is happening slowly) but a tag like that is okay until we get some more balance. I've also added the list of respondents back into the section on Argumentation ethics. I agree entirely with cutting that long quote down to one or two important lines but I also think the focus of that section should be on Hoppe and those who responded to him, rather than the idea which has its own article anyway. My thinking is that if the concept didn't have a page of its own, we would need to summarise the idea and the responses. Given the idea has its own article, that section should be about Hoppe, when and how he published the idea and those two responded to him at the time. If that makes any sense? If there is strong disagreement, by all means revert away, but this would seem to be fairly standard practice for BLPs. Great work all! Stalwart111 01:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I am much happier without that list. None of the others is of the stature of Rothbard and the publisher is not so distinguished that we should care who or how many it chose to include for comment. I propose reverting to the shorter version. SPECIFICO talk 04:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, to be fair all these people are relatively unknown to me (though I'm catching on pretty quickly with all of this related reading). If the feeling is that many of them are notable (enough to have articles here) but only Rothbard's response is noteworthy then that's fine by me. I included it again only to raise it here but you should feel free to remove it - you'll get no argument from me. Stalwart111 06:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Steeletrap#Libelous_edits_on_Hans-Herman_Hoppe and feel free to comment. Like I told him there: " your biased edits and admitted strong Negative POV and the fact your PhD advisor recommended you look at these people for your dissertation, you really are getting into an area where you could be banned from editing these related articles at all under this biographies of living people-related arbitration.

I haven't even looked at what else he's done in this article or others; I'll now check references on Lew Rockwell article which I've been too busy to check til now. CarolMooreDC🗽 16:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Your remarks are unacceptable. My new heading was a paraphrase of WP:Con. The fact is that "libertarianism" Block's view is "non-aggression"; it is therefore a humble inference to draw that Block's perceived violations of it are considered by Block to be aggressive violence. You may a reasonable case that this is OR or WP:syn(and that the long-standing language about "aggressive violence", which was not objected to by three other editors who helped me with this page, should be deleted), but it's repulsive that you are making these insinuations when my edits have consistently been done in the light-of-day, with a justification always given, and this one is the product of WP:Con. You will be reported to the relevant authorities. Steeletrap (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, if one has a strong POV in an area, it's better to learn the ropes in a less controversial area since one will tend not to believe what editors with opposing views say. I certainly found that to be true editing in the Israel-Palestine area and so it took me longer to believe things they were telling me about policy that were in fact true. After 5 or 6 or 7 years of editing 10 or 15 hours a week one does get pretty good at knowing what the community will and will not approve of. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Immigration section

So I've had a play around with each of the other sections but am struggling with the section on immigration. I can't really see how that particular article of Block's is particularly critical of Hoppe. It is perhaps an alternate view but it never really presents a criticism of it, per se. Maybe I've missed something? There's nothing I can see that we could use there to support the assertion that Block was critical of Hoppe's view. Are there any other sources we could use? Does anyone want to have a go at that bit? Stalwart111 06:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think his views on immigration are much different from a lot of libertarians and particularly notable. It would make more sense to just have a section on "views" and include a paragraph on various ones that might be a bit interesting and quirky. I frankly don't know much about him and nothing sticks in my head when I hear his name. (Except now that he's not advocating violence against homosexuals. Just using stupid sloppy language to say he wants covenant communities.) CarolMooreDC🗽 17:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Prof. Hoppe

There must be a more recent photo of Prof. Hoppe for the article. The current one must be from 30 years ago. SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe 15. He sent it upon request himself. So we know he's a little vain. Or just doesn't have many photos of himself... Email him for a more up to date one. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If he sends one, do you know where I can read how to insert it? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons is best since saves trouble of someone having to transfer it there; See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard CarolMooreDC🗽 17:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wholesale revert

Steeletrap, you are being disruptive. The edit: [1] reverted CarolMooreDCs changes that dealt with BLP issues and my edits that covered style, format, syntax, etc. Focusing on my edits, you re-added the "university" when it was the Provost who had written/issued the letter. The final authority of the university, the President, withdrew the letter. So it was improper to imply/state that "the university" admonished Hoppe. Sentences should start with words, not numbers. The citation for the quote was well placed at the end of the quote. As for the other problems, I shall leave them to Carolmooredc. Please stop this. The article is dynamic and WP:CON does not apply. Why? WP:CCC. – S. Rich (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So: I am viciously personally attacked for an edit which only paraphrased text that only paraphrased a byproduct of WP:CON (text which you, if you recall, accepted without objection), and then you call me "disruptive" for reverting it. You are using disingenuously polite languages to mask biases, agendas, and personal attacks. Steeletrap (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)) 23:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding a Users' "libel" accusation

Discussion was taken to ANI & resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is nonsense. You are welcome to argue that it is WP:Syn to say that BLock says Hoppe says Hoppe advocates coercive violence against gays. (For the record, I disagree: What Block says is that Hoppe's advocacy of "banning gays from polite society" violates the libertarian non-aggression principle, which by definition (according to him/mises institutel ibertarians generally) equates to advocating or engaging in aggressive violence). But the "libelous" title I created ("Alleged Advocacy of Anti-Gay Violence") merely restated and summarized CON text in the sub-article which was tacitly or explicitly accepted by all editors for weeks. Given that CON text, it was an accurate description of the sub-article. The only libelousness is in an accusation of legal wrongdoing being thrown at me. Please note that even if your charges were well-founded, your making them in this fashion is in public defiance of WP: Guidelines. See: WP:Threat, according to which "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC) You are saying that you aren't the one who originally put in this material and then just kept "improving" upon it? As I comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_CarlMooreDC_making_false_accusations_of_libel.2Fthreats_of_banning the libel thing was just the icing on the cake of biased, POV, disruptive editing of BLPs and I removed that libel per WP:BLP. Libel isn't illegal in the US so making that claim wasn't something to get you arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned, as you seem to think. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Steeletrap, reading the diff provided by Carolmooredc, it seems obvious that the material you added was libelous and that Carolmooredc was absolutely right to remove it under WP:LIBEL. You are profoundly misreading WP:NLT if you think it applies here. In any case, if it does apply, obviously it applies to me too now, right? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Gosh am I quickly losing faith in Wikipedia. You can argue (incorrectly, in my view) that I am guilty of WP:SYN, but WP:SYN is not "libel." Block clearly says that 1) Hoppe violates libertarianism by advocating gays be banned from polite society and 2) that all violations of libertarianism entail coercive violence. Therefore, 3) Block believes Hoppe's view on banning gays from polite society entail coercive violence against them. The CON text that I paraphrased in this title is a garden-variety logical inference from Block's own words. And yes: it is against WP rules to accuse people of libel erroneously. Steeletrap (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC) I'd prefer this be a dead issue if you understand the point - you can't just go accusing people of violence or other bad stuff on wikipedia unless you have a highly reliable source that uses those exact words (and to be safe quote really negative stuff directly - cause Wikipedia editors individually can get sued for libel by the actual subject of an article, thought I doubt HHH will do so). Wikipedia is more like a copy machine than a word processer. We summarize or quote others' views, we don't write up our own. Now if you can find a source that actually says what you want to say in such a way that no editor can prove otherwise, and present it in a relevant and not WP:Undue fashion, fine. But you can NOT say A says x and B says y, therefore c. That's synth. You can say A says x and By says y and if they draw conclusion c, so be it. But you can't draw it. (Though sometimes editors will challenge that sort of thing if it obviously violates any of a number of other WP:RS/WP:NPOV/WP:BLP/etc. rules.) CarolMooreDC🗽 15:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Syn isn't libel, and it's ridiculous to conflate the two, particularly since I am a noob, and made my original changes to this page before I even knew what SYN was. I yield that I misinterpeted WP rules in setting up the Admin discussion (assertions of libel only are formally banned by the community if they involve some sort of legal threat; with your having denied that, there is (lamentably) no apparent policy against your false accusations, and (lamentably) they do not technically constitute a personal attack, since while heavily charged they do not specifically relate to a person's moral character.) But the important thing is: Do you deny the truth of premises 1) Block says Hoppe's "physically remove" is unlibertarian 2) BLock says all unlibertarian policies entail aggressive violence? If so, you contradict your own claim. Steeletrap (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Here's what I wrote: Walter Block, a colleague of Hoppe's at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, wrote that Hoppe's comments calling for "homosexuals and others to be banned from polite society" was "exceedingly difficult to reconcile it with libertarianism" because "the libertarian philosophy would support the rights of both groups to act in such manners." Now you do the work of telling me what I missed that Block actually wrote. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Block says in the cited piece that Hoppe's views regarding "physically removing" gays from "polite society" are "therefore erroneous, at least in my view, from the perspective of correct libertarian theory." In his view, all behavior that is incompatible with libertarianism entails aggressive violence. I'll let you do the rest. Your charge of libel (which has nothing to do with WP: SYN) is laughably false and I await your apology, though I acknowledge that there is little I can do to prompt it. Steeletrap (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Hoppe says "physically removing" but Block says "banned from polite society". And the only lack of reconciliation he sees is that Hoppe doesn't mention homosexuals can do the same to hetros. Now I think he should have challenged Hoppe's use of term "physically removing" and his not explaining how separation can be done in an entirely libertarian manner (as opposed to, for example, having legally enforceable zoning codes that keep minorities out of the rich white suburbs). I could write four or five sentences or even paragraphs on that myself. But that does not mean I can stick it in here or misinterpret what Block says. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC) The burden of proof is on you to prove an accusation of libel. You have to come up with a tortured definition of terms to make a remotely plausible case of libel, given that my claim follows logically from two uncontestable premises (1) Block says Hoppe's gay policy violates libertarianism 2) Block says all violations of libertarianism entail non-aggression). I appreciate that you deleted your PA on the Lew Rockwell talk thread, and hope that your apology on this clear-cut matter is forthcoming. Please remember that WP:SYN -- while against WP editorial policy -- is not the same thing as libel. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Why is this ("libel") a subject of discussion here? How is it aimed at improving the article? The subject of libel accusations was taken to ANI and resolved. Please start a new thread, without libel as a topic, which focuses on article improvement. I am hatting the discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Corrected "Academic freedom" BLP problems

There were some serious BLP problems which I corrected:

• The Lake article is ref’d from the publication and from a forum. Please only use the original source. Material claimed to be in it was not. ( Also no need to use multiple sources for the same factoids.)
• Snyder in Questia version didn’t say “gay”student and didn’t describe student’s comments except for hostile environnent complaint; if Snyder wrote them in the Highbeam version, you will have to quote word for word. Otherwise just including Snyder comment at end.
• Per Wikipedia:BLP#Balance “Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.” – What his ACLU lawyer says counts; what the President/PR guy says not all that important and WP:Undue commentary.
• Remove WP:Words to avoid “claim”
• Note we lead with secondary sources not primary sources, esp. out of chron order.

Please more careful when writing and study WP:BLP and WP:RS policies. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, your unilateral removal of well-sourced material, based on no specific arguments from the text, is unhelpful. Steeletrap (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Where do either the Lake article or the Snyder article say what you claim they say? I couldn't find it. Totally unsourced material that is not in sources claimed is to be reverted.

Please read Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Carol. Please stop removing massive amounts of material from this article that is well sourced in the article. These faulty edits undermine the encyclopedia and could be avoided simply by your reading the citations before editing. To illustrate the point, you delete the following passages.

First, Alden also instructed Hoppe to "...cease mischaracterizing opinion as objective fact", Alden asserted that asserted that Hoppe's opinion was not supported by peer-reviewed academic literature, and criticized Hoppe for "refusing to substantiate" his statement about homosexuals with any evidence, despite being repeatedly asked to provide it. (All the claims/quotes in this passage come from a source previously cited in the article): http://www.mises.org/pdf/hoppeletter.pdf)

Second, Hoppe appealed the decision and was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, a spokesman for which stated that while "[w]e don't subscribe to Hans' theories and certainly understand why some students find them offensive," university attempts to reprimand Hoppe for stating them violated his academic freedom. (All the claims/quotes in this passage come from a piece previously cited in the article: (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=16525.0;wap2)

Your changes are unacceptable and reflect the need for editors to read (citations) first and make edits later. Adopting such a policy would prevent you from making erroneous claims about "violations" of policy.Steeletrap (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

At this diff, Alden quote is NOT ref'd by that source but by http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=16525.0;wap2 which is just a copy of the Lake article at the newspapers website, but with a different title. Put a proper source in the proper place and the unsourced issue is done.

ACLU president opinion, besides inaccurately sourcing the Lake article, leaves out the more important opinion of Hoppe's ACLU attorney. We can stick in the President's opinion, but we'll let others judge the final version.

You did not respond to my comments on what you claim is in Snyder. I wrote: "Snyder in Questia version didn’t say “gay”student and didn’t describe student’s comments except for hostile environnent complaint; if Snyder wrote them in the Highbeam version, you will have to quote word for word. Otherwise [I am] just including Snyder comment at end." (I.e., in either case Snyder's comment belongs at the end.)

Also see my quote of Wikipedia:BLP#Balance and comments on use of secondary sources to describe the situation before primary are used. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There is/was no unsourced issue. These are quotations and paraphrases from newspaper articles about the scandal, and statements from the university/ACLU; they're not opinion pieces. I'm not going to go back-and-forth over this but it's preposterous that you deleted loads of well-sourced material. Steeletrap (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

First, at this diff I put back two sentences now that the correct references finally were identified with edit summary: now that proper refs identified for statements have put them back with WP:Undue note since they do seem to be unnecessary POV jibes considering the outcome

(Note I didn't read the whole letter and upon doing so may have other opinions on accuracy of quotes or its possible other uses as a source.)

Second, let me spell it out. You wrote: A gay student who heard Hoppe's lecture described the remarks as unfounded, and criticized Hoppe for characterizing them as a matter of economic fact rather than a personal opinion. He further claimed that Hoppe's words were derogatory toward homosexuals and therefore tended to create a hostile classroom environment. REf:Martin Snyder, Birds of a Feather?, Academe, March 1, 2005 from HighBeam Research. I found the same article at Questia [ here].

However, the only text that was essentially the same was that in bold "hostile classroom environment" which is properly referenced by Lake. Nothing else was in there. If Highbeam actually has that text and Questia (734 words of actual text) does not, do tell. If not, then you cannot make all those WP:Original research claims from your personal knowledge or opinion. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If no evidence that this material is in Snyder it goes very soon. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Snyder

Introduction: At the very end of Hans-Hermann Hoppe#Academic freedom controversy, should Snyder's quotation say:

• "Freedom of faculty members to express views, however unpopular or distasteful, is an essential condition of an institution of higher learning that is truly free. Without vigorous, open debate, education becomes mere indoctrination." Or:
• "Freedom of faculty members to express views, however unpopular or distasteful, is an essential condition of an institution of higher learning that is truly free." – S. Rich (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The additional quote from Snyder is off topic for Hoppe and does not concern the details of the Gay/Hoppe incident. The add-in is about "debate" which is not the fact in the Gay/Hoppe affair, where the issue was alleged misrepresentation of opinion as fact. Snyder is speaking from self-interest as head of a labor organization promoting the interests of his group by trying to insinuate a broader issue into the case. This is not about Hoppe and should not be inserted in the article any more than a "balancing" quote about homophobia or ignorance in general should be introduced to try to paint Hoppe as either of those. The add-on was Boldly inserted, it was Reverted, and it should remain out of the article unless Discussion arrives at consensus to re-introduce it. SPECIFICO talk 13:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Response: What is said about the added sentence could be said about the previous sentence: "Freedom of faculty members to express views, however unpopular or distasteful, is an essential condition of an institution of higher learning that is truly free." E.g., it is a 'debate', is in 'self-interest', does 'not concern the details' of the incident. But clearly (as the 2 sentences follow one another) Snyder is talking about the incident and its importance to academia. Leaving the first sentence alone puts emphasis on the "unpopular or distasteful" aspect of what the student perceived and less emphasis on the underlying, and much more important, rationale for allowing Hoppe to speak without fear of reprisal. The decision of the provost was reversed in favor of the more important rationale, and Snyder's fuller quote serves to underwrite that rationale. – S. Rich (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If that was the Provost's rationale you will need to have him say so, not the union boss Snyder. The first part relates to Hoppe, who made a statement that was allegedly distasteful. The second has nothing to do with this case. Hoppe did not engage in debate, he stated something as fact. Your paragraph above has not addressed my points above and meanwhile the reverted text should not be re-inserted until its inclusion is supported by consensus here to include. SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Union boss -- what does that have to do with this? The section is about the academic freedom controversy at UNLV; indeed, the matter was settled by the president on the basis of academic freedom. Seems to me that debate is part of academic freedom. But what I'm reading is "If you say something distasteful, you're not engaging in debate. If you say something that has no facts to back it up, you are not engaging in debate. If someone's feelings are hurt upon hearing something, you are not engaging in debate." (In the meantime I have tagged the sentence as {{Lopsided}}.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's about a misstatement of opinion as fact. It's not a debate about homosexuality, economics, consumer behavior or anything else. Please undo your re-insertion per BRD until the re is consensus. The tag doesn't address this request. Thank you. The appearance of edit warring is incendiary, given the history of recent edits and editors here. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 15:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll put it another way: Perhaps the section should be titled "Hoppe's [alleged] misstatement of opinion as fact and consequent academic freedom/political correctness/hostile teaching-learning environment controversy"? Re the tagging, it serves to put the article into the hidden "Category:Articles with minor POV problems from May 2013". That enables interested editors to spot it and engage in this debate. But without the "added" sentence, the lopsided tag would lack context. (E.g., if the second sentence is removed and the tag remains, it would be less clear as to what the brew-ha-ha is about. There's no big rush, or need, to revert. The question is neutrally laid out above. Let's see what other people say. (If another editor wants to remove the sentence in the meantime, I won't object.) There is no edit warring going on, and our yet brief, but presently unresolved difference of opinion is hardly incendiary. – S. Rich (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the justification for including Snyder. But if we're going to include him, shouldn't we include the following remark in his piece: "Those with a better memory than Hoppe for segregation, apartheid, internment facilities and concentration camps, for yellow stars and pink triangles, will find much that is offensive in his writings." (This comes after Snyder discusses Hoppe's view that "advocates of homosexuality" should be "physically removed from society"?) His view that Hoppe is promoting extremely offensive views helps contextualize the fact that he is defending Hoppe on the basis of academic freedom, rather than on the veracity of Hoppe's views.

Also: to assert something on the basis of no evidence is not a "debate." If I say: blondes are stupider than brunettes, and fail to provide -- and after being prompted further, continue failing to provide -- a scintilla of evidence for this claim apart from an appeal to conventional wisdom, this is not conducive to debate. I think however that there is a strong slippery slope argument (which, to pre-empt accusations to the contrary, is not necessarily a logical fallacy) against punishing professors from making such assertions, but they are intellectually sloppy to say the least. Steeletrap (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Carolmooredc. She's the editor who provided the Snyder material. – S. Rich (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm certain I'll be checking out of this page. Steeletrap (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to look at it again to opine. Later. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Why Hoppe's comment is perceived as homophobic

It is certainly not the place of an encyclopedia to make value judgments like: Hoppe is a bigot or Hoppe is a homophobe (so please, "colleagues", do not attack that straw-man, as I am not claiming the piece should assert such claims). However, we should make our best efforts to accurately present the argument of those who believe his remarks were homophobic, as opposed to obscuring that argument, as edits several days ago by one of my "colleagues" here have done.

People believed Hoppe's remarks were homophobic since Hoppe assumes, on the basis of no evidence, that homosexuality has horrible consequences. (leads to adults homosexuals having the saving habits of children, and led to what Hoppe considers erroneous and harmful economic theory.) It's the assumption that homosexuality is bad, (as opposed to an empirical statement that homosexuality is correlated with y social bad) based on nothing but an appeal to stereotypes, that people find homophobic. Since (unfortunately) the social consciousness of our society is not as attuned to homophobia as it is to racism, people should substitute "blacks" for "homosexuals", and consider whether it would be racist to assert, on the basis of no evidence (and indeed, after having made the assertion, refused to provide any such evidence after repeatedly being prompted to do so), that blacks have the saving habits of "very young" white teenagers/children, and don't plan for the future like whites do. Steeletrap (talk)`

Is this your way of saying the material you say Snyder said, he didn't say? If no WP:RS discuss this issue, we can't just make something up. No amount of WP:Soapbox arguing can go against that policy. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

List of "works"

The list of works is very long, with many self- or weakly published items included. This should be pared down commensurate with similar lists on other articles, particularly for others of Hoppe's stature. SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And I am doing/will do so, mainly looking for works which are shelved on major libraries. Will add "Authority control" template a bit later. – S. Rich (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC) But an evaluation of Hoppe's stature is subjective. So, as I said, I'm looking at the number of libraries which stock his stuff. Not very Austrian, but it's a measure that I can apply very roughly without having to read any of his stuff. 02:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We could start by getting all the Mises Institute stuff thinned out, especially the interviews which do not present scholarly discourse. SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP Violations

• List of "opponents" - if someone in some reliable source says "this person is wrong on x, y, z" and there's a ref in the text fine; didn't see anything like that from an WP:RS
• Influenced by or influenced sections without WP:RS that say Hoppe was influenced by (and more importantly that he influenced) certain people really are problematic. Especially given the attempt to emphasize the couple controversial things he wrote/said. (immigration not controversial). I assume if there were more controversial things they'd be in there by now. We want to avoid any possibility of guilt by association. Put in a ref for who he influenced."
• Claiming things are controversial in the lead when there is no real controversy on discussions of differences in opinion (immigration? libertarianism?)
• Using cherry picked quotes that evidently are supposed to have some negative connotation and then writing someone wrote something about them, without saying what, as if that supports the cherry picked quote when what they actually do say (which I summarized/quoted) is not at least controversial among libertarians. Find a reliable source that talks about the quote you want and you can use it.
• Academic freedom section way too long for an incident where he was exonerated. The couple of gratuitous criticisms from the losing side are just a POV use of Wikipedia. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

None of these points is supported by fact. For example, and for whatever reason, Hoppe appears to be despised by many mainstream libertarians. SPECIFICO talk 11:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? E.g., do you agree or disagree with the points Carolmoore has made? What should be done to improve the article? – S. Rich (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

His crackpot comments -- which were what caused controversy and brought publicity to the incident -- were not "exonerated"; the university merely decided that disciplining him for them (like disciplining Ward Churchill for "9/11 truth") was a violation of academic freedom. Steeletrap (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What matters is what is in the article. I don't see any full blown controversial WP:RS attacks on Hoppe in the article now. I'm not saying they don't exist in WP:RS form, but you have to do the work to find them. We can't take your word for it. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Exonerated/academic freedom/ whatever. It's still too long a section with a couple of nonencyclopedic POV digs. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Balance and WP:RS BLP problems

At this diff in Democracy:The God that Failed section: User:Speicifo's removal of the longer summary of what the book is about, sticking in your own WP:OR of "decentralization" which isn't even in the source, while allowing to remain such a nice long attack on his work for one section is clearly against Wikipedia:BLP#Balance: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. (And there is removal of other WP:RS info from the Daily Bell which I refer to below.)

User:Speicifo has made it clear on this talk page s/he dislikes the guy (see WP:Soapbox), but that should not influence editing. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I never met Hoppe, although we are email buddies. I neither like nor dislike him. "decentralization" is an accurate paraphrase of this quote " "shifting of control over the nationalised wealth from a larger, central government to a smaller, regional one" from the version I edited. We're not supposed to load articles up with direct quotes where simple accurate paraphrases such as this are available. Please do not engage in any further personal attacks. SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

One or two quotes are ok; more details from the review as well. I'll look at it tomorrow. Also, when one expresses a very negative POV, it's not illegal to mention it. That said, I see that I in my memory I misinterpreted what you said above, "it's not clear to me whether Hoppe is a notable scholar or a crackpot" - as being a personal opinion and not related to the evaluation of the article. So I'll remove the above. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, the personal attacks are simply out of control. They are consistently directed at those who disagree with your political views. Please stop making them as it undermines the editing process of this and other pieces you have contributed to. Steeletrap (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I rewrote my version shorter, but it does go along with the source. It reads:

In 2001, Hoppe published Democracy: The God That Failed which examines the failures of modern democracies including unemployment, astronomical public debt and bankrupt social security systems. He blames pressure groups seeking increased government expenditures and regulations. Hoppe proposes alternatives and remedies, including secession, decentralization of government to regions, and "complete freedom of contract, occupation, trade and migration introduced".

Specifico's version missed essential points of any anti-state critique. Anyway, again, it's really against WP:BLP to spend so much time on criticism when one doesn't even explain properly the theme of the book. Also note if you read decentralization article that may modest decentralization of administrative units or radical decentralization of political units, so it helps to be a bit more specific per the source. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Sources Needed

This article relies excessively on primary sourced material from various Hoppe interviews. It needs secondary RS material and reaction to Hoppe's writings. Also since Hoppe's Freedom and Property Society is mentioned, we should try to get secondary RS descriptions of that organization and its activities. SPECIFICO talk 11:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean all the Daily Bell material you removed? Using interviews with subject for non-controversial facts about ones self are NOT against WP:BLP or WP:RS. Please quote the policy that says they are.

Or find other secondary sources - just removing it is unwarranted. In the interim it is perfectly WP:RS and will be put back. In the meantime we tag neutral material that needs better sources, we do not remove it.

Removal of Austrian economics is particularly POV. See this books google search for example.

FYI, since Paleolibertarianism thing is dated, and somewhat self-serving, I don't have a problem with removing it. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please make specific reference to material concerning the Freedom and Property Society that you say I removed. Your meaning is not clear. SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Economist/philosopher

Both of these descriptions are highly dubious. Has Hoppe ever published in peer-reviewed journals for either philosophy or economics? If so, there is no indication of this on his WP entry, which merely indicates his "contributions" to be crackpot philosophy (and no, it isn't a matter of "opinion" to say Argumentation Ethics is pseudo-philosophy, but a matter of logic, just as dismissing phlogiston theory of fire is not a matter of opinion) and the empirically unsupported arguments about monarchies being more economically efficient than democracies, which he makes in his book on Democracy. If he hasn't published a reasonable amount in such journals, I see no reason to characterize him as a philosopher or economist. Steeletrap (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We go by what WP:RS say, not editor's personal opinions in WP:Soapbox sections. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources extremist libertarians believe in are not "RS". They are the economic equivalent of creationism by virtue of their rejection of empiricism and statistical methodologies (that is not an ad hominem attack, but an accurate analogy understood by those who are trained in mainstream methodologies, including many more mainstream Austrians and libertarian economists like Gary Becker and James Buchanan (both of whom call LvMI-style Austrianism a "Cult"). Show me some peer-reviewed, mainstream economic sources Hoppe is published in and then we can list him as an "economist". (This is not "soapbox" but merely keeping with WP:NOTRELIABLE, according to which sources "widely considered to be extremist" should be deemed unreliable.) Steeletrap (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral, not "objective", and dicussion is not a forum. Is not the place for philosophical descalifications of Austrian Economics, neither the place for challenge schoolar debates. --Sageo (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I was cheking about Notability policies en English language Wikipedia. Well, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) says "Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work." In the case of Hoppe the impact of his work is about or around Austrian Economics and Political Theory. How the article could beging without the reason of his notability? Conversely, you are trying to say that only when "mainstream economics" accept him in a debate or publications -mainstream academis that this professor rejects- the article can mention his professions and notability, that claiming is very unusual and no neutral. --Sageo (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You have entirely misstated the issue. The issue could not be more simple. Find WP:RS citations for the content you wish to insert. In the meantime, undo your re-insertion pending resolution of the disagreement here on talk. Please undo your recent edits. SPECIFICO talk 03:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, again, the sources exists, "As an internationally prominent Austrian School economist and libertarian philosopher, Dr. Hoppe has lectured all over the world and his writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.", another "Degrees: 1974 Diplom (equiv.: M.A.) in Sociology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universitaet (Frankfurt/M, Germany)/ Dr. phil. (equiv.: PhD) in Philosophy, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universitaet (Frankfurt/M, Germany) // 1981 Dr. phil.habil. ('Habilitation') in the Foundations of Sociology and Economics, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universitaet (Frankfurt/M, Germany)"; "Economics - Hoppe, Hans-Herman (1986), Professor; M.A., Ph.D., Geothe-University, Frankfurt, West Germany." from University of Nevada, Las Vegas. In Spanish "Es profesor de economía en la Universidad de Nevada, Las Vegas y Distinguished Scholar del Ludwig von Mises Institute. Recibió su Doctorado en Filosofía y su grado posdoctoral en la Universidad Goethe en Francfort, Alemania" book from Universidad San Francisco de Quito. "Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Hoppe is the foremost economist writing in the tradition of Austrian Economics." from University of Economics, Prague. So now? --Sageo (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Put them in the article as relevant. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, started looking at refs for first sentence description more carefully. Walter Block's "Review of Hans-Hermann Hoppe" is fine for a "reception" comment but doesn't at all describe him.

Initially I thought the Daily Bell was a UNLV student news paper; then I thought it was just some unreliable self-promoter's blog. But now I've discovered that Hoppe himself quotes the whole interview in undated ebook The Great Fiction here.

His description at Mises Institute page is his most substantial CV but not even used here!

His personal website describes him as "currently" a professor at UNLV, so dated. Nevertheless on that page he calls himself an "Austrian Economist and Anarcho-Capitalist Social Theorist". Obviously he's written on The Private Law Society. Perhaps he should be described with both terms. Just throwing out some facts and ideas at this point for rumination. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP Violation -- Habermas association

It is a BLP violation to associate living philosopher Habermas with Hoppe in the absence of a secondary WP:RS citation. This text must not appear without proper citation. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So, for that cases is needed a required citation template. And that is not an excuse to revert the rest of the editions. Like I explain in the resume yo are challenging the consensus, before make your changes you should discouse it. --Sageo (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That association is commonly asserted in many sources, saying that he makes his PH.D. with Habermas as teacher. What kind of source are you claiming for? a source where Habermas said he was his student? Because there are many free-marketer sources with that affirmation, not Hoppe himself only. --Sageo (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Please review WP:BRD. There is no requirement for consensus for the first insertion of content, nor for the reversion of it. The consensus is required to reinsert it after an editor (me in this case) has reverted it. If you have WP:RS that associates Hoppe with Habermas, that would solve the problem. Do you have it? The other text was removed for other reasons mentioned in the edit summaries. Principally: Unsourced material, excessively detailed material, and BLP violation. Please review the relevant WP policies and guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Daily Bell interview reads: He received his doctorate (Philosophy, 1974, under Juergen Habermas). CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, there are sources for that assertion, that isn't a kind of polemical one (Use Common Sense). The other information you are deleting is a necessary description of the person like philospher and economist, not a excesive detailed material. I think you have a deep problem of comprehension what Wikipedia relevance content is about, that is not a synonim of schoolar credentialism. --Sageo (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Bell interview like any interview, is a primary source. We need a secondary WP:RS. The intro to the Daily Bell interview appears to have been copied from our very own Wikipedia article. it is not a secondary reliable source as to Hoppe's PhD work. Any editor who sees this BLP violation should remove it. It is very unfortunate that such a violation would generate anything other than unanimous cooperation, pending resolution with a proper source. SPECIFICO talk 12:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used -- with care. Do we have Hoppe (as an interviewee) saying "I received my PhD in 1974."? (That would be a primary source remark.) But is it the interviewer, who may have done background investigation about the interviewee, saying "He received his PhD in 1974."? That statement is not a primary source statement. – S. Rich (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have discussed the relevant factors in the preceding post here. The secondary source interviewer is not RS as to Hoppe's studies. If it were the Wall St. Journal, the National Review, or whatever we could accept the statement of the interviewer. The current source interviewer appears to be quoting this same WP article. I hope that is now clear. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

People can always check the version of Wikipedia vs. the date the Daily Bell article was written. I'm sure he had a CV out there with all that info also. When in doubt, find better sources. Good start is his personal "about" page. I'm sure there are lots out there. (Personal note, FYI to other editors collaborating: I'm just going to concern self with BLP violations which I will pursue to hilt. Minor issues of factoids others can deal with.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves reads: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Curriculum Vitae, article lists, etc can be useful to lead to secondary sources or can be used when there aren't others, as long as reasonable number used. If there's a stalled debate third parties can always be asked to comment. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation of this simple factoid exists and will be put in soon enough. As time is found in between dealing with real BLP issues. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Astronomy

"including unemployment, astronomical public debt"

This kind of meaningless language has no place in an encyclopedia. Language needs to be clear and well-defined, not like the elephant felt by five blind men. If the expanded content is to remain in the article it needs to be written with a single unambiguous meaning and without language that will cause each reader to infer a personal interpretation of the text. One man's astronomical is another man's microscopic. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, looking at source again (did you?) it turns out that the review was quoting Hoppe who wrote "public debt has risen everywhere to astronomic heights". So perhaps it should be re-written like this:

...which examines the failures of modern democracies. Hoppe cites unemployment, public debt of "astronomic heights" and bankrupt social security systems. etc." CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not having seen the original, I don't know what is an accurate paraphrase. It appears at least in that instance (astro) that the text was an accurate representation of a sloppy statement by Prof Hoppe. I have the same question about the rest of it. If Hoppe is so vague as to decry "unemployment," which has existed in every society known to human history, possibly excepting extreme fascist or slave states, then that would go in the article with no further clarification. If, that is, Hoppe states it in such a way. "Bankrupt social securities systems" is another good one. Is there an example in the book that would indicate Hoppe actually believes that such a thing exists, at least in a single instance? Or is that just a little bit of poetry? I hope that there's more serious substance behind Hoppe's work -- in which case this WP article should attempt to give an accurate faithful sense of Hoppe's views. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Because of copyright issues I cannot just copy everything quoted from the source here, can I? Please look at the source. I'm not into arguing about what he thinks or how he expresses himself, only trying to collaborate on a proper summary of the book made by the reviewer. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Argumentation ethics

If Argumentation Ethics were Hoppe's only contribution, that's enough to make him a great philosopher and economist. Argumentation Ethics definitively proves that no one can coherently disagree with Hoppe on economics and politics. It's strictly logical and value free, which makes it odd that the so-called "pioneers" of modern logic, Aristotle, Russell, Whitehead and Wittgenstein, missed the boat on it. Hoppe should also be labeled as a logician, quite possibly (per Argumentation Ethics) the best logician ever. Steeletrap (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Beg to differ. A great Philosopher, yes. A trailblazing logician. Yes! But not an economist. I have not seen any RS that calls Hoppe a notable economist. Not surprising, because with the exception of J.S. Mill, I don't know of any philosophers who are or were economists. We still need RS to make the statement that Hoppe is an economist. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

First, economics is a matter of study, not only a "tittle". Second place, his Habilitation is in Economics. A faculty offering a professor of economics that is not an economist? --Sageo (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You say it's a "matter of study", but there is no evidence Hoppe has ever published in a mainstream RS, or engaged in any serious study of economics since his Habilitation degree. Now one can argue that economics is no longer a coherent field of study, at least since Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics showed the illogic of all economic theories which contradict Hoppe's political views, but it is difficult to make the case that Hoppe is an economist. Steeletrap (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

To have a profession in which a persons publish is enough to be mention at the intro of a reconized person in a field (notability is not about be notable is all environments, and his environment is Austrian Economics). What you demand is that contrary schoolar stream publish them (and Economics is also Austrian Economics). That have not sense, you never will be satisfied if that is your demand. That you should realize is not an encyclopedical require. Anyway, check, the UNLV site says that Hoppe is Professor Emeritus in this program Economics MA, and in this program these are the subjects: Mathematical Economics, Macroeconomic Theory, Microeconomic Theory, Econometrics I, Statistical Modeling, Econometrics II, Seminar in Economic Research, Internship. "We don't need" RS as you say, editions policies don't fobid primary sources for CV info; but anyway with these links I suposse this discussion ends.--Sageo (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, Steeltrap, I suggest to avoid use talk page for (anti)propaganda. Don't make this an anti-Hoppe pamphlet. --Sageo (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've found good refs for his being an Austrian economist and a libertarian theorists. And, yes, let's stop trashing Hoppe. Your snide and nasty comments above just reek of academic food fights, frankly, and are not appropriate for an encyclopedia which attempts to be NPOV. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Academic freedom section heading title

The first discussion re the proper title for the section was here: [2]. (I was mistaken about the amount of discussion that had taken place -- it was more about the contents of the section.) [In any event, the heading has had changes -- from allegations of racism & homophobia, to homophobia, to the most appropriate (in my view) "academic freedom". ADDED later -- this section heading has been stable for many years. There have been other sections & discussions about homophobia, etc., but those did not directly involve this particular section.19:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)] And this heading is well supported by the content of the section. The ultimate decision by UNLV, following Hoppe's appeal, was based on academic freedom. The section does not discuss his views on homosexuality, only the allegations that the perceived homophobic views created a hostile learning environment. So it is inaccurate to say he has any particular views about homosexuality per se. Those views, whatever they are, are not discussed in the body of the section. Next, if any of the section heading title were to say "homophobia", then we are implicitly saying the controversy was decided on that issue. Or, if we say "allegations of homophobia", we, again, are glossing over the ultimate decision. For WP policy, section headings must, like article titles, be descriptive, concise, and neutral. (The policy is here: WP:NDESC, which specifically says we should avoid the use of "allegation".) – S. Rich (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't know people were trying to change it again, but I do agree with you. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This controversy was about Hoppe's insinuation of his views on homosexuality into what was purportedly a class in economics. The fact that he was, to some extent, got off the hook by playing the "academic freedom" card does not mean that "academic freedom" was the subject of the controversy. Moreover, academic freedom is not controversial. That's precisely why Hoppe was able to cite this right as his defense. To caption the section "academic freedom controversy" is like describing the acquittal of a murderer who was mistreated by US Police and then captioning the section "Miranda Rights Controversy" Whoever undid Furry's new more descriptive title should re-insert it pending resolution of this matter on talk. Edit warring is not going to improve this article. SPECIFICO talk 13:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If we start saying Hoppe was "purportedly" teaching a class (in the section), then we're getting into WP:ALLEGED problems. If we say "claims of discrimination" in the section heading, then we have a similar problem, as the discrimination claim was dismissed. If we title the section "controversy over statements about homosexuality", and base it on the classroom statements, then we are giving undue emphasis to what the student perceived. On the other hand, Hoppe may have certain views about homosexuality, which go beyond what he said in the class, and which are supported by RS. A section on those views might work so long as it does not rehash the academic freedom material. But then, if his views are not part of his academic work, does this (new) section become a "More taste! vs. Less filling!" debate? E.g, does he wear boxers, briefs, or go commando? How important are any of these views to the article? – S. Rich (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

15:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Srich, to my knowledge, no editor here is proposing to add text to the article saying that 'Hoppe was purportedly teaching a class'. Could you please provide a diff to the problems you reference above. If you have misspoken, please strike your comment, as it may confuse other editors who read your message above. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO. The controversy was not over whether academic freedom is a good thing, or an appropriate characteristic of the university. It was about Hoppe's dig against the gays and their supposed poor ability to plan for the future. (substitute "blacks" for gays and you'll understand why people -- including the ACLU which defended Hoppe -- understood that the comparison of gays to the "very young" and the "very old" in their savings habits would be found offensive.) The fact that he repeatedly refused to provide evidence for the assertion was, according to Alden, crucial to this matter becoming so controversial. Steeletrap (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no "repeated" refusal to substantiate. And the article has been corrected in that regard. Like I said above, if we can create a separate section about Hoppe's anti-gay views, let's do it. But taking one (or more) purported statement in the classroom and creating an entire section out of it is UNDUE. The student made a discrimination and hostile learning environment complaint, Alden decided it on that basis, and Harter overturned the decision on another basis. The final decision by UNLV is the issue that the section should focus on. – S. Rich (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You're simply incorrect, Rich. Please reread the letter. (see: http://www.mises.org/pdf/hoppeletter.pdf) The conclusion Alden states is that "the grievance is hereby affirmed." He says that this affirmation "is based on the unanimous reports of the grievance panel" which "specifically determined that purportedly empirical statements [by Hoppe] ... regarding homosexuals were not reported by peer reviewed academic literature". He also goes on to state that Hoppe not only did not support his claims in class but "refus[ed] to substantiate" his empirical claims about homosexuals "at the [disciplinary] hearing." This leads Alden to conclude that Hoppe "violate[d] the appropriate standards of scholarship and instruction responsibility, as well as the accuracy obligation."

So you're just incorrect in your above statements, Rich. Hoppe did repeatedly refuse to substantiate his claims (in class and in the disciplinary process) and the ruling of Alden is explicitly "based on" the lack of evidence for Hoppe's statement about homosexuals. Steeletrap (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"purported past participle, past tense of pur·port. Verb. Appear or claim to be or do something, esp. falsely." Srich, are you asserting that the content of Hoppe's statement on homosexuals is in doubt or is disputed? If not, it would be clearer if you would strike that word, "purported." Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. The comment stemmed from your "This controversy was about Hoppe's insinuation of his views on homosexuality into what was purportedly a class in economics." I didn't think you were suggesting that the section describe the class in those terms, but I was concerned that other editors might pick up on that lead. So I wanted to put the kabash on any use of the term "purportedly" in the article. (And my remark serves as a lead-in to my other comments.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please strike the remarks, which can only serve to confuse other editors even as they have caused me to be confused, even knowing as I do the substance of my own remarks. Economists, especially Austrian School subjectivist economists, are not in the business of predicting the actions or preferences of heterogeneous groups of people aggregated under a single label such as "homosexual." Hoppe's statement as to the preferences and actions of homosexuals does not fall within the field of economics by any definition of economics and my use of the word purported referred to the fact that he was lecturing on an entirely different topic at the time he made those comments. Please adjust any of your writings on this page which misrepresent my use of the word "purported." Otherwise, future editors may become confused, hobbling the discussion of prospective edits. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that "Academic freedom controversy" has been the section title for several years. See: [3]. The section was first added as "Controversy" in 2005 [4]. Steeletrap added a new section here: [5] which did not address the classroom incident. User:FurrySings' edit to the section heading was the first one to change it in all those years. – S. Rich (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:CCC. What is your reason for reciting the history at this time? SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can change. And I am setting the record about the old consensus straight. You had said "(Undid revision 556201342 by Srich32977 (talk) I don't see any discussion of this title, which appears to have been intact for over a year. Per BRD let's not undo Furry before talk discussion.)" But the section title had been Academic freedom controversy for many, many years. The WP:BURDEN to change it is on the editor proposing the change and FurrySings made no effort to fulfill that burden. Once I opened up this discussion the other remarks have been more general -- that is, hashing about the homophobia issues. Those issues have revolved around various other, separate sections of the article, not the academic freedom section. The old "B" was not the consensus title, it was Furry's change. My reversion was the R, and it invited Furry to discuss. I do not see where anyone has provided a compelling reason to go against the old consensus, and this discussion should not be a back-door or a run-around effort to get the homophobia material into the article. I have said "Put it in". It just needs RS, etc. – S. Rich (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Srich, I please reinstate Furry's title for the section. There is clearly no consensus for the one you reinserted. In fact, while you and Carolmooredc prefer the one you reinserted, there are at least 3 editors here who prefer Furry's. As stated, "academic freedom" is not a controversial subject and was not the subject of any controversy in this matter. The controversy concerned Hoppe's statments themselves. Please undo yourself and let the article breathe a bit. SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As stated above "Please note that 'Academic freedom controversy' has been the section title for several years." The consensus for the section title was "academic freedom". If FurrySings wants to achieve a new consensus, then FurrySings should state the case and achieve a new consensus. But justification for any change must meet WP:NDESC. If editors want to have or expand a section on Hoppe's views about homosexuality, they can work on such a section. But what happened at UNLV may have involved a charge of discrimination, but that charge was dismissed. So we cannot have a section titled "Charges of discrimination" or "Alleged charges of discrimination" or "Dismissed charges of discrimination at UNLV". Each one implies some validity to the charges. And the degree of validity can be, should be, described in the text. Since the ultimate decision by UNLV came out as an academic freedom issue, then we gotta stick with that. (And of course there was controversy about academic freedom -- if academic freedom was so crystal clear, why didn't the Provost settle the matter right then?) Earlier I saw an analogy about someone who may have escaped a criminal conviction because of Miranda warnings (or some such technicality). Well, in the United States we have a presumption of innocence in a court of law until proven guilty. If someone gets off via a jury verdict or legal ruling, that person remains innocent under the law. Indeed, even if new evidence comes in which absolutely proves guilt, the Constitutional protection against double-jeopardy prevents retrial or ever proving someone guilty. As WP stands on NPOV, a neutral description of the controversy is needed. Describing it as other than academic freedom only gets into the topic of another section. Come on, FurrySings, state your case to the contrary -- why should this section heading, which stood untouched for years, be changed? – S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

See here: [6] The section heading doesn't say "Jury Nullification Incident." The arguments above are specious. The WP 'burden' policy statement is incorrect. The old language is not set in concrete. Consensus here so far is in favor of the change. Please leave a note for Furry stating your view of his obligations. The controversy was entirely about Hoppe's insinuation of his personal opinion into what was ostensibly a course in economics. It was adjudicated because the University has a procedure for processing such complaints. UNLV made no decision on the issue of academic freedom. It cheapens the article of this leading Private Law Society academic to have convoluted and defensive doubletalk prominently displayed in his article, as if he or his students should be ashamed of his views or his expression of them in the classroom. Racial, Gender, Religious and Behavioral stereotypes should be discussed proudly and openly. Hoppe did not hesitate to state his views, now let's not put him in the closet. SPECIFICO talk 12:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that the other side hasn't offered compelling arguments, I would note that it's three editors (SPECIFICO, Furry, and myself) against two (Rich and Carol; I don't count SAGEO because he hasn't yet commented on this matter, and in any case is, due to his conduct, limited by Admin in his ability to contribute to the Hoppe page), so we have a pretty substantial (50%) advantage in consensus. Steeletrap (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

On a more personal note, I remember as a young queer kid in the American South, how much ostracism and bullying I faced. I therefore have great sympathy for Hoppe, who faces at least as much discrimination just because he's a white heterosexual male Private Law Society traditionalist. Shaming Hoppe for asserting baseless stereotypes about gays isn't attacking him for what he does; it's attacking him for who he is. To obscure who Hoppe is through a title that denies Hoppe's true views on the gays is to, as SPECIFICO put it, "put [Hoppe] in the closet", thereby continuing to shame him for who he is. That sort of discrimination is unconscionable, and while encyclopedic merit is the strongest reason to restore Furry's title, I would hope that my colleagues would have enough of a heart to also consider the importance of compassion and empathy. Steeletrap (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Furry's change was "==Controversial views on homosexuality==" but the section does not discuss Hoppe's views. The student's complaint was about discrimination and a hostile learning environment, and the "discrimination/hostile learning environment" could well have stemmed from classroom remarks about religion, rock & roll, drug use, etc. The nearly year-long investigation was not decided on the basis of any of Hoppe's views, but upon the question of whether expressing any views (pro- anti- etc) in a classroom was appropriate. The nationwide publicity was not about his particular views -- it was about the expression of views (which students may or may not have agreed with) in the classroom. The follow-on academic conference was about academic freedom, not about anyone's views. Four years later, the classroom controversy popped up again at UNLV -- as an academic freedom issue. Hoppe's views -- beyond the classroom -- can be or should be discussed in other sections. – S. Rich (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• What remarks did Hoppe make about religion, rock and roll, or drug use? Please be specific. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply – Exactly, he did not make such remarks and the statement was rhetorical. What if he had brought up Islam in this economics class and remarked that Islamic prohibitions on interest had stifled economic development (or some other such thing) and what if an Islamic student found the remark to be offensive, and had reported it as discrimination that created a hostile learning environment? And, following an 11 month investigation, a reprimand was issued and then overturned. Would we be titling the section "Controversy on views about Islam"? – S. Rich (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Ans: Yes. However your having asked that question confirms that you do not understand my question that preceded it. Let me be more direct: Introducing irrelevant and off-topic what-if's and defective analogies does not advance your argument. It's flailing about in all directions, a new one each time, and failing to acknowledge the hate speech which -- nobody denies -- Hoppe uttered. Now this legal concept of hate speech has only been defined and limited in the US within the more or less recent past, but for better or for worse it is currently implemented in public, corporate, and institutional policy within the US. I urge you to re-read this thread and try to offer specific replies to all the questions and requests that others have made after taking the time to read your messages. Reciting specious analogies and fraught comparisons is not going to advance any rational progress in this discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Hate speech? As he "undeniably uttered" hate speech, perhaps we should title it "==Hate speech uttered by Hoppe in a class, one student's reaction to the hate speech, subsequent investigation and results thereof, and aftermath==" ? – S. Rich (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Hoppe did not deny that he uttered the hate speech as defined. This has been pointed out many times here on talk. If you have WP:RS to the contrary, I would have expected you to use it to improve the article by now. After my last posting here, am disappointed to read your reply above, which continues an unconstructive sequence of replies. I again urge you to give a careful re-reading of this thread and to join the others who have attempted to respond specifically and in detail to the questions and arguments which others have raised. I hope you will do this so we can make progress here. I've asked you several questions, the answers to which would help move us toward a resolution in this matter. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Rich, you should go back and read the RS. They all make it explicit that the student was offended by Hoppe's unsourced remarks about how the gays have the savings habits of heterosexual children (the "very young"); your comments about how it could have been about something else are simply incorrect. Steeletrap (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply – Yes, the RS says the student was offended by the remarks about gays. Should the section be titled "==Reactions of one student to Hoppe's comments about gays and how UNLV handled the matter before and after national publicity broke out==" ? – S. Rich (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• As to the broader discussion of Furry's proposed title, it seems clear to me that every RS mentioned in the section revolves around Hoppe's comments about the gays, while only some of them relate to "academic freedom". The "academic freedom" thing is only mentioned in the context of a failed attempt to discipline Hoppe for his baseless and offensive comments, which failed because they were given in "economics class". The main point of the section, which runs through all the statements made therein and through the RS which support them, is Hoppe's remarks about the gays. Steeletrap (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply– The broader issue is how UNLV handled the matter and eventually settled it after publicity had broken out. Moreover, the RS shows UNLV later conducted its' academic freedom conference not because of Hoppe's views, but because of the controversy. And years later, when UNLV tried to reopen the academic freedom issue, the ACLU criticized UNLV baed on academic freedom concerns. – S. Rich (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This section brings to mind the charming anecdote about Mises Institute mastermind Llewellyn Rockwell that libertarian Thomas Fleming shares on his website: "When I remarked to [Llewellyn] that (National Review columnist) Joe Sobran was now calling himself a libertarian, Rockwell asked me--entirely in jest--whether he was a tax cheat or a child molester, explaining that people became libertarians to find a justification for their moral failings. Imagine my surprise when Rockwell began telling me that I had authored this rather brilliant insight." Llewellyn's wry remark seems to anticipate the insistence on captioning this WP section as being about "academic freedom" when in fact it is solely about HHH's undisputed and conceded hate speech. Life imitates art. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I will post an RfC on this topic shortly. Hoppefully it will bring in other editors to comment. – S. Rich (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC is posted. I think interested editors can comment below. – S. Rich (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm just catching up with talk page entries now. Happily, RfCs do seem to be useful (when properly distributed to the community) and hopefully free of massive amounts of off topic material - (I'll check this for actual defamatory remarks later). CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Immigration section edits

Use of primary sources in Immigration section

User:Steeltrap's edits were problematic, starting with removal of the Block analysis, which Sageo put back, and replacing it with Steeltrap's personal analysis of his primary sources to write what was important in his views. I don't know if Sageo's personal analysis of primary sources in the last paragraph - replacing Steeltrap's analysis - is more accurate. But the bottom line is we have to be careful not to misuse primary sources to guide what is in wikipedia except in exceptional circumstances and to support what others say. I have a feeling that section again will be cut down a bit; will look at tomorrow. Is there nothing else this guy has written about? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I will quit the new editions until been discoussed. That's the way the changes would be do -previus consensus edition prefered. You're right. --Sageo (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Block material I removed constitue an OR mischaracterization of Hoppe's comments. The restored text Hoppuses the quotation by Hoppe out of context, in a manner directly contradicted by the RS it's supposedly based on (see below).

As to the new editions, the stuff about Hoppe being anti-free immigration is documented in the Block RS I added, so that obviously isn't OR. The ethnic stuff is a straight-forward paraphrase of Hoppe's views; this does not constitute OR. Steeletrap (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Block material was a proper interpretation of the only secondary source offered. As I've said a couple times, that's not enough for a whole section. The second Block source offered has some other viewpoints. Maybe we need a few more. But the secondary sources should lead the discussion, not our WP:Synth of primary sources which may be inaccurate, tunnel visioned, etc. After all we edit as one among equals, not as experts in our own right. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No it was not a "proper interpretation", but rather an out-of-context use of a quotation that distorts Hoppe's views. The Hoppe quote was not and has never been his view. The quoted material is Hoppe's paraphrase of a counter-argument claiming that Hoppe's argument against free immigration only implies that we shouldn't have a welfare state (as opposed to what Hoppe wants it to imply: namely, that we should restrict immigration). Hoppe disagrees with the counter-argument he is paraphrasing in that quotation. It is very common to address counter-arguments in an essay advancing a thesis.

Please read the RS material and the original context, as well as my remarks above, so as to understand why the current "restored" version distorts Hoppe's views on immigration. Steeletrap (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Discriptions of Hoppe's immigration views

A previous edit attributes to Hoppe the view that Hoppe's argument on immigration "is not an argument against immigration, but an argument against the welfare state". This is a mischaracterization and distortion of Hoppe's views. The Hoppe quotation in question consists of him paraphrasing a criticism of his views on immigration; according to that criticism, Hoppe's argument does not justify restrictions on immigration but only the abolition of the welfare state. After paraphrasing that criticism, Hoppe rejects it (i.e. rejects the quoted view that other editors here are attributing to him). It is important to read the full context of remarks to avoid taking quotations out of context. (That full context can be seen here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html and Block's discussion of Hoppe's views, including the quotation in question, seen here.) Steeletrap (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Block material was a proper interpretation of the only secondary source offered. The second Block source offered has some other viewpoints. There's probably some consistency there (I haven't looked at the actual source yet) - or maybe there isn't, given the specific focus of each article, the passage of time, other intervening articles that might explain the differences, etc. That's why research into secondary sources is so important. We become experts at using and summarizing secondary sources here, not in interpreting primary sources. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 06:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletions from Immigration section

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&diff=556219138&oldid=556219087 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&diff=556219226&oldid=556219138. These deletions are completely unsupported with any specific argument, other than vague, unspecified (and therefore obscurantist and meaningless) claims of "OR". The deletions make no sense whatsoever since the first deleted paragraph comes directly from an RS and the second one is a straight-forward, bare-bones paraphrase of Hoppe's views. Moreover, as mentioned in the section directly above, the "restored" edits mischaracterize Hoppe's views on immigration with a quote taken out of context (and are OR insofar as they are derived from a context-free analysis of the quote in question, and contradict the Block RS that is "cited" to support them). This is all highly frustrating and I would implore all readers to take time to read over the RS in question as well as my concerns on this talk page. Steeletrap (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest to construct here in talk page the paragraph that you want to be included in the article. And we all can make a new consensus before adding editions in the article's section. Remember that you are challeging the previus consensus edition, not the other editors. Also a point, I believe that the paragraphs you added don't expose Hoppe philosophy about migration and ethnicity (that explains ethnocultural empathy) and out of context could be suggest another idea (it's better to search a source wich explain the idea itself, instead of take some lines and order them in the way your subjectivity prefer). --Sageo (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, do propose a paragraph(s) based on secondary sources, not on your personal interpretation of primary sources. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 06:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain to me (specifically, not by vague -- and therefore meaningless -- assertions of "OR" and "your personal interpretation") how the two deleted paragraphs shown below violated WP regulations. I submit that the first paragraph is straight-forwardly derived from the cited Block RS and the second paragraph, far from being OR, is a bare-bones, interpretation-free paraphrase of Hoppe's views. Please also explain to me specifically how, in your view, I'm wrong, and in the process please make specific references to the text. You should also explain how the problems could be remedied. It makes little sense to remove all of this important information regarding Hoppe's views on immigration, particularly when all that remains is a misrepresentation of Hoppe's views (see above). Steeletrap (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph one: Hoppe supports restrictions on immigration in welfare state, believing that free immigration constitutes "forced integration" which violates the rights of native peoples, since if land were privately owned, immigration would not be free but would only occur with the consent of private property owners. His Mises Institute colleague Walter Block has characterized Hoppe as an "anti-open immigration advocate", and claims that no one "has ever come up with anything half as insightful" in opposition to free immigration as Hoppe's argument in this regard. However, Block rejects Hoppe's views as incompatible with libertarianism. Employing a reductio ad absurdum argument, he argues that Hoppe's logic implies that flagrantly unlibertarian laws such as regulations on prostitution and drug use "could be defended on the basis that many tax-paying property owners would not want such behavior on their own private property".

Paragraph two: In terms of specific immigration restrictions, Hoppe argues that an appropriate policy will require immigrants to display proficiency in English as well as "superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values". These requirements will, he argues, result in a "systematic pro-European immigration bias".

Paragraph two (check the difference, the article cited as reference is descriptive about consecuences of an "appropriate policy" (one in the way of a private law society or something similar), is not prescriptive about cultural empathy): Hoppe argues that an appropriate immigration policy will have demographic implications with respect to culture and ethnicity. Specifically, Hoppe's suppose that inmigration in the way of a private law society will be of two kinds, "citizens" (naturalized immigrants) and "resident aliens", been the first ones more ethnoculturally homogeneous than the second ones. Remember the systematic bias of the article, talking about an US environment, the same phenomenon in another environments could have another cultural bias. Anyway, I think this needs more revisions of another editors, and if its possible the most descriptive sources, about his migration theory as a whole, not only an article that we can cut y cite in our way. --Sageo (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, editors do not shape content of section with their own interpretations of primary sources - for starters. Read my comments above. And given the past problems with your edits against Hoppe, you must give other editors a chance to study all those sources and look for other relevant ones. Now given your AfD of Jesús Huerta de Soto, which obviously is going to fail given its 6 keeps to your delete, I do want to finish beefing up that article with books.google research today, before my motivation peters out. If you can't propose something that satisfies our concerns, please give us a chance to propose it. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Filling out references for verification/rewrite purposes

Needlesstosay, bare refs with no names, titles, publication names, dates can make it very difficult to keep track of and verify material. (I left the URLs bare the way they are currently in the article to make it easier for cross checking.) For the convenience of other editors I've organized existing, past and possible refs below in date order; (Might look for some more tomorrow.) Hoppe material is background to secondary sources, for back up refs and quoting if necessary. I can already see the distortions in the interpretation just from reading the first couple paragraphs of the first secondary source. I'll do an NPOV, BLP compliant version, unless someone beats me to it :-)

• Hans-Hermann Hoppe , (http://mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_8.pdf) The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration (PDF, 13 pages), Journal of Libertarian Studies 13:2 (Summer 1998), pAGE 221-233.
• Walter Block, (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_4.pd) A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration]", Journal of Libertarian Studies. Vol. 13, No. 2. 1999,
• Hans-Hermann Hoppe, (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html ) On Free Immigration and Forced Integration 1999
• Walter Block and Gene Callahan, (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1881054) BETTER LINK Is There a Right to Immigration?: A Libertarian Perspective, Human Rights Review - October December 2003
• Jacob G. Hornberger, (note in text opinion piece), (http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/lets-stick-traditional-american-values/) Let’s Stick with Traditional American Values! Future of Freedom Foundation website, February 1, 2000
• Hans-Hermann Hoppe, (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe3.html) Secession, the State, and the Immigration Problem May 16, 2001
• Hans-Hermann Hoppe, (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe-margins.pdf) Natural Order, the State and the Immigration Problem, Journal of Libertarian Studies , Volume 16, no. 1 (Winter 2002), pp. 75–97
• Hans-Hermann Hoppe, (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe-margins.pdf)
• Anthony Gregory and Walter Block (http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_2.pdf) On Immigration: A reply to Hoppe. 2007

You are welcome! :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking of letting this one go once the first sentence WP:OR is fixed. Obviously Hoppe doesn't realize what a boon to decentralization, secession and private law societies 700 million new Americans from around the world would be ;-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Continuing misuse of primary sources

Per BLP Policy page: Misuse of primary sources, para 2: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. You not only can't lead paragraphs with it, you can't base who paragraphs on it. Your failure to heed these warnings which have been repeated to you for three weeks really is WP:disruptive editing and WP:Tendentious editing. Please take BLP and other policies more seriously. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring -- request for page protection

I have requested page protection. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Hans-Hermann_Hoppe_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Cprotect.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 – S. Rich (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please restore Furry's caption, per BRD. Thanks. I do not favor page protection. A small number of editors are reinserting text reverted according to policy and there are better remedies for such disruptions. SPECIFICO talk 13:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A discussion re the section title (Furry's caption) is above. I will comment further there. – S. Rich (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm agin it too - at least for now. And that link doesn't seem to be working. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The page protection request was denied, so you are well behind the times. . – S. Rich (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Dang me for having a life and not keeping on top of everything! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A bit of calm....

...is needed. Might I remind everybody involved that we have WP:3RR, and full protection is looming; alternately there just might be blocks for edit-warring, so I urge you to continue the (fruitful) discussion. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Muchas gracias señor o señora. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Señor :). Lectonar (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Alden/ACLU material

What is up with this? (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&diff=556266506&oldid=556251232) People are vaguely claiming that the two additions highlighted in the previously mentioned link violate "NPOV", without providing any specific argument as to how they do that. NPOV!? All my additions do is further explain the views of an organization (ACLU) and person (Alden) mentioned on the article, and do so using RS that other people cited in this piece. I explain that Alden is criticizing Hoppe based on the fact that Hoppe provided in class and continues to provide no evidence for his view about gay people's poor ability to plan for the future. This explication comes directly from the RS; without explaining the basis for his criticism, the piece makes it look like Alden was making a vague criticism about "hostile classroom environment" based on no specific argument. Similarly, people keep deleting my explication of the fact that The ACLU rejected Hoppe's views and expressed sympathy with those who found it offensive, leaving only the fact that they thought the charges against Hoppe lacked merit. These deletions are what violate NPOV by obscuring the facts of the case -- and the arguments of Alden and the ACLU -- to our readers. Steeletrap (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a series of 8 edits: [7]. Yours was the major addition. What other edits do you suggest? Please provide your likes & dislikes, recommended specific additions & deletions. – S. Rich (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no content I'm trying to delete other than the quote from the Block article (attributing to Hoppe the view that "this is not an argument against immigration but rather against the welfare state") which I argue extensively and specifically is out of context, (see above, where I demonstrate that it is not Hoppe's position but rather his (Hoppe's) paraphrase of a counter-argument in opposition to his view on immigration). That passage should be deleted because it does not reflect what Hoppe meant or what Block thinks he meant.

As to the content I'm trying to add, it has been extensively and specifically argued for throughout this page. I continue to try to make a positive case for including my edits while urging to many editors who are making vague and therefore meaningless arguments about unspecified "OR"/"NPOV" violations to make specific arguments in defense of their views, rather than delete huge amounts of material from this piece without justification. Steeletrap (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. You started this thread with Arden/ACLU comment. (Seems to me that the present version of the "Controversy" section lays out those various points -- I am happy with it.) But how does your comment about Block fit in? Did you mean to post this above? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Arden/ACLu, the current version of the Hoppe page does contain the relevant material, and I am fine with that version. But two editors keep trying to remove all of the relevant material (i.e. the fact that the ACLU disagreed with Hoppe/understood why his comments were regarded as offensive; and the fact that Arden criticized Hoppe in part for being unwilling/unable to provide evidence for his claim about gays). They gave no specific justification for their changes. I am posting this argument in case they try to do that again. Steeletrap (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again let me quote: Wikipedia:BLP#Balance: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content. If he had been kicked out of the University, the quotes would be relevant. He wasn't. The section already is too long and doesn't need WP:Undue jibes at the guy. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not an issue of "jibes". It's an issue of accurately representing the views of the ACLU and Alden, both of whom are mentioned in the article. You can argue that including Alden/ACLU in the article at all is "biased", but if they are to be in the article, their views should be accurately represented. This means accurately explaining the reasons for the claims of Alden and the ACLU, even if it reflects negatively on Hoppe. Steeletrap (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You can keep reverting me to push your WP:Undue viewpoints til I take it to WP:BLPN if you want. I won't discuss it any longer. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you to take it to WP:BLPN, because I'm certain that I'm right in thinking that the argument's of people mentioned on WP entries should be fully and accurately presented. Please send me notification if/when you do. Steeletrap (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I think others have opined that the whole section is WP:Undue. Alden's statement when expanded isn't bad - when the whole thing in context is presented. The second sentence in the overturned academic admonishment is and will be removed. WP:BLPN will be contacted if WP:Undue and defamation still remain in the article and on the talk page by Tues or Wednesday. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Property and Freedom Society

We need to build a section concerning the work of Prof. Hoppe's most recent initiative after his retirement from UNLV -- the Property and Freedom Society. I am trying to find some RS information about it, but so far am finding mostly blog and opinion content that needs further sourcing, for example: [8]. SPECIFICO talk 13:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a very important group from that blog entry. Still, it strikes me as odd that a libertarian advocate of Private Law Society would invite to speak at his club an editor of a Nazi journal, who gave a lecture at PFS entitled the “History as Cycles of Population Quality.” For Hoppe believes, per Argumentation ethics, that he has proven that no one can speak rationally about any position other than absolutist libertarianism. Isn't Nazism at odds with libertarianism? (I guess maybe "private property" Nazism wouldn't be, where the "physical removal" of not just gays but Jews from society would be fine so long as it were done in accordance with "property rights.") Steeletrap (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not read any of Doc. Hoppe's writings, but we should do so, either in primary source or scholarly analysis. It is possible that the degenerate elements do not have property rights in the Private Law Society. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason we don't use sites like rightwatch.tblog.com is that such sources just publish inaccurate rumors or make stuff up to trash people. Discussing the nonverified info in them violates WP:BLP policy, particularly: This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a blog by a highly respected Libertarian and Fellow of the Cato Institute, Tom Palmer. Palmer discusses some of Hoppe's recent thought as he has stated it in various venues. Of particular relevance to the current discussion here is Doc. Hoppe's changing the subject from race and politics to "free speech," a subject which, like "academic freedom" on this article, was not the focus of any controversy or disagreement. TOM PALMER BLOG SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that user CarolmooreDC (with, if I recall, the approval of user SRich) decided on the LRC page that Palmer, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, is "not" an "RS" when he criticizes Lew Rockwell, LewRockwell.com, its associated scholars/columnists (of whom Doc. Hoppe is among the most prominent), and the Mises Institute. This is why the LewRockwell.com article was cleansed of Palmer's criticism of LRC for publishing as columnists Gary North and Joseph Sobran; Palmer's criticism of the former is that he wants to (literally) stone gays to death, and his issue with the latter is that he gives keynote speeches ("For Fear of the Jews") to neo-Nazi groups (see their Wikipedia pages for documentation). On the other hand, every Mises Institute fellow is apparently categorically an RS. Steeletrap (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Further analysis of HHH's recent thought and writings: An Appreciation A Book Review. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Additional RS material may be found here: [9] and here: [10] SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Reflections upon the Fifth Anniversary of PFS here: [11] SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In regards to Hoppe's traditionalist views of Africans, Jews, and homosexuals, this quote from the second RS SPECIFICO cites from Chronicles Magazine, which written by the magazine's editor, is instructive: "Later in the meeting, I took the opportunity in my speech to suggest that the man who had referred in a previous meeting to "Jews, Gypsies, and other human garbage" was in no position to compare anyone with the Nazis." (See: [12])

As the surrounding context unambiguously shows, "the man" in question is Hoppe. I suggest that we add this fact to the article -- not that Hoppe made that statement (this cannot be verified), but that an RS (namely, Chronicles) alleges he said it. In other words, the statement that should be added is something like: "In the context of an article defending his peers against Hoppe's comparison of their economic views to those of the Nazis, Chronicles magazine editor Thomas Fleming stated in a speech that Hoppe was "in no position to compare anyone with the Nazis", because, alleges Fleming, Hoppe previously spoke of "Jews, Gypsies, and other human garbage"". Far from "libelous", this statement, which is a statement about what Fleming alleges, is a matter of fact. Steeletrap (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Your incisive comment raises another subject which should be addressed in the article, namely the struggles and knock-down catfight jockeying for position among the luminaries of the 21st Century Libertarian constellation. There is fame, world travel and sponsor-donated money at stake, not to mention the other percs that accompany life at the various institutes and think tanks. HHH is reputed to be an aggressive, elbows-up player in these competitions and apparently has engendered some animosity among his intellectual peers and adversaries. We will need some further primary sources and some good WP:RS secondary sources to develop suitable text for the article. SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Tom Palmer's blog was taken to WP:BLP Noticeboard and it was clear from other editors words and actions this self-published blog which ranted against Hoppe was not WP:RS. Similarly http://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_international/2011/04/the-sick-mind-of-hans-hermann-hoppe.html is a self-published blog. Now do you want to say Chronicles Magazine sideways allegations on Hoppe are WP:RS? If so anything they've ever written about any LBGT activist or group is equally WP:RS (not). All three sources will fail at either the WP:BLP or the WP:RSN (noticeboard).

And note, Specifico, you look for secondary sources first, then primary. Please read WP:BLP. Geez...

This section makes it very clear that the intent is to synthesize defamatory material about Hoppe, per Hook or by crook. I don't even know how many stupid/nasty things he's actually said, because of all the BLP violations trying to turn Bibliomancy into PhD theses, or whatever analogy works for you. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, you don't understand the rules you're citing. Talk pages are not "biographies of living people", so BLP criteria don't apply here. Your allegations of defamation are meaningless since they are vague and unspecific; cite some text you consider to be "defamatory" and I'll be happy to prove you wrong, but your claims are meaningless at this point. Steeletrap (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy reads: Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages

If defamation was allowed on talk pages, so would incivility. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of talk page material per WP:BLP

---

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written pursuant to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Unhatted. Does not look like a BLP violation to me, looks rather like a discussion of material that is not liked. Note that the discussion and proposals are cited, and are not pure speculation or defamation, but rather a discussion about appropriate weight. LK (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that I'll reserve my comments for the moment since trying to take a calm down break. However, I would point out the User:Lawrencekhoo may have his own professional academic biases here leading to "I really like it".

My main bias is my disgust with the way some people (usually on Israel Palestine issue) come to wikipedia with the primary intent of using it to defame others and this is the worst case I've seen of this phenomena. But I will be putting together a separate administrative complaint about this elsewheres soon. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk page deletions

Note: Moved from my talk page since relevant here. Let's not keep bringing material directly relevant to this talk pages to personal talk pages. Thanks

Refactoring comments, especially wholesale refactoring, is a no-no. – S. Rich (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Not when it is defamatory and that's all they are doing. Please revert your revert. Let them do it. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If there is particular stuff that concerns you, then do something about it. But removal of whole sections -- in which both you and I had commented -- is not appropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, how about those that are clearly defamatory where it's only them defaming away? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Carol. Your charges are meaningless because they are completely unspecific. Please specify specific text and explain why the claims expressed therein are "defamatory."

By the way, despite the salience of your claims and the fact that you've splashed them throughout the Hoppe page and other pages, no one has agreed with you that any remarks are defamatory (hence TFD's "un-hatting" them), and no one has expressed agreement that the title section being debated is defamatory (Rich only claims it's inappropriate, while the two uninvolved commentators actually agree it should relate to homosexuality; are they part of the conspiracy to defame Hoppe?). I hope, for your sake, you view this unanimous rejection of your charges as a wake-up call before continuing to undermine your contributions by making inflammatory yet utterly false charges. Steeletrap (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

They were unhatted (or uncollapsed) here by User:Lawrencekhoo. I am working my way through explaining to you all the problems now. Feel free to collapse them yourself if you come to understand wikipedia policies against spreading "titillating claims about people's lives" on talk pages (see WP:BLP policy if you have not done so). CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Traditionalist views on race

Hello esteemed colleagues! I am thinking that this entry would be enhanced by a discussion of Doc. Hoppe's "traditionalist" views on race. This statement is illustrated by the fact that he invited to his PFS to give lectures on race both an editor of a Neo-Nazi Journal (Volkmar Weiss) as well as Richard Lynn, a man who, while moderate and even liberal on race compared to Weiss, has argued that " What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples."

The following quotation, in which Hoppe uses the "old-fashioned" term Negroid to describe the blacks and how they (like the gays) don't plan for the future (have a "greater time preference") as well as whites, in the context of defending his view that democracy is less efficient than monarchy in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary, is also instructive: "It would be an error, for instance, to illustrate my theory of comparative government by contrasting European monarchies with African democracies or African monarchies with European democracies. Since Caucasians have, on the average, a significantly lower degree of time preference than Negroids any such comparison would amount to a systematic distortion of the evidence." (see: http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/benegas.pdf pg 5).

In lieu of RS, I am not going to add this material without gaining consensus first on the talk page. But I think it's clear that it would be a very important addition to Doc. Hoppe's entry, in terms of accurately representing his views and affiliations to the world. I would note that it is NOT contrary to WP policy to simply paraphrase or quote the view of a living person from an original source so long as it is bereft of interpretation or explication. (i.e. stating he believes blacks have a lower time horizon/quoting the diddy listed above; and indicating that he invited Lynn and the Nazi journalist to talk about race at his club.) Steeletrap (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Update. The RS VDare describes Hoppe's PFS ""Property and Freedom Society" as group "that holds conferences for the remaining right-wing libertarians and other politically incorrect outcasts such as Richard Lynn, Paul Gottfried, Paul Belien, Tatu Vanhanen, and Peter Brimelow." (See: http://www.vdare.com/articles/lew-rockwell-and-the-strange-death-or-at-least-suspended-animation-of-paleolibertarianism) Additionally, VDARE has also published the remarks by Brimelow, a white nationalist and former National Review columnist (former because he went the way of Joseph Sobran, I suppose), delivered to PFS an anti-immigration speech. The speech featured remarks such as "Immigrants, above all immigrants who are racially and culturally distinct from the host population, are walking advertisements for social workers and government programs and the regulation of political speech—that is to say, the repression of the entirely natural objections of the host population" (emphasis mine). As well as claims such as "when the government monkeys with the racial balance through immigration, it matters" in part because "if you import more members of the "protected classes", you disadvantage Americans who are not members of the "protected classes". (See: http://www.vdare.com/articles/immigration-is-the-viagra-of-the-state-a-libertarian-case-against-immigration)

Without making the OR claim that Hoppe/PFS are racist, the remarks (and affiliations, or in Brimelow's case, white nationalism) of the speakers Hoppe invited to PFS should be noted in the race section. Steeletrap (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what edits you are proposing, or, more generally, what sort of edits you have in mind. But maybe I'm trying to read between the lines and doing so unsuccessfully. In any event, how does Vdare fit in? Is Arthur Pendleton a noteworthy contributor? Is Vdare RS? In looking at the Charity Navigator page [13], the Vdare Foundation looks like pretty small potatoes. Vdare showed up on the WP:RSN archives twice, but only as tangential citations. I do see that Hoppe posted a piece on Vdare here: [14] but what are we to do with it? – S. Rich (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right that I wasn't particularly clear above. What I am saying is that Hoppe's remarkable views on race ("Negroids" having a higher time preference than Caucasians) should be presented somewhere in his WP entry. (where would those fit? I am not sure. But they should be included.) I am also saying that the views on race of the lecturers of the PFS, and the statements about race they make in their remarks to the PFS, should be presented under SPECIFICO's proposed section on PFS. I believe that former National Review columnist Peter Brimelow and VDARE meet the criteria for RS, especially in such a benign context (just transcribing what Brimelow said to PFS and describing the ideology of some speakers at PFS). Steeletrap (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Srich, don't forget: The von Mises Institute is pretty small potatoes. The University of Nevada Las Vegas School of Business Administration is small potatoes, etc. To channel Donald Rumsfeld, we edit with the potatoes we are served, as long as they are WP:RS well-sauced. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear! WP has an article on the old fashioned term Negroid. What are we to do with the fact that Hoppe used the term? – S. Rich (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the question, could you be more specific? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't "do" anything with the fact that Hoppe used the term "Negroids", apart from quoting Hoppe accurately and bereft of analysis (unless an RS has commented on that particular passage). Our readers can decide for themselves why he chose to use the term "Negroid", in the context of an unsubstantiated, unscientific claim about the "time preferences" of the blacks. (by the way, Wikipedia also has entries for the N-word and faggot. And the first paragraph of Wikipedia's entry on Negroid says "The term is commonly associated with notions of racial typology which are disputed by a majority of anthropologists.[4] For modern usage it is generally associated with racial notions, and is discouraged, as it is potentially offensive.[5].") Steeletrap (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously what Hoppe writes has not been considered significant by a WP:RS as you yourself note. Yet you launch into long speculations about it anyway. Please see WP:BLP about not using wikipedia to share titulating and defamatory info about people that has little likelihood of ending up in the encyclopedia. Please take these conversations to emails where it will not make Wikipedia look bad. You have been warned for weeks about this sort of thing but you just keep it up.

There's something called WP:Reliable sources noticeboard where you can type in links and get past opinions on reliability which can be a clue to future opinions. I'm quite sure VDARE would not pass muster. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Retirement from UNLV

Another topic that would be worthy of investigation for this article: Doc. Hoppe retired from UNLV at the rather young age of 59, if I am figuring the years correctly. Perhaps he discussed his reasons for what would appear to be a premature departure from the academic setting, or was there some relatively unusual retirement age or other policy in effect at UNLV School of Business Administration? SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

On a related topic concerning HHH's academic career, it would be of interest to readers if the article gives some well-sourced details of Prof. Hoppe's teaching and the curriculum he developed over his tenure at Las Vegas. In particular, aside from "the scandal" we should discuss how and to what extent HHH continued, or reshaped the curriculum put in place by Murray Rothbard. It's not clear to me whether Murray was also in the Business School or was in a different department of UNLV? I looked at the Business School course listing, but five years into his retirement, there's no longer any mention of Doc. Hoppe. At UNLV MBA, one expects to find courses like Inflation and the Quantity of Chips, or Supply Chain Management in the Modern Brothel, but instead I just saw course descriptions so vague that it was hard to get a sense of what, if anything, is taught there and how Doc. Hoppe might have fit in. This is a subject for further investigation. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been diligently searching for some scholarly "remnant" of Hoppe's work. I can find no mainstream publications on any search engine or discussion/citation of his scholarly work by UNLV or any university/mainstream journal. However, I did find that Hoppe was rated very highly among the business students whom he taught "economics and philosophy" to at UNLV. http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=7358 However, these reviews are relatively meaningless, since they do not specify anything Hoppe actually taught, and merely consist of sycophantic, borderline-worshipful assertions such as "The only persons that would disagree [with Hoppe] are those that CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!" and "This man is literally [sic] an international treasure" and "there should be a HHH fanclub" and "I'm convinced this is the smartest man in the world" and "HE IS ONE OF THE SMARTEST MAN [sic] ALIVE." The Rate my professors page also features the following assessment of "The" scandal: "I can't believe what's happened to Hoppe. It's unjust. Some lame-brained student decided Hoppe made him feel bad about an innocuous comment in lecture, so the dork filed a complaint, and the university is punishing Hoppe. Shame on UNLV for allowing this dorky "student" to create such a controversy."

It seems that Hoppe either managed to win the hearts of the fratboy-type College of Business students at UNLV, or that libertarian sock-puppets flooded that page (some combination of the two is my bet). However, given the incoherence of most of the Rate my Professors remarks, and the lack of any specific details in any of them about what Hoppe actually taught them about economics (or what he studies in/specializes in/publishes about), the Rate my Professor link is uninformative as to his capacities as a professor. Steeletrap (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

While engaging in such idle speculation and gossip, take some time to read all of WP:BLP including especially:

WP:BLP policy reads: Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages

Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Family Background

Another section we see in most WP biographies is the Personal and Family Background or some such title. It would be good if we could locate some solid WP:RS material about Doc. Hoppe's parents, their backgrounds, professions, and achievements, and how they influenced HHH in his formative years -- the sort of details we typically find in WP biographical articles. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If you can't find the information yourself, why invite what could be titulating off topic speculation? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually SPECIFICO makes a nice suggestion. Good stuff, supported by RS, would be welcome. For example, I see lots of background/family history about LvM. If editors do post speculative/inappropriate stuff on Hoppe, then it'll get pulled down soon enough. Frankly, though, I don't think much more of any use is out there. – S. Rich (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It took me 2.5 minutes to find that information, FYI. Longer to format it properly for Wikipedia. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?

Should the title for the "Academic freedom controversy" section be changed? – S. Rich (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Noninvolved editors:

1. Comment - It was a minor controversy, covered in great detail here, but the 'title' is not so much objective or about 'Academic freedom' being 'controversial' so much as this was based on his homosexual views. Ideally, this should be expanded if it is notable to cover the viewpoint as he presents it and mention the controversy around it. Though the entire article is undersourced and poorly represented to reliable resource for contentious claims. I'd lump everything under a simple 'Controversies' section and keep it short and neutral. This article does not appear to be neutral or respectful of the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Change - Largely agree with Chris above. This is a tempest in a teacup. That said, the section is not about academic freedom, but rather is about Hoppe's views on homosexuality – hence the section title should be changed. LK (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Change - It seems to me that to describe the incident as an "Academic freedom controversy" characterizes it according to one POV, while "controversy over views on homosexuality" characterizes according to another. I think NPOV requires us here to sacrifice succinctness and go with something like, "Academic freedom and statements on homosexual persons".--Trystan (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Change to "Views on homosexuality and academic freedom controversy", per Trystan.--В и к и T 20:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Change - Reviewing the concept of "academic freedom", imo his statements in question and the result do fall under a question of academic freedom as seen in, for example, in Wikipedia's discussion of the topic: "... scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities) without being targeted for repression, job loss, or imprisonment." But imo the issue is more narrow than the broad term "academic freedom" and the title should be qualified such as "Academic freedom and Hoppe's views on gay lifestyles" or such.Coaster92 (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Change to "Views on homosexuality and academic freedom controversy", per Trystan. Dunno if I'm involved or not, the only 'participating' I've ever done on this page was to change the title of the section when I was reading it last week, cause the title seemed obviously wrong. FurrySings (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Change. It is nonsensical to suggest that the controversy wasn't initiated by Hoppe's comments on homosexuality, and the section title needs to make this clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
8. Keep The proposed other title is entirely too pointy and leads readers down a different path from the context of the affair - which resulted in statements about academic freedom. The title of a section should not in any way to so lead readers, but to be a fully dispasionate indication of what the topic is. Collect (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
9. Change to Views on homosexuality and academic freedom controversy - The "academic freedom" issue was centered around his academic freedom to make negative comments about gay people. Which he should have, but we shouldn't pretend it's about his academic freedom to be a nice guy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
10. Change. Titling this section "Academic freedom controversy" clearly endorses one side of the controversy and thus violates NPOV (just as titling the section "Homophobic remarks controversy" would). I'd suggest a neutral title like "Keynes remarks controversy" or Trystan's proposed alternative. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors:

• Change. I think that "controversy over views on homosexuality" is a better title than "Academic Freedom Controversy." I think that because everything in the section relates to the former while only some parts of the section relate to the latter. The section proceeds as follows: 1) Hoppe's potentially derogatory in-class remarks about homosexuals are presented 2) It is noted that a student complained that the comments were homophobic/discriminatory 3) A university official agrees with the student's assessment re homophobia/discrimination 4) The official contacts Hoppe and tells him, in a letter in a non-disciplinary letter, to stop making derogatory comments about homosexuals bereft of empirical evidence 5) Hoppe contacts the ACLU, which agrees with Hoppe's characterization that the non-disciplinary cease-and-desist letter violates his academic freedom, despite the fact that they sympathize with those offended by Hoppe's (allegedly homophobic) comments 6) the President of Hoppe's university agrees with this view, saying that offensive/non-mainstream positions can't be squelched, bc this violates academic freedom. 7) The aftermath of the scandal is described, with commentators expressing their views on Hoppe's remarks and whether they are protected by academic freedom. Each of these seven parts of the section relates to a "controversy" regarding Hoppe's views/statements on homosexuality. However, only some of them relate to academic freedom. The former title is therefore more accurate in describing the section as a whole. The controversy stemmed from, and consistently relates to, Hoppe's remarks on gays. Steeletrap (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Leave as is 1) Section has had its title for many years (starting off as "Controversy" in 2005). 2) It follows WP:NDESC, particularly as to NPOV requirement. 3) The disciplinary process re Hoppe's comment was resolved on the basis of academic freedom and the anti-gay discrimination charge was dropped. 4) The bulk of the section deals with the UNLV administrative process and the associated controversy – the RS supports the academic freedom aspects of that process. (In fact, UNLV held a conference on academic freedom six months after the complaint matter was closed.) 5) The section does not discuss Hoppe's actual views (pros & cons & whatever), but only the fact that one student heard something perceived as anti-gay and made a complaint. 6) Changing the section title opens the doors to an unbridled section on his "views" (or alleged views) with claims & counter-claims. In fact, there has been much debate on this talk page. (See sections 1, 1.1, 8 above.) If there is to be a section about Hoppe's views, it should be set up as a separate section. 7) Last point – Advocates for changing the section title seem to have negative views as to Hoppe personally. The classroom remark was described in the above discussion as undeniably "hate speech" and "crackpot", but that characterization is hardly supported by RS. Steeletrap, who has suffered "ostracism and bulling" says "Shaming Hoppe for asserting baseless stereotypes about gays isn't attacking him for what he does; it's attacking him for who he is. [Emphasis in original]" Changing the section title (and thereby opening a can of worms) only assists in an effort to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. – S. Rich (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Correction. Rich implies that article is not about "Hoppe's actual views", but rather hearsay from a student. This is incorrect; not only do numerous RS attribute those views to Hoppe, but Hoppe himself verifies he said the views attributed to him by the student here. Steeletrap (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • This is not a correction. I do not deny that Hoppe made certain comments. I do wonder if the (classroom) comments accurately state what his overall views are about homosexuals or homosexuality. Taking the classroom comments, the student's reaction, the resulting academic freedom controversy, and turning this into a section about his overall views is improper. – S. Rich (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: Change to something reflecting all concerns While I have my concerns below, I can see that enough people are concerned enough about his comments about homosexuals that the remarks should be mentioned in the title. (If he'd said all the same things about women no one probably would have complained. Sigh...) Anyway, I think acceptable and NPOV language has been suggested and/or could be improved on. What is process for coming up with that?

1)These were not highly negative and defamatory comments about one group's economic planning and he included the "very young and the very old" as people who may not plan adequately for the future. Should there have been a claim of ageism as well? There probably are a lot of other groups he should have included, including poor people surviving day to day. He was accurate in stating that other economists had mentioned John Maynard Keynes and homosexuality and planning per Niall_Ferguson#Remark_on_Keynes.27_Sexual_Orientation, which WP:RS don't seem to have commented further on in regards to Hoppe himself. (The real bias here is that its not widely known he was a bisexual not a homosexual, but that's not necessarily a Hoppe bias since it's not even in the Keynes article.)

2) The initial ruling was overturned on free speech and academic freedom basis, with help from the ACLU.

3) The newest material from the Las Vegas Sun shows overwhelmingly that the Hoppe incident remained an academic freedom issue on campus, became part of nationwide discourse, and even 4 years afterwards Hoppe's connection was mentioned as a person whose academic freedom had been challenged. And the ACLU once again got involved on free speech grounds to squash the "bias" proposal. In fact if it was not for that new last paragraph I would think the whole incident only should be one paragraph in a better organized "life and work" section or under controversies if there are any other real public controversies.

4) What do prominent people say in the article? Nevada ACLU executive director: "academic freedom means nothing if it doesn't protect the right of professors to present scholarly ideas that are relevant to their curricula, even if they are controversial and rub people the wrong way" and UNLV President: "In the balance between freedoms and responsibilities, and where there may be ambiguity between the two, academic freedom must, in the end, be foremost" and Martin Snyder of the American Association of University Professors wrote that he should not be "punished for freely expressing his opinions." and faculty members who the LV Sun said were worried about "academic freedom". Given that most Wikipedians are averse to censorship, a few editors trying to emphasize through a section title a non-defamatory statement, while burying the "academic freedom" aspect really is quite questionable. Two more new article emphasize that the university received bad publicity for thwarting his rights to academic freedom.

5) Wikipedia:BLP#Balance reads: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content. Given that overwhelmingly his academic freedom was supported and only the student and a couple adminstrators complained, it is clear that that changing the title would be a WP:BLP violation and even RfC "consensus" (whether or not obtained through canvassing) cannot overturn policy. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments section:

• See Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Academic_freedom_section_heading_title link to relevant discussion above for overview/background. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Minor note, I'm uninvolved in this, but I did just correct the bare urls and removed the reflinks tag. It seemed uncontroversial and the easy thing to do for checking the sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment I, an involved editor, agree with the above uninvolved editor Chris G that the title is about Hoppe's remarks on homosexuality. Everything in the passage relates to those comments while only some of it relates to academic freedom. It's the main point of the section, not "defamation." I also agree that the section should be shortened. The "aftermath" stuff is a quick candidate for deletion, as that has little to do with the original controversy and the RS cited therein only mention Hoppe's controversy in passing. Steeletrap (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The only thing ChrisGualtieri did was to tweak the bare urls. No comment was made about Hoppe's remarks or section title. – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)04:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Rich, you missed her comment above...

Steeletrmp: You should note that you wrote the "aftermath stuff" and I fixed it to show sources treated Hoppe as an aggrieved party, not the whole reason for creating the bias policy as was inferred. Anyway, that should be discussed below, not here. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No Carol, you are again incorrect in your reading of diffs. Others added the aftermath content. I merely expanded on and accurately explicated it (e.g. what UNLV meant by "bias"). Steeletrap (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments regarding possible closure: The default period for RfCs is 30 days per WP:RFC#Ending RfCs. Moreover, as this is a contentious issue we should have a formal closing. (This is not to say I am adverse to a consensus closure, but we do have time to do more work on this.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. So at some point We'll figure out what to call it here? I.e., formal "final name of section" section or something? Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Title Proposals
How about "Claims about homosexuals and ensuing academic freedom debate." Seems to me about as comprehensive and succinct as we can get in a tough situation. Steeletrap (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"Academic freedom debate after remarks on homosexuals" more accurate. We avoid "claims" in Wikipedia - see WP:CLAIM. And academic freedom debate is focus of the article. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Your title relegates the homosexual remarks to a peripheral role, Carol, by implying (with use of the term "after" rather than "resulting from" or "caused by") that they are only relevant insofar as they preceded the academic freedom controversy. I do appreciate your concern with the term claims.

"Academic freedom debate over views on gays", which is more concise than my previously proposed title (gays replaces homosexuals, etc) and accurately represents the causal (not just temporal) link between the academic freedom part and the remarks on homosexuals part, is my revised proposed title. Steeletrap (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Revised: Academic freedom debate resulting from remarks on homosexuals. Resulting is acceptable; homosexuals is word most used in refs and I think by him and is more encyclopedic; academic freedom is the larger issue; it's only his remarks in an academic context making generalizations about different groups that is an issue. (Obviously kids and seniors should have had a fit too over ageism, but they weren't in the classroom. Not to mention poor people who were left out entirely. And then there are variations in ethnic views on time preferences, say the Germans vs. the Greeks. Not very academically thorough. But then it wasn't taped, so who knows what he said that day, which are only remarks in question here.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Support – While Carolmooredc's suggestion is a bit long, it does comply with WP:NDESC. 'Debate' is shorter than 'controversy'; and the debate was re 'academic freedom' & the 'remarks'. The debate was not about his particular 'views' (good/bad; pro/con; etc/etc). The remarks were pretty much confined to time-preference observations, and did not touch on morality, etc. The debate involved the student's reaction to the remarks, his claim/charge of discrimination, and whether UNLV should censure Hoppe for making the remarks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

---

WP:Canvassing concerns

A discussion re Canvassing concerns, now closed, was held at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Canvassing by User:SPECIFICO
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This RfC was posted to numerous Wikprojects by User:SPECIFICO (see May 24th edits) with the very biased title →‎RfC on anti-gay bias and academic freedom: new section). These projects include human rights, Universities ‎ t Biography/Science and academia, Investment, Economics, Sexology and sexuality, LGBT studies, Sociology, Psychology, Biography/Politics and government. Therefore I believe [the RfC] should be automatically invalidated. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC) (Note: Involved editor who thinks process has been corrupted.) [Inserted later per request] a couple relevant diffs of the canvassing to groups where obviously there will be a strong response which may overwhelm any NPOV BLP concern: Diff of campaigning posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies Diff of campaigning posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality Diff of campaigning posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights (Later insert from Wikipedia:Canvassing: Inappropriate notification includes: Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand.[1]; Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. FYI. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC) This is a spurious charge. Asking for other editors input with no commentary, which is all SPECIFICO did on the economics and other pages, does not constitute canvassing. Please stop making false accusations about users' conduct on Wikipedia. Steeletrap (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC) While the notice was improper because of the change in the RfC title, this was not spamming. Spamming involves notices to individual editors. – S. Rich (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Did you read: Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. It does NOT specify where and therefore includes noticeboards. By the way I am going to leave an appropriate note on the libertarianism wikiproject. Do not remove template. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC) OK, I did just notice that User:Srich did change all the wikiproject alerts to a more suitable alert, something you should not have had to do in the first place. Nevertheless, one or two people evidently have come here from the original alert and, besides leaving up canvassed template, perhaps the best thing to do is to put a "canvassed tag" on their entry as advised in WP:Canvass so that all will be clear. Will figure out how to do that. Thus I will feel free to join in discussion. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC) RE: possible canvassing templates I put on two editors comments, WP:Canvass does not provide very good guidance on how individuals should respond or if it's just an "FYI". But I assume this would be the place if they choose to. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Carol, SPECIFICO's remarks were not canvassing. Nor is the proposed title change to the academic freedom section -- whether descriptively apt or not -- defamatory. Nor is the proposed sub-title of "Controversial remarks on homosexuality" on the Democracy section of Hoppe's entry -- whether descriptively apt or not -- defamatory. Nor are your other loaded charges of defamation or BLP violations on this page remotely plausible. Please refer to what literally every user other than yourself who has addressed these matters has said. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Posting to 10 Wikiprojects is interesting ... WP:CANVASS only requires that the projects be directly related to the topic under discussion. Several of the projects posted to are not so related, and legitimate issues about this may exist. Collect (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Academic Freedom section blp and undue problems

First I fixed the most glaring and ugly WP:BLP problems of the newest edits after investigating the sources:

• I changed a sentence inferring a conference was held soley because of Hoppe's evil words to "Nationwide controversies over several academic incidents, including UNLV administrators attempts to censure Hoppe" since it seems the censure was the bigger issue. See the source.
• The section on the new policy is relevant only because (as I added in italics) "The proposed policy was criticized by the Nevada ACLU and some faculty members who remembered the Hoppe incident as adverse to academic freedom. That's the relevance of mentioning the Hoppe incident. See the source.
• Added info the university abandoned the plan.

Second, I don't want to overstep 3rr in a not clearly BLP violation situation, but I do intend to cut down the whole quoting of the policy to the title itself AND mention that part of the proposal was bringing incidents first to campus police.
Third, I left up the WP:Undue template because far too much space is devoted to the issue not to mention critical commentary is included in what is a minor and overblown incident.
Fourth, I added more Hoppe explanations and defenses per WP:RS. (We also could add them from his own writings because defending subjects of BLPs from attack is a legitimate use of primary sources easily defended at WP:BLPN.) Going to do that at least one other place as well. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the section is far too long for what is after all a minor incident not widely reported. For that matter, the subject has not received much attention outside libertarian circles, so a lot of the rest of the article could be trimmed. TFD (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Where the libertarian commentary is WP:RS and encyclopedic it's not a big issue, though WP:Undue praise would be problematic; though not as problematic as WP:Undue POV advocacy criticism and distortion of sources ad nauseum. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie 04:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that an editor changed refs without bothering to check what was in what ref, thus misrepresenting the ref he/she used. Please more careful because that just makes work for other editors correcting the errors, not to mention that it can create serious BLP problems if a questionable allegation is made without proper references. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoppe's relations with UNLV economists

Was quite poor, at least according to this RS from LewRockwell.com. "Murray was the happiest person I've ever met. Especially considering that the UNLV economics department did all it could to discourage students from taking his classes and classes from Hans" (emphasis mine). See also this piece, where French claims that the UNLV econ department dropped an entire program of Study ("Theory and Policy") "to keep students from coming to UNLV to study under Murray and Hans Hoppe." Note that the author of these pieces has an overwhelmingly positive view of Hoppe.

Anyway, this material could be relevant to future edits to the article, regarding Hoppe's time at UNLV. Steeletrap (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal recollections of events that took place decades before are not reliable. TFD (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being a voice of reason, TFD. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wholesale reversion of democracy summary

This text -- based on the premise that it is "OR" to paraphrase and quote from a book review -- was deleted wholesale. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&diff=556951070&oldid=556927908)

While advocating an anarchist or "private law" society as the ideal, Hoppe argues in Democracy that monarchy is preferable to democracy. His view is rooted in the claim that monarchies are closer than democracies to the ideal of a "privately owned" nation, insofar as the monarch retains possession of the kingdom for life and bequeaths it to his or her children upon his or her death. Thus, kings and queens would have a greater incentive than temporarily-elected democratic representatives to "preserve or ... enhance" the value of the nation. Writes Hoppe, "the [king] would systematically restrain himself in his taxing policies, for the lower the degree of taxation, the more productive the subject population will be, and the more productive the population, the higher the value of the" king's nation.

It was replaced with the following version, which I regard as far less clear, specific, and evocative in its rheotorical and substantive presentation of Democracy's thesis.

Walter Block writes that Hoppe describes how princes and kings were “in effect the owner of the entire society” and therefor4 had to act in a responsible way as not to ruin the economy and possibly invite overthrow. However, with democracy came the "short-sighted behavior patterns" of elected leaders with their interest in feathering their own nest in the limited time they have in office. Block says these insights shed light "on historical occurrences, from wars to poverty to inflation to interest rates to crime." According to Block, to doubters Hoppe answers that while 21st-century democracies work better than old time monarchies, if nobility with the ability to take a long term view replaced today’s leaders they would “improve matters.” Block also shared what he called minor criticisms of Hoppe’s theses regarding time preferences, immigration and the gap between libertarianism and conservatism.

I wonder what other editors, apart from myself (who wrote the original paragraph) and CarolmooreDC (who wrote the second paragraph) think of this change? I feel very strongly that it should be reverted but am determined to avoid slipping into EW again. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, let me quote Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources:

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

In other words, your interpreting the primary sources of Hoppe is WP:Original research which is against WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, my interpretation comes from an RS, or the cited Mises book review. Again, vaguely citing policy without specifically explaining how it is violated is a meaningless claim. Steeletrap (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the diff. Well, since you always use bare URLs and you never bother to include information about the source, you'll have to forgive me for thinking that was a excerpt from Hoppe himself since a) Mises often publishes their fellow's book excerpts and b) you have claimed so often in the past it was OK to use them. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&diff=prev&oldid=556677793 At this diff another editor added the info while I was editing, but I missed his/her edit when I was rewriting the section.) Of course, you only need one reference to the same source when it is the only source. Three is quite unnecessary.

I see now looking at the page that the fact that David Gordon is writer and editor is in tiny letters on top. Now its worthwhile investigating your interpretation. I just have to remind myself to quadruple check all your bare URLs and ask you if that is what you meant to ref, I guess. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Strike and rewrite to illustrate issues

Collapse Strike and rewrite experiment that didn't work; back to old process

Here’s what an NPOV version of Gordon would look like with problematic sections cut with notes in (italics) on why. I guess this is what needs to be done on a regular basis to make Steeletrap’s errors clear: While advocating an anarchist or "private law" society as the ideal, WP:OR not in source David Gordon writes that Hoppe argues in Democracy that monarchy is preferable to democracy.( Jump to conclusion, creating Negative POV before theory explained) that because democracy has led to increased state power, monarchy preserves liberty more effectively. His view is rooted in the claim that monarchies are closer than democracies to the ideal of a "privately owned" nation (Quoted phrase not in source) He argues that if the king regards the government as his “personal possession” he will be careful to manage its resources which he expects to pass on to his heirs. insofar as they retain possession of their kingdoms for life and bequeath them to their children upon death. (Wordy but not fully explanative) Thus, kings and queens would have a greater incentive than temporarily-elected democratic representatives to "preserve or ... enhance" the value of the nation.(Needed to be said earlier Writes Hoppe, "the [king] would systematically restrain himself in his taxing policies, for the lower the degree of taxation, the more productive the subject population will be, and the more productive the population, the higher the value of the" king's nation.(Don't cut out part of the quote that makes it clear Hoppe considers monarchies parasitic!) “[T]o preserve or even enhance the value of his personal property, he [the king] would systematically restrain himself in his taxing policies, for the lower the degree of taxation, the more productive the subject population will be, and the more productive the population, the higher the value of the ruler’s parasitic monopoly of expropriation will be” (p. 19) Hope this makes clear the WP:OR and misuse of sources that infuses this entry with a negative pov. I don't have a problem with replacing this new version for what I wrote yesterday since it's good to have more voices reviewing Hoppe. (I also haven't read the rest of the way through for any useful critical material.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Carol. Thank you for admitting that your original rationale for these changes was mistaken, though I regret the extremely rude fashion in which this admission was made. (i.e., by blaming me for your mistake: "Well, since you always use bare URLs and you never bother to include information about the source, you'll have to forgive me for thinking that was a excerpt from.") I completely disagree with your view on "what an NPOV version" of Gordon's review would look like, and fully reject literally everything I have ever seen you write about WP:BLP as (depending on the case) either unjustified (lacking any specific argument), unclear (overly-vague), or incorrect (a misstatement of policy). There is currently a vigorous debate regarding your views of WP:BLP, going on at the ANI you started in regards to my alleged violation of BLP here. I recommend reading the remarks of the editors there. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Refusal to fill out URLs and making others do it can cause confusion. Also note that dates articles were published, who authored them, etc. all part of the verification process. I can see I'll just have to do your work for you from now to make it easier for other editor's to engage in the process of verification.

Anyway, I am collapsing my "strike and rewrite suggestion" which I can see is too confusing to work and go back to the old process: bullited points and suggested better language. Will check your newest edits on Gordon soon. I see you are still using your WP:OR comments to introduce it rather than looking for same content in the WP:RS sources. Remember, we are mere factotums doing our best to reflect the great minds that are our sources. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I am new to this encyclopedia and plan on learning how to "fill out URLs" this week. I would recommend you examine your incorrect view that paraphrasing constitutes "OR". A paraphrased sentence such as "Hoppe argues in Democracy: The God That Failed that democracy is economically and socially damaging as a political system" is far more effective and encyclopedic than a long-winded literal quote in outlining the basic thrust of a book's thesis. Steeletrap (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to use a template to fill out URLs; doing manually easier, IMHO. I dislike them myself since you have to run back to templates if you want to add things.

Speaking of the first sentence of the paragraph in question... Of course we summarize in Wikipedia, but generally we summarize secondary sources. (Saying "WP:OR" is just shorthand for saying that, but it seems to me I've detailed and quoted the policy before above.) See Wikipedia:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources and most relevant to a BLP: Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources says Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.[4]

What you say there using primary source Hoppe as a ref does reflect points made by the sources. Therefore it should be ref'd by the sources, in the same general way the source uses it.

A primary source (like Hoppe's own writings) can be use if is the only available source for an important point or as an illustration of a secondary source's point or as a subject's response to some criticism of him that no one else has made, per WP:BLP/Balance. (Thus the one direct quote from Hoppe I put in a paragraph.)

If your goal is merely to make sure there is a link to the relevant Hoppe article, that can be included after whatever source actually refers to that source or sometimes with a note saying "See also Hoppe's article etc." CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

All the summaries in the paragraph you allude to, including the quoted excerpt, are paraphrased from RS, not Hoppe's own writings. Steeletrap (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

If you use a reference like Hoppe at the end of a sentence it is assumed the material comes from Hoppe, not Block or someone else somewhere else in a paragraph. Isn't that also the way it is in the real world and academia? Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for referencing information. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

How one cites sources, both in-text and in a bibliography, in the context of academic articles is very different in many important respects from the standards of Wikipedia (or encyclopedias generally). I make no apologies for having a lot to learn regarding the Wikipedia citation system. In academia as well as (presumably) Wikipedia, you don't have to discuss the source in-text (i.e. you don't have to say "In a book review, Block says that Hoppe says blah blah blah"; you can simply say "Hoppe says blah blah blah" and not mention Block in the text, while citing the Block book review to support your statement about Hoppe) if it's merely a secondary-source summary of the original text. You always have to cite sources, but you only have to explicitly name them in text if you are explicitly considering arguments or analysis made by them (e.g.: "Block accuses Hoppe of wanting to ban gays from polite society"). Steeletrap (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And no, you do not need a new citation every time you make a claim about a source. If that were the case, every sentence of every book review would be cluttered by (Author, page number). As to your Hoppe claim, I take that to be unhelpful sarcasm; obviously, if I cited Hoppe at the end of a sentence, I either was substantiating the claim in that sentence with Hoppe's work or (if I was referring to another source) I made a mistake. Steeletrap (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is stricter than other types of work since it is a collaborative encyclopedia. You do have to have the ref after every sentence or paragraph referenced by one or more sources. (Though if each is referencing different parts of even a sentence the ref should be directly on the relevant part of the sentence. (Of course, you don't need the same ref three times in aparagraph where it's the only source.) Editors can get away with no ref if no one challenges it, but on controversial article like this where there has been some misuse of sources in the past you do need the ref at end of the ref'd material because people will be checking and tagging if there is not one. I can see there is another example today where there's no ref and someone will tag or correct it if you don't get around to it. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Closed BLP-related ANI

Comments regarding closed BLP-related ANI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Throughout this page,user:Carolmooredc has repeatedly alleged that my proposed talk page remarks/edits to the Hoppe page "violate BLP" by virtue of being libelous, defamatory, OR etc. Her charged and damaging accusations have been rejected at an ANI she filed, where, in a remarkably quick fashion (half a day) and with the approval of literally all editors who read both her allegations and my responses, no BLP violation was found (See:http://the ANI here). The clear voice of the community on this matter should be taken into account by new editors in their evaluation of Carol's BLP claims, which are made throughout the talk page, since these false claims have to a great extent shaped the debate over and the eventual additions to the Hoppe page. Steeletrap (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC) You know one can argue WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH and a whole bunch of other things quite accurately without ever bringing up BLP. However, I'm reminded it's better to complain about one or two uncomplicated BLP problems, not gather a bunch of minor ones that people can't quite understand. But sometimes one gets a bee in one's bonnet. It's all show biz... on with the show... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC) But FYI, it can be tricky to put together properly formatted noticeboard or ANI complaints. I should have either just gone to 1) WP:BLPN with content disputes OR 2) just to ANI with POV concerns about alleged (but anonymous so who knows for sure?) academics seemingly out to trash well-known academics and show appropriate evidence. That's why the recommendation from the Admin to go to ANI was ambivalent. Now User:Sageo's complaint about edit warring I thought was poorly formed and ranting, yet he got a result because it was still easy to see what was going on. It can be a crap shoot, which is why I try to avoid it. (And often depends merely on who is paying attention during any 24-48 hours period.) But one does the best one can to resolve the situation, as one will continue to do, including using noticeboards as necessary. Also note continuing to harp on the past, misstate the outcome of the confused WP:ANI which was ruled a content dispute, and putting people's names in section titles, can be seen as harassment and that's cause for another more pointed WP:ANI. Lets not continue behavioral problems with attack section headers . Let's just focus on content and stop the silliness, eh?? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Please bring your (false) accusations of harassment to a WP:ANI, Carol. And please note that the ANI's rejection of your (false) charges of WP:BLP/libel/defamation etc in favor of characterizing this as a "content dispute" means just that: a rejection of charges of WP:BLP (also see the editors' comments to this effect on the ANI). This section has great material importance to the substance of the Hoppe page, and does not constitute a personal attack. Steeletrap (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Warnings that continued future behavior can be seen as harassment is NOT a warning about current harassment. Past - present - future. Very different concepts. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC) NOTE: I am ambivalent on closing this. On the one hand we don't need more WP:Battleground. On the other hand User:Steeletrap seems to be under the impression from discussions here and at her/his talk page that because one less than perfectly formed ANI did not bring about the desired result, that all references to BLP past/present/future are now irrelevant. Well, I guess we'll see how things develop. At least we do have 3RR awareness now, so there is some hope. Sigh... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Last paragraph on Academic freedom controversy section

The paragraph should, I think, be deleted. That paragraph is uninformative about the incident in question. The causal relationship between Hoppe's remarks and the UNLV anti-bias workshops, if it exists at all (and though one RS implies it, there is no clear evidence of that from university statements etc) is quite tenuous. The need to delete is compounded by the fact that the section is already extremely long. Several sentences about the nature of the anti-bias workshops and how professors (including one who remembered the Hoppe incident) spoke out against it has no clear place in a biography on Hoppe. Steeletrap (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course, I think it should remain. The controversy had direct consequences and the RS does more than imply such. The 2009 proposed policy is tied into the Hoppe incident too. I did consider re-writing and footnoting the 2009 info, and will continue to cogitate on that idea. – S. Rich (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

First, regarding conference, SRich removed the specific thing the reliable source said regarding Hoppe which is important and substantial: "including UNLV administrators attempts to censure Hoppe, prompted the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, to hold a conference on academic freedom in October 2005." I think I'll integrate that back into his version.

Second, as we've said before, this shows the academic freedom issue regarding censure of Hoppe continued at the university for several years. (Unfortunately the fact that the proposal was squashed doesn't seem to be in a WP:RS, though we can still look around for evidence. Obviously it is NOT on their website as a current policy if you look for it.) Haven't we been over this issue a couple times before above? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference to the Hoppe incident, a few months prior, is quite enough. We don't need to give undue emphasis to the fact that some people at UNLV were seeking to censure him. – S. Rich (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Creating Democracy sub-section

The section on Democracy has been expanded by myself and other users over the last several days. This is appropriate, since it appears to be Hoppe's most widely read and widely cited work by a big margin. Following two meaty paragraphs of summary, criticism of Hoppe's infamous "physically remove" comments, which appear to have provoked more attention than any other quotation from his book, is mentioned in two paragraphs. Since these paragraphs are solely devoted to this criticism/discussion of these remarks, I think it descriptively appropriate to create a sub-section entitled "Controversial remarks" or "Controversial remarks on homosexuality" or something like that.

I think this should be renamed "Controversial remarks on homosexuality", since all the RS are responding to the claims about physically removing homosexuals and this (not the bit about removing parasites or communists or democrats) is what provoked controversy. But even if others reject that title, I can't see the justification for not labeling it something like "controversial remarks", when the two paragraphs are solely devoted to addressing those remarks. Steeletrap (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've said before (in various discussions) that a section on his views re homosexuality would be fine. Then the academic freedom controversy section could stand alone. – S. Rich (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually don't understand SRich's comment.

Re: Steeletrap's suggestion, so now you want two sections called controversy about homosexual remarks? (I.e., academic freedom section too) And the second section is about a number of groups Hoppe says might be exclused from a "covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin", i.e. "the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism –" Singling out just one of those groups for special attention is really POV pushing to the extreme.

And controversy has to be something that actually made the news, not just criticism and discussion among academics, which is what it is. Let's be proportionate here. I think sectioning is just WP:Undue in a short paragraph.

Finally, I read that somewhere in the section of the book being partially quote he says something like: "well, OK, some of our kids may get into some of that stuff when they are younger and well, maybe we don't want to be too strict" and I think the quote or a summary needs adding, even if a primary source, to properly reflect what he says in an NPOV encyclopedic way. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, the simple fact is that the RS are responding to the claim about homosexuals. It would be my POV if these were just general criticisms of the passage, but they arent; we go off of RS, and they are most specifically and consistently responding to the claim about physically removing gays, not parasites or commies.

You mean what you have chosen to emphasize of their response is on that topic. I guess I wasn't paying attention to the POV you've got there and will have to fix that. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, am I right to infer that you just object to a title referencing homosexuality, but do not object to a sub-section entitled "Controversial remarks" per my reasoning above? If not, please explain why such a title would be inappropriate. Steeletrap (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see above where I write: And controversy has to be something that actually made the news, not just criticism and discussion among academics, which is what it is. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No. There can be "academic controversy" over obscure, pedantic philosophical or economic issues. Mention on the local news is not a prerequisite for calling something a controversy. Steeletrap (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's more a debate than a controversy. Only your POV makes you see a mountain where there's a molehill. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please strike your rude and insulting remarks indicating that my bias, rather than a good-faith concern for accuracy, is what's motivating my suggestions.

Your suggestion that this is a mere "debate" rather than a controversy suggests you didn't read the RS, where Snyder comparing Hoppe to segregationists et al and Hoppe remarks that he was subject to a "smearbund" by "left-libertarian" thinkers who accused him of bigotry specifically because of the cited passage. (http://mises.org/daily/1792) Steeletrap (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We edit according to what is in the article, not "other stuff" that exists. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The RS in which the above-mentioned comments are made are cited and mention in the Hoppe wikipedia page. I again encourage you to read through the RS. Steeletrap (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing bias

See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors: Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (but politely — one gets more flies with honey than with vinegar) and asking others to help. See Dispute resolution for more ideas. There is a point beyond which our interest in being a completely open project is trumped by our interest in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policies.

And then see this recent user talk page comment of yours. I could come up with another dozen similar ones without even trying. I'm sure discrediting Hoppe would make it easier to discredit all the other people you discuss below.

While I emphatically reject the principles of libertarianism, this ideology undeniably has serious scholars associated with it, as does the "Austrian" School of Economics; however, the "movement"/"Pure Rothbardian Anarchism"/"Ron Paul for President" strain is (as my research indicates) viewed as disreputable even by mainstream libertarians, such as Tom G. Palmer, whose critical remarks of Mises Institute scholars are systematically cleansed from the pages of their scholars. Operating from a non-empirical, "rationalistic" "economics" framework and invoking (and distorting) dubious philosophical concepts like natural law in defense of their moral absolutism, "movement" libertarianism is little more than a dogmatic cult. "Movement" supporters in this regard are akin to Scientologists, insofar as they not only personally lack evidence for their beliefs, but are incapable of examining data which differ from their ideology and integrating it into their worldview. Their edits to "movement"-related Wikipedia entries should be viewed the same as Scientologists' edits to pages like L. Ron Hubbard and Lord Xenu.

Do I have to share four or five more? It's WP:disruptive editing. Obviously I should have gone to WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard or WP:NPOVN soon after it became clear what was going on. But I was going easy on the Newbie. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have biases, and I'm fine with you taking note of those biases in your examination of my posts. (just as I take note of "movement" peoples' biases on movement-related pages and scientologists' biases on scientology-related pages) However, I'm not fine with you baselessly asserting that my edits are motivated "only" by bias rather than a concern for encyclopedic rigor, just as a hypothetical scientologist would be (rightfully) affronted at an unsupported accusation that her or his edits are motivated solely by her or his biases. There is a crucial logical difference between honestly believing that group x (Scientology, let's say) is a dogmatic cult and taking note of a WP user's Affiliation with group x accordingly, and accusing an individual member of group x (Sam the Scientologist) of being solely motivated by bias in her or his edits to WP.

I enthusiastically encourage you to go to DRN in hopes that the lesson from the last two ANIs, in regards to your false accusations and erroneous understanding of WP policy, will be reiterated. Steeletrap (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

One cannot make vague general allegations and assert others' have biases without linking to on wiki editing comments. Belonging to a wikiproject or defending WP:BLP policy does not constitute the kind of bias I quoted from you above, and which is one of a number of such quotes. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

SRich. Please stop collapsing things you don't like. One third of your "hattings" are questionable. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

What does the quoted policy Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors say? maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly I've brought this up at his/her talk page in the past to no avail. So I'm bringing it up here. This is a brand new incident showing that this is an ongoing problem. If this doesn't work the policy suggests WP:DRN. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)