Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Source says "failure of democracy" vs. POV interpretation

Per this edit warring change User:Steeltrap made without discussion, the source says:

In Democracy: The God that Failed the author (whose doctorate was obtained in Germany and who is a Senior Fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute) examines modern democracies in the light of various evident failures: (lists)

Original edit at this diff]:

In 2001, Hoppe published Democracy: The God That Failed which examines the failures of modern democracies including ...

User:Steeletrap edit at the diff:

In 2001, Hoppe published Democracy: The God That Failed which examines social and economic problems that Hoppe believes stem from democracy...

The source and first edit mean: "Hoppe thinks democracy has failed" The Steeletrap edit means: "Hoppe blames democracy for these problems." The implication being that Hoppe is some authoritarian out to destroy democracy with petty made up excuses. The POV pushing is quite obvious. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 21:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not established fact that these are "failures of democracy." It's important to point out that these are Hoppe's views/beliefs/arguments. Feel free to use another word if you don't like beliefs. Steeletrap (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The source already says that it is his view these are failures of democracy. It is not our job to judge what he says and change it cause it "is not right." If you find some WP:RS says he's wrong, these aren't failures of democracy, fine. Right now you are imposing your pov on text and that is against policy. Please change it back. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 22:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Quite the opposite: It is non-NPOV to describe Hoppe's opinions uncritically and to fail to attribute them to Hoppe, for this gives the implication that they are established fact. I am flabbergasted that you would regard the following as non-NPOV, simply because it attributes the perspective expressed in Hoppe's book to Hoppe, while in no way rendering judgment on them: In 2001, Hoppe published Democracy: The God That Failed which examines social and economic problems that Hoppe argues stem from democracy, including unemployment, expanding public debt and bankrupt social security systems. Steeletrap (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Biased (and unnecessary) section headers back again

I unwatched the article cause I was tired of fighting with biased editors, but I noticed in researching something else that the biased section headers are back; I reverted them, though I'm sure the biased versions will return as long as highly partisan editors continue to use the article to advance their agendas.

• Here Steeletrap changed "Controversial passage" to "Controversial passage on homosexuality", even though homosexuals not only group mentioned there (as discussed repeatedly at talk) and after we had a whole RfC on Steeletrap insisting homosexuality be the only issue mentioned in a section header about an academic freedom debate.
• And here created a section from a single short paragraph he titles in WP:OR fashion "Racial implications of Hoppe's immigration policy" when there's one critical comment on Latinos and immigration. This section is unnecessary and just a POV attempt to bring attention to an issue. I believe I never have checked the sources here so who knows if it's even an accurate rendition... Anyway have tagged as too many sections.
  

Another editor brought User:Steeletrap to WP:BLPN for biased section headers on another article last month. How long can this go on? User:Carolmooredc 12:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, re: the statements that the RfC presented a consensus, I don't think we can forget that:

• it was never formally closed, and certainly not by an outside and neutral editor; since was the first RfC I fully participated in from start to finish, I was not aware how important it was to formally close, and with an outside closer;
• There was canvassing to questionably related groups, fear of which led me for one to jump to support having both in the title, thinking more canvassed individuals would appear who would support "attack on homosexuals" or something regarding an academic comment about time preferences for various types of individuals
• There remain questions about BLP concerns given that once again Wikipedia possibly is being used by advocates to highlight in a WP:Undue fashion an issue already trumped up by other advocacy groups.

So I don't think people should rely too much on that RfC. User:Carolmooredc 14:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Why should your biased opinion matter? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not the one who has declared and defended biases, they only have been inferred from my editing, something I got my only block for doing a couple years back due to merely asking about what it meant that someone edited frequently and almost entirely on one (adjective removed) topic. The fact that editors who have done RfCs start-to-finish didn't even mention formal closing, not to mention by an outside person, did not help. Next time I'll read about RfCs start to finish before engaging in an important one!! Working within the rules makes RfCs credible. User:Carolmooredc 15:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I thought you got that block for stalking another editor off-Wiki? SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I forgot that the complainant was outraged both that I asked the question and that I cross posted an anonymous description of my question/speculation to a Wikia geekfeminism page which I thought was a part of Wikipedia because Wales involved in both. It looks like I removed it from Wikia. Hardly what is called "stalking". I apologized - and enjoyed the week off. (We should all be put on such vacations from time to time ;-)

Of course shortly after that the Wikimedia Foundation created a number of "legal" places to discuss such issues generally, and even specifically. I'd probably be a lot happier if I put one new section a day on sexism revealed by WP:RS in one new male BLP a day. But such chronic negativity is not my thing. Plus considering someone elses' "Allegations of sexual misconduct" section header was recently deleted from accused groper and rapist Bill Clinton's article, and the issue stuffed under "Public image", such sections doubtless would get deleted.

So it can be annoying to see hyped up POV section headers on covenant communities and time preferences. It's not like Hoppe was out violently attacking homosexuals and it ended up in one or two sentences under public image. Then there would be a cause for outrage. User:Carolmooredc 16:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hoppe is an academic, and a libertarian theorist. His comments regarding 'covenant communities' were made as an academic, and as a libertarian theorist. What exactly is 'biased' about reporting the reactions of fellow academics and libertarians to his remarks? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

When editors who repeatedly have expressed a strong negative POV about individuals, groups of individuals, ideological positions, etc., put in WP:Unude amounts of negative material in articles, it's a problem. It would be a problem too if people who proclaimed homosexuals were fringe individuals with a silly philosophy and then went around to all the gay activist articles and drudged up every little scandal they could find and turned them into major sections I'm sure people would be saying "POV WP:Undue" as well. Or am I being too consistent in expressing policy. User:Carolmooredc 00:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Is that intended to be a response to my comments? If so, it singularly fails to address them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@carolmooredc: "fringe individuals" ??? Nearly every post from you the past 2 months has contributed nothing other than to build a file which documents your incompetence to edit on Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 15:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Above, I see another incidence of incompetent editing from User:Carolmooredc. By insinuating that Hoppe's remarks on physically removing the gays from society do not merit "outrage," Carol is injecting her personal values into an issue of content. Whether she supports, opposes or is neutral towards Doc Hoppe's admonition to "physically remove" homosexuals from society is irrelevant; what's relevant is how RS responded to that remark.

In this regard (and in stark contrast to the dearth of RS discussion of this "economist"'s contributions to his alleged field of research), it appears that Hoppe's "ban the gays" bit has received much attention from RS. This not only includes criticism from his co-workers at the Mises Institute (such as Doc. Block, who has written else that he "abhors" homosexuality (1), yet still (per the cited piece in the Hoppe article) finds the "ban the gays" proposal unpalatable), but also includes a few figures outside of the Misesian walled garden, a rarity in these articles. With so many reliable sources addressing Hoppe's remarks, it is clear that they should be laid out fully, accessibly, and proudly. Our readers ought to see for themselves the grand academic debate this man's scholarship has provoked. Steeletrap (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

If I'm incompetent, take it to the relevant venue and see how many editors argue just the opposite just by reading your claims and my (as usual necessary) correction to them. Otherwise stop saying it or it's just a personal attack and I'm not in the mood for taking those engaging in it WP:ANI again this week. I'm too busy. User:Carolmooredc 05:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Property & Freedom Society

The Property & Freedom Society might be a topic for its own article, but tying in PFS details into this article is a poor course of action. PFS has had various meetings in the past and it would not be appropriate for WP to list these meetings in a BLP simply because HHH was the chief organizer/promoter. Moreover, listing any meeting(s) with very selective seminar topics or presenter topics gives rise to undue or POV editing. – S. Rich (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. We cannot have a Wikipedia editor cherry-picking seminar titles and placing them in Hoppe's biography with the end result of Hoppe being connected to the seminar titles (which are conceived by others.) This is synthesis, POV, undue weight for tangential facts. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This editor has been told this sort of thing over and over again. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT rides again. User:Carolmooredc 18:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

BRD re proper section heading text

Time for a BRD on these edits: [1]. Steeletrap, please state your case as the first remark. – S. Rich (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Why "Physical Removal of Homosexuals" is appropriate section title

This is the main point of the section, as it's specifically what the RS are responding to. It is non-neutral OR to read the primary source and create our own interpretation, that the passage's main point is that libertarian communities are restrictive. The passage is relevant to RS and therefore relevant to Wikipedia solely because of the fact that, for Hoppe, the libertarian order will physically remove homosexuals. Steeletrap (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me first thank for doing what Binkersnet refused to, which is to bring the topic up here. That's the right way to go. I told him to take it to talk, but he prefers to edit war and then leave false accusations on my talk page.

On the real topic, I have to agree that the alternative title isn't neutral or complete. MilesMoney (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)