Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:45, 24 May 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hans-Hermann Hoppe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Libertarianism

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

To-do list for Hans-Hermann Hoppe: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2013-11-05 There are no active tasks for this page Add information about his early life. Add information about his parents and his family. Explain how he came to UNLV and the Mises Institute. Expand on his contributions to praxeology, and defense of rationalism. Expand on his argumentation ethics and its significance. Find mainstream discussion of his writings and his Property and Freedom Society.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hans-Hermann Hoppe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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 Misplaced Pages'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/search/?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 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. . This report is contrasted by another one, as to same incident, that said he was sanctioned. And a third source says the UNLV Provost found against Hoppe, but the University President dismissed allegation on appeal. . 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.” 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. 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. 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. Hoppe has also been accused of racism for (among other things) advocating for a “systematic pro-European immigration bias.” Hoppe’s view in this regard is rooted in his belief that Europeans exhibit “all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure.” 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." 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 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/Special:UploadWizard CarolMooreDC🗽 17:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wholesale revert

Steeletrap, you are being disruptive. The edit: 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

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 "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 just including Snyder comment at end." (I.e., in either case Snyder's comment belongs at the end.)

Also see my quote of Misplaced Pages: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 .

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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Well, Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

Academic freedom section heading title

The first discussion re the proper title for the section was here: . (I was mistaken about the amount of discussion that had taken place -- it was more about the contents of the section.) 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 ... 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 to substantiate" his empirical claims about homosexuals "at the hearing." This leads Alden to conclude that Hoppe "violate 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: . The section was first added as "Controversy" in 2005 . Steeletrap added a new section here: 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: 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 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)

• 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 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)

1. ^ Libertarianism is unique; it belongs neither to the right nor the left: a critique of the views of Long, Holcombe, and Baden on the left, Hoppe, Feser and Paul on the right by Walter Block (Loyola University) p. 22-23
2. http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/06/10/hans-hoppe-welcomes-you-to-his-fantasy-island/

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)

Responses from WP:RFC/BOARD

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/search/?title=Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&diff=556219138&oldid=556219087 and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Deletion of Alden/ACLU material

What is up with this? (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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: . 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: Misplaced Pages: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)

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: . 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)

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 issue with the former is that he wants to (literally) stone gaysPalmer's criticism, and his issue with the latter is that he gives keynote speeches ("For Fear of the Jews") to neo-Nazi groups (see their Misplaced Pages 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: and here: SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Reflections upon the Fifth Anniversary of PFS here: 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: )

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)

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 , 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: 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, Misplaced Pages also has entries for the N-word and faggot. And the first paragraph of Misplaced Pages's entry on Negroid says "The term is commonly associated with notions of racial typology which are disputed by a majority of anthropologists. For modern usage it is generally associated with racial notions, and is discouraged, as it is potentially offensive..") Steeletrap (talk) 17:23, 24 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 are those that CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!" and "This man is literally 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 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)

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)

1. On Free Immigration and Forced Integration. Hans Hoppe
2. http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_2.pdf
3. http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_2.pdf
4. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Economics articles
• Low-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists