Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Matt Bruenig & Demos

'Matt Bruenig' is not listed as part of the staff, board, fellows, or experts at Demos (U.S. think tank). The posting he made is on their blog page. It is not clear who this 'Matt Bruenig' is, but a bio for a 'Matthew Bruenig' here [1] lists 'Matthew' as a philosophy and black studies senior at the University of Oklahoma. A mattbruenig.com webpage exists, but does not describe him other than saying he writes. All-in-all, Bruenig is doubtful as RS. – S. Rich (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A person who writes articles for The Atlantic, The American Prospect, Salon, and Demos’ Policy Shop is what we in the business call a "journalist". If journalists were somehow unreliable, then we'd have to delete most of Wikipedia. This means that Matt's writings for a news blog are a reliable source. I'm glad we found him, because he's an actual non-libertarian who writes about libertarianism knowledgably, and that's a rare thing. MilesMoney (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Rich, again I think you're just mistaken in your understanding of policy. Wikipedia goes off of the source, not the journalist. If someone who doesn't have a college degree, or is currently a college student, is published by the NYT (and the Times often does publish the work of editorial assistants), that is WP:RS for wikipedia standards. The question is not Bruening's age or educational attainment, but whether Demos (whose editorial staff chose to publish Bruening) is an RS. I believe it is. So do Miles and (presumably) Binksternet, since Bink originally added the Demos RS to the article. Steeletrap (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RS#Definition of a source says the analysis of sources involves three related meanings. Not just the entity that published something, but who wrote it and the type of work is being cited. So someone might write an article for a high quality journal discussing a subject in which they are an expert, but that same author could be posting a blog comment in a different medium discussing something about which they are not an expert. Their RS qualification in one medium does not transfer to every other medium. Also, I've looked for Matt & Matthew Bruenig in WorldCat and HighBeam Research and JSTOR. Nothing worthwhile shows up. So besides trying to figure out exactly which Matt B he is, I don't see much that gives weight to his qualifications to give opinions about Hoppe. – S. Rich (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)01:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

When searching for people, it helps to use the correct name. In this case, it's Matt Bruenig. Not Bruning, Bruenig. MilesMoney (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Matt & Matthew Bruenig is what I searched for. The names you see above are typos from my discourse and were not used in the searches. – S. Rich (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC) My typos have been fixed. 02:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The tag on Bruenig is restored, not to deprecate him in any fashion, but to alert readers as to the need to verify who he is. – S. Rich (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are his credentials (quoting from his website). "I’ve written for some other publications, including The Atlantic (I, II), The American Prospect, Salon (I, II) and regularly at Demos’ Policy Shop. My content has been featured or mentioned at Financial Times, New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, Guardian, Forbes, NY Magazine, Mother Jones, Washington Monthly, Think Progress, Roosevelt Institute, Dissent Magazine, Jacobin Magazine, and elsewhere."

I trust that upon reviewing them, you will find them sufficient to remove the tag. (particularly given the source (an RS) he published his remarks about Hoppe in.) Steeletrap (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Part of my beef was about describing Matt "of Demos" when he's not staff, board, fellow, or expert. (But that is a matter of editing presentation.) 2. Next, the particular section of the Demos page is a blog. So, what do we know of Demos' editorial control over its blog? Does it qualify as a newsblog? 3. Given that we are dealing with a BLP, extreme care is required when we seek to answer these questions. 4. Is Bruenig a college student (however talented)? If so, how do we evaluate him, the source, in light of the various RS factors? 5. His listing of contributions is there, but so far I've only seen the Atlantic piece. I did not look further. But I did, as mentioned, look at WorldCat & other resources. So, Steeletrap, even without looking at the particular contribution he made to Demos, I have doubts about the significance of his commentary. Is it encyclopedic? Why do we want to include it? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence that he's a college student. We want to include his remarks because they come from an RS (cited by dozens of mainstream publications) and relate to a subject (hoppe's views on homosexuality) that has been discussed by a dozen or so RS. It is probably the issue for which Hoppe is most notable. Steeletrap (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The link describing Bruenig as a college student is the Huff Post link, in the first paragraph. I did find another link showing another Bruenig as a college student elsewhere, but did not post it here. So the questions remain unanswered: Who is he? Is the Demos blog page under the editorial control of Demos? Does the Bruenig comment meet BLP criteria? – S. Rich (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not know if Bruenig's blog meets rs. Demos only calls Bruenig a "blogger", he is not included in their lists of fellows, staff and experts, he is not described as a journalist and there is no mention whether they exercise editorial oversight. But the issue is one of weight since his blog is being used to present criticism. Incidentally the broad interpretation of SPS so that a blog by Bruenig becomes an rs would mean that the vast amount of blog writing by libertarians who happen to be economists or have other credentials would be rs. TFD (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I originally brought Bruenig into the article because he discusses the anti-free speech aspect of Hoppe's notional covenant communities. This was not a very challenging or extraordinary insight since Hoppe himself describes how free speech would likely be stifled. So my introduction of Bruenig to this article was simply a matter of emphasis, I was showing that Hoppe's work was noticed by a third party.

The quoting of Bruenig as if he is a topic expert on Hoppe's criticism of homosexuality is beyond the simple affirmation I used him for. He is a writer for Demos in their "Policyshop" section, the group's blog section which is like an old-fashioned opinion-editorial section of a newspaper. In that blog section they have some heavy hitters posting opinions, including Demos co-founder David Callahan, law professor Spencer Overton, environmental lawyer James Gustave Speth, and journalist Robert Kuttner. Mostly, though, the group's blog is filled with Callahan's writings, and those of a raft of Demos staffers including Bruenig. I don't see any reason why Bruenig should be considered such a high quality expert that controversial statements about Hoppe being a homophobe can be attributed to Bruenig.

I submit that Bruenig be kept for his not-very-controversial description of Hoppe's covenant communities, but that we do not quote Bruenig as an expert on homophobia. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, SRich, when it's same group of editors going back and forth it should be taken to WP:RSN immediately. Especially since it makes allegations NOT supported by any primary source - so they could be fabricated for all we know. Meanwhile it should be removed per WP:BLP and Austrian Economics Sanctions. User:Carolmooredc talk 20:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc, did you know that Binksternet originally added the Demos source? The only crime of the "biased" editors is using a "bad" part of the article Binkie added. Steeletrap (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not comment on the basis of who did what and half the time do not know. This is not about teams to me, even if do more often agree with some editors than others. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh, Carol. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I see this is not resolved, since still has tag and no one has bothered to look up the quote he is referring to. Should it go to WP:RSN? Or WP:BLPN? Obviously there is a higher standard for negative attack comments in articles than neutral ones, though SRich's concerns are still relevant. User:Carolmooredc talk 16:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Proper use of Bruenig til check RS status

I still doubt a rant on an advocacy site is RS, but will check out at WP:RSN or WP:BLPN, soon depending on discussion to follow. Using a crappy reference in a BLP in Austrian economics is sanctionable, remember.

Meanwhile I went and found the Hoppe quote myself since no one would prove it existed and added it and the reference info to make it clear that this is not just an attack on homosexuals. In fact, this whole article has been written to make it look like Hoppe's main interest in life is trashing homosexuals, when in fact they are only one of several groups he personally disapproves of in two instances or commented on in an academic fashion, even if his opinion was no peer-reviewed. This really is a BLP violation and an extreme use of Wikipedia for advocacy purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmooredc (talk • contribs) 21:20 18 November 2013‎

Good faith, clearly articulated, disagreements as to content or policy are not "sanctionable". SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If it goes to WP:RS or WP:BLP and ref is found not useable and people keep putting it in, it is. What else would I be talking about? User:Carolmooredc talk 21:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:RSN discussion

Here. Please use the discussion section and don't reply directly below other editor's spaces. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (BRD)

This edit removed some material about a book that Hoppe had written [2]. The 2 paragraphs were tagged as refimprove and had been added earlier today. The justification for the removal was primary source & unreferenced. Not a very solid justification, IMO, as the material is recent and properly tagged. The removal of the subsection does not comport with WP:PRESERVE. I'd like to see better justification for its removal. – S. Rich (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced material should be removed and primary sources should be used sparingly. TFD (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Even so, what is the justification for removing something that has just been posted & tagged as needing refimprove? Take a look at the time stamps. – S. Rich (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no rush to add text before it's vetted and demonstrated important for the article. Next time, perhaps you could start a talk thread with your work in progress and ask other editors for collaboration. We can't use the article text as a sandbox with content that is unlikely to meet WP standards. SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

What standards are you referring to? We build the project by adding text and tagging sections that need improvement. (Which was done.) But if editors can't see the initial text, there is nothing to add to. My work in progress was posted, and the refimprove tag serves to ask others for collaboration. Reminder, PRESERVE says "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content.... Instead of deleting text, consider:...." You deleted and your justification is incredibly flimsy. "Unlikely to meet standards"? In whose opinion is "unlikely" based? Hmmmm. – S. Rich (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

SRich. Just add the refs. Faster than discussing it. Reminder I have a couple to add myself. User:Carolmooredc talk 16:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced ...should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." If you find it difficult to edit directly, then you can write the edit in Notepad and copy and paste. TFD (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Just what was contentious about the material? (And was that the rationale for the removal?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It is up to you to explain why it is not controversial. I do not imagine your position would be accepted at ANI. TFD (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This seems backwards. We have some quotes of HHH that are confirmed by primary sources, as well as a secondary source to show their importance and to interpret them. On the surface, there is nothing here that seems out of order. Now, if you believe that there's some sort of issue, you're free to raise it. But unless you can explain why it is controversial, we can't just assume it should be. The burden here is all yours. MilesMoney (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue was that contentious material had been added without a source, which is bad practice for any article and can get an editor blocked for BLPs. I suppose one could argue that something that is true cannot be contentious, and one may bring that up at ANI. TFD (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In this case, it clearly was contentious in that it was unsourced material about a book which had just gone through AfD with the decision to delete its WP article. SPECIFICO talk 14:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

SRich, I think you can safely assume that even changing a comma could well generate a lot of controversy within this travelling circus. Therefore, assume that the burden is on you - it nearly always should be, so better to be safe than sorry. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

SPECIFICO has just requested I restore Hoppe's views have generated controversy among his colleagues, which is unsourced. Per BLP, we remove, then discuss, not let an unsourced controversial statement sit in the lede while we all have a natter. So once we have a cite for it, it can go back. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, then restore it immediately. HHH's own account of his "ordeal" at the hands of the university he taught at directly supports stating that his views are controversial among his colleagues. Not that any of this was the least bit in doubt even for a moment, which is why it should never have been removed. MilesMoney (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The bigger problem is the absurd amount of space given to a couple comments to try to prove he's some major bigot against homosexuals only, evidently inserted by highly partisan editors using a Wikipedia BLP for WP:Coatrack purposes. Other groups who one thinks might also be annoyed are barely mentioned. But if removing that one line from the lede is all we can manage to balance this article a little, go for it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, he wrote about a utopia in which gays will be forcible excluded and this somehow garnered him some negative attention. It's our job to report it, not to pardon him as only a minor bigot. MilesMoney (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It just happened that a homosexual student reported something which that student felt was offensive and a violation of policy. If nobody had objected, there might have been no action against Hoppe in the matter and no subsequent resolution as reported. On the other hand, it could just as well have been some other student with a different complaint. If that other complaint had resulted in a similar controversy, it too would be discussed in RS and described in this article. The article also describes the dispute surrounding claims made by H4 in his "argumentation ethics". The lede merely summarizes the sourced material in the article. Who's going to restore the text? It goes like this: <<Hoppe's views have generated controversy among his colleagues.>> Anyone who's read the article knows the RS for this. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Mention each in a paragraph, sure. Make it 1/4 to 1/3 the article? That's called WP:Undue. Of course, dealing with the flood of partisan material takes up so much energy, there maybe some truly notable info more NPOV editors have just not had the energy to find. Who knows? Haven't had time to look. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Carol, these generalizations are irrelevant and uninteresting. We're talking about restoring a short phrase that accurately summarizes our sources. If you have no objection, why don't you do the honors? MilesMoney (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That would truly be restorative! 24.151.107.166 (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

So how many of his colleagues have said he generates or is controversial? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

At least 1.51, which puts us over the requirement. How many do you believe are necessary and why? Please answer in terms of policy, not merely your opinion. Thanks in advance! MilesMoney (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not possible to have 1.51 colleagues, you do not get .51% of a person. Policy are BLP V and OR. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hatting explanation of humor and accusations of intimidation and personal attacks. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Humor tends to lose its humor when explained. Nonetheless, here I go, as you appear not to have understood. The only requirement for saying "colleagues" instead of "colleague" is that we have enough to justify the plural. Having 1.51 means we round to 2, which is indeed plural. So, in other words, I'm pointing out that there is no specific number of colleagues required for us to say they're colleagues, other than being more than just one. Now for something much more serious. This article is under sanctions, so I'm going to have to warn you that your behavior is unacceptable. Tossing out TLA's without explaining precisely how they apply (and quoting relevant sections if needed), is hugely counterproductive. Do not accuse anyone of violating such important rules without specifics. MilesMoney (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Well, you can take your piss poor try at intimidation and shove it. WTF is TLA? I asked a specific question, so respond to it, how many of this guys colleagues have said his "views have generated controversy"? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC) A TLA is a three-letter acronym, such as TLA itself. When I asked you for answers in terms of policies, you instead threw around a pair of TLA links to policies that don't seem to apply. To show they applied, you would have had to quote relevant sections when requested. Please understand that insisting that you act on your best behavior is not a form of intimidation. However, accusing me of intimidation is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, specifically, "Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack." Your hostile language, particularly "shove it", violated WP:CIVIL, specifically the admonition against being aggressive. Since you have not been able to support your statements with reference to specific policy, I believe this matter is now closed. Please improve your behavior in the future so that your contributions to this article are more productive. MilesMoney (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I asked a specific question, so respond to it, how many of this guys colleagues have said his "views have generated controversy"? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional references

The article text and sources amply justify the statement that Hoppe has aroused controversy. Nevertheless, it's simple to provide a few of the dozens of additional RS which support it. Here are a few: The Great Fiction: Property, Economy, Society, and the Politics of Decline Preface by Jeffrey Tucker also this: I Chose Liberty, P. 168, also this: [3] "Property, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe", also this: Foundations of Comparative Politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 18:53, 25 November 2013

You may want to actually read sources before posting them to the talk page, I Chose Liberty does not say what you seem to think it does, I canna be bothered to look at the other, which ones say he generates controversy among his colleagues? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked at Foundations of Comparative Politics for fun, again it does not support the sentence I removed, and does not even call this guy controversial. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Read My Battle With the Thought Police. MilesMoney (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Do me a favour and quote the bit where "he generates controversy among his colleagues" Because I am damned if I can see it. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, his writing is a bit over the top, but even a quick skim should show that his views were so controversial that they got him into serious trouble with his university. The "commissar", his dean, the provost and a university code officer, as well as unspecified committee members all criticized his views as controversial (a term he quotes and explicitly denies) due to their apparent bigotry. This was followed up by a second group, the peer committee, which agreed with the first one. Note that a peer committee consists of peers, hence colleagues. I could go on, but you can read it for yourself if you want more hyperbole. MilesMoney (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing in that source which says "he generates controversy among his colleagues" It says he was found guilty by a committee for something over which he was then fully cleared. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It also says the "commissar" was just a uni bureaucrat, hardly a colleague? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A peer committee is made up of peers at the same uni, hence colleagues. MilesMoney (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"In April I was ordered to appear before an administrative committee assembled by the commissar and to prove my statement" No mention of a "peer committee" in that source from my search of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Also, how is this blog suitable to source this "A self-described cultural conservative" given the only mention of cultural conservative, is in that article headline? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)'

In most popular browsers, you can hit Ctrl+F or the equivalent to search on a page. This works a lot better than just skimming it. I mention this because searching for "peer" immediately brings up:

Two months later, at the end of January 2005 the code officer called my lawyer to inform him that the "peer" committee had affirmed the first committee's "hostile environment" finding and would recommend to the provost a letter of reprimand and forfeiture of my next merit increase.

It seems as though you've made another mistake here. MilesMoney (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

About the second link, please do me a favor and actually read the whole thing from top to bottom before commenting. I think you'll see why. MilesMoney (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a blog, run by anarchists. That is not a reliable source for a BLP. And the article does not say the this guy is "A self-described cultural conservative", maybe my search is fucked, paste the quote here. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. So you didn't read it, did you? MilesMoney (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I searched it for the term "cultural conservative" Only appears once, in the headline. It is also still a blog, and you violated BLP policy introducing it into this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're not going to read it, then you don't get to edit the article. MilesMoney (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I will edit whatever I feel like editing, cheers. Still a blog, still not RS, still written by anarchists, so still a BLP vio IMO. You can try the RSN board to get consensus to use it, but it still does not say what you want it to say, does it? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You have shown a consistent pattern of not reading (or even correctly searching) sources, so I'm really not sure how you can comment about what one says or doesn't. It is because of this pattern that your edits are in violation of policies that require us to follow our sources. MilesMoney (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, maybe the search feature in my browser has a bug, so just paste from that blog. And one misearch is not a "pattern" Darkness Shines (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I notice you used a search in Google books (Hans hoppe controversy) to find I Chose Liberty. But the section of the book you use has Hoppe quoting Rummel about how many people governments have killed in the 20th century. The "controversy" is what governments have done, not Hoppe. Can you please explain why you would use this source to represent something it clearly does not. TFD (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi @The Four Deuces:. The link above is to the page which contains Kinsella's reference to the controversial Liberty article in which Hoppe first set forth his Argumentation ethics. Some of the gist of the controversy was aired in the comments and reply in the following issue, as I believe is discussed in the article text. A better link to the Kinsella statement is this: [4]. Did I correctly understand and reply to your question? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

AfD article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Considering the arguments made against Mark Thornton apply even more so to Hoppe, and the article is just a coatrack to show one homosexual activist raising a fuss about something can tarnish someone's reputation and undercut academic freedom, I'm wondering if an AfD or even a speedy delete is in order? I mean by the high academic standards claimed by certain editors, he just doesn't cut it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, what homosexual activist? MilesMoney (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Rather than try to figure out which RS said that, I'll just leave it at coatrack. In any case, thin stuff for academic notability. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Carol, you brought up some sort of homosexual activist. Please specify. MilesMoney (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Two comments: 1. Once comments are WP:REDACTED, normal practice is to ignore them. 2. This thread does not seem to have any purpose – a suggestion that this article be AfD'd is absurd. So what article improvements are being discussed? If there are none, then further commentary does not comply with WP:TPYES. – S. Rich (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess my mind is fried from all these AfDs of people who aren't high status enough of economists. But it doesn't seem he's got much higher a status than Mark Thornton, so it just seems weird that people might object to an AfD. I'm not a deletionist, so obviously I won't delete article. But cutting the WP:Undue in half remains a goal. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you again: What homosexual activist? Please answer directly. MilesMoney (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, these comments fail to comply with WP:TPYES. Off-topic, not related to article improvement, and they too much personal in tone, which does not encourage collaboration. Please stop. – S. Rich (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Keep As a fringe figure who rejects the scientific method, Hoppe fails to meet the standards of WP:Academic (I assume that's what you're getting at, Carol?). However, he meets WP:GNG as a controversialist: in the anarcho-capitalist movement, in the classroom, and through the segregationist-friendly Property and Freedom Society. "The" controversy regarding the slight he made on homosexuals and the student's response to it resulted in a huge amount of press; it closes the case for notability. Steeletrap (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kinsella BLP?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

}

Could we please talk about this instead of edit-warring? MilesMoney (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What's the BLP issue? It seems to me it is that Kinsella is saying Hoppe confirmed to him that he meant a certain thing. Is the BLP issue that you don't believe Kinsella?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no BLP issue with a "daily news and opinion" website with about 45 contributors, many of whom have Wikipedia biographies. LewRockwell.com is used as a reference in many Wikipedia articles: here's a list of them. The material presented is not even contentious. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

For BLP issues, it's improper to restore disputed material until there's been sufficient discussion. Since you reverted without even giving me a chance to respond, you're out of order. I'm not going to edit-war with you, but it would be wise for you to revert. MilesMoney (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If you'd explained BLP issue in first place, it would not look like there was not one. Please do so. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It was explained in Steele's edit comment:

deleting blog post per WP:Blogs and WP:BLP. So long as 4H lives, blog post about him can't be cited. LewRockwell.com articles (as opposed to blog posts), which are actually edited by an editorial team, can b used

You did read the edit comments, right? MilesMoney (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

First, it is a courtesy to explain what the topic is, even with a diff and an edit summary if relevant. Especially on active pages. Thus new editors coming in two weeks later who may have something relevant to say don't have to spend 1/2 hour trying to figure out what is under discussion.

Second, LewRockwell.com has a "blogmaster" (see [http://www.lewrockwell.com/about/ About page). So it is not a self-published blog where questionable/libelous material would be allowed to stay. And it's been there a couple of years, more than enough time for Hoppe to have complained if he thought it was a problem. Please learn the distinctions between types of blogs. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

How do you know the blogmaster's job isn't to select questionable/libleous material? SPECIFICO talk 04:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That there is a blogmaster doesn't mean there is editorial oversight on the blog. ("blogmaster" sounds more like a technical support guy to me.) In any case, what we have here is a group blog, which is still impermissible to use as a source in a BLP. In contrast, any LewRockwell.com article about Hoppe can be used. Such articles are clearly subject to oversight, as they are (for example) both edited and screened for submission, with many being rejected. Steeletrap (talk)

Qualifier: LRC is absolutely RS for Hoppe's book and other anarcho-capitalist scholarship, as the Mises Institute bunch are highly influential figures in mainstream an-cap thought. It is absolutely not RS for economics, as LvMI is fringe wrt econ. Steeletrap (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's downright goofy to think that everything on a 'news site' is RS simply because it's published alongside RS material. By this goofball logic, all comments, advertisements, letters to the editor, and so forth would be RS. Steeletrap (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that all such LRC blog material would be useable, say, if he was trashing Hoppe or if it was something like the LRC LewRockwell comment on Rothbard and science which took a lot of WP:OR to interpret. But if it's in a defense situation, he's a friend, there hasn't been any Hoppe complaint in 2 years, etc. Well, it's the sort of thing we could take to WP:RSN. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

We must not use group blog material for BLP and very likely not for other article text, except in exceptional circumstances. "Blogmaster" is undefined. Unless there is a published editorial policy, this bubble won't squeak. No need to go to RSN. It's DOA. SPECIFICO talk 05:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If there are additional attempts to reinsert this material, I recommend opening a complaint on WP:BLPN. MilesMoney (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, you've been around the block. BLP violations go straight to ANI. SPECIFICO talk 05:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Carol, the difference between the science post is that Rothbard is dead. I doubt don't Kinsella is an expert on Hoppe's views, but we have to follow policy regarding WP:Blogs and WP:BLP. Steeletrap (talk)

Someone being dead doesn't make a vague statement any more concrete. Something that vague requiring WP:Synth not useable if it comes from the NY Times.

Hoppe-wise, obviously, it would help if there was some other more recent Hoppe material explaining his position and answering the many critics. Kinsella having to do it himself in a thoughtful blog entry whose editorial oversight is unknow obviously is a poor second. I doubt that this would be seen at BLPN or RSN as the kind of flagrant violation that attacks in self-published personal blog entries are; an outside opinion wouldn't hurt if nothing more recent can be found. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Email him. SPECIFICO talk 05:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear HHH: "please explain yourself on these controversial statements and those questionable characters at your recent conference." I'm not asking him to correct his website, after all. I'll wait til I hear he's in town. You are the one who's associated with him before via email. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it only me who notices that the supposedly BLP-violating hosted blog entry is still in the article, even after such energetic efforts to remove it? Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this BLP violation, Mister Bink. I am, as always, grateful for your keen eye. Steeletrap (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Caromoooredc, you should consider a trip over to Turkey and discuss the matter with H4. Great weather there this time of year. Email is messy and leaves an audit trail. SPECIFICO talk 19:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.