Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Hoppes Friend

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you had other references describing his friendships, you could use them in one sentence. Something like "Hoppe met Block during tryouts for the Lichtenstein Olympic Swim Team^[1] and they have remained friends ever since then,^[2] along with fellow Lichtensteinan Gold Medalist North.^[3]" But great caution must be used to avoid insinuating anything in this BLP/Austrian Sanctions article. The insinuation to avoid being "Block praised Hoppe's book because they are friends." – S. Rich (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section headings – "covenant communities"

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

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

No, srich. You are violating BRD here by continually re-inserting your favored sub-title. "Intolerance" has been the consensus sub-title for months (originally was added by Bink), and you are attempting to unilaterally override it. The term was used by Hoppe, and applies to the expulsion of homosexuals and others from his covenant communities: Wrote Hoppe "they – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order." Steeletrap (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

I put in "intolerance" because it is found in Hoppe's book. He wrote, "There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal." Hoppe expected intolerance. Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. 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.

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

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

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

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

Actual quote vs. Gobbly Gook[Poor] Summary

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

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

• Quoted version:

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

• Gobbly Gook[Poor] version:

Each community would be largely focused on the protection of property rights, but would incorporate political, religious or social restrictions. Communities would be formed under a wide variety of agreements, and intolerance would arise within a community against those who do not meet the restrictions. Hoppe pictures a libertarian world with warning signs at the edges of covenant towns saying "no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users, Jews, Moslems, Germans, or Zulus".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moved to Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe § "Discrimination in covenant communities" non-neutral?

Relationship with Murray Rothbard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not the one who is doing that, but it looks to me like others might be, if only inadvertently. That's what happens when you put WP:Undue attention to any relationship. Please read WP:BLP and think about why " must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. 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. " applies. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's all about an encyclopedic tone and presentation: Phrasings like "greatest treasure", "hightlight of my life" and "dear fatherly figure" while fine for a memoriam (the source) are not to the same degree appropriate style for Wikipedia; and in particular we don't need an overload of such phrases (and it should not be smuggled in through an overload of citations). The "constant close personal contact" also looks a bit unencyclopedic in tone by being too adjective-heavy. Minimizing use of superfluous adjectives is an important part of an encyclopedic tone. Saying that Hoppe moved to the US because of Rothbard, later followed him to Nevada and worked closely with him until his death and was his prinipal mentor and source of inspiration should be sufficient. I would have liked to have the section include some more on how his thinking and work was influenced by Rothbard; that's what's encyclopedically interesting. I don't see the source saying that Rothbard and Hoppe "lived together". Iselilja (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Iselilja is entirely correct. – S. Rich (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

S/he is correct regarding tone, but it's preferable to over-use quotations than to purge reliably-sourced information altogether. Owing to the tendentious behavior of pro-LvMI editors (claiming everything is OR that is slightly paraphrased), we have had to over-use quotations, since those can't conceivably be called OR.

S/he is mistaken in trying to portray the relationship as mere mentorship. It was characterized by love and devotion. It was Hoppe's most important intimate relationship. Ideally we will convey that in the section. Steeletrap (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: Again, your claiming editors are "pro-LvMI editors" is as much a personal attack as MilesMoney's "conservative cloud". The whole thing would look just as WP:Undue if it was a section on Brad de Long fulminating about his love for Krugman or Biden fulminating about his love for Obama. I might not bother to revert it and get in a discussion about it; but if someone else reverted it as WP:Undue I would certainly not go against policy and revert it back. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are Hoppe's words:

In 1985, for the first time, I met Rothbard the man, and for the last ten years I have been working and living side-by-side with him,
in constant and immediate personal contact with him. During this time, Murray also became my closest and dearest fatherly friend. I
loved him like a son loves his father, and it makes me happy to know that Murray looked upon me as one of his favorite sons. My ten
years with Murray were the highlight of my own life, and the memories of our association will forever remain my most precious
personal treasure. 

How do we convey the extraordinary devotion Hoppe expressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Like this, à la summary style: "Hoppe said [[Murray Rothbard]] was his "principal teacher, mentor and master".^[x] After reading Rothbard's books and being converted to a Rothbardian political position, Hoppe moved from Germany to New York City because of Rothbard, and then followed Rothbard to the [[University of Nevada, Las Vegas]] where, according to Hoppe, they had close contact until Rotbard's death in 1995. He called Rothbard his "dearest fatherly friend".^[y]"

– S. Rich (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc is soap-boxing about how the text implies that Hoppe and Rothbard had sex. This is not implied by the text. Nor is there any evidence that this friendship became sexual, or ever involved inappropriate conduct of any sort. It is insulting to say that people of the same gender can't love each other without wanting to snog other. I urge Carol to stop airing this potentially libelous gossip immediately; both men are loyal husbands and it's insulting to imply otherwise, on the basis of no evidence. Steeletrap (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: I am not linking to the page because I do not want to give unneeded traffic to such a calumny. Steeletrap (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not soapboxing to point out what looks like an obvious inference. Otherwise the rest of my reply is in my request for an injunction at Arbitration on further editing of these articles here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read Hoppe's words in the source, quoted above. Their love was the love of a father and son. There is no other implication and this unfounded speculation to the contrary is a BLP violation of Hoppe's privacy. SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing is WP:Undue sectioning and detail, especially when so much else about writings, etc., has never even been researched or entered. I guess we can take it to WP:BLP if the WP:Undue put back. Why not try to find more on his academic writings etc. It's out there if you care to find it. My wikipedia time sucked up dealing with nonsense like this. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do add his "academic writings" to the article. That would be great. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected the page for 3 weeks due to lots of aggressive editing without a consensus. If you'd like any changes to be made to the article, please gain consensus for the changes and then use the {{edit protected}} template. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not just quote Hoppe?

People say it's OR to say the men lived together and loved each other. Why not just give a big block quote? That's better than pretending this relationship was strictly intellectual or a friendship. (they were like s dad and his son, as Hoppe says. What is wrong with that?) "for the last ten years I have been ... living side-by-side with him in constant and immediate personal contact ... Murray became my dearest fatherly friend. I love him like a son loves his father, and Murray looked upon me as one of his favorite sons. My ten years with Murray were the highlight of my own life, and the memories of our association will forever remain my most precious personal treasure." Steeletrap (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Arguments about that are above. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Iselilja: Do you now see the problem? We are accused of misrepresentation for paraphrasing text, and thus have to (as you say) over-use direct quotations. Look at the above quotation: are we really misrepresenting Hoppe by saying Rothbard loved him as a son? It was clearly the most important relationship of his life. It is inaccurate to portray their relationship as strictly intellectual: they were like a family. And they appear to have lived together, even if they weren't legally registered to the same deed. Steeletrap (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What part of WP:Undue do you not get? People can read the reference for the details.

What part of WP:OR do you not get? "It was clearly the most important relationship of his life." "And they appear to have lived together, even if they weren't legally registered to the same deed." You are just guessing. After someone dies and you write a memoriam you may get sentimental and blather. Drop the stick. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you realize how ironic it is to accuse me of OR (for simply posting a quotation from Hoppe) while you draw the speculative inference that Hoppe's remarks are mere "sentimental ... blather?"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

And do you realize the difference between article space and talk page space?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"Discrimination in covenant communities" non-neutral?

The term "restrictions" is so vague that it's almost meaningless. What Hoppe is talking about is discrimination -- the right of covenant communities to exclude homosexuals, Germans, Zulus, and so forth. He repeatedly uses the term "discrimination", and does so in a positive sense. Yet User: Darkness Shines says this violate NPOV, and purges all quotations of Hoppe which favorably use the term "discrimination." Instead, he prefers the vague term "restrictions." He fails to realize that just because Hoppe holds views that are un-PC doesn't make it non-neutral to clearly present them. Steeletrap (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

He really wants to exclude the master race and germans? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Hoppe wants to exclude ("physically remove") homosexuals and democrats from the "libertarian order." But he favors the right for communities, in accordance with property rights, to exclude Germans, jews and others. He envisions discriminatory covenant communities.

Since you insist on purging "discrimination", You might as well delete the word "restrictions" too. No one will have any idea what "restrictions" refer to, making the extra words useless. The subtitle should read "discrimination in covenant communities", but just "covenant communities" is better than "restriction in covenant communities." Steeletrap (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

This section seems to be the definition of WP:UNDUE — Hans-Hermann Hoppe#Controversy over remarks about homosexuals and academic freedom. Thoughts? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of thoughts (and non-thoughts) on this issue in the talk page archives, mainly from last year. (BTW, three of the commentators are now topic-banned from this article and a fourth is indefinitely blocked.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

TFD re H-H H invite

For editors who have interest in H-H H, I invite you to look at this TFD. – S. Rich (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources to show that he is a libertarian/ anarcho capitalist

@Zaostao: Since I'm not seeing them in the article, I'll add the Citation needed template again. From WP:LEADCITE "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

On "criticisms"

Hi again! @Zaostao: The wiki page you linked says: "Alternative section titles which avoid a negative connotation include "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques", and "Assessments". ... In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies

Since, I have the impression that we will not agree that this is a situation when the use of "criticism" in the section title is adequate, then I propose to use this: "Support for immigration restrictions and critiques" since critiques is listed as an alternative word and rightfully represents the critiques/criticisms of other libertarian authors who have reacted to Hoppes writing on the immigration issue. I'll consider a non response as an agreement. --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Responses or critiques would be alright. Zaostao (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Total misquote

"His comments on homosexuality—especially his view that homosexuals must be "physically removed" from society if a libertarian order is to be maintained[9]—"

He was talking about a society that choose this admission standard within a libertarian order (i.e. they bought land). Thus people who don't conform to the admision standard must be removed if property rights are respected (i.e. libertarian order). This kind of cheesy dishonest misquotation that is so common really bums me. :( --188.120.134.181 (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Your suggestion for a re-write will be appreciated. – S. Rich (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This type of distortion is all the more vexing since it obscures the real debate over the idea of "physical removal" itself in a nominally free society, by shifting the argument to whether Hoppe actually advocates that all homosexuals be removed from society in general (which is provably false and easily dismissed). It's a shame that the article oscillates between the overstated/false version of the claim, and physical removal of the phrase "physical removal" along with the controversy around it. 2601:647:4501:2510:E834:F93:ECA7:3141 (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"Alleged" IQ differences

User GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN reverted my slight edit on the article concerning the part:

In terms of specific immigration restrictions, Hoppe argued that an appropriate policy will require immigrants to the United States to display proficiency in English in addition to "superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values".[37] These requirements will, he argued, result in a "systematic pro-European immigration bias". Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation opined that the immigration test Hoppe advocated would probably be prejudiced against Latin American immigrants to the United States.,[38] due to cultural differences between European Americans and Latin Americans and alleged differences in average IQ's.

My edit only does two things: 1) removes the alleged, since there is nothing alleged about this, and IQ gaps are well-established and affirmed by every authority and even the APA's own report (see 100s of citation in the main Wikipedia article). 2) adds a link to Wikipedia's article on Race and intelligence. Reverting makes little sense for the second part, and user GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN should have instead challenged the alleged part instead of doing a whole revert. Thus, I re-do my edit and he will have to defend his decision here. --Deleet (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

alt-right

"associated with the alt-right." Very bold claim indeed... Let's examine the sources. One is an opinion piece. So is the next one. The others I cannot immediately access. Does anyone else have access to them? Benjamin (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

the Washington Post citation is to the fact that "His Property and Freedom Society’s yearly symposiums have hosted talks by Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor and Peter Brimelow, founder of VDARE, the anti-immigration site that also counts Hoppe as a contributor." VDARE and Richard Spencer articles both label them as alt-right. So if that doesn't constitute "associated with the alt-right," I'm not sure what would. He's literally a contributor to an alt-right website and hosts conferences with alt-right speakers. It would be incomplete and not NPOV to simple describe him as "libertarian anarcho-capitalist" without noting the major way in which he substantially differs from most with those labels, which is his strong degree of association with the alt-right. 70.92.230.94 (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, several years ago... When the term "alt-right" didn't even exist and Spencer wasn't known for bigoted views and other opinions that make him - not Hoppe - associated with the alt-right. Even if we assumed what you're saying was true, two op-eds are hardly relevant, as it has already been pointed out to you. There is no credible source to the best of my knowledge that makes such an association. Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Feb-05-Sat-2005/news/25808494.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061101104003/http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/Soc%26Cap.pdf to http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/Soc%26Cap.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)