Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:11, 29 October 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

The article Hans-Hermann Hoppe, along with other articles relating to Austrian economics, is currently subject to active community sanctions. The current restrictions, which were implemented by consensus#Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute Old revision of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive816#Ludwig von Mises Institute, are: Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian economics, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions.

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.

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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Freedom of speech This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech 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.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

Why "Physical Removal of Homosexuals" is appropriate section title

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

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

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

The focus is on anti-democracy and also against free speech

Hoppe's most famous book, Democracy – the God That Failed, is about Hoppe's take on democracy; everything in it relates to his view that democracy does not work and should be replaced by libertarianism. The part about covenant communities (gated communities based on residential agreements) is mainly about how democracy cannot work in such places. Hoppe's view is that they should operate under the direction of an elite group of members. Hoppe says "majority rule" has no place in such communities, nor is there any place for those who "advocate egalitarian sentiments", meaning socialists and communists. This is the main point; all other issues are tangential. Any emphasis on gays being ejected from covenant communities is a misrepresentation of the book, and thus a violation of WP:NPOV.
So far, under the direction of Steeletrap with enabling support from SPECIFICO, our article on Hoppe avoids telling the reader that he was writing emphatically about how democracy must not be allowed to thrive in a covenant community. The book actually says the following:

In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They—the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered 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 a libertarian order.

— Democracy – the God That Failed, page 218. ISBN 1412815290

(Emphasis mine.) What Steeletrap has done ever since adding a cherry-picked portion in April 2013 ("Anti-Gay Views and Allegations of Racism") is to emphasize the homosexuality aspect in an unwarranted fashion. Steeletrap has pointedly ignored the anti-democracy theme which is Hoppe's main point.
An argument can be made that critics of Hoppe have fastened on the "physical removal" aspect where those who advocate homosexuality would be ousted. Yes, some critics have commented on this, but others have commented on the anti-democracy element and the differing libertarian viewpoints which are not encompassed by Hoppe. In his paper "Plumb-Line Libertarianism: A Critique of Hoppe", Walter Block commented on the "physical removal" aspect without making any observation about homosexuals being removed. Block notes that Hoppe's view of fully libertarian towns includes the likelihood of widespread intolerance, that one would likely find signs at the edges of towns giving warnings such as "no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users, Jews, Moslems, Germans, or Zulus." (Note that Hoppe is German so he anticipates that intolerance might be aimed at his way.) Block says Hoppe contradicts himself because elsewhere he says a covenant community could be highly heterogeneous, that it could be as diverse as a "rowdy Greenwich Village-type" neighborhood. Block is not hung up on just the homosexuality aspect, he mentions Jews and Zulus and others; his main point in the essay is that Hoppe should not ignore left-wing libertarians and should instead advocate a sort of path-of-least-resistance libertarianism which he calls "plumb line" (perhaps he felt fall line was already taken.)
Stephan Kinsella also comments on the picture Hoppe paints of covenant communities. Kinsella says in his article "Hoppe on Covenant Communities and Advocates of Alternative Lifestyles" that Hoppe is very often controversial. Kinsella answers the question of Hoppe's controversial view of homosexuals by discussing various instances of controversy, one of these being the popular Hoppe book Democracy – the God That Failed. Kinsella zeroes in on the fact that Hoppe is mainly saying covenant communities should not allow democracy within their walls; unlike our own Steeletrap he quotes the Hoppe sentence "There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order." Kinsella prints a Hoppe rebuttal in which Hoppe says his statements about who is to be excluded from a covenant community are being taken out of context. Kinsella says that neither he nor Hoppe are homophobic. Kinsella presents his own interpretation of Hoppe's writings such that homosexuals in a covenant community as envisioned by Hoppe would likely be allowed to stay if they did not "openly and habitually advocate incompatible lifestyles" which undermined the stated purpose of the covenant community. Kinsella points to page 212 in Hoppe's book where Hoppe says that what gays do in their own privacy is their own business. Kinsella quotes Hoppe's more tolerant picture of what covenant communities might look like:

With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortion, others would prohibit any or all of them.

— Hoppe, "Nations By Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State"

Journalist/analyst Matt Bruenig writing in September 2013 for Demos (U.S. think tank) in an article titled "Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Libertarian Extraordinaire" says that "Hoppe is a huge fan of discrimination of basically all sorts: racist, sexist, classist, and all the others." Like Block, he points to the discrimination that would likely arise in a world according to Hoppe. He quotes Hoppe imagining that there would be warning signs against bums and Jews, homosexuals and Zulus, etc. Bruenig says that Hoppe worries about "vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, drug use, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality." In this manner, Bruenig does not emphasize homosexuality in the same way that Steeletrap does—he folds that issue in with all the others. The quote which Steeletrap takes as primarily one about homosexuality is a quote that Bruenig characterizes as being against free speech. Bruenig highlights the following portion of the Hoppe quote with bold text: "There can be no tolerance towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society." This emphasis on Hoppe's ban on free speech and democracy is counter to what we see brought to Misplaced Pages by Steeletrap.
In the Daily Kos, a writer going by DowneastDem wrote in June 2010 about Hoppe's ideas including covenant communities: "Anarcho-fascism: the libertarian endgame". DowneastDem said that Hoppe's community would exclude democrats who "are no better than communists" in this context because they do not intrinsically respect private property. DowneastDem emphasizes the fact that democrats and communists would be "physically separated and expelled" from Hoppe's utopian vision. DowneastDem does not emphasize homosexuals removed by force but he mentioned that Hoppe encountered "difficulties at the university where he teaches with gay students who took offense at his blatant homophobia." Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The history of edit warring over this one header

I think we have a case here of Steeletrap latching on to one aspect of a complex subject and pushing that aspect to the exclusion of neutrality in coverage, a violation of WP:NPOV. The literature points to Hoppe's "physical removal" of democrats and communists first, along with a laundry list of others. It does not give a balanced view if we cherry-pick the parts that make us angriest while ignoring the fact that the media are focusing on other parts. I think that the header "Restrictive libertarian covenant communities" is a good representation; another possibility for the section header is "Intolerance in libertarian covenant communities". For a month or so, this material (however cherry-picked and inadequately covered) fell under a section with a header which was simply the name of Hoppe's best known book. That changed on May 24 when Steeletrap set the covenant text apart under the header "Controversial remarks on homosexuals". This is the start of the problem with this header, a problem which focused on homosexuality rather than free speech and democracy in covenant communities. On the same day, User:Carolmooredc removed the biased header with the edit summary, "please don't impose Your particular POV on this; democrats and communists also might want a section header here". That is, Carolmooredc recognized that the material was about democracy and communism not allowed in covenant communities. Steeletrap soon reverted, saying that the header "isn't my opinion, but a matter of what the RS were responding to; they were responding *specifically* to the gay comment, which is why homosexuality heading appropriate." Unfortunately, Steeletrap was picking and choosing sources which emphasized this one issue. Carolmooredc removed it again the next day. On May 28, Steeletrap removed the "no tolerance toward democrats and communists" part of the Hoppe quote, the part that was the main focus of Hoppe. Steeletrap explained this shocking removal with the edit summary "Deleted segment about democrats/communists, which caused no controversy (no cited authors responded to all, while all of them respond to homosexuality -- Hoppe himself homosexuality bit is what caused controversy." Of course, Steeletrap had been picking and choosing sources which emphasized the homosexuality aspect, not the anti-democracy theme of Hoppe's book. Steeletrap followed that change with a new header for the covenant section: "Criticism". Carolmooredc soon removed the Criticism header. A month later, Steeletrap was back at it, this time putting in a subsection header titled "Controversial passage". Another month goes by and Steeletrap changes the header to "Controversial passage on homosexuality". Two weeks later Carolmooredc changed this to "Comments on covenant communities".
Other editors who have tried to put more neutral section headers include User:Gamaliel ("Covenant communities"), myself, User:Johnuniq ("Covenant communities"), and User:Srich32977 ("Restrictive libertarian covenant communities"). I think it is high time that a neutral header was put in place. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR. All I got out of that is that we can't pick on him for being hostile to gays because he was just as hostile to other groups. Is that basically it? MilesMoney (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Fuck that, lemme make this easy on you. Here is Hans admitting that Steeletrap is not guilty of original research or undue focus. Read it and chuckle. We can all share a laugh together, and then you can drop this waste of time forever. MilesMoney (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If your understanding of the issue is that shallow you may want to excuse yourself from the discussion while you study it. Hoppe plainly says he was talking about banning democracy from covenant communities—you can confirm that in the same link you posted just now. Have fun reading up. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comment reads more like a personal attack than anything constructive. Since you didn't say a thing about the article I linked to, I gotta assume you agree that it exonerates poor Steeletrap of those false accusations. If not, cut the personal attacks and actually say something relevant to the article. MilesMoney (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You have some nerve to say I'm attacking you personally after attacking me and Srich four times a few minutes ago at the Murray Rothbard talk page , a clear violation of WP:NPA. My observation that you should read up on the subject before taking part in the discussion still holds true.

In your link Hoppe defends himself by saying "For instance, on p. 218, I wrote 'in a covenant concluded among proprietors and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, … no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant … such as democracy and communism.'" (Emphasis mine.) Hoppe continues by saying that in context his observations "are hardly more offensive than saying that the Catholic Church should excommunicate those violating its fundamental precepts or that a nudist colony should expel those insisting on wearing bathing suits." Hoppe says the context is crucial to understanding his point. Of course his book's main theme is anti-democratic, not anti-homosexual. There's the context. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Pointing out that you're edit-warring is not an attack, and removing my talk page comments is. As for the rest, it's noise. MilesMoney (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've given up on Misplaced Pages because obviously "neutral" editors refuses to support its policies on various noticeboards - in this case it would be WP:ORN or WP:NPOVN. What source talks about physical removal? What source says he's hostile? That's all my time I'll contribute to this project today. User:Carolmooredc 03:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Biased edit

Remembered physically removed used, but it's just a typical stupid and biased edit which supports banning the editor from these articles. Unwatching talk page now. User:Carolmooredc 02:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Carol, have you read the actual quote? Do you want me to add "advocates of homosexuality" in so it is a literal quotation, rather than a paraphrase? I think you are in denial about the views of many prominent libertarians. This outlook is leading you to distort the proudly stated views of these men. Steeletrap (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The "audience" should also note that Carol, for the umpteenth time, erroneously an edit she disagreed with of being "libelous" before reading the actual quotation she claims was distorted; after realizing that the quotation supports the paraphrase, she then edited the "libelous" charge out of her posts, without apologizing for her (erroneous, libelous) allegations. Steeletrap (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't heard that it's really bad faith to bring up an error if an editor has corrected it before anyone responded. Or to keep harping on alleged errors (which everyone makes). It's also WP:harassment.

However, that is par for the course for dealing with extreme partisans (in this case LGBT) who think their interests should dominate every relevant article. It's just a matter of time before enough editors get fed up and topic ban you. Again, I have more important things to do than deal with such people. I got rid of my notifications so now I won't even know what is being said about me, reverted that I did, etc., to keep me away from this dysfunctional editing situation. User:Carolmooredc 16:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

CarolmoordcYour repeated baiting and denigration of User:Steeletrap for her transgender and religious affiliations are WP:PA and have no place here. You should strike them and do whatever is necessary to ensure that you do not repeat this behavior. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the attempts to make the article focus in a WP:Undue fashion on two Hoppe' mentions of homosexuals (among others) as examples in academic discourse is partisan pushing on the LGBT issue. I don't know what you mean by religious affiliation (which I see is "atheist" on Steeletrap's user page) and have not referred to Steeletraps' affiliation. If there was some obvious, repeated, partisan attempt to make the article focus on some religious issue in a WP:Undue way, I would specify that as well. Please see Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. User:Carolmooredc 16:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think WP benefits from fresh views and the knowledge of new editors. I've been here only a year, and Steeletrap is even more recent. From what I can see, she has added immeasurably to the articles in her area of expertise due to her thesis research. I hope that it goes without saying that the woman's point of view broadens our perspective on the topic. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

NON-WP:OR/POV descriptions of views on "Covenant communities"

Steeletrap's use of "intolerance" in the section title is WP:OR. No one uses the phrase. And it emphasizes what one named (Snyder) and other unnamed critics have said. Remember first we describe what the person says and then we share criticism. The best section header is Views on covenant communities. I'm sure NPOV editors, here or elsewhere, would agree. User:Carolmooredc 17:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to source the exact word, so long as it's consistent with our sources, and is a fair summary. It is. MilesMoney (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That header, "Intolerance in covenant communities", is one that I brought to the article. Nobody else had ever done so before me, nor had anyone suggested it before me. I think it is suitable because the Hoppe vision of covenant communities is specifically intolerant of outsiders; he even acknowledges this in his book. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I think you know that Bink and I don't always see eye to eye, so the fact that we're on the same page here should tell you something. MilesMoney (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who did bring it, it still is emphasizing critics and downplaying the substance. Of course, I'd look for other sources with other viewpoints on his views, but it would just be deleted. Exiting again... User:Carolmooredc 23:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Carol, you have made about half a dozen demonstrably false allegations against me over the past couple months (e.g., attributing edits someone else made to me). You fail to comply with WP:Competence by virtue of your repeated, erroneous accusations. My advice: Read more, write (edit) less. Steeletrap (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent advice. What I've learned from reading policy is that not enough people read policy! Even admins misquote it and fail to follow it. MilesMoney (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Though it isn't technically policy, the WP:Competence essay really strikes at the root of many of the problems we (as in, you (Miles) and I) have dealt with on these libertarian pages. I continue to recommend it to users who violate its guidelines. Steeletrap (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If you had your choice between a competent pilot flying your jet airliner purposely into the Pentagon, or a sharp flight attendant taking over the controls, one who is willing and able to listen to advice from the air traffic controller, which one would you choose? My impression of Steeletrap is that she has enough competence in the topic to carry out her plan to highlight all the upsetting LGBT issues she can find in libertarian economics, and in the process reduce the respectability of any economist who has made anti-gay statements. Such a goal violates WP:NPOV.

Regarding Hoppe, the "intolerance" word was introduced to the article by me. I think it fits very well the ideas presented in both the primary and secondary references. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF. MilesMoney (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

AGF is not a directive to throw out obvious evidence to the contrary. Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not a productive discussion. If you have any concrete points relating to this article, please share them. MilesMoney (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Distinguishing general cov. community structure from specific one Hoppe favors

It is clear that Hoppe is first talking "generally" about convenant communities, when he describes how (to quote the wiki article's paraphrase of Hoppe) "communities would be formed under a wide variety of agreements, and intolerance would arise within a community against those who do not meet the restrictions. Hoppe pictures a libertarian world with warning signs at the edges of covenant towns saying "no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users, Jews, Moslems, Germans, or Zulus." Then, he is talking more specifically about his favored libertarian covenant community when he says "In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property" ... we have to physically remove democrats, communists, gays, etc. This distinction should be explicitly and clearly drawn in the text. The current version is poorly written insofar as it lacks any transition from the general nature of covenant communities (in Hoppe's stateless world) to the specific nature of Hoppe's pro-private property, family-oriented community. Steeletrap (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a novel interpretation. Do you know of any authors who share this view? The ones I have seen accept that Hoppe was talking about his own vision of the world, not someone else's general vision about covenant communities, then a strange shifting of gears in the middle of a paragraph to move from general to specific. No, his whole paragraph is unified in talking about his personal vision of what the covenant communities would be like. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing the least bit novel about it. Steele is just summarizing the source accurately. You're not, and you're also edit-warring. Gonna stop? MilesMoney (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It's great to have friendly chums chime in on your behalf, but it carries much more weight if their argument is more than simple gainsaying. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sure must be great to have Rich around, but arguments as weak as yours don't need anything more than "I disagree" to counter them. MilesMoney (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"anti-democracy" in infobox

The infobox had a Bold change in which Hoppe's contributions was switched from "Analysis of democracy" to anti-democracy. I Reverted back to analysis. (It has since been changed again to anti-democracy.) So, in the interest of BRD, I ask "Where is the RS that says Hoppe is "anti-democracy"? Discussion of democracy and even criticism of democracy does not make one anti-democracy. And what does he advocate as the alternative? Is what he advocates an "anti-democracy" theory of school of thought? And where is the RS in that regard? – S. Rich (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't bold, it was following our sources. Consider this:

Hans-Herman Hoppe, author of the anti-democratic manifesto, on what's right, and wrong, about the new Buchanan book.

This is a man who has literally written the anti-democratic Bible, Democracy - The God That Failed. Many of his anti-democratic essays are available online, just a quick search away. There is absolutely no question whatsoever that he is anti-democratic and you need to familiarize yourself with the subject matter before making any more edits on this topic. MilesMoney (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, enough. SPECIFICO talk 01:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, you have given a listing of various articles that Hoppe has posted on LRC. One of them has the blurb "anti-democratic", but a single usage of the term (probably posted by the webmaster) is not RS. (And the article which the blurb supports does not mention anti-democracy.) If his book is "anti-democracy" or "anti-democratic", then please provide something from the book that says something like "this book is about my anti-democracy/anti-democratic theory". Better yet, provide RS from a secondary source that says "Hoppe is anti-democratic" or "Hoppe contributed to anti-democratic thought." For us, as Misplaced Pages editors (who discuss these edits to articles), we cannot say on our own that Hoppe wrote the "anti-democratic bible". – S. Rich (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, enough. MilesMoney (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, these are straw man arguments. "Straw man" is among the many fallacies which you've deployed on this and other articles' talk pages. It's disruptive to repeat them over and over against consensus after they've been pointed out to you. SPECIFICO talk 04:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

When I was reading up on all the sources discussing Hoppe's notion of covenant communities, it became quite clear that people generally think of Hoppe as being anti-democracy. I listened to a nearly interminable interview of Hoppe and he said he was against the concept of democracy. Hoppe's book about democracy is about how it is an abject failure and should be replaced. I don't see what's wrong with putting "anti-democracy" in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read the sources and giving your view. One difficulty on these articles has been that some WP editors shy away from a clear statement of some of the more unorthodox views of the Misesian thinkers. I have no problem with an anti-democracy view, anti intellectual-property view, or any of the others which seem to make some editors cringe and instinctively try to water down. Meanwhile, I've switched the that view into what I think is a better location in the infobox, under "opposed". SPECIFICO talk 04:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I second that. There's just no substitute for genuine scholarship and doing your homework. If there was more of that on Misplaced Pages, there'd be far fewer disputes. MilesMoney (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Matt Bruenig & Demos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• 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
• C-Class Freedom of speech articles
• Unknown-importance Freedom of speech articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists