Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:28, 24 June 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 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.

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

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)

Confirmation of this simple factoid exists and will be put in soon enough. As time is found in between dealing with real BLP issues. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:04, 25 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)

I've found good refs for his being an Austrian economist and a libertarian theorists. And, yes, let's stop trashing Hoppe. Your snide and nasty comments above just reek of academic food fights, frankly, and are not appropriate for an encyclopedia which attempts to be NPOV. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:32, 25 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)
        • Hoppe did not deny that he uttered the hate speech as defined. This has been pointed out many times here on talk. If you have WP:RS to the contrary, I would have expected you to use it to improve the article by now. After my last posting here, am disappointed to read your reply above, which continues an unconstructive sequence of replies. I again urge you to give a careful re-reading of this thread and to join the others who have attempted to respond specifically and in detail to the questions and arguments which others have raised. I hope you will do this so we can make progress here. I've asked you several questions, the answers to which would help move us toward a resolution in this matter. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 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. ^ 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)

I'm just catching up with talk page entries now. Happily, RfCs do seem to be useful (when properly distributed to the community) and hopefully free of massive amounts of off topic material - (I'll check this for actual defamatory remarks later). CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

I'm thinking of letting this one go once the first sentence WP:OR is fixed. Obviously Hoppe doesn't realize what a boon to decentralization, secession and private law societies 700 million new Americans from around the world would be ;-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:31, 27 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)

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)

Señor :). Lectonar (talk) 09:16, 28 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)

I think others have opined that the whole section is WP:Undue. Alden's statement when expanded isn't bad - when the whole thing in context is presented. The second sentence in the overturned academic admonishment is and will be removed. WP:BLPN will be contacted if WP:Undue and defamation still remain in the article and on the talk page by Tues or Wednesday. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:41, 25 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)

The reason we don't use sites like rightwatch.tblog.com is that such sources just publish inaccurate rumors or make stuff up to trash people. Discussing the nonverified info in them violates WP:BLP policy, particularly: This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:51, 25 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 criticism of the former is that he wants to (literally) stone gays to death, 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)

Carol, you don't understand the rules you're citing. Talk pages are not "biographies of living people", so BLP criteria don't apply here. Your allegations of defamation are meaningless since they are vague and unspecific; cite some text you consider to be "defamatory" and I'll be happy to prove you wrong, but your claims are meaningless at this point. Steeletrap (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy reads: 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. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages

If defamation was allowed on talk pages, so would incivility. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of talk page material per WP:BLP

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written pursuant to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Unhatted. Does not look like a BLP violation to me, looks rather like a discussion of material that is not liked. Note that the discussion and proposals are cited, and are not pure speculation or defamation, but rather a discussion about appropriate weight. LK (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that I'll reserve my comments for the moment since trying to take a calm down break. However, I would point out the User:Lawrencekhoo may have his own professional academic biases here leading to "I really like it".

My main bias is my disgust with the way some people (usually on Israel Palestine issue) come to wikipedia with the primary intent of using it to defame others and this is the worst case I've seen of this phenomena. But I will be putting together a separate administrative complaint about this elsewheres soon. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk page deletions

Note: Moved from my talk page since relevant here. Let's not keep bringing material directly relevant to this talk pages to personal talk pages. Thanks

Refactoring comments, especially wholesale refactoring, is a no-no. – S. Rich (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Not when it is defamatory and that's all they are doing. Please revert your revert. Let them do it. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If there is particular stuff that concerns you, then do something about it. But removal of whole sections -- in which both you and I had commented -- is not appropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, how about those that are clearly defamatory where it's only them defaming away? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Carol. Your charges are meaningless because they are completely unspecific. Please specify specific text and explain why the claims expressed therein are "defamatory."

By the way, despite the salience of your claims and the fact that you've splashed them throughout the Hoppe page and other pages, no one has agreed with you that any remarks are defamatory (hence TFD's "un-hatting" them), and no one has expressed agreement that the title section being debated is defamatory (Rich only claims it's inappropriate, while the two uninvolved commentators actually agree it should relate to homosexuality; are they part of the conspiracy to defame Hoppe?). I hope, for your sake, you view this unanimous rejection of your charges as a wake-up call before continuing to undermine your contributions by making inflammatory yet utterly false charges. Steeletrap (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

They were unhatted (or uncollapsed) here by User:Lawrencekhoo. I am working my way through explaining to you all the problems now. Feel free to collapse them yourself if you come to understand wikipedia policies against spreading "titillating claims about people's lives" on talk pages (see WP:BLP policy if you have not done so). CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:04, 25 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." (Update 5/31: http://rightwatch.tblog.com/archive/2007/02/ is the source for Weiss/Lynn attending PFS; this was cited earlier in the article by user SPECIFICO but I put it here to defend myself against a user's charge that I am making speculative, unsourced claims Steeletrap (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC))

: As noted on another thread, the reason we don't use sites like rightwatch.tblog.com and see them as unreliable; often they just publish inaccurate rumors or make stuff up to trash people. Please check WP:RSN where you can search past discussions and see if they've ever been looked at as reliable. Same with VDARE which I'm pretty sure has been nixed already. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Carol. That was the original source used to source my true and easily documentable claims, and I wanted to make that clear. However, there are other, better sources which I privately confirmed via Google before making these true and easily documentable claims. (for instance, Professor Paul Gottfried: here confirms that Weiss and Lynn were invited to speak at the conference, and notes that the Southern Poverty Law Center called Hoppe out for that.) Steeletrap (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

: You should strike and replace comments after others have replied, though in this case the article is a confusing personal rant so it's hard to tell who was invited and who wasn't. (Must have failed to save my reply on this one.) Then there's the problem of sources that bring in millions of dollars a year scaring the heck out of wealthy elderly people being used for anything but factoids from the most neutral and factual reports. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Carol. The Southern Poverty Law Center and Professor Gottfried are no longer my only reliable sources. Please note that I just uncovered the following source from the website of Hoppe's Property and Freedom Society (http://web.archive.org/web/20080515130524/http://www.propertyandfreedom.org/resources/PFS-meeting-program-2007.pdf). Weiss did speak there, in a lecture titled "History as Cycles of Population Quality." Also on the subject of race, there were speeches by Tatu Vanhanen and Richard Lynn, entitled IQ and the Wealth of Nations and The Global Bell Curve respectively (speeches almost certainly based off of their books by the same title, both of which advance the thesis that some races are biologically inferior to others with respect to intelligence). I guess something good came out of the incorrect NPOV violation charge against me, as I uncovered material will be helpful to discussion of the topics discussed at Hoppe's society, which should be posted in the future to Hoppe's wikipedia page. Steeletrap (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

Obviously what Hoppe writes has not been considered significant by a WP:RS as you yourself note. Yet you launch into long speculations about it anyway. Please see WP:BLP about not using wikipedia to share titulating and defamatory info about people that has little likelihood of ending up in the encyclopedia. Please take these conversations to emails where it will not make Misplaced Pages look bad. You have been warned for weeks about this sort of thing but you just keep it up.

There's something called WP:Reliable sources noticeboard where you can type in links and get past opinions on reliability which can be a clue to future opinions. I'm quite sure VDARE would not pass muster. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:14, 25 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)

While engaging in such idle speculation and gossip, take some time to read all of WP:BLP including especially:

WP:BLP policy reads: 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. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages

Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:16, 25 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)

If you can't find the information yourself, why invite what could be titulating off topic speculation? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually SPECIFICO makes a nice suggestion. Good stuff, supported by RS, would be welcome. For example, I see lots of background/family history about LvM. If editors do post speculative/inappropriate stuff on Hoppe, then it'll get pulled down soon enough. Frankly, though, I don't think much more of any use is out there. – S. Rich (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It took me 2.5 minutes to find that information, FYI. Longer to format it properly for Misplaced Pages. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?

Should the title for the "Academic freedom controversy" section be changed? – S. Rich (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Noninvolved editors:

1. Change - Rather than combining academic freedom and view on homosexuality to try and fit in two different points of view, it would be better to just call it what it was, a controversy following one lecture. So call it "Money and banking lecture on March 4, 2004" and no point of view gets pushed. --Abel (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Comment - It was a minor controversy, covered in great detail here, but the 'title' is not so much objective or about 'Academic freedom' being 'controversial' so much as this was based on his homosexual views. Ideally, this should be expanded if it is notable to cover the viewpoint as he presents it and mention the controversy around it. Though the entire article is undersourced and poorly represented to reliable resource for contentious claims. I'd lump everything under a simple 'Controversies' section and keep it short and neutral. This article does not appear to be neutral or respectful of the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Change - Largely agree with Chris above. This is a tempest in a teacup. That said, the section is not about academic freedom, but rather is about Hoppe's views on homosexuality – hence the section title should be changed. LK (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Change - It seems to me that to describe the incident as an "Academic freedom controversy" characterizes it according to one POV, while "controversy over views on homosexuality" characterizes according to another. I think NPOV requires us here to sacrifice succinctness and go with something like, "Academic freedom and statements on homosexual persons".--Trystan (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Change to "Views on homosexuality and academic freedom controversy", per Trystan.--В и к и T 20:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Change - Reviewing the concept of "academic freedom", imo his statements in question and the result do fall under a question of academic freedom as seen in, for example, in Misplaced Pages's discussion of the topic: "... scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities) without being targeted for repression, job loss, or imprisonment." But imo the issue is more narrow than the broad term "academic freedom" and the title should be qualified such as "Academic freedom and Hoppe's views on gay lifestyles" or such.Coaster92 (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Change to "Views on homosexuality and academic freedom controversy", per Trystan. Dunno if I'm involved or not, the only 'participating' I've ever done on this page was to change the title of the section when I was reading it last week, cause the title seemed obviously wrong. FurrySings (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
8. Change. It is nonsensical to suggest that the controversy wasn't initiated by Hoppe's comments on homosexuality, and the section title needs to make this clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
9. Keep The proposed other title is entirely too pointy and leads readers down a different path from the context of the affair - which resulted in statements about academic freedom. The title of a section should not in any way to so lead readers, but to be a fully dispasionate indication of what the topic is. Collect (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
10. Change to Views on homosexuality and academic freedom controversy - The "academic freedom" issue was centered around his academic freedom to make negative comments about gay people. Which he should have, but we shouldn't pretend it's about his academic freedom to be a nice guy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
11. Change. Titling this section "Academic freedom controversy" clearly endorses one side of the controversy and thus violates NPOV (just as titling the section "Homophobic remarks controversy" would). I'd suggest a neutral title like "Keynes remarks controversy" or Trystan's proposed alternative. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
12. Change to neutral section title such as "2004 controversy".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
13. Change According to Snyder's article the incident occurred during a "lecture on time preference" so why not just title it "Lecture on time preference?" --Abel (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors:

• Change. I think that "controversy over views on homosexuality" is a better title than "Academic Freedom Controversy." I think that because everything in the section relates to the former while only some parts of the section relate to the latter. The section proceeds as follows: 1) Hoppe's potentially derogatory in-class remarks about homosexuals are presented 2) It is noted that a student complained that the comments were homophobic/discriminatory 3) A university official agrees with the student's assessment re homophobia/discrimination 4) The official contacts Hoppe and tells him, in a letter in a non-disciplinary letter, to stop making derogatory comments about homosexuals bereft of empirical evidence 5) Hoppe contacts the ACLU, which agrees with Hoppe's characterization that the non-disciplinary cease-and-desist letter violates his academic freedom, despite the fact that they sympathize with those offended by Hoppe's (allegedly homophobic) comments 6) the President of Hoppe's university agrees with this view, saying that offensive/non-mainstream positions can't be squelched, bc this violates academic freedom. 7) The aftermath of the scandal is described, with commentators expressing their views on Hoppe's remarks and whether they are protected by academic freedom. Each of these seven parts of the section relates to a "controversy" regarding Hoppe's views/statements on homosexuality. However, only some of them relate to academic freedom. The former title is therefore more accurate in describing the section as a whole. The controversy stemmed from, and consistently relates to, Hoppe's remarks on gays. Steeletrap (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Leave as is 1) Section has had its title for many years (starting off as "Controversy" in 2005). 2) It follows WP:NDESC, particularly as to NPOV requirement. 3) The disciplinary process re Hoppe's comment was resolved on the basis of academic freedom and the anti-gay discrimination charge was dropped. 4) The bulk of the section deals with the UNLV administrative process and the associated controversy – the RS supports the academic freedom aspects of that process. (In fact, UNLV held a conference on academic freedom six months after the complaint matter was closed.) 5) The section does not discuss Hoppe's actual views (pros & cons & whatever), but only the fact that one student heard something perceived as anti-gay and made a complaint. 6) Changing the section title opens the doors to an unbridled section on his "views" (or alleged views) with claims & counter-claims. In fact, there has been much debate on this talk page. (See sections 1, 1.1, 8 above.) If there is to be a section about Hoppe's views, it should be set up as a separate section. 7) Last point – Advocates for changing the section title seem to have negative views as to Hoppe personally. The classroom remark was described in the above discussion as undeniably "hate speech" and "crackpot", but that characterization is hardly supported by RS. Steeletrap, who has suffered "ostracism and bulling" says "Shaming Hoppe for asserting baseless stereotypes about gays isn't attacking him for what he does; it's attacking him for who he is. " Changing the section title (and thereby opening a can of worms) only assists in an effort to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. – S. Rich (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Correction. Rich implies that article is not about "Hoppe's actual views", but rather hearsay from a student. This is incorrect; not only do numerous RS attribute those views to Hoppe, but Hoppe himself verifies he said the views attributed to him by the student here. Steeletrap (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • This is not a correction. I do not deny that Hoppe made certain comments. I do wonder if the (classroom) comments accurately state what his overall views are about homosexuals or homosexuality. Taking the classroom comments, the student's reaction, the resulting academic freedom controversy, and turning this into a section about his overall views is improper. – S. Rich (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: Change to something reflecting all concerns While I have my concerns below, I can see that enough people are concerned enough about his comments about homosexuals that the remarks should be mentioned in the title. (If he'd said all the same things about women no one probably would have complained. Sigh...) Anyway, I think acceptable and NPOV language has been suggested and/or could be improved on. What is process for coming up with that?

1)These were not highly negative and defamatory comments about one group's economic planning and he included the "very young and the very old" as people who may not plan adequately for the future. Should there have been a claim of ageism as well? There probably are a lot of other groups he should have included, including poor people surviving day to day. He was accurate in stating that other economists had mentioned John Maynard Keynes and homosexuality and planning per Niall_Ferguson#Remark_on_Keynes.27_Sexual_Orientation, which WP:RS don't seem to have commented further on in regards to Hoppe himself. (The real bias here is that its not widely known he was a bisexual not a homosexual, but that's not necessarily a Hoppe bias since it's not even in the Keynes article.)

2) The initial ruling was overturned on free speech and academic freedom basis, with help from the ACLU.

3) The newest material from the Las Vegas Sun shows overwhelmingly that the Hoppe incident remained an academic freedom issue on campus, became part of nationwide discourse, and even 4 years afterwards Hoppe's connection was mentioned as a person whose academic freedom had been challenged. And the ACLU once again got involved on free speech grounds to squash the "bias" proposal. In fact if it was not for that new last paragraph I would think the whole incident only should be one paragraph in a better organized "life and work" section or under controversies if there are any other real public controversies.

4) What do prominent people say in the article? Nevada ACLU executive director: "academic freedom means nothing if it doesn't protect the right of professors to present scholarly ideas that are relevant to their curricula, even if they are controversial and rub people the wrong way" and UNLV President: "In the balance between freedoms and responsibilities, and where there may be ambiguity between the two, academic freedom must, in the end, be foremost" and Martin Snyder of the American Association of University Professors wrote that he should not be "punished for freely expressing his opinions." and faculty members who the LV Sun said were worried about "academic freedom". Given that most Wikipedians are averse to censorship, a few editors trying to emphasize through a section title a non-defamatory statement, while burying the "academic freedom" aspect really is quite questionable. Two more new article emphasize that the university received bad publicity for thwarting his rights to academic freedom.

5) Misplaced Pages:BLP#Balance reads: 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. Given that overwhelmingly his academic freedom was supported and only the student and a couple adminstrators complained, it is clear that that changing the title would be a WP:BLP violation and even RfC "consensus" (whether or not obtained through canvassing) cannot overturn policy. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments section:

• See Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Academic_freedom_section_heading_title link to relevant discussion above for overview/background. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Minor note, I'm uninvolved in this, but I did just correct the bare urls and removed the reflinks tag. It seemed uncontroversial and the easy thing to do for checking the sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment I, an involved editor, agree with the above uninvolved editor Chris G that the title is about Hoppe's remarks on homosexuality. Everything in the passage relates to those comments while only some of it relates to academic freedom. It's the main point of the section, not "defamation." I also agree that the section should be shortened. The "aftermath" stuff is a quick candidate for deletion, as that has little to do with the original controversy and the RS cited therein only mention Hoppe's controversy in passing. Steeletrap (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The only thing ChrisGualtieri did was to tweak the bare urls. No comment was made about Hoppe's remarks or section title. – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)04:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Rich, you missed her comment above...

Steeletrmp: You should note that you wrote the "aftermath stuff" and I fixed it to show sources treated Hoppe as an aggrieved party, not the whole reason for creating the bias policy as was inferred. Anyway, that should be discussed below, not here. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No Carol, you are again incorrect in your reading of diffs. Others added the aftermath content. I merely expanded on and accurately explicated it (e.g. what UNLV meant by "bias"). Steeletrap (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments regarding possible closure: The default period for RfCs is 30 days per WP:RFC#Ending RfCs. Moreover, as this is a contentious issue we should have a formal closing. (This is not to say I am adverse to a consensus closure, but we do have time to do more work on this.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. So at some point We'll figure out what to call it here? I.e., formal "final name of section" section or something? Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Title Proposals

How about "Claims about homosexuals and ensuing academic freedom debate." Seems to me about as comprehensive and succinct as we can get in a tough situation. Steeletrap (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"Academic freedom debate after remarks on homosexuals" more accurate. We avoid "claims" in Misplaced Pages - see WP:CLAIM. And academic freedom debate is focus of the article. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Your title relegates the homosexual remarks to a peripheral role, Carol, by implying (with use of the term "after" rather than "resulting from" or "caused by") that they are only relevant insofar as they preceded the academic freedom controversy. I do appreciate your concern with the term claims.

"Academic freedom debate over views on gays", which is more concise than my previously proposed title (gays replaces homosexuals, etc) and accurately represents the causal (not just temporal) link between the academic freedom part and the remarks on homosexuals part, is my revised proposed title. Steeletrap (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Revised: Academic freedom debate resulting from remarks on homosexuals. Resulting is acceptable; homosexuals is word most used in refs and I think by him and is more encyclopedic; academic freedom is the larger issue; it's only his remarks in an academic context making generalizations about different groups that is an issue. (Obviously kids and seniors should have had a fit too over ageism, but they weren't in the classroom. Not to mention poor people who were left out entirely. And then there are variations in ethnic views on time preferences, say the Germans vs. the Greeks. Not very academically thorough. But then it wasn't taped, so who knows what he said that day, which are only remarks in question here.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Support – While Carolmooredc's suggestion is a bit long, it does comply with WP:NDESC. 'Debate' is shorter than 'controversy'; and the debate was re 'academic freedom' & the 'remarks'. The debate was not about his particular 'views' (good/bad; pro/con; etc/etc). The remarks were pretty much confined to time-preference observations, and did not touch on morality, etc. The debate involved the student's reaction to the remarks, his claim/charge of discrimination, and whether UNLV should censure Hoppe for making the remarks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

How about 2004 controversy as the section title? It takes no sides on the matter, and lets the reader determine what is controversial or not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The consensus in the RfC is entirely clear - the section title must state that the controversy arose as a result of Hoppe's comments regarding homosexuals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment by OP – Yes, the Academic freedom controversy arose because of one student's reaction to Hoppe's comments regarding homosexuals. – S. Rich (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Further comment – if there is RS to support the fact that other students reacted or complained about Hoppe's classroom comments, then such sources out to be provided. (Hoppe's views regarding homosexuals or homosexuality outside of this incident can be and should be provided in another section of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No. The controversy arose because Hoppe made the comments. If he hadn't made them, there would have been no controversy. Frankly, I find your attempt to shift the blame onto a student rather offensive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the RfC didn't say that it must include homosexuality, it states quite clearly

Should the title for the "Academic freedom controversy" section be changed

It didn't specify what the name should be changed to; to specify that it must contain homosexuals gives the section title a non-neutral POV by emphasizing a specific interpretation of the event. So I would oppose any section title that includes homosexual or academic freedom in it, as it would give one interpretation of the event an overemphasis and thus violate NPOV. My proposal is neutral and specific as the subject, as far as I am aware, did not have any other controversies in 2004.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that argument seems entirely unconvincing. Other sections have headers which tell the reader what they are about - we don't have sections entitled '1988 book' or '2005 remarks'. The date of the controversy is an irrelevance - what matters is what the controversy was about: Hoppe's comments on homosexuals, and the ensuing debate about academic freedom. A 'neutrality' that is achieved through omission of salient facts is a disservice to our readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply by OP – Yes, I did post this as a question as to whether it should be changed -- period. No suggested headings were posed. (And some notifications of this RfC were posted that had vague suggested new headings, which I revised IOT keep as neutral as possible.) Since then, as I have read the comments, I see that some editors want to put homosexuality in the heading even though the overall controversy was not about Hoppe's views. If others, students or non-students, were opining on the classroom comment, or on Hoppe's 2004 views in general, then that material (classroom comment or in general) could be discussed. (Where is the RS to support such article discussion?) But the fact remains that the whole thing started because a student made a complaint, UNLV investigated and sought to censure Hoppe, and then the discrimination complaint was dismissed. Most importantly, IMO, everything that occurred after the classroom comment involved the issue of academic freedom. – S. Rich (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it any more true. 'The "whole thing" started with Hoppe's remarks, not with the student complaining about them - or are you suggesting that the student complained before the remarks were made? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I post remarks and replies because the comments fail to address important/pertinent points. Characterizing a comment as "nonsense", without rational argument, does not make the counter-argument any more true. And where did anyone ever suggest that the student complained before the remark was made? – S. Rich (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing 'rational' in your assertion that "the whole thing started because a student made a complaint". It is self-evidently false. It started when Hoppe made the comments. I'd say that getting the facts right is important. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the fact that Hoppe did not provide "peer reviewed" evidence for his generalizations (which I recently noted was in his disciplinary letter) is noteworthy and actually should be in the article. So the remarks are noteworthy enough to mention in section. However, since it turned overwhelmingly into an academic freedom debate (to use non-peer reviewed evidence, evidently) that needs slightly more emphasis. Thus a title like "Academic freedom debate resulting from remarks on homosexuality" seems most accurate. (By the way, this whole conversation reminds me of how few sections there are in BLPs called "Allegations of sexism" despite so much evidence which doubtless could be presented in so many BLPs.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, Hoppe said something controversial about homosexuality, and this led to a big bruhaha. So, 'Controversy over remarks on homosexuality' seems to me to fit well. Or, it can be titled based on the topic that generated the controversy, something like 'Homosexuality and time preference', similar to what was done in the Larry Summers article for the section on his controversial remarks about differences between sexes. FurrySings (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The difference being that Summers went on ad nauseum about a whole sexist philosophy and his ideas were debated - and there is no mention of academic freedom in that section. In Hoppe it's a couple of things said in a lecture as (may I soapbox and say unverified, incomplete and therefore crappy examples) which became overwhelmingly a big academic freedom issue. Obviously mentioning both is the middle ground here. (Except for those who want something even more general.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Or mentioning neither; an all or nothing solution (mentioning both being all, mentioning neither being the nothing).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It all stared with the lecture. A lecture that we know for a fact was about time preference, which is an economic concept that will bias the audience in no way, shape, or form. --Abel (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. So the only question is, should title be ""Academic freedom debate resulting from remarks on homosexuality" or "Remarks on homosexuality leading to Academic freedom debate". Since there is little discussion of the remarks, it seems Academic freedom should go first. (Per npov, there should be mention of discussion of time preferences so it's clear it was academic related and some off hand questionable comment, and that this was not a view published in peer-reviewed publications). CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Canvassing concerns

Academic Freedom section blp and undue problems

First I fixed the most glaring and ugly WP:BLP problems of the newest edits after investigating the sources:

• I changed a sentence inferring a conference was held soley because of Hoppe's evil words to "Nationwide controversies over several academic incidents, including UNLV administrators attempts to censure Hoppe" since it seems the censure was the bigger issue. See the source.
• The section on the new policy is relevant only because (as I added in italics) "The proposed policy was criticized by the Nevada ACLU and some faculty members who remembered the Hoppe incident as adverse to academic freedom. That's the relevance of mentioning the Hoppe incident. See the source.
• Added info the university abandoned the plan.

Second, I don't want to overstep 3rr in a not clearly BLP violation situation, but I do intend to cut down the whole quoting of the policy to the title itself AND mention that part of the proposal was bringing incidents first to campus police.
Third, I left up the WP:Undue template because far too much space is devoted to the issue not to mention critical commentary is included in what is a minor and overblown incident.
Fourth, I added more Hoppe explanations and defenses per WP:RS. (We also could add them from his own writings because defending subjects of BLPs from attack is a legitimate use of primary sources easily defended at WP:BLPN.) Going to do that at least one other place as well. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the section is far too long for what is after all a minor incident not widely reported. For that matter, the subject has not received much attention outside libertarian circles, so a lot of the rest of the article could be trimmed. TFD (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Where the libertarian commentary is WP:RS and encyclopedic it's not a big issue, though WP:Undue praise would be problematic; though not as problematic as WP:Undue POV advocacy criticism and distortion of sources ad nauseum. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie 04:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that an editor changed refs without bothering to check what was in what ref, thus misrepresenting the ref he/she used. Please more careful because that just makes work for other editors correcting the errors, not to mention that it can create serious BLP problems if a questionable allegation is made without proper references. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoppe's relations with UNLV economists

Was quite poor, at least according to this RS from LewRockwell.com. "Murray was the happiest person I've ever met. Especially considering that the UNLV economics department did all it could to discourage students from taking his classes and classes from Hans" (emphasis mine). See also this piece, where French claims that the UNLV econ department dropped an entire program of Study ("Theory and Policy") "to keep students from coming to UNLV to study under Murray and Hans Hoppe." Note that the author of these pieces has an overwhelmingly positive view of Hoppe.

Anyway, this material could be relevant to future edits to the article, regarding Hoppe's time at UNLV. Steeletrap (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal recollections of events that took place decades before are not reliable. TFD (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being a voice of reason, TFD. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wholesale reversion of democracy summary

This text -- based on the premise that it is "OR" to paraphrase and quote from a book review -- was deleted wholesale. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&diff=556951070&oldid=556927908)

While advocating an anarchist or "private law" society as the ideal, Hoppe argues in Democracy that monarchy is preferable to democracy. His view is rooted in the claim that monarchies are closer than democracies to the ideal of a "privately owned" nation, insofar as the monarch retains possession of the kingdom for life and bequeaths it to his or her children upon his or her death. Thus, kings and queens would have a greater incentive than temporarily-elected democratic representatives to "preserve or ... enhance" the value of the nation. Writes Hoppe, "the would systematically restrain himself in his taxing policies, for the lower the degree of taxation, the more productive the subject population will be, and the more productive the population, the higher the value of the" king's nation.

It was replaced with the following version, which I regard as far less clear, specific, and evocative in its rheotorical and substantive presentation of Democracy's thesis.

Walter Block writes that Hoppe describes how princes and kings were “in effect the owner of the entire society” and therefor4 had to act in a responsible way as not to ruin the economy and possibly invite overthrow. However, with democracy came the "short-sighted behavior patterns" of elected leaders with their interest in feathering their own nest in the limited time they have in office. Block says these insights shed light "on historical occurrences, from wars to poverty to inflation to interest rates to crime." According to Block, to doubters Hoppe answers that while 21st-century democracies work better than old time monarchies, if nobility with the ability to take a long term view replaced today’s leaders they would “improve matters.” Block also shared what he called minor criticisms of Hoppe’s theses regarding time preferences, immigration and the gap between libertarianism and conservatism.

I wonder what other editors, apart from myself (who wrote the original paragraph) and CarolmooreDC (who wrote the second paragraph) think of this change? I feel very strongly that it should be reverted but am determined to avoid slipping into EW again. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, let me quote Misplaced Pages:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources:

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.

In other words, your interpreting the primary sources of Hoppe is WP:Original research which is against WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, my interpretation comes from an RS, or the cited Mises book review. Again, vaguely citing policy without specifically explaining how it is violated is a meaningless claim. Steeletrap (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the diff. Well, since you always use bare URLs and you never bother to include information about the source, you'll have to forgive me for thinking that was a excerpt from Hoppe himself since a) Mises often publishes their fellow's book excerpts and b) you have claimed so often in the past it was OK to use them. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&diff=prev&oldid=556677793 At this diff another editor added the info while I was editing, but I missed his/her edit when I was rewriting the section.) Of course, you only need one reference to the same source when it is the only source. Three is quite unnecessary.

I see now looking at the page that the fact that David Gordon is writer and editor is in tiny letters on top. Now its worthwhile investigating your interpretation. I just have to remind myself to quadruple check all your bare URLs and ask you if that is what you meant to ref, I guess. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Strike and rewrite to illustrate issues

Hello Carol. Thank you for admitting that your original rationale for these changes was mistaken, though I regret the extremely rude fashion in which this admission was made. (i.e., by blaming me for your mistake: "Well, since you always use bare URLs and you never bother to include information about the source, you'll have to forgive me for thinking that was a excerpt from.") I completely disagree with your view on "what an NPOV version" of Gordon's review would look like, and fully reject literally everything I have ever seen you write about WP:BLP as (depending on the case) either unjustified (lacking any specific argument), unclear (overly-vague), or incorrect (a misstatement of policy). There is currently a vigorous debate regarding your views of WP:BLP, going on at the ANI you started in regards to my alleged violation of BLP here. I recommend reading the remarks of the editors there. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Refusal to fill out URLs and making others do it can cause confusion. Also note that dates articles were published, who authored them, etc. all part of the verification process. I can see I'll just have to do your work for you from now to make it easier for other editor's to engage in the process of verification.

Anyway, I am collapsing my "strike and rewrite suggestion" which I can see is too confusing to work and go back to the old process: bullited points and suggested better language. Will check your newest edits on Gordon soon. I see you are still using your WP:OR comments to introduce it rather than looking for same content in the WP:RS sources. Remember, we are mere factotums doing our best to reflect the great minds that are our sources. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I am new to this encyclopedia and plan on learning how to "fill out URLs" this week. I would recommend you examine your incorrect view that paraphrasing constitutes "OR". A paraphrased sentence such as "Hoppe argues in Democracy: The God That Failed that democracy is economically and socially damaging as a political system" is far more effective and encyclopedic than a long-winded literal quote in outlining the basic thrust of a book's thesis. Steeletrap (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to use a template to fill out URLs; doing manually easier, IMHO. I dislike them myself since you have to run back to templates if you want to add things.

Speaking of the first sentence of the paragraph in question... Of course we summarize in Misplaced Pages, but generally we summarize secondary sources. (Saying "WP:OR" is just shorthand for saying that, but it seems to me I've detailed and quoted the policy before above.) See Misplaced Pages:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources and most relevant to a BLP: Misplaced Pages:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources says 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.

What you say there using primary source Hoppe as a ref does reflect points made by the sources. Therefore it should be ref'd by the sources, in the same general way the source uses it.

A primary source (like Hoppe's own writings) can be use if is the only available source for an important point or as an illustration of a secondary source's point or as a subject's response to some criticism of him that no one else has made, per WP:BLP/Balance. (Thus the one direct quote from Hoppe I put in a paragraph.)

If your goal is merely to make sure there is a link to the relevant Hoppe article, that can be included after whatever source actually refers to that source or sometimes with a note saying "See also Hoppe's article etc." CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

All the summaries in the paragraph you allude to, including the quoted excerpt, are paraphrased from RS, not Hoppe's own writings. Steeletrap (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

If you use a reference like Hoppe at the end of a sentence it is assumed the material comes from Hoppe, not Block or someone else somewhere else in a paragraph. Isn't that also the way it is in the real world and academia? Please see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources for referencing information. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

How one cites sources, both in-text and in a bibliography, in the context of academic articles is very different in many important respects from the standards of Misplaced Pages (or encyclopedias generally). I make no apologies for having a lot to learn regarding the Misplaced Pages citation system. In academia as well as (presumably) Misplaced Pages, you don't have to discuss the source in-text (i.e. you don't have to say "In a book review, Block says that Hoppe says blah blah blah"; you can simply say "Hoppe says blah blah blah" and not mention Block in the text, while citing the Block book review to support your statement about Hoppe) if it's merely a secondary-source summary of the original text. You always have to cite sources, but you only have to explicitly name them in text if you are explicitly considering arguments or analysis made by them (e.g.: "Block accuses Hoppe of wanting to ban gays from polite society"). Steeletrap (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And no, you do not need a new citation every time you make a claim about a source. If that were the case, every sentence of every book review would be cluttered by (Author, page number). As to your Hoppe claim, I take that to be unhelpful sarcasm; obviously, if I cited Hoppe at the end of a sentence, I either was substantiating the claim in that sentence with Hoppe's work or (if I was referring to another source) I made a mistake. Steeletrap (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is stricter than other types of work since it is a collaborative encyclopedia. You do have to have the ref after every sentence or paragraph referenced by one or more sources. (Though if each is referencing different parts of even a sentence the ref should be directly on the relevant part of the sentence. (Of course, you don't need the same ref three times in aparagraph where it's the only source.) Editors can get away with no ref if no one challenges it, but on controversial article like this where there has been some misuse of sources in the past you do need the ref at end of the ref'd material because people will be checking and tagging if there is not one. I can see there is another example today where there's no ref and someone will tag or correct it if you don't get around to it. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Closed BLP-related ANI

Last paragraph on Academic freedom controversy section

The paragraph should, I think, be deleted. That paragraph is uninformative about the incident in question. The causal relationship between Hoppe's remarks and the UNLV anti-bias workshops, if it exists at all (and though one RS implies it, there is no clear evidence of that from university statements etc) is quite tenuous. The need to delete is compounded by the fact that the section is already extremely long. Several sentences about the nature of the anti-bias workshops and how professors (including one who remembered the Hoppe incident) spoke out against it has no clear place in a biography on Hoppe. Steeletrap (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course, I think it should remain. The controversy had direct consequences and the RS does more than imply such. The 2009 proposed policy is tied into the Hoppe incident too. I did consider re-writing and footnoting the 2009 info, and will continue to cogitate on that idea. – S. Rich (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

First, regarding conference, SRich removed the specific thing the reliable source said regarding Hoppe which is important and substantial: "including UNLV administrators attempts to censure Hoppe, prompted the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, to hold a conference on academic freedom in October 2005." I think I'll integrate that back into his version.

Second, as we've said before, this shows the academic freedom issue regarding censure of Hoppe continued at the university for several years. (Unfortunately the fact that the proposal was squashed doesn't seem to be in a WP:RS, though we can still look around for evidence. Obviously it is NOT on their website as a current policy if you look for it.) Haven't we been over this issue a couple times before above? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference to the Hoppe incident, a few months prior, is quite enough. We don't need to give undue emphasis to the fact that some people at UNLV were seeking to censure him. – S. Rich (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Creating Democracy sub-section

The section on Democracy has been expanded by myself and other users over the last several days. This is appropriate, since it appears to be Hoppe's most widely read and widely cited work by a big margin. Following two meaty paragraphs of summary, criticism of Hoppe's infamous "physically remove" comments, which appear to have provoked more attention than any other quotation from his book, is mentioned in two paragraphs. Since these paragraphs are solely devoted to this criticism/discussion of these remarks, I think it descriptively appropriate to create a sub-section entitled "Controversial remarks" or "Controversial remarks on homosexuality" or something like that.

I think this should be renamed "Controversial remarks on homosexuality", since all the RS are responding to the claims about physically removing homosexuals and this (not the bit about removing parasites or communists or democrats) is what provoked controversy. But even if others reject that title, I can't see the justification for not labeling it something like "controversial remarks", when the two paragraphs are solely devoted to addressing those remarks. Steeletrap (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've said before (in various discussions) that a section on his views re homosexuality would be fine. Then the academic freedom controversy section could stand alone. – S. Rich (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually don't understand SRich's comment.

Re: Steeletrap's suggestion, so now you want two sections called controversy about homosexual remarks? (I.e., academic freedom section too) And the second section is about a number of groups Hoppe says might be exclused from a "covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin", i.e. "the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism –" Singling out just one of those groups for special attention is really POV pushing to the extreme.

And controversy has to be something that actually made the news, not just criticism and discussion among academics, which is what it is. Let's be proportionate here. I think sectioning is just WP:Undue in a short paragraph.

Finally, I read that somewhere in the section of the book being partially quote he says something like: "well, OK, some of our kids may get into some of that stuff when they are younger and well, maybe we don't want to be too strict" and I think the quote or a summary needs adding, even if a primary source, to properly reflect what he says in an NPOV encyclopedic way. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, the simple fact is that the RS are responding to the claim about homosexuals. It would be my POV if these were just general criticisms of the passage, but they arent; we go off of RS, and they are most specifically and consistently responding to the claim about physically removing gays, not parasites or commies.

You mean what you have chosen to emphasize of their response is on that topic. I guess I wasn't paying attention to the POV you've got there and will have to fix that. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, am I right to infer that you just object to a title referencing homosexuality, but do not object to a sub-section entitled "Controversial remarks" per my reasoning above? If not, please explain why such a title would be inappropriate. Steeletrap (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see above where I write: And controversy has to be something that actually made the news, not just criticism and discussion among academics, which is what it is. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No. There can be "academic controversy" over obscure, pedantic philosophical or economic issues. Mention on the local news is not a prerequisite for calling something a controversy. Steeletrap (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's more a debate than a controversy. Only your POV makes you see a mountain where there's a molehill. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please strike your rude and insulting remarks indicating that my bias, rather than a good-faith concern for accuracy, is what's motivating my suggestions.

Your suggestion that this is a mere "debate" rather than a controversy suggests you didn't read the RS, where Snyder comparing Hoppe to segregationists et al and Hoppe remarks that he was subject to a "smearbund" by "left-libertarian" thinkers who accused him of bigotry specifically because of the cited passage. (http://mises.org/daily/1792) Steeletrap (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We edit according to what is in the article, not "other stuff" that exists. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The RS in which the above-mentioned comments are made are cited and mention in the Hoppe wikipedia page. I again encourage you to read through the RS. Steeletrap (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that section is getting bigger, a section called "Covenant communities controversy" would be relevant. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing bias

See Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors: Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (but politely — one gets more flies with honey than with vinegar) and asking others to help. See Dispute resolution for more ideas. There is a point beyond which our interest in being a completely open project is trumped by our interest in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policies.

And then see this recent user talk page comment of yours. (Added later: Also this one.)I could come up with another dozen similar ones without even trying. I'm sure discrediting Hoppe would make it easier to discredit all the other people you discuss below.

While I emphatically reject the principles of libertarianism, this ideology undeniably has serious scholars associated with it, as does the "Austrian" School of Economics; however, the "movement"/"Pure Rothbardian Anarchism"/"Ron Paul for President" strain is (as my research indicates) viewed as disreputable even by mainstream libertarians, such as Tom G. Palmer, whose critical remarks of Mises Institute scholars are systematically cleansed from the pages of their scholars. Operating from a non-empirical, "rationalistic" "economics" framework and invoking (and distorting) dubious philosophical concepts like natural law in defense of their moral absolutism, "movement" libertarianism is little more than a dogmatic cult. "Movement" supporters in this regard are akin to Scientologists, insofar as they not only personally lack evidence for their beliefs, but are incapable of examining data which differ from their ideology and integrating it into their worldview. Their edits to "movement"-related Misplaced Pages entries should be viewed the same as Scientologists' edits to pages like L. Ron Hubbard and Lord Xenu.

Do I have to share four or five more? It's WP:disruptive editing. Obviously I should have gone to WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard or WP:NPOVN soon after it became clear what was going on. But I was going easy on the Newbie. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have biases, and I'm fine with you taking note of those biases in your examination of my posts. (just as I take note of "movement" peoples' biases on movement-related pages and scientologists' biases on scientology-related pages) However, I'm not fine with you baselessly asserting that my edits are motivated "only" by bias rather than a concern for encyclopedic rigor, just as a hypothetical scientologist would be (rightfully) affronted at an unsupported accusation that her or his edits are motivated solely by her or his biases. There is a crucial logical difference between honestly believing that group x (Scientology, let's say) is a dogmatic cult and taking note of a WP user's Affiliation with group x accordingly, and accusing an individual member of group x (Sam the Scientologist) of being solely motivated by bias in her or his edits to WP.

I enthusiastically encourage you to go to DRN in hopes that the lesson from the last two ANIs, in regards to your false accusations and erroneous understanding of WP policy, will be reiterated. Steeletrap (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

One cannot make vague general allegations and assert others' have biases without linking to on wiki editing comments. Belonging to a wikiproject or defending WP:BLP policy does not constitute the kind of bias I quoted from you above, and which is one of a number of such quotes. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

SRich. Please stop collapsing things you don't like. One third of your "hattings" are questionable. See Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines.

What does the quoted policy Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors say? maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly I've brought this up at his/her talk page in the past to no avail. So I'm bringing it up here. This is a brand new incident showing that this is an ongoing problem. If this doesn't work the policy suggests WP:DRN. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

User: Steeletrap: Note that per Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments generally we do not alter our own comments once someone has responded as you did here We can strike what we wrote and even add a note that new content is added, but that's usually only to clarify some point, add a link, etc. Doing it one's own talk page as where you removed a criticism of Hoppe after someone replied probably is a bit more allowable, but still can be noted by others in relevant discussions,per the above. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The epistemological breakthrough joke (as opposed to the scientology joke) had no relevant connection with your claims above regarding my view of "movement" types. Nor was my removing it an attempt to descredit any (in any case, easily-discredited) claims you made; it just was a cheesy joke and I can't be making those if I want USER:SPECIFICO to like me! All of the text outlining my bias against the movement, and my view that movement types are akin to Scientologists, remains intact. Your comments to Rich, claiming that he is motivated to un-hat things because he doesn't like them rather than is seeking to improve this page, borders on a personal attack.

As to my biases/NPOV stuff, like the BLP/canvassing remarks, you get your policy crashingly wrong. To justify your public "call out", have to demonstrate that my (admitted and acknowledged) biases, rather than a good-faith desire to improve the article, motivate my edits to this page. You can't do that because they don't. Steeletrap (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

So, what portion (or portions) of this article talk page sub-section is addressing article improvement? – S. Rich (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it provides important context for my criticisms above about making this a second section called Controversial remarks on homosexuality. Also it provides context for my filling out the details of WP:RS' comments on Hoppes remarks so it is clear perfectly clear that they were about covenant communities first and foremost and have been used to attack him in the larger world - and obviously now on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is better than that. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that you've pointed this out, do you, Steeletrap, wish to reply? – S. Rich (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I am going to file a formal complaint with admin about your conduct on this page if you do not attempt to act more civil. Claiming multiple times that good-faith edits that you perceive to have errors (while yourself making an inaccurate good-faith edit, where you attributed a remark by Kinsella to a remark by Hoppe) are attempts to "attack" Hoppe is a personally loaded comment.

I do not want to report you. I want to try to move past this. We have all lost our tempers at times. I apologize for responding as I did previously to you, by posting repeatedly about your conduct on your talk page when you said you didn't want me to comment. I regret my mistake, and hope to grow as an editor by refraining from such conduct in the future. However, I think there is also room for your conduct to improve on this page. A good gesture would be hatting your personal attack heading above. Steeletrap (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, is there anything else about this subsection that you'd like to add? – S. Rich (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It would help if User:Steeletrap would promise to no more make nasty remarks about, titulating speculation about and WP:Soapbox comments about subjects of groups of people or individual peole that you do not like. You can do it all you want on email but it just pisses people off on Misplaced Pages. If you had read Misplaced Pages:Soapbox#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox the first time it was mentioned you would see it says Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. If I felt you understood that I would not have to keep bringing it up. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the two of you take a {{wikibreak}} from Hoppe and this talk page. Like about 24 hours. How about no more comments until 31 May 2013 at 02:30 UTC? Includes no ANI comments or other interchange until then. Okay? – S. Rich (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If s/he wants to think about Soapbox in meantime, that would be great! In the interim you can do a temporary collapse and if s/he "gets it" and everything works out this section no longer will be relevant. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll do you one better. I'm abandoning this page. The constant personal attacks, harassment and false charges (libel etc) are too much. Goodbye, Doc Hoppe. Steeletrap (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Now User:Specifico and Steeletrap are going to the Murray Rothbard article and we already are seeing the same pattern of distorted interpretation of sources, etc. Well, I don't intend to get all emotionally involved again but to get clarification on best method to move forward. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Block quote expanded to make perfectly clear

I missed it at first, but in the "Democracy" section under discussion at this diff User:Steeletrap changed the accurate:

Walter Block wrote that Hoppe's comments calling for "homosexuals and others to be banned from polite society" were "exceedingly difficult to reconcile it with libertarianism" because "the libertarian philosophy would support the rights of both groups to act in such manners." to

were "exceedingly difficult to reconcile it with libertarianism" because "the libertarian philosophy would support the rights of" homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

This sounds like he's calling for some vague equal rights for homosexuals, not their specific rights to ban heterosexuals. Obviously the NPOV solution is to include his next paragraph which I did. It reads:

As for homosexuality, it is entirely possible that some areas of the country, parts of Gotham and San Francisco for example, will require this practice, and ban, entirely, heterosexuality. If this is done through contract, private property rights, restrictive covenants, it will be entirely compatible with the libertarian legal code.

Hopefully this will solve the vagueness problem... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Quoting Hoppe first; Detailing Kinsella's important points

At this diff I put in the "Democracy" section Hoppe's earlier comment first and followed with more about what Kinsella said, i.e.,:

Stephan Kinsella writes that Hoppe's critics have accused Hoppe of "homophobia, bigotry, and the like" based on these passages. Kinsella wrote that that Hoppe's discussion of "physically removing" homosexuals and other groups only applied to "private, covenant-based communities" centered around traditional values. He shared a letter Hope wrote to him saying "the gay couple down the street who mind their own business would not be expelled, but only those who are openly hostile to the basic heterosexual or private property basis of society."

As I said in my edit summary, just because some choose to totally take his comments about of context and attack him, does NOT mean that Misplaced Pages should be used for the same purpose. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction and Warning Carol, please stop making loaded personal remarks on Misplaced Pages (i.e. claiming that edits are made to "attack" users). I also need to correct a mistake you made in the context of your personal remarks. Kinsella wrote the letter in question; he merely reported that Hoppe says he agrees with the letter. Please reread the RS. Steeletrap (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Given all the rants you have made against this group of economists, you must realize that you stir things up so people assume you are up to no good. Keep it on email and there will be far fewer problems.

And your edits to Kinsella were accurate. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Final warning. I do not want to bring this to any authority. I am tired of all of this stuff, and know that my conduct has been far from perfect on this page. But I cannot allow continual personal attacks to go unaddressed. Steeletrap (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Grounds for deleting Kinsella post on HHH's 'remove the gays' comment

The Kinsella blog post consists of Kinsella, a colleague, friend and fervent defender of Hoppe's (who for years has taken it upon himself to exonerate Hoppe of charges of homophobia), emailing to Hoppe a remarkably eccentric interpretation of Hoppe's "physically remove the gays" remark, according to which it isn't homophobic at all. Kinsella alleges that Hoppe responded to his email basically saying "I agree with everything you wrote." Even if this is true, given the context (a casual email exchange between friends, which Kinsella fails to reprint in the blog post), hearsay based on a casual, unverifiable email (or Facebook/MySpace/Craigslist) exchange hardly seems to be an encyclopedic clarification of what Hoppe meant in views originally expressed an academic work. Therefore, though I kept Kinsella's interpretation of Hoppe's passage in the article, I deleted the attribution of this view to Hoppe. Steeletrap (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this. In Misplaced Pages we give subjects of BLP's the benefit of the doubt. If I didn't feel you hated the man so much, your argument would seem reasonable, but given you bias, best to let a neutral editor make the change. Why not bring it to WP:RSN and ask a neutral opinion? I'd listen to a neutral one but you and your colleague/collaborator Specifico are just too biased to be credible in this article. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:27, 24 June 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
5. Snyder, Martin. "Birds of a Feather?". Academe. Vol. 91, no. 2. p. 127. ISSN 0190-2946. In March 2004, a student formally accused Hoppe of creating a hostile classroom environment during a lecture on time preference, a notion in economics identifying individuals' varying degrees of willingness to defer the immediate consumption of goods in favor of saving and investment.
6. Snyder, Martin. "Birds of a Feather?". Academe. Vol. 91, no. 2. p. 127. ISSN 0190-2946. In March 2004, a student formally accused Hoppe of creating a hostile classroom environment during a lecture on time preference, a notion in economics identifying individuals' varying degrees of willingness to defer the immediate consumption of goods in favor of saving and investment.
7. ^ "The Mises Review: Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe". Mises.org. Retrieved 2013-05-25.
8. Walter Block, Review of Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 61, No. 3, July, 2002.
9. Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources

• 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 controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists