Jump to content

Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Cultural Bolshevism bias

There is a current running through the article which presents a strong bias against Hoppe's position on homosexuality and immigration for dissenting from the groupthink communist/democratic/egalitarian party line. The "libertarian" contemporary used to condemn Hoppe as a heretic and a thought criminal in the article Walter Block who once stated "In the fifties and sixties, I was just another commie living in Brooklyn." Perhaps Block's position on Social-Bolshevism and Political Correctness is clouded due to this? Hoppe's views should simply be couched in the article from a neutral perspective, neither saying yes he is right or "ZOMG Homophobe, Xenophobe, Baby-Eater! Burn the Heretic!". - 90.221.144.244 (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this a joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.125.83 (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Monarchy section

I've restored this material that was deleted.[1]

The material appears to be a reasonably correct summary of the views expressed by the subject in that interview. My main concern is that it's such a meager source. Do we have any secondary sources that have discussed his views on monarchy versus other forms of government? If so we should add those and they should be the basis for this section. In conclusion, let's add more material and sources rather than deleting this.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible Anti Gay Views and Allegations of Racism?

I made a section stating that Hoppe hand "anti-gay" views because he compares homosexuality to pedophilia and calls it a perversion. The full quote (which can be seen in Hoppe's book here) is as follows:

"the anarchistic upshot of the libertarian doctrine appealed to the countercultural left. For did not the illegitimacy of the state…imply that everyone was at liberty to choose his very own nonaggressive lifestyle? Did this not imply that vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, drug use, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality, insofar as they were victimless crimes, were no offenses at all but perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles?”

Look at Wikipedia's definition of "anti-gay." If Hoppe's view of homosexuality (as a "perversion" and "abnormality" comparable to pedophilia) don't fit that definition, virtually no view that doesn't directly advocate violence against gays does.

That section also notes that Hoppe has been accused of racism for advocating a "systematic pro-European" immigration bias due to what he perceives to be the superior character and intelligence of Europeans. It does not state that he is a racist, merely that he has been accused of racism (as any Google search will show), since there is more ambiguity there than on the homosexuality issue. Steeletrap (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap has made some WP:BOLD edits, and I have reverted. With WP:BLP in mind and WP:BRD as the method we should follow, I posit that the quotes provided above are not complete enough to evaluate. Moreover, we may have WP:SYN issues. E.g., does Hoppe actually have anti-homosexual views or is he discussing these topics in an intellectual manner? – S. Rich (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Srich, it's clear from the full context that his view is that homosexuality is a perversion akin to pedophilia (that is, it is clear that he is not considering that notion intellectually or describing the views of others). Read the full context (the surrounding pages) and that, in my view, becomes a matter beyond reasonable doubt. (See:http://books.google.com/books?id=qARC56X5vxcC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=%22systematic+pro-European%22&source=bl&ots=gwN3h9tbEe&sig=VDqd4S7xtALO2ldnnXeWU-Pq4AE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MvVuUfi5DoGO2gWz74HADQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=pedophilia&f=false) I find it hard to understand your blanket deletion (as opposed to modification) of my edit; aren't those statements relevant to Hoppe's thought? . Steeletrap (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
This page has 74 editors watching it, so I expect some of them will chime in. If they don't, I'll post a note on the WikiProject Libertarianism talk page. Also, if we don't get responses, I will respond specifically.
For the record, here is my original edit the Srich deleted. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&oldid=550859252 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
As the particular quote is at the top of page 206 it is difficult to get its full context. Page 205 is not available by Google books. (And, at the moment, I'm too cheap to spend $9.99 for the eBook!) From what I see, he is asking a rhetorical question. Even so, what do the WP:SECONDARY sources say about Hoppe's views? They are the ones we must go with. – S. Rich (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
There don't appear to be any academic "secondary sources" other than reviews from Hoppe's colleagues at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. (Update: page 22 of this article (highly sympathetic to Hoppe) by Mises Institute Senior Fellow Walter Block, explicitly referring to quote about "physically removing" advocates of homosexuality, characterizes Hoppe's views as: "call[ing] for homosexuals and others to be banned from polite society.") I must say I simply can't imagine how one can read that page any other way, given that Hoppe's "rhetorical question" is followed by his plain assertion that "not surprisingly then, from the outset the libertarian movement attracted an unusually high number of abnormal and perverse followers." (this sentence makes no sense if it does not parallel the previous sentence, which labeled homosexuals with drug addicts and pedophiles as perverse and abnormal.) Also, what is your justification for removing Hoppe's (well-covered on popular libertarian websites, and (update) characterized in an academic article by (Hoppe-sympathist) Walter Block as advocating "banning" gays from polite society) comment about physically removing "advocates of homosexuality" from society? Steeletrap (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Steeletrap, I am taking your arguments most seriously. I have found one instance where Hoppe was accused of making anti-gay statements. In 2004 he had made remarks about how gays spend and saving money. One report says an investigation by the University of Nevada-Las Vegas cleared him of any wrongdoing. ["MU faculty rip provost hopeful over UNLV flap." Columbia Daily Tribune (Columbia, MO). McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. 2005. Retrieved April 17, 2013 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-132101011.html]. This report is contrasted by another one, as to same incident, that said he was sanctioned. ["Awards spotlight politically wrong; Uproars in academia questioned.(NATION)." The Washington Times (Washington, DC). News World Communications, Inc. 2005. Retrieved April 17, 2013 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-131085007.html] And a third source says the UNLV Provost found against Hoppe, but the University President dismissed allegation on appeal. [Snyder, Martin D.. "Birds of a Feather?." Academe. American Association of University Professors. 2005. Retrieved April 17, 2013 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-829841891.html]. Two reviews of Democracy, The God... do not mention any sex related topics. There are 29 other results from HighBeam, but I have not looked at them given the titles and introductory paragraphs available. All in all, given the lack of supporting WP:RS, I don't think we can use the isolated quote from Democracy to say he was anti-gay. We need secondary sources. I'll look at the Block material later today or tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Srich, do I understand correctly the University upheld his right (as a matter of academic freedom) to state his views but did not comment on the views themselves? Is this correct? If so, that finding would not establish that Hoppe's views are not, by Steeltrap's standard, worthy of inclusion in the article. SPECIFICO talk 01:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you access the HighBeam links? While I was looking at Hoppe in general (and came up with those 3 articles about UNLV), I'm more concerned that Steeletrap wants to use the particular material from page 206 of Democracy. Is s/he putting a spin on it? (I don't want to tax my intellect to much -- not much is available to spare.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have HighBeam. My casual recollection is that Hoppe drew quite a bit of controversy, including within the Austrian and conservative communities, with these views. That said I have no sources and just happened to see this because I had edited something on the Hoppe article relating to economics a while back. The source looked OK to me, but I did not scrutinize it. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Srich, that he was found (after significant hearings) not to have violated university policy doesn't mean he isn't anti-gay. That's a total non-sequittur. Steeletrap (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, consider this. He made some statements, and the UNLV Provost signed a letter about the statements. The UNLV President, on appeal, dismissed the charges, basically throwing out the charges. Due process, in the academic setting, was achieved. That being the case, we as WP editors cannot say Hoppe is anti-gay because of this alleged incident at UNLV. The charge was determined to be unfounded and we do not have RS to the contrary. Nor can we use his rhetorical sentence in the book, particularly because we do not have full access to the proceeding page. We certainly cannot interpret the sentence on our own as anti-gay because it is rhetorical. Now if there were SECONDARY sources that say "Hoppe has anti-gay feelings because he said such-and-such in Democracy" (or other places), we could use those sources. But for us to read that book, a primary source, and interpret the statement as anti-gay, is not allowed. We gotta avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN. Perhaps he's anti-gay -- well, where is the RS that shows this? Given that we have a BLP, we gotta make sure that each article statement is properly sourced. – S. Rich (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't even raise the UNLV disciplinary issue in my edit; that's a much more ambiguous situation and it is already covered extensively in the piece. My edit is about Hoppe's advocacy for "physically removing ... advocates of homosexuality" from society (which is interpreted in an even more restrictive way than I do by his friend and Mises Institute Colleague Walter Block, who says in an academic Mises Institute article (which I cite above) that Hoppe (in that quotation) is calling for gays to be "banned" from polite society. It also draws upon Hoppe's calling homosexuality a "perversity" comparable to pedophilia. I'm trying to assume good faith here -- and will not get into an editing war -- but am also getting a little frustrated to be honest. I see this as a very clear-cut issue: he clearly says homosexuality is a perversity akin to pedophilia and wants to physically remove "advocates from homosexuality" from society (as even his friends and colleagues concede). That -- not an inaptly used example to illustrate the concept of time preference -- is why Hoppe can be fairly described as anti-gay; use another term, or say "allegedly anti-gay" if you must, but to expunge this stuff altogether is a distortion of Hoppe's views. You can read the full context in the google books link; you can reference the above-mentioned article by the Mises Institute's most profilic living scholar, Walter Block; or you can google around and find a boatload of other sources saying the same thing. Steeletrap (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Please don't be frustrated . It's just that he does not clearly say gayness is a perversion in Democray. Nor did he make anti-gay comments at UNLV. I'll look at the Block comments a bit later tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned with your views on Hoppe. To make a blanket statement that he didn't "make anti-gay comments at UNLV" disturbs me 1) because his comments would be considered anti-gay by a great many (probably most) people, to the extent that he was formally subject to university discipline (though he wasn't suspended); yet instead of saying it is an ambiguous situation, you categorically dismiss it. 2) I didn't (at all) bring up the UNLV issue in support of my edit, and it frankly seems like you're trying to "head off" any criticism of Hoppe by defending him on that. Steeletrap (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
On the racism issue, this quotation from Hoppe is instructive. "It would be an error, for instance, to illustrate my theory of comparative government by contrasting European monarchies with African democracies or African monarchies with European democracies. Since Caucasians have, on the average, a significantly lower degree of time preference than Negroids,4 any such comparison would amount to a systematic distortion of the evidence. By contrasting European monarchies to African democracies, the theoretically predicted differences between monarchical and democratic rule would become systematically overstated, and by contrasting African monarchies with European democracies, the differences would become systematically understated." (Source: Page 5 of http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/benegas.pdf) His "source" for this claim is J. Phillipe Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior, an unapologetic defense of unreconstructed racist biology. Revealingly, he simply cites the book as a whole, rather than a particular segment of it. Steeletrap (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the reverted text has stood up and can be reinstated in the article at this time. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Re UNLV, we have some people who say that Hoppe's statement was anti-gay, but the decision-maker in the matter, the UNLV President, dismissed the case and the letter of instruction from the Provost was removed from Hoppe's record. So we are left with the allegation from the original student. Could we write something like this: "Hoppe is anti-gay because a student in one of his lectures perceived certain comments as anti-gay and reported them as such. An investigation by the Provost resulted in a "letter of instruction", thereby proving that Hoppe is anti-gay." Absolutely not. Are his comments in Democracy anti-gay? Well, if they are widely perceived as anti-gay we need to know {{who}} the people are making the assertion. (I'll try to look at the Block and racism material later today.)
SPECIFICO, are you referring to the Democracy edit? Including it is WP:OR. – S. Rich (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Srich, again, no one is basing the anti-gay statement on the UNLV issue. That wasn't cited in the version you reverted. This is a red herring that has nothing to do with the claims of my edit, and misleads those who haven't yet read it. The claim that Hoppe is anti-gay which are rooted in Hoppe's 1) calling for homosexuals to be "banned .... from polite society" (as interpreted by an academic article by his friend and Mises Institute colleague Walter Block) 2) likening homosexuality to a perversity akin to pedophilia in Democracy. Please drop the UNLV thing as that is an ambiguous situation that was never mentioned or alluded or cited in my edit. (Also, if you're interested in the racism issue, please read Hoppe's quote above on "negroids" and the full article accompanying it (which is freely available online.) Also: I am glad that SPECIFICO agrees with my edit. How/when can we decide to restore it in lieu of an editing war? In making the decision, might we involve some (politically neutral) editors to ensure NPOV? Steeletrap (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I see no harm in an RfC or a post at the OR resolution board. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Please. That would be very helpful if you could do that (I'm a noob and am worried I'd screw it up). I am very concerned with a lack of NPOV on consensus of edits articles related to Ludwig Von Mises Institute fellows. Virtually all of these articles were either created or substantially by a former employee of the Institute and are largely edited by ideological sympathists (i.e., anarchist libertarians who believe in Austrian Economics). That doesn't prove bias in and of itself, but it provides a compelling reason to seek neutral arbitration. Steeletrap (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. I just made another edit expressing my final suggestions for revised changes to the piece. It now reflects secondary articles -- academic whenever possible -- illustrating Hoppe's views. I won't get into an editing war if this is taken down, and I understand if small revisions to the wording want to be made or additional context provided. But I can't imagine with the big issue is given that it now conforms to the policies that have been raised (i.e. isn't individual research). If it is taken down, I won't (for the sake of not inflaming the community) put it back up. But when deciding whether my revisions should stay or go, people should refer to the last version I produced (which contains ample secondary sources, in contrast to the previous one reverted by Srich) to see what my proposed changes are. I also reproduce them below. Steeletrap (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In Democracy: The God That Failed, Hoppe calls homosexuality as a “perversion,” likening it to pedophilia as a “victimless crime” that nonetheless is a perverse “abnormality.”[15][16] In the same book, Hoppe also argues that “They--the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism--will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain” the “libertarian order” which Hoppe favors.[17] Walter Block, a friend and colleague of Hoppe's at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, criticizes Hoppe's comments as calling for "homosexuals ... to be banned from polite society" and therefore being incompatible with libertarianism.[18] Defenders of Hoppe claim he is referring only to “advocates” of homosexuality rather than to all homosexuals, and that the “removal” of the former would be non-aggressive if it is done in accordance with private property rights. [19] Hoppe has also been accused of racism for (among other things) advocating for a “systematic pro-European immigration bias.”[20] Hoppe’s view in this regard is rooted in his belief that Europeans exhibit “all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure.”[21] Citing J. Phillipe Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior, Hoppe has also expressed his view that "Caucasians have, on the average, a significantly lower degree of time preference than Negroids."[22] Steeletrap (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Before we go into an RfC or OR resolution process, let's hash this out a bit more. (And in this regard I am happy to drop the UNLV issue.) Referring to the original reverted edit, we have 3 paragraphs:

  1. The first issue is the Democracy statement. Steeletrap has said the book/remark was "widely perceived" as anti-gay. If so, the WP:BURDEN is on him/her to tell us who perceived the remark as anti-gay. If that is done, I'm happy to include it in this article and the Democracy article.
  2. The next issue is the "'libertarian order' which Hoppe [supposedly] favors." This is supported by a quotation from Hoppe. I submit that this too is WP:OR because we do not know who the critics are. E.g., we only have the statement "Critics allege", followed by the Hoppe quote. The paragraph closes with Kinsella's commentary. It is difficult to parse who is saying what, but it looks like Kinsella is quoting Hoppe in much of the commentary. So we have a WP paragraph 1. commenting on what Kinsella says 2. about what critics say 3. about what Hoppe says. (Please, take my brain out of this frying-pan!)
  3. Third is the accusation that Hoppe is racist because he is pro-European. (Last paragraph) This is supported by a quote from Hoppe, but not by anything from those who accuse him. Again, I submit that this is OR – S. Rich (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I think we really need RfC/OR because we're not speaking the same language here. Most of your points don't even address any of the justifications for my claims, but instead appeal to (much weaker) potential justifications for Hoppe's being racist/anti-gay (like the UNLV thing or Hoppe being "pro-european"), which I don't even raise in the piece. (I think this applies to your critique with one exception: I agree that "widely perceived" is an empirically speculative term that should be dropped.) That Hoppe's statements were perceived by a great many libertarians to be anti-gay can easily be confirmed by a google search, or by the secondary sources I cite in the latest version. The Walter Block and Kinsella articles both make it plain that Hoppe favors an order which forcibly removes "advocates of homosexuality." Kinsella (who defends Hoppe's statement) differs from block in saying this applies only to some "advocates" of homosexuality (whereas Block seems to think it applies to homosexuals more broadly), but they both agree on this basic interpretation. The accusation of racism is NOT rooted in Hoppe's claim that immigration should be mostly European. It's rooted in his belief -- expressed in a crystal clear fashion -- that non-whites have inferior intelligence and character structure. (Also see his citation of a book which promotes genetic determinism with respect to race and IQ, in support of his (Hoppe's) claim that "negroids" (his term) have higher time preferences than whites.) Finally, please refer to the latest version of my edit (reproduced above) rather than the previous one in addressing your criticism. Steeletrap (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see my article tags. Perhaps they will attract other editors. Improvements and continued commentary on this talk page are certainly welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I've added a lot of citations and removed vague claims. Check it out and let me know if you think this is ready to be approved. (or, if not, what further changes need to be made)Steeletrap (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I think phrases of the form "XXX such as YYY" are problematic because although in common speech it means "XXX and others" the literal meaning, i.e. the criterion for inclusion in the cohort, is unstated. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, SPECIFICO. I just list YYY (Tom Palmer, Ghertner) believe Z (Hoppe is a racist) rather than explicate "XXX (libertarians) such as YYY (P/G) believe Z (Hoppe is a racist). Steeletrap (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning Up Alleged Racism and Homophobia Section

I sourced the claim that Race, Evolution, and Human Behavior is (as my paraphrase has it) an "explicit defense of unreconstructed biological racism." (I think that's what you were concerned with when you claimed "not in citation?" The Horwitz claim is in the first citation; he makes his criticism of Hoppe for citing Rushton in the comments section of Palmer's blog. On the Palmer article, control f for "Horwitz" and you'll find his criticism of Hoppe for citing Rushton. I submit that it's relevant to the issue at hand that a major libertarian academic would make this criticism publicly.) I think it's relevant that, as you (Srich) concede, Block has stated he "abhors" homosexuality (and expresses contempt for queer study theorists and "advocates of homosexuality" in the article in which he criticizes Hoppe), because it shows that even a fellow anti-gay academic has a problem with Hoppe's "physically removed" statement. You also wanted me to specify Walter Block as someone who accuses Hoppe of condoning aggressive violence against homosexuals. I don't understand why "verification is needed" for the claim that Hoppe advocates a "systematic pro-European immigration bias." Have you read the piece cited? If so, do you see possible reasonable interpretations other than Hoppe supporting such a bias? Steeletrap (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  • If I might provide some "outside" advice: The first line of that section needs to go. It's is absolutely original research to preface a section so named with a quote from a primary source and our own conclusion about what that quote means. It may very well mean what we are suggesting, but it's not our job to suggest it. For that, we need reliable secondary sources.
The subsequent sections are better, though they contain some dubious referencing which really needs to be cleaned up. I'm going to go ahead and remove that first line. We can always add a line which says, AA responded to Hoppe's claim in Democracy that xx, suggesting Hoppe was yy and yy. We cannot just say - Hoppe said xx and so must have thought yy. Stalwart111 02:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, so with the above in mind I have had a crack at cleaning up the first half of that section. Would appreciate some feedback. I should point out that I'm not an economist and have no real interest in any of the content itself. I have approached the edit from a purely "Wikipedian" perspective; fixing links and language and references without paying a lot of attention to the content itself. I could just as easily have been editing an article about motorbikes or cheese. Stalwart111 03:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, and I've now deleted that second section entirely. It is nowhere near well sourced enough for inclusion and it is almost pure original research. Views are attributed to Steven Horwitz, but none of those sources are by Horwitz himself. Instead, the passage relies on a comment posted to someone else's blog. We can't source criticism in a BLP to a source like that. Besides which, this is A discussing B citing C and suggesting that some think C might be a racist. That doesn't mean A has suggested B is a racist, only that citing C possibly wasn't a good idea. In fact, in the very next line he says, "that by itself doesn’t make him wrong or a racist". So even if we could cite that comment (we shouldn't) it still wouldn't be okay for sourcing the claim that he thinks Hoppe is a racist. Stalwart111 03:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. One reason I tagged the Horwitz material was a lack of verification that it came from that Steve Horwitz. More importantly, as you say, the OR cannot stay. WP is not the place to WP:RGW. And prohibiting OR helps us avoid that pitfall. – S. Rich (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Stalwart, forgive a slightly off-topic comment, but I see you are experienced with BLP articles. Aside from the section you are working on, I am concerned that this article is largely sourced to blog, and other non-RS material and primary sources. It would be great if you could go over the article from the top if you have time. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think SPECIFICO is chomping at the bit to do some editing. (Am I right? ) But he wants to avoid EC. Me? I'm going to wait till tomorrow. Happy editing, guys! – S. Rich (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Not in this case, Srich. I am uneasy about all the blog sources and primary sources but I don't know anything about Hoppe or the issues and I recognize an expert editor like Stalwart when he appears. SPECIFICO talk 04:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure about "expert" - my experience with 21st century economists would certainly be considered "very limited". But BLP principles remain the same - claims about living people must be verified by multiple reliable sources with proper deference to WP:WEIGHT. I actually have no doubt that we could find enough reliable sources to substantiate a section on accusations of racism, but the sources put forward were nowhere near adequate. The big problem with articles about modern academics is that they are often sourced to material written by the subject him/herself with an interpretation from whichever editor added the material. Usually those editors are from the same field and have a genuine interest (sometimes a COI) in the subject and so the interpretation is close to accurate (at least accurate in terms of the subject's point of view). But in reality, those are not sources we can use to verify claims in BLPs. We can't simply cite a passage from one of Hoppe's books as a source for claims like, "Hope believed x" or "Hoppe asserted y" (except in particular cases where he actually says, quite clearly, "I believe..." or something). We need for someone else to have said, "In Hoppe's book, he asserts y", in a book of their own. Then we can make that claim and cite that source. Stalwart111 04:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Well put. Looking at this article, it's not clear to me whether Hoppe is a notable scholar or a crackpot who is known only to colleagues and cronies. Again, it would be great if you could apply the principles just stated to the balance of the article. SPECIFICO talk 04:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll do my best but I don't think it will be a one-dayer (ah, cricket and economics!). Again, like many academics, there are probably going to be those who consider him a "crank" (Tom G. Palmer openly says so) and those who think he is an enlightened scholar for the ages. Just a matter of finding a balance. Stalwart111 05:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay then. I've started a bit of a clean-up; mostly fixing references and removing dead links for now but I've also started re-writing sections. I've tried to focus those sections that have {{main}} templates on responses to Hoppe and the publication of his ideas, rather than responses to the ideas themselves. Those ideas/publications have their own articles and responses to the ideas themselves can go there. This article should be focussed on commentary on Hoppe himself, though obviously that commentary will stem from his ideas. If that makes sense?
Given my near-total lack of experience with such subjects, perhaps it would be good if those contributing to this conversation could help out with some sources. Removing the dead-links and useless stuff means there are a few gaps. Some of the remaining ones are... less than stellar. So if anyone has anything useful, feel free to thrown it in! Stalwart111 07:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I think I understand. The problem with noting that Hoppe compares homosexuality with pedophilia and calls it a "perversion" is based on original research, while the Horwitz criticism comes from a comment to a blog post (which, I suppose, might possibly not be him). I think I've misconstrued the intentions of some of these edits, due to my being unfamiliar with the Wiki rules (and assuming that colloquial common-sense standards applied). Sorry! I understand why the latest version has been changed. However, having established this new section, maybe we can take down the characterization of the homopohobia part as contentious? Steeletrap (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
No need to apologise! Yeah, it's original research while it's our interpretation, no matter how accurate or learned that interpretation might be. As soon as someone reliable publishes said interpretation in a reliable source, we can use it. I don't think there is much doubt that the Horwitz who commented is the Horwitz in question but that would still be self-published (and, yeah, I suppose we don't know it's him). I'm not sure what you mean about the "contentious" bit but if there's a template there that shouldn't be, or something else, you should feel free to change it. Stalwart111 14:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, there have been some great edits throughout the day (overnight for me) - really impressive, collegial stuff. I did move the whole-of-article BLP tag to the top of the page. Agree there are some primary sources (though this is okay if balanced with secondary ones which I think is happening slowly) but a tag like that is okay until we get some more balance. I've also added the list of respondents back into the section on Argumentation ethics. I agree entirely with cutting that long quote down to one or two important lines but I also think the focus of that section should be on Hoppe and those who responded to him, rather than the idea which has its own article anyway. My thinking is that if the concept didn't have a page of its own, we would need to summarise the idea and the responses. Given the idea has its own article, that section should be about Hoppe, when and how he published the idea and those two responded to him at the time. If that makes any sense? If there is strong disagreement, by all means revert away, but this would seem to be fairly standard practice for BLPs. Great work all! Stalwart111 01:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I am much happier without that list. None of the others is of the stature of Rothbard and the publisher is not so distinguished that we should care who or how many it chose to include for comment. I propose reverting to the shorter version. SPECIFICO talk 04:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure, to be fair all these people are relatively unknown to me (though I'm catching on pretty quickly with all of this related reading). If the feeling is that many of them are notable (enough to have articles here) but only Rothbard's response is noteworthy then that's fine by me. I included it again only to raise it here but you should feel free to remove it - you'll get no argument from me. Stalwart111 06:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:Steeletrap#Libelous_edits_on_Hans-Herman_Hoppe and feel free to comment. Like I told him there: " your biased edits and admitted strong Negative POV and the fact your PhD advisor recommended you look at these people for your dissertation, you really are getting into an area where you could be banned from editing these related articles at all under this biographies of living people-related arbitration.

I haven't even looked at what else he's done in this article or others; I'll now check references on Lew Rockwell article which I've been too busy to check til now. CarolMooreDC🗽 16:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Your remarks are unacceptable. My new heading was a paraphrase of WP:Con. The fact is that "libertarianism" Block's view is "non-aggression"; it is therefore a humble inference to draw that Block's perceived violations of it are considered by Block to be aggressive violence. You may a reasonable case that this is OR or WP:syn(and that the long-standing language about "aggressive violence", which was not objected to by three other editors who helped me with this page, should be deleted), but it's repulsive that you are making these insinuations when my edits have consistently been done in the light-of-day, with a justification always given, and this one is the product of WP:Con. You will be reported to the relevant authorities. Steeletrap (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
As I said on your talk page, if one has a strong POV in an area, it's better to learn the ropes in a less controversial area since one will tend not to believe what editors with opposing views say. I certainly found that to be true editing in the Israel-Palestine area and so it took me longer to believe things they were telling me about policy that were in fact true. After 5 or 6 or 7 years of editing 10 or 15 hours a week one does get pretty good at knowing what the community will and will not approve of. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Immigration section

So I've had a play around with each of the other sections but am struggling with the section on immigration. I can't really see how that particular article of Block's is particularly critical of Hoppe. It is perhaps an alternate view but it never really presents a criticism of it, per se. Maybe I've missed something? There's nothing I can see that we could use there to support the assertion that Block was critical of Hoppe's view. Are there any other sources we could use? Does anyone want to have a go at that bit? Stalwart111 06:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think his views on immigration are much different from a lot of libertarians and particularly notable. It would make more sense to just have a section on "views" and include a paragraph on various ones that might be a bit interesting and quirky. I frankly don't know much about him and nothing sticks in my head when I hear his name. (Except now that he's not advocating violence against homosexuals. Just using stupid sloppy language to say he wants covenant communities.) CarolMooreDC🗽 17:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Prof. Hoppe

There must be a more recent photo of Prof. Hoppe for the article. The current one must be from 30 years ago. SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe 15. He sent it upon request himself. So we know he's a little vain. Or just doesn't have many photos of himself... Email him for a more up to date one. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
If he sends one, do you know where I can read how to insert it? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Commons is best since saves trouble of someone having to transfer it there; See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard CarolMooreDC🗽 17:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wholesale revert

Steeletrap, you are being disruptive. The edit: [2] reverted CarolMooreDCs changes that dealt with BLP issues and my edits that covered style, format, syntax, etc. Focusing on my edits, you re-added the "university" when it was the Provost who had written/issued the letter. The final authority of the university, the President, withdrew the letter. So it was improper to imply/state that "the university" admonished Hoppe. Sentences should start with words, not numbers. The citation for the quote was well placed at the end of the quote. As for the other problems, I shall leave them to Carolmooredc. Please stop this. The article is dynamic and WP:CON does not apply. Why? WP:CCC. – S. Rich (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So: I am viciously personally attacked for an edit which only paraphrased text that only paraphrased a byproduct of WP:CON (text which you, if you recall, accepted without objection), and then you call me "disruptive" for reverting it. You are using disingenuously polite languages to mask biases, agendas, and personal attacks. Steeletrap (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)) 23:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding a Users' "libel" accusation

Discussion was taken to ANI & resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is nonsense. You are welcome to argue that it is WP:Syn to say that BLock says Hoppe says Hoppe advocates coercive violence against gays. (For the record, I disagree: What Block says is that Hoppe's advocacy of "banning gays from polite society" violates the libertarian non-aggression principle, which by definition (according to him/mises institutel ibertarians generally) equates to advocating or engaging in aggressive violence). But the "libelous" title I created ("Alleged Advocacy of Anti-Gay Violence") merely restated and summarized CON text in the sub-article which was tacitly or explicitly accepted by all editors for weeks. Given that CON text, it was an accurate description of the sub-article. The only libelousness is in an accusation of legal wrongdoing being thrown at me. Please note that even if your charges were well-founded, your making them in this fashion is in public defiance of WP: Guidelines. See: WP:Threat, according to which "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You are saying that you aren't the one who originally put in this material and then just kept "improving" upon it? As I comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_CarlMooreDC_making_false_accusations_of_libel.2Fthreats_of_banning the libel thing was just the icing on the cake of biased, POV, disruptive editing of BLPs and I removed that libel per WP:BLP. Libel isn't illegal in the US so making that claim wasn't something to get you arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned, as you seem to think. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Steeletrap, reading the diff provided by Carolmooredc, it seems obvious that the material you added was libelous and that Carolmooredc was absolutely right to remove it under WP:LIBEL. You are profoundly misreading WP:NLT if you think it applies here. In any case, if it does apply, obviously it applies to me too now, right? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Gosh am I quickly losing faith in Wikipedia. You can argue (incorrectly, in my view) that I am guilty of WP:SYN, but WP:SYN is not "libel." Block clearly says that 1) Hoppe violates libertarianism by advocating gays be banned from polite society and 2) that all violations of libertarianism entail coercive violence. Therefore, 3) Block believes Hoppe's view on banning gays from polite society entail coercive violence against them. The CON text that I paraphrased in this title is a garden-variety logical inference from Block's own words. And yes: it is against WP rules to accuse people of libel erroneously. Steeletrap (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer this be a dead issue if you understand the point - you can't just go accusing people of violence or other bad stuff on wikipedia unless you have a highly reliable source that uses those exact words (and to be safe quote really negative stuff directly - cause Wikipedia editors individually can get sued for libel by the actual subject of an article, thought I doubt HHH will do so).
Wikipedia is more like a copy machine than a word processer. We summarize or quote others' views, we don't write up our own. Now if you can find a source that actually says what you want to say in such a way that no editor can prove otherwise, and present it in a relevant and not WP:Undue fashion, fine.
But you can NOT say A says x and B says y, therefore c. That's synth. You can say A says x and By says y and if they draw conclusion c, so be it. But you can't draw it. (Though sometimes editors will challenge that sort of thing if it obviously violates any of a number of other WP:RS/WP:NPOV/WP:BLP/etc. rules.) CarolMooreDC🗽 15:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Syn isn't libel, and it's ridiculous to conflate the two, particularly since I am a noob, and made my original changes to this page before I even knew what SYN was. I yield that I misinterpeted WP rules in setting up the Admin discussion (assertions of libel only are formally banned by the community if they involve some sort of legal threat; with your having denied that, there is (lamentably) no apparent policy against your false accusations, and (lamentably) they do not technically constitute a personal attack, since while heavily charged they do not specifically relate to a person's moral character.) But the important thing is: Do you deny the truth of premises 1) Block says Hoppe's "physically remove" is unlibertarian 2) BLock says all unlibertarian policies entail aggressive violence? If so, you contradict your own claim. Steeletrap (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Here's what I wrote:
Walter Block, a colleague of Hoppe's at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, wrote that Hoppe's comments calling for "homosexuals and others to be banned from polite society" was "exceedingly difficult to reconcile it with libertarianism" because "the libertarian philosophy would support the rights of both groups to act in such manners."[1]
Now you do the work of telling me what I missed that Block actually wrote. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Block says in the cited piece that Hoppe's views regarding "physically removing" gays from "polite society" are "therefore erroneous, at least in my view, from the perspective of correct libertarian theory." In his view, all behavior that is incompatible with libertarianism entails aggressive violence. I'll let you do the rest. Your charge of libel (which has nothing to do with WP: SYN) is laughably false and I await your apology, though I acknowledge that there is little I can do to prompt it. Steeletrap (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Hoppe says "physically removing" but Block says "banned from polite society". And the only lack of reconciliation he sees is that Hoppe doesn't mention homosexuals can do the same to hetros. Now I think he should have challenged Hoppe's use of term "physically removing" and his not explaining how separation can be done in an entirely libertarian manner (as opposed to, for example, having legally enforceable zoning codes that keep minorities out of the rich white suburbs). I could write four or five sentences or even paragraphs on that myself. But that does not mean I can stick it in here or misinterpret what Block says. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on you to prove an accusation of libel. You have to come up with a tortured definition of terms to make a remotely plausible case of libel, given that my claim follows logically from two uncontestable premises (1) Block says Hoppe's gay policy violates libertarianism 2) Block says all violations of libertarianism entail non-aggression). I appreciate that you deleted your PA on the Lew Rockwell talk thread, and hope that your apology on this clear-cut matter is forthcoming. Please remember that WP:SYN -- while against WP editorial policy -- is not the same thing as libel. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is this ("libel") a subject of discussion here? How is it aimed at improving the article? The subject of libel accusations was taken to ANI and resolved. Please start a new thread, without libel as a topic, which focuses on article improvement. I am hatting the discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Libertarianism is unique; it belongs neither to the right nor the left: a critique of the views of Long, Holcombe, and Baden on the left, Hoppe, Feser and Paul on the right by Walter Block (Loyola University) p. 22-23
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe/Archive_2&oldid=1082470381"