Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Deletion of Alden/ACLU material

What is up with this? (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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: [1]. 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: Wikipedia: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: [2]. 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 Wikipedia 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: [3] and here: [4] SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Reflections upon the Fifth Anniversary of PFS here: [5] 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: [6])

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. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia'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

---

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. 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)

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 [with Hoppe] are those that CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!" and "This man is literally [sic] 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 [sic] 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. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia'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)

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)

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 Wikipedia. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

Closed BLP-related ANI

Comments regarding closed BLP-related ANI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Throughout this page,user:Carolmooredc has repeatedly alleged that my proposed talk page remarks/edits to the Hoppe page "violate BLP" by virtue of being libelous, defamatory, OR etc. Her charged and damaging accusations have been rejected at an ANI she filed, where, in a remarkably quick fashion (half a day) and with the approval of literally all editors who read both her allegations and my responses, no BLP violation was found (See:http://the ANI here). The clear voice of the community on this matter should be taken into account by new editors in their evaluation of Carol's BLP claims, which are made throughout the talk page, since these false claims have to a great extent shaped the debate over and the eventual additions to the Hoppe page. Steeletrap (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC) You know one can argue WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH and a whole bunch of other things quite accurately without ever bringing up BLP. However, I'm reminded it's better to complain about one or two uncomplicated BLP problems, not gather a bunch of minor ones that people can't quite understand. But sometimes one gets a bee in one's bonnet. It's all show biz... on with the show... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC) But FYI, it can be tricky to put together properly formatted noticeboard or ANI complaints. I should have either just gone to 1) WP:BLPN with content disputes OR 2) just to ANI with POV concerns about alleged (but anonymous so who knows for sure?) academics seemingly out to trash well-known academics and show appropriate evidence. That's why the recommendation from the Admin to go to ANI was ambivalent. Now User:Sageo's complaint about edit warring I thought was poorly formed and ranting, yet he got a result because it was still easy to see what was going on. It can be a crap shoot, which is why I try to avoid it. (And often depends merely on who is paying attention during any 24-48 hours period.) But one does the best one can to resolve the situation, as one will continue to do, including using noticeboards as necessary. Also note continuing to harp on the past, misstate the outcome of the confused WP:ANI which was ruled a content dispute, and putting people's names in section titles, can be seen as harassment and that's cause for another more pointed WP:ANI. Lets not continue behavioral problems with attack section headers . Let's just focus on content and stop the silliness, eh?? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Please bring your (false) accusations of harassment to a WP:ANI, Carol. And please note that the ANI's rejection of your (false) charges of WP:BLP/libel/defamation etc in favor of characterizing this as a "content dispute" means just that: a rejection of charges of WP:BLP (also see the editors' comments to this effect on the ANI). This section has great material importance to the substance of the Hoppe page, and does not constitute a personal attack. Steeletrap (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Warnings that continued future behavior can be seen as harassment is NOT a warning about current harassment. Past - present - future. Very different concepts. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC) NOTE: I am ambivalent on closing this. On the one hand we don't need more WP:Battleground. On the other hand User:Steeletrap seems to be under the impression from discussions here and at her/his talk page that because one less than perfectly formed ANI did not bring about the desired result, that all references to BLP past/present/future are now irrelevant. Well, I guess we'll see how things develop. At least we do have 3RR awareness now, so there is some hope. Sigh... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:31, 28 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/w/index.php?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 [king] 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 Wikipedia: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/w/index.php?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

Collapse Strike and rewrite experiment that didn't work; back to old process

Here’s what an NPOV version of Gordon would look like with problematic sections cut with notes in (italics) on why. I guess this is what needs to be done on a regular basis to make Steeletrap’s errors clear: While advocating an anarchist or "private law" society as the ideal, WP:OR not in source David Gordon writes that Hoppe argues in Democracy that monarchy is preferable to democracy.( Jump to conclusion, creating Negative POV before theory explained) that because democracy has led to increased state power, monarchy preserves liberty more effectively. His view is rooted in the claim that monarchies are closer than democracies to the ideal of a "privately owned" nation (Quoted phrase not in source) He argues that if the king regards the government as his “personal possession” he will be careful to manage its resources which he expects to pass on to his heirs. insofar as they retain possession of their kingdoms for life and bequeath them to their children upon death. (Wordy but not fully explanative) Thus, kings and queens would have a greater incentive than temporarily-elected democratic representatives to "preserve or ... enhance" the value of the nation.(Needed to be said earlier Writes Hoppe, "the [king] 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.(Don't cut out part of the quote that makes it clear Hoppe considers monarchies parasitic!) “[T]o preserve or even enhance the value of his personal property, he [the king] 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 ruler’s parasitic monopoly of expropriation will be” (p. 19) Hope this makes clear the WP:OR and misuse of sources that infuses this entry with a negative pov. I don't have a problem with replacing this new version for what I wrote yesterday since it's good to have more voices reviewing Hoppe. (I also haven't read the rest of the way through for any useful critical material.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources and most relevant to a BLP: Wikipedia: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.[4]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia (or encyclopedias generally). I make no apologies for having a lot to learn regarding the Wikipedia citation system. In academia as well as (presumably) Wikipedia, 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)

Wikipedia 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)