Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:02, 9 March 2014

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. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany 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. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States 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. 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

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Hoppes Friend

It seems to me better to mention that the statements are those of a personal friend than to omit the friendly comment due to the connection. Block refers repeatedly to Hoppe as his friend in journal articles and blog pieces. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem then becomes WP:SYN. In Journal X (or in an impermissible SPS/blog entry) we read "Hoppe is my best buddy. We go bowling together each Thursday." In Journal Y we read "Hoppe's ideas are the best idea since sliced bread". We can't combine the two to say "Hoppe's bowling buddy say Hoppe's ideas are the best thing since sliced bread." – S. Rich (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not what is meant by SYNTH. Please review the policy. That's evaluating the source per RS. SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So, if Block does not mention that he is a senior fellow at LvMI and an economist in one article, is it synthesis to call him that when citing the article? Steeletrap (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's easier just to steer clear of all the affiliates, employers, and related parties as sources. I'm going to consider what we could retain in this article if we only use sources which can be cited in WPs voice without disclosing these relationships. Will report back. SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your consideration that inclusion of affiliations may not be helpful. But please do review SYN. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The bowling buddy example I set up was done with this policy in mind. The implied conclusion in the example is that Block praises Hoppe because they are pals. I removed the personal friend material because it was a blatant infraction of SYN. The affiliation stuff is less blatant, but still problematic. – S. Rich (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Srich, please check your understanding of the term "imply." If I say "Bertrand Russell praised the work of his friend, Ludwig Wittgenstein" that does not imply that he is praising the work solely out of bias. If a reader discerns that 'Block only praises Hoppe because they are pals' that will have little to do with the logical meaning of the sentence 'X's friend and college Y praised X' work." Noting that Block is a colleague of Hoppe's and a friend is not synthesis; it merely provides our readers more context about their relationship. Steeletrap (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That is correct. There is absolutely no "conclusion" implied by giving the context to Block's voice. This simply is not what WP means by SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 04:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the editing purpose of adding (via a separate source) that they are friends? And what if they were personal enemies -- like one had had an affair with the other's spouse – which we might show via a different source? Would we be combining/adding such personal details when editing comments about the praise or criticism that we find in the sources?

Your example about Russell & Wittgenstein only goes so far. E.g., does the source (single source, mind you) say "Russell praised the work of his friend..."? Or are you combining info about the friendship from one source and about the praise from another source? – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

We are allowed to use multiple sources on Misplaced Pages, even for one sentence. The point is the two sources do not, viewed together, lead to any conclusion. Steeletrap (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Specifico says there are multiple references (journals & blogs) in which the friendship of Block & Hoppe is stated. But we do not have those sources. Without them, we cannot analyze what they say – "explicitly" – as per policy. Until you or Specifico provide the reference, this is a moot point. And if you combine reference A plus reference B into a sentence, you must avoid implication C. In this case, the implication is that one writer is saying nice things about the other because of the friendship. – S. Rich (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_31.pdf. There, Block uses the term "friend" to describe Hoppes's relation to him. Can we re-add this to the article now? Steeletrap (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Just where do you want to add this info? In a "==Personal life==" section? As WP guidance says context matters. So combining this bit of info from one source with another bit of info from another source can lead to problems.

If you had other references describing his friendships, you could use them in one sentence. Something like "Hoppe met Block during tryouts for the Lichtenstein Olympic Swim Team and they have remained friends ever since then, along with fellow Lichtensteinan Gold Medalist North." But great caution must be used to avoid insinuating anything in this BLP/Austrian Sanctions article. The insinuation to avoid being "Block praised Hoppe's book because they are friends." – S. Rich (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Unless a source specifically says that Block's opinion of Hoppe was biased because of their friendship then we should not imply such a bias through synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no such implication. Neither of you understand what the word implication means. Steeletrap (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sit down, boys; it's logic 101 time! (You will address me as "Miss Steeletrap", please, for the remainder of this discussion.)

Today we're going to talk about what an "implication" is. In the formalistic (non-colloquial) sense in which WP uses the term, it means: "a statement which is necessarily true given previous (also true) statements."

if I say "Bink was a national merit scholar" and "only the best students are national merit scholars", those statements viewed together imply that Bink is one of the "best students!" The statements "Block is a friend of Hoppe's" and "Block praised Hoppe" have no implication. See the difference? Steeletrap (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, find a single source making the connection of bias because of friendship. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have to do that because the article does not say Block is biased. You fallaciously infer that from the mention of his friendship with Hoppe. Steeletrap (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"Bias" is a bizarre inference here. There's no suggestion of a conclusion of any sort, or even a relationship of their friendship to Block's view. Bink, you don't think Block is biased in his view of H4, do you? It's a straw man. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

We have discussed implied synthesis over and over again. If one says x praised his friend y, the implication is that x praised y because y was his friend, rather than on y's merits. TFD (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this issue is a waste of editor time. I don't see any such implication however I also don't think we care who Hoppe socializes with. Block has often taken the trouble in academic writings to cite Hoppe as his friend, so it's not as if this were speculation, accusation, or OR. On the other hand, what difference does it make? I can't see that it matters much to the limited confines of this article, which is in pretty good shape these days. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am offended by the tendentious attempts to impute bias onto Block. The "implication" you all refer to does not (indeed, as a matter of logic cannot) stem from the half-sentence about their friendship. Rather, it stems from assumptions about the lack of credibility and intellectual honesty of Mises Inst scholars; these assumptions are extraneous to the text. If the sentence read 'UC Berkeley economist Brad DeLong praised the work of his friend, Princeton economist Paul Krugman', you would not say it implied that DeLong did it out of sheer bias. That "implication" cannot be derived from the sentence alone, and is in fact derived from other, OR assumptions you have about Block and the Misesians. Needless to say, you need to do a better job of keeping your biases against them to yourselves and focus on the text and sources in the article. Steeletrap (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue has been important to those who assert there are "incestuous" relationships amongst the Misesians, and so complying with WP policy/guidelines is necessary. Bias can be "pro" or "anti" – the editing issue is the combining of friendship descriptions from one source to another source to produce text which implies something not in the original sources. With the DeLong/Krugman example, a single source (not combination of sources) could certainly say "DeLong praised the work of his buddy". But it would be improper combine source 1: "DeLong hated/befriended Krugman" with source 2: "DeLong praised/berated Krugman". (And note that each of the 4 variations of the combination implies something different.) This is not tendentious editing, this is a discussion about proper application of WP guidance. – S. Rich (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Since the inclusion of "friend" is a source of intense (and unexpected) acrimony, I think we should omit it. However, for future reference I hope you all attend to my above lesson on the meaning of "implication." It will come in handy in your future ventures, on and off the wiki. Steeletrap (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No acrimony at all is in these remarks. But if you wish to leave out "friend" because of that perception, and not because of WP guidance, so be it. – S. Rich (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Section headings

Section headings must follow WP:NDESC. Adding adjectives, even if "more descriptive" does not comply with this guidance. – S. Rich (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: considering that this article is subject to sanctions, and considering that I had opened the discussion here, you should be discussing rather than reverting the edits to the section headings. – S. Rich (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

No, srich. You are violating BRD here by continually re-inserting your favored sub-title. "Intolerance" has been the consensus sub-title for months (originally was added by Bink), and you are attempting to unilaterally override it. The term was used by Hoppe, and applies to the expulsion of homosexuals and others from his covenant communities: Wrote Hoppe "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." Steeletrap (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, intolerance is not an adjective. Steeletrap (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I put in "intolerance" because it is found in Hoppe's book. He wrote, "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." Hoppe expected intolerance. Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Still, the word does not comply with NDESC because it is UNDUE. Intolerance is but one aspect of the communities. Some communities, I imagine, would be/could be entirely tolerant. Correct? In which case the section heading goes too far. – S. Rich (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's clear this is what Hoppe said. Although in ordinary speech "intolerance" often has a pejorative connotation, it is simply a description of the social order which would necessarily develop in Hoppe-town. There are plenty of instances in which "intolerance" is a virtue -- intolerance of deceit, malice, etc. This just appears to be another case of editors having a knee-jerk hypersensitivity to statements about anarcho-capitalist dogma. I think Bink's version reflects the cited references. SPECIFICO talk 04:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Intolerance would arise" is a pure WP:OR interpretation of "a society in which the right to exclusion is fully restored to owners of private property would be profoundly unegalitarian, intolerant and discriminatory. There would be little or no ‘tolerance’ and ‘openmindedness’ so dear to left-libertarians.' And please don't try to make it sound like all libertarians use the kind of language he/Hoppe uses to describe covenant communities. The whole article drips with guilt but by association POV. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Please strike your accusation as to what others are "trying." It is irrelevant to this discussion and constitutes a Personal Attack. 2. Please review the history of this wording and the above discussion. You are edit warring. Please undo your edit and use talk. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There was obviously no consensus to change the section title to a highly non neutral pne with "intolerance" in it. I see no consensus for that here, so will be restoring the consensus version per BRD. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention a wordy, POV description of his views when a short quote makes the point so much more eloquently in an NPOV fashion. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dark, "intolerance" has been in the sub-title for months. The word "intolerance" is used by Hoppe. It is more clear than your vague term "restrictions."

Also, looking at your block log, I would advise you to tread lightly when it comes to reverts. Steeletrap (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

With WP:BALASPS policy in mind ("Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.") the fact that a non-NESC section heading exists cannot be justified by the length of time it has appeared in the article. The fact that Hoppe wrote about covenant communities should be in the section heading. The various characterizations of the communities should be in the following text. – S. Rich (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Srich is correct. Wet noodle me for trying to accommodate obvious violations of standard editing procedure. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, actually he's not correct. The immediate issue is not the policy by which the ultimate content may or may not be changed. The first-order problem is the edit warring behavior of various individuals here. We have a disagreement about whether to change the stable version first written by Binksternet. That doesn't justify edit warring. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP. We aren't supposed to sensationalize things to push our POVs. "Intolerance" is an overstatement. "Restrictions" is at least more neutral. And comments on Communities would be ideal.

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

If merely mentioning that Krugman was on the board of Enron is a massive BLP violation, even though mainstream news publications have commented on it, a mere anonymous Misplaced Pages editor sensationalizing a statement about covernant communities is worse. This quote should not be turned into a patently false section header of Intolerance in libertarian "covenant communities, removing the real quote which is: Hoppe writes "There would be little or no ‘tolerance’ and ‘openmindedness’ so dear to left-libertarians. Instead, one would be on the right path toward restoring the freedom of association and exclusion implied in the institution of private property". People aren't stupid. They'll get the point that Hoppe is a jerk (added later: negative personage as you choose to describe him). One doesn't have to walk around naked with a sign proclaiming it. "Grow up", per Darkness Shines above, is a phrase that probably can be used from time to time when the edit warring to get crap into BLPs just doesn't stop. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Your denigration of Hoppe above is not appropriate. Please strike it. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Geez, and here I thought you'd be dancing around per the above :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Carol, please try to keep your POV out of these discussions. There is nothing wrong with the intolerance Hoppe contemplates in libertarian covenant communities. All of it is implied by the non-aggression principle. Steeletrap (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Actual quote vs. Gobbly Gook Summary

Let’s put this in terms that a two hour old newbie could understand. There are two different versions. The first sentence of both versions reads:

In Democracy Hoppe describes a fully libertarian society of "covenant communities" made up of residents who have signed an agreement defining the nature of that community.

• Quoted version:

Hoppe writes "There would be little or no ‘tolerance’ and ‘openmindedness’ so dear to left-libertarians. Instead, one would be on the right path toward restoring the freedom of association and exclusion implied in the institution of private property". Hoppe writes that towns and villages could have warning signs saying "no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users, Jews, Moslems, Germans, or Zulus".

• Gobbly Gook version:

Each community would be largely focused on the protection of property rights, but would incorporate political, religious or social restrictions. 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".

WP:Competence?? means knowing the difference between a judicious use of quotes and pure Gobbly Gook . Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, if you can't engage in civil discussion here, it may be necessary to seek enforcement of AE sanctions. Please. SPECIFICO talk 23:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if creative language that might make a point makes one uncomfortable. So, any comment on the Quoted vs Poor version?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Carol, since you raised the subject of WP:Competence, please try to write more clearly. Steeletrap (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

What isn't clear? I compare a Quoted version vs. one that I find very poor. What excuse is there for retaining the poor one? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to note I recently complained about the opposite: an overload of quotes in another section of the article. As for the "Covenant Garden" section, I count eight quoations in the current version (from fewer sources), including one very long quote. By my eyesight it may seem like more than 2/3 of the section is made up of quotes. I can see the arguments for using quoations as it's the easiest way to ensure accuracy; it's difficult to paraphrase accurately without violating the rule against close paraphrasing. Since the section is about a controversial view, it may also be one of the places where relative many quotes are acceptable and they are mostly well worked into the text. But I don't honestly see anything wrong in trying to reduce the use of quotes somewhat and the alternative "poor" version at first glance looked quite fine to me; so maybe you should specify what you think is the problem with it. (Personally, I think the word "but" in the first sentence probably should be replaced with "and") Regards, Iselilja (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Iselilja, your complaint is well-founded. But if you spend more time on these pages, you'll see why ostensibly excessive quoting is necessary. Pro-Mises users accuse any paraphrased text, accurately representing the (anti-gay, racialist, or otherwise non-mainstream) views of Mises Institute scholars, to be OR/smears. That's why all the direct quotes are needed. Steeletrap (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with accurate summaries, which the current one is not. More accurate summaries are routinely rejected for the POV ones. An accurate summary of that quote would read something like:

Hoppe rejects the tolerance of left-libertarians and focuses on restoring freedom of association and the exclusionism he believes is implied in private property. He writes that, like European and American towns and villages into the 19th century, today's could have warning signs reading "no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users, Jews, Moslems, Germans, or Zulus".

That's a proper summary, not something that wanders around pulling inferences out of nowhere to trash all libertarians as being people who enjoy using the same kind of examples. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about Darkness Shines constant reversion to my version because I think BLP wise mine is more accurate and less filled with negative inferences against NPOV in BLP. I myself would take it to WP:BLPN if it were not for the Arbitration. Perhaps Darkness Shines should before someone takes him to edit warring. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Relationship with Murray Rothbard:

I am somewhat concerned about Steeletrap's language in this section which appear somewhat loaded and overly insisting. Why should we for instance absolutely need to use the word "master" both in the photo byline, instead of just principal teacher, mentor or similar? Also the sentence " the two lived alongside each other and were in constant, close personal contact" seems a bit too much; why not just say they had close contact during these years? And shouldn't the section rather have a bit more about in which way Rothbard influcenced Hoppe's thinking and work? Iselilja (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. While the language is from Hoppe's own writing, a memorial piece, we should be writing in WP:Summary style. – S. Rich (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why people want to diminish this relationship. Hoppe says they saw each other all the time; that he loved Rothbard a a son loves his father; and that this relationship was the most rewarding part of his life. What's wrong with including that? (the term "master" underscores the extent of the mentorship.) Steeletrap (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

{[od}} At this diff SPECIFICO puts back all this material: 'the latter's first full-time academic position, at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. According to Hoppe, from 1985 until Rothbard's 1995 death, the two lived alongside each other and were in constant, close personal contact.

• mentioning first full-time academic position an obvious gratuitous hit at Rothbard
• "Lived along side" not in source at all: "constant personal contact" is all repetitive of "Hoppe called Rothbard his "dearest fatherly friend" and Rothbard considered Hoppe "one of his favorite sons"." It gives impression Hoppe is a hypocrite who was madly in love with Rothbard or even that they were lovers. I'm sure some would get a good laugh out of that thought, but it's just WP:Undue for this article. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not suggest that same-sex friendships or other affiliations are ridiculed or disparaged on WP. Such statements fall within current WP Sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not the one who is doing that, but it looks to me like others might be, if only inadvertently. That's what happens when you put WP:Undue attention to any relationship. Please read WP:BLP and think about why " must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. " applies. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the part about Rothbard's position at UNLV, maybe include in his bio if notable enough. --Malerooster (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I copyedited a bit again to reduce an overload of words relating to personal relationship. Please rather try to elaborate how Rothbard influenced Hoppe's thinking which is much more encyclopedic significant than repeating in multiple way that Hoppe had close contact with Rothbard. (The edit "flew away" from me while I was copyediting the edit summary, so the summary doesn't make grammatical sense. Sorry.). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I think some of you are acting immaturely. The cited source makes clear that Rothbard was the most important person in Hoppe's life; this relationship was Hoppe's "greatest treasure." I feel that the discomfort of some editors regarding loving (but also Platonic/not at all sexual) relationships between people of the same gender leads them to mischaracterize and downplay the relationship between Hoppe and Rothbard as 'just friends.' Also, the cited source indicates that they effectively if not officially lived together in the UNLV days. Steeletrap (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Germany articles
• Low-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States 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