Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Corrected "Academic freedom" BLP problems

There were some serious BLP problems which I corrected:

• The Lake article is ref’d from the publication and from a forum. Please only use the original source. Material claimed to be in it was not. ( Also no need to use multiple sources for the same factoids.)
• Snyder in Questia version didn’t say “gay”student and didn’t describe student’s comments except for hostile environnent complaint; if Snyder wrote them in the Highbeam version, you will have to quote word for word. Otherwise just including Snyder comment at end.
• Per 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.” – What his ACLU lawyer says counts; what the President/PR guy says not all that important and WP:Undue commentary.
• Remove WP:Words to avoid “claim”
• Note we lead with secondary sources not primary sources, esp. out of chron order.

Please more careful when writing and study WP:BLP and WP:RS policies. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, your unilateral removal of well-sourced material, based on no specific arguments from the text, is unhelpful. Steeletrap (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Where do either the Lake article or the Snyder article say what you claim they say? I couldn't find it. Totally unsourced material that is not in sources claimed is to be reverted.

Please read Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Carol. Please stop removing massive amounts of material from this article that is well sourced in the article. These faulty edits undermine the encyclopedia and could be avoided simply by your reading the citations before editing. To illustrate the point, you delete the following passages.

First, Alden also instructed Hoppe to "...cease mischaracterizing opinion as objective fact", Alden asserted that asserted that Hoppe's opinion was not supported by peer-reviewed academic literature, and criticized Hoppe for "refusing to substantiate" his statement about homosexuals with any evidence, despite being repeatedly asked to provide it. (All the claims/quotes in this passage come from a source previously cited in the article): http://www.mises.org/pdf/hoppeletter.pdf)

Second, Hoppe appealed the decision and was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, a spokesman for which stated that while "[w]e don't subscribe to Hans' theories and certainly understand why some students find them offensive," university attempts to reprimand Hoppe for stating them violated his academic freedom. (All the claims/quotes in this passage come from a piece previously cited in the article: (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=16525.0;wap2)

Your changes are unacceptable and reflect the need for editors to read (citations) first and make edits later. Adopting such a policy would prevent you from making erroneous claims about "violations" of policy.Steeletrap (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

At this diff, Alden quote is NOT ref'd by that source but by http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=16525.0;wap2 which is just a copy of the Lake article at the newspapers website, but with a different title. Put a proper source in the proper place and the unsourced issue is done.

ACLU president opinion, besides inaccurately sourcing the Lake article, leaves out the more important opinion of Hoppe's ACLU attorney. We can stick in the President's opinion, but we'll let others judge the final version.

You did not respond to my comments on what you claim is in Snyder. I wrote: "Snyder in Questia version didn’t say “gay”student and didn’t describe student’s comments except for hostile environnent complaint; if Snyder wrote them in the Highbeam version, you will have to quote word for word. Otherwise [I am] just including Snyder comment at end." (I.e., in either case Snyder's comment belongs at the end.)

Also see my quote of Wikipedia:BLP#Balance and comments on use of secondary sources to describe the situation before primary are used. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There is/was no unsourced issue. These are quotations and paraphrases from newspaper articles about the scandal, and statements from the university/ACLU; they're not opinion pieces. I'm not going to go back-and-forth over this but it's preposterous that you deleted loads of well-sourced material. Steeletrap (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

First, at this diff I put back two sentences now that the correct references finally were identified with edit summary: now that proper refs identified for statements have put them back with WP:Undue note since they do seem to be unnecessary POV jibes considering the outcome

(Note I didn't read the whole letter and upon doing so may have other opinions on accuracy of quotes or its possible other uses as a source.)

Second, let me spell it out. You wrote: A gay student who heard Hoppe's lecture described the remarks as unfounded, and criticized Hoppe for characterizing them as a matter of economic fact rather than a personal opinion. He further claimed that Hoppe's words were derogatory toward homosexuals and therefore tended to create a hostile classroom environment. REf:Martin Snyder, Birds of a Feather?, Academe, March 1, 2005 from HighBeam Research. I found the same article at Questia [ here].

However, the only text that was essentially the same was that in bold "hostile classroom environment" which is properly referenced by Lake. Nothing else was in there. If Highbeam actually has that text and Questia (734 words of actual text) does not, do tell. If not, then you cannot make all those WP:Original research claims from your personal knowledge or opinion. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If no evidence that this material is in Snyder it goes very soon. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Snyder

Introduction: At the very end of Hans-Hermann Hoppe#Academic freedom controversy, should Snyder's quotation say:

• "Freedom of faculty members to express views, however unpopular or distasteful, is an essential condition of an institution of higher learning that is truly free. Without vigorous, open debate, education becomes mere indoctrination." Or:
• "Freedom of faculty members to express views, however unpopular or distasteful, is an essential condition of an institution of higher learning that is truly free." – S. Rich (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The additional quote from Snyder is off topic for Hoppe and does not concern the details of the Gay/Hoppe incident. The add-in is about "debate" which is not the fact in the Gay/Hoppe affair, where the issue was alleged misrepresentation of opinion as fact. Snyder is speaking from self-interest as head of a labor organization promoting the interests of his group by trying to insinuate a broader issue into the case. This is not about Hoppe and should not be inserted in the article any more than a "balancing" quote about homophobia or ignorance in general should be introduced to try to paint Hoppe as either of those. The add-on was Boldly inserted, it was Reverted, and it should remain out of the article unless Discussion arrives at consensus to re-introduce it. SPECIFICO talk 13:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Response: What is said about the added sentence could be said about the previous sentence: "Freedom of faculty members to express views, however unpopular or distasteful, is an essential condition of an institution of higher learning that is truly free." E.g., it is a 'debate', is in 'self-interest', does 'not concern the details' of the incident. But clearly (as the 2 sentences follow one another) Snyder is talking about the incident and its importance to academia. Leaving the first sentence alone puts emphasis on the "unpopular or distasteful" aspect of what the student perceived and less emphasis on the underlying, and much more important, rationale for allowing Hoppe to speak without fear of reprisal. The decision of the provost was reversed in favor of the more important rationale, and Snyder's fuller quote serves to underwrite that rationale. – S. Rich (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If that was the Provost's rationale you will need to have him say so, not the union boss Snyder. The first part relates to Hoppe, who made a statement that was allegedly distasteful. The second has nothing to do with this case. Hoppe did not engage in debate, he stated something as fact. Your paragraph above has not addressed my points above and meanwhile the reverted text should not be re-inserted until its inclusion is supported by consensus here to include. SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Union boss -- what does that have to do with this? The section is about the academic freedom controversy at UNLV; indeed, the matter was settled by the president on the basis of academic freedom. Seems to me that debate is part of academic freedom. But what I'm reading is "If you say something distasteful, you're not engaging in debate. If you say something that has no facts to back it up, you are not engaging in debate. If someone's feelings are hurt upon hearing something, you are not engaging in debate." (In the meantime I have tagged the sentence as {{Lopsided}}.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's about a misstatement of opinion as fact. It's not a debate about homosexuality, economics, consumer behavior or anything else. Please undo your re-insertion per BRD until the re is consensus. The tag doesn't address this request. Thank you. The appearance of edit warring is incendiary, given the history of recent edits and editors here. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 15:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll put it another way: Perhaps the section should be titled "Hoppe's [alleged] misstatement of opinion as fact and consequent academic freedom/political correctness/hostile teaching-learning environment controversy"? Re the tagging, it serves to put the article into the hidden "Category:Articles with minor POV problems from May 2013". That enables interested editors to spot it and engage in this debate. But without the "added" sentence, the lopsided tag would lack context. (E.g., if the second sentence is removed and the tag remains, it would be less clear as to what the brew-ha-ha is about. There's no big rush, or need, to revert. The question is neutrally laid out above. Let's see what other people say. (If another editor wants to remove the sentence in the meantime, I won't object.) There is no edit warring going on, and our yet brief, but presently unresolved difference of opinion is hardly incendiary. – S. Rich (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the justification for including Snyder. But if we're going to include him, shouldn't we include the following remark in his piece: "Those with a better memory than Hoppe for segregation, apartheid, internment facilities and concentration camps, for yellow stars and pink triangles, will find much that is offensive in his writings." (This comes after Snyder discusses Hoppe's view that "advocates of homosexuality" should be "physically removed from society"?) His view that Hoppe is promoting extremely offensive views helps contextualize the fact that he is defending Hoppe on the basis of academic freedom, rather than on the veracity of Hoppe's views.

Also: to assert something on the basis of no evidence is not a "debate." If I say: blondes are stupider than brunettes, and fail to provide -- and after being prompted further, continue failing to provide -- a scintilla of evidence for this claim apart from an appeal to conventional wisdom, this is not conducive to debate. I think however that there is a strong slippery slope argument (which, to pre-empt accusations to the contrary, is not necessarily a logical fallacy) against punishing professors from making such assertions, but they are intellectually sloppy to say the least. Steeletrap (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Carolmooredc. She's the editor who provided the Snyder material. – S. Rich (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm certain I'll be checking out of this page. Steeletrap (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to look at it again to opine. Later. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Why Hoppe's comment is perceived as homophobic

It is certainly not the place of an encyclopedia to make value judgments like: Hoppe is a bigot or Hoppe is a homophobe (so please, "colleagues", do not attack that straw-man, as I am not claiming the piece should assert such claims). However, we should make our best efforts to accurately present the argument of those who believe his remarks were homophobic, as opposed to obscuring that argument, as edits several days ago by one of my "colleagues" here have done.

People believed Hoppe's remarks were homophobic since Hoppe assumes, on the basis of no evidence, that homosexuality has horrible consequences. (leads to adults homosexuals having the saving habits of children, and led to what Hoppe considers erroneous and harmful economic theory.) It's the assumption that homosexuality is bad, (as opposed to an empirical statement that homosexuality is correlated with y social bad) based on nothing but an appeal to stereotypes, that people find homophobic. Since (unfortunately) the social consciousness of our society is not as attuned to homophobia as it is to racism, people should substitute "blacks" for "homosexuals", and consider whether it would be racist to assert, on the basis of no evidence (and indeed, after having made the assertion, refused to provide any such evidence after repeatedly being prompted to do so), that blacks have the saving habits of "very young" white teenagers/children, and don't plan for the future like whites do. Steeletrap (talk)`

Is this your way of saying the material you say Snyder said, he didn't say? If no WP:RS discuss this issue, we can't just make something up. No amount of WP:Soapbox arguing can go against that policy. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

List of "works"

The list of works is very long, with many self- or weakly published items included. This should be pared down commensurate with similar lists on other articles, particularly for others of Hoppe's stature. SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And I am doing/will do so, mainly looking for works which are shelved on major libraries. Will add "Authority control" template a bit later. – S. Rich (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC) But an evaluation of Hoppe's stature is subjective. So, as I said, I'm looking at the number of libraries which stock his stuff. Not very Austrian, but it's a measure that I can apply very roughly without having to read any of his stuff. 02:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We could start by getting all the Mises Institute stuff thinned out, especially the interviews which do not present scholarly discourse. SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Sources Needed

This article relies excessively on primary sourced material from various Hoppe interviews. It needs secondary RS material and reaction to Hoppe's writings. Also since Hoppe's Freedom and Property Society is mentioned, we should try to get secondary RS descriptions of that organization and its activities. SPECIFICO talk 11:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean all the Daily Bell material you removed? Using interviews with subject for non-controversial facts about ones self are NOT against WP:BLP or WP:RS. Please quote the policy that says they are.

Or find other secondary sources - just removing it is unwarranted. In the interim it is perfectly WP:RS and will be put back. In the meantime we tag neutral material that needs better sources, we do not remove it.

Removal of Austrian economics is particularly POV. See this books google search for example.

FYI, since Paleolibertarianism thing is dated, and somewhat self-serving, I don't have a problem with removing it. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please make specific reference to material concerning the Freedom and Property Society that you say I removed. Your meaning is not clear. SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP Violations

• List of "opponents" - if someone in some reliable source says "this person is wrong on x, y, z" and there's a ref in the text fine; didn't see anything like that from an WP:RS
• Influenced by or influenced sections without WP:RS that say Hoppe was influenced by (and more importantly that he influenced) certain people really are problematic. Especially given the attempt to emphasize the couple controversial things he wrote/said. (immigration not controversial). I assume if there were more controversial things they'd be in there by now. We want to avoid any possibility of guilt by association. Put in a ref for who he influenced."
• Claiming things are controversial in the lead when there is no real controversy on discussions of differences in opinion (immigration? libertarianism?)
• Using cherry picked quotes that evidently are supposed to have some negative connotation and then writing someone wrote something about them, without saying what, as if that supports the cherry picked quote when what they actually do say (which I summarized/quoted) is not at least controversial among libertarians. Find a reliable source that talks about the quote you want and you can use it.
• Academic freedom section way too long for an incident where he was exonerated. The couple of gratuitous criticisms from the losing side are just a POV use of Wikipedia. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

None of these points is supported by fact. For example, and for whatever reason, Hoppe appears to be despised by many mainstream libertarians. SPECIFICO talk 11:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? E.g., do you agree or disagree with the points Carolmoore has made? What should be done to improve the article? – S. Rich (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

His crackpot comments -- which were what caused controversy and brought publicity to the incident -- were not "exonerated"; the university merely decided that disciplining him for them (like disciplining Ward Churchill for "9/11 truth") was a violation of academic freedom. Steeletrap (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What matters is what is in the article. I don't see any full blown controversial WP:RS attacks on Hoppe in the article now. I'm not saying they don't exist in WP:RS form, but you have to do the work to find them. We can't take your word for it. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Exonerated/academic freedom/ whatever. It's still too long a section with a couple of nonencyclopedic POV digs. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Balance and WP:RS BLP problems

At this diff in Democracy:The God that Failed section: User:Speicifo's removal of the longer summary of what the book is about, sticking in your own WP:OR of "decentralization" which isn't even in the source, while allowing to remain such a nice long attack on his work for one section is clearly against 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. (And there is removal of other WP:RS info from the Daily Bell which I refer to below.)

User:Speicifo has made it clear on this talk page s/he dislikes the guy (see WP:Soapbox), but that should not influence editing. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I never met Hoppe, although we are email buddies. I neither like nor dislike him. "decentralization" is an accurate paraphrase of this quote " "shifting of control over the nationalised wealth from a larger, central government to a smaller, regional one" from the version I edited. We're not supposed to load articles up with direct quotes where simple accurate paraphrases such as this are available. Please do not engage in any further personal attacks. SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

One or two quotes are ok; more details from the review as well. I'll look at it tomorrow. Also, when one expresses a very negative POV, it's not illegal to mention it. That said, I see that I in my memory I misinterpreted what you said above, "it's not clear to me whether Hoppe is a notable scholar or a crackpot" - as being a personal opinion and not related to the evaluation of the article. So I'll remove the above. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, the personal attacks are simply out of control. They are consistently directed at those who disagree with your political views. Please stop making them as it undermines the editing process of this and other pieces you have contributed to. Steeletrap (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I rewrote my version shorter, but it does go along with the source. It reads:

In 2001, Hoppe published Democracy: The God That Failed which examines the failures of modern democracies including unemployment, astronomical public debt and bankrupt social security systems. He blames pressure groups seeking increased government expenditures and regulations. Hoppe proposes alternatives and remedies, including secession, decentralization of government to regions, and "complete freedom of contract, occupation, trade and migration introduced".

Specifico's version missed essential points of any anti-state critique. Anyway, again, it's really against WP:BLP to spend so much time on criticism when one doesn't even explain properly the theme of the book. Also note if you read decentralization article that may modest decentralization of administrative units or radical decentralization of political units, so it helps to be a bit more specific per the source. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Astronomy

"including unemployment, astronomical public debt"

This kind of meaningless language has no place in an encyclopedia. Language needs to be clear and well-defined, not like the elephant felt by five blind men. If the expanded content is to remain in the article it needs to be written with a single unambiguous meaning and without language that will cause each reader to infer a personal interpretation of the text. One man's astronomical is another man's microscopic. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, looking at source again (did you?) it turns out that the review was quoting Hoppe who wrote "public debt has risen everywhere to astronomic heights". So perhaps it should be re-written like this:

...which examines the failures of modern democracies. Hoppe cites unemployment, public debt of "astronomic heights" and bankrupt social security systems. etc." CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not having seen the original, I don't know what is an accurate paraphrase. It appears at least in that instance (astro) that the text was an accurate representation of a sloppy statement by Prof Hoppe. I have the same question about the rest of it. If Hoppe is so vague as to decry "unemployment," which has existed in every society known to human history, possibly excepting extreme fascist or slave states, then that would go in the article with no further clarification. If, that is, Hoppe states it in such a way. "Bankrupt social securities systems" is another good one. Is there an example in the book that would indicate Hoppe actually believes that such a thing exists, at least in a single instance? Or is that just a little bit of poetry? I hope that there's more serious substance behind Hoppe's work -- in which case this WP article should attempt to give an accurate faithful sense of Hoppe's views. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Because of copyright issues I cannot just copy everything quoted from the source here, can I? Please look at the source. I'm not into arguing about what he thinks or how he expresses himself, only trying to collaborate on a proper summary of the book made by the reviewer. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Economist/philosopher

Both of these descriptions are highly dubious. Has Hoppe ever published in peer-reviewed journals for either philosophy or economics? If so, there is no indication of this on his WP entry, which merely indicates his "contributions" to be crackpot philosophy (and no, it isn't a matter of "opinion" to say Argumentation Ethics is pseudo-philosophy, but a matter of logic, just as dismissing phlogiston theory of fire is not a matter of opinion) and the empirically unsupported arguments about monarchies being more economically efficient than democracies, which he makes in his book on Democracy. If he hasn't published a reasonable amount in such journals, I see no reason to characterize him as a philosopher or economist. Steeletrap (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We go by what WP:RS say, not editor's personal opinions in WP:Soapbox sections. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources extremist libertarians believe in are not "RS". They are the economic equivalent of creationism by virtue of their rejection of empiricism and statistical methodologies (that is not an ad hominem attack, but an accurate analogy understood by those who are trained in mainstream methodologies, including many more mainstream Austrians and libertarian economists like Gary Becker and James Buchanan (both of whom call LvMI-style Austrianism a "Cult"). Show me some peer-reviewed, mainstream economic sources Hoppe is published in and then we can list him as an "economist". (This is not "soapbox" but merely keeping with WP:NOTRELIABLE, according to which sources "widely considered to be extremist" should be deemed unreliable.) Steeletrap (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral, not "objective", and dicussion is not a forum. Is not the place for philosophical descalifications of Austrian Economics, neither the place for challenge schoolar debates. --Sageo (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I was cheking about Notability policies en English language Wikipedia. Well, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) says "Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work." In the case of Hoppe the impact of his work is about or around Austrian Economics and Political Theory. How the article could beging without the reason of his notability? Conversely, you are trying to say that only when "mainstream economics" accept him in a debate or publications -mainstream academis that this professor rejects- the article can mention his professions and notability, that claiming is very unusual and no neutral. --Sageo (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You have entirely misstated the issue. The issue could not be more simple. Find WP:RS citations for the content you wish to insert. In the meantime, undo your re-insertion pending resolution of the disagreement here on talk. Please undo your recent edits. SPECIFICO talk 03:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, again, the sources exists, "As an internationally prominent Austrian School economist and libertarian philosopher, Dr. Hoppe has lectured all over the world and his writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.", another "Degrees: 1974 Diplom (equiv.: M.A.) in Sociology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universitaet (Frankfurt/M, Germany)/ Dr. phil. (equiv.: PhD) in Philosophy, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universitaet (Frankfurt/M, Germany) // 1981 Dr. phil.habil. ('Habilitation') in the Foundations of Sociology and Economics, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universitaet (Frankfurt/M, Germany)"; "Economics - Hoppe, Hans-Herman (1986), Professor; M.A., Ph.D., Geothe-University, Frankfurt, West Germany." from University of Nevada, Las Vegas. In Spanish "Es profesor de economía en la Universidad de Nevada, Las Vegas y Distinguished Scholar del Ludwig von Mises Institute. Recibió su Doctorado en Filosofía y su grado posdoctoral en la Universidad Goethe en Francfort, Alemania" book from Universidad San Francisco de Quito. "Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Hoppe is the foremost economist writing in the tradition of Austrian Economics." from University of Economics, Prague. So now? --Sageo (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Put them in the article as relevant. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, started looking at refs for first sentence description more carefully. Walter Block's "Review of Hans-Hermann Hoppe" is fine for a "reception" comment but doesn't at all describe him.

Initially I thought the Daily Bell was a UNLV student news paper; then I thought it was just some unreliable self-promoter's blog. But now I've discovered that Hoppe himself quotes the whole interview in undated ebook The Great Fiction here.

His description at Mises Institute page is his most substantial CV but not even used here!

His personal website describes him as "currently" a professor at UNLV, so dated. Nevertheless on that page he calls himself an "Austrian Economist and Anarcho-Capitalist Social Theorist". Obviously he's written on The Private Law Society. Perhaps he should be described with both terms. Just throwing out some facts and ideas at this point for rumination. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring -- request for page protection

I have requested page protection. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Hans-Hermann_Hoppe_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Cprotect.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 – S. Rich (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please restore Furry's caption, per BRD. Thanks. I do not favor page protection. A small number of editors are reinserting text reverted according to policy and there are better remedies for such disruptions. SPECIFICO talk 13:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A discussion re the section title (Furry's caption) is above. I will comment further there. – S. Rich (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm agin it too - at least for now. And that link doesn't seem to be working. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The page protection request was denied, so you are well behind the times. . – S. Rich (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Dang me for having a life and not keeping on top of everything! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP Violation -- Habermas association

It is a BLP violation to associate living philosopher Habermas with Hoppe in the absence of a secondary WP:RS citation. This text must not appear without proper citation. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So, for that cases is needed a required citation template. And that is not an excuse to revert the rest of the editions. Like I explain in the resume yo are challenging the consensus, before make your changes you should discouse it. --Sageo (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That association is commonly asserted in many sources, saying that he makes his PH.D. with Habermas as teacher. What kind of source are you claiming for? a source where Habermas said he was his student? Because there are many free-marketer sources with that affirmation, not Hoppe himself only. --Sageo (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Please review WP:BRD. There is no requirement for consensus for the first insertion of content, nor for the reversion of it. The consensus is required to reinsert it after an editor (me in this case) has reverted it. If you have WP:RS that associates Hoppe with Habermas, that would solve the problem. Do you have it? The other text was removed for other reasons mentioned in the edit summaries. Principally: Unsourced material, excessively detailed material, and BLP violation. Please review the relevant WP policies and guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Daily Bell interview reads: He received his doctorate (Philosophy, 1974, under Juergen Habermas). CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, there are sources for that assertion, that isn't a kind of polemical one (Use Common Sense). The other information you are deleting is a necessary description of the person like philospher and economist, not a excesive detailed material. I think you have a deep problem of comprehension what Wikipedia relevance content is about, that is not a synonim of schoolar credentialism. --Sageo (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Bell interview like any interview, is a primary source. We need a secondary WP:RS. The intro to the Daily Bell interview appears to have been copied from our very own Wikipedia article. it is not a secondary reliable source as to Hoppe's PhD work. Any editor who sees this BLP violation should remove it. It is very unfortunate that such a violation would generate anything other than unanimous cooperation, pending resolution with a proper source. SPECIFICO talk 12:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used -- with care. Do we have Hoppe (as an interviewee) saying "I received my PhD in 1974."? (That would be a primary source remark.) But is it the interviewer, who may have done background investigation about the interviewee, saying "He received his PhD in 1974."? That statement is not a primary source statement. – S. Rich (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have discussed the relevant factors in the preceding post here. The secondary source interviewer is not RS as to Hoppe's studies. If it were the Wall St. Journal, the National Review, or whatever we could accept the statement of the interviewer. The current source interviewer appears to be quoting this same WP article. I hope that is now clear. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

People can always check the version of Wikipedia vs. the date the Daily Bell article was written. I'm sure he had a CV out there with all that info also. When in doubt, find better sources. Good start is his personal "about" page. I'm sure there are lots out there. (Personal note, FYI to other editors collaborating: I'm just going to concern self with BLP violations which I will pursue to hilt. Minor issues of factoids others can deal with.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves reads: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Curriculum Vitae, article lists, etc can be useful to lead to secondary sources or can be used when there aren't others, as long as reasonable number used. If there's a stalled debate third parties can always be asked to comment. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation of this simple factoid exists and will be put in soon enough. As time is found in between dealing with real BLP issues. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Argumentation ethics

If Argumentation Ethics were Hoppe's only contribution, that's enough to make him a great philosopher and economist. Argumentation Ethics definitively proves that no one can coherently disagree with Hoppe on economics and politics. It's strictly logical and value free, which makes it odd that the so-called "pioneers" of modern logic, Aristotle, Russell, Whitehead and Wittgenstein, missed the boat on it. Hoppe should also be labeled as a logician, quite possibly (per Argumentation Ethics) the best logician ever. Steeletrap (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Beg to differ. A great Philosopher, yes. A trailblazing logician. Yes! But not an economist. I have not seen any RS that calls Hoppe a notable economist. Not surprising, because with the exception of J.S. Mill, I don't know of any philosophers who are or were economists. We still need RS to make the statement that Hoppe is an economist. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

First, economics is a matter of study, not only a "tittle". Second place, his Habilitation is in Economics. A faculty offering a professor of economics that is not an economist? --Sageo (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You say it's a "matter of study", but there is no evidence Hoppe has ever published in a mainstream RS, or engaged in any serious study of economics since his Habilitation degree. Now one can argue that economics is no longer a coherent field of study, at least since Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics showed the illogic of all economic theories which contradict Hoppe's political views, but it is difficult to make the case that Hoppe is an economist. Steeletrap (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

To have a profession in which a persons publish is enough to be mention at the intro of a reconized person in a field (notability is not about be notable is all environments, and his environment is Austrian Economics). What you demand is that contrary schoolar stream publish them (and Economics is also Austrian Economics). That have not sense, you never will be satisfied if that is your demand. That you should realize is not an encyclopedical require. Anyway, check, the UNLV site says that Hoppe is Professor Emeritus in this program Economics MA, and in this program these are the subjects: Mathematical Economics, Macroeconomic Theory, Microeconomic Theory, Econometrics I, Statistical Modeling, Econometrics II, Seminar in Economic Research, Internship. "We don't need" RS as you say, editions policies don't fobid primary sources for CV info; but anyway with these links I suposse this discussion ends.--Sageo (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, Steeltrap, I suggest to avoid use talk page for (anti)propaganda. Don't make this an anti-Hoppe pamphlet. --Sageo (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've found good refs for his being an Austrian economist and a libertarian theorists. And, yes, let's stop trashing Hoppe. Your snide and nasty comments above just reek of academic food fights, frankly, and are not appropriate for an encyclopedia which attempts to be NPOV. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Academic freedom section heading title

The first discussion re the proper title for the section was here: [1]. (I was mistaken about the amount of discussion that had taken place -- it was more about the contents of the section.) [In any event, the heading has had changes -- from allegations of racism & homophobia, to homophobia, to the most appropriate (in my view) "academic freedom". ADDED later -- this section heading has been stable for many years. There have been other sections & discussions about homophobia, etc., but those did not directly involve this particular section.19:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)] And this heading is well supported by the content of the section. The ultimate decision by UNLV, following Hoppe's appeal, was based on academic freedom. The section does not discuss his views on homosexuality, only the allegations that the perceived homophobic views created a hostile learning environment. So it is inaccurate to say he has any particular views about homosexuality per se. Those views, whatever they are, are not discussed in the body of the section. Next, if any of the section heading title were to say "homophobia", then we are implicitly saying the controversy was decided on that issue. Or, if we say "allegations of homophobia", we, again, are glossing over the ultimate decision. For WP policy, section headings must, like article titles, be descriptive, concise, and neutral. (The policy is here: WP:NDESC, which specifically says we should avoid the use of "allegation".) – S. Rich (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't know people were trying to change it again, but I do agree with you. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This controversy was about Hoppe's insinuation of his views on homosexuality into what was purportedly a class in economics. The fact that he was, to some extent, got off the hook by playing the "academic freedom" card does not mean that "academic freedom" was the subject of the controversy. Moreover, academic freedom is not controversial. That's precisely why Hoppe was able to cite this right as his defense. To caption the section "academic freedom controversy" is like describing the acquittal of a murderer who was mistreated by US Police and then captioning the section "Miranda Rights Controversy" Whoever undid Furry's new more descriptive title should re-insert it pending resolution of this matter on talk. Edit warring is not going to improve this article. SPECIFICO talk 13:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If we start saying Hoppe was "purportedly" teaching a class (in the section), then we're getting into WP:ALLEGED problems. If we say "claims of discrimination" in the section heading, then we have a similar problem, as the discrimination claim was dismissed. If we title the section "controversy over statements about homosexuality", and base it on the classroom statements, then we are giving undue emphasis to what the student perceived. On the other hand, Hoppe may have certain views about homosexuality, which go beyond what he said in the class, and which are supported by RS. A section on those views might work so long as it does not rehash the academic freedom material. But then, if his views are not part of his academic work, does this (new) section become a "More taste! vs. Less filling!" debate? E.g, does he wear boxers, briefs, or go commando? How important are any of these views to the article? – S. Rich (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

15:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Srich, to my knowledge, no editor here is proposing to add text to the article saying that 'Hoppe was purportedly teaching a class'. Could you please provide a diff to the problems you reference above. If you have misspoken, please strike your comment, as it may confuse other editors who read your message above. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO. The controversy was not over whether academic freedom is a good thing, or an appropriate characteristic of the university. It was about Hoppe's dig against the gays and their supposed poor ability to plan for the future. (substitute "blacks" for gays and you'll understand why people -- including the ACLU which defended Hoppe -- understood that the comparison of gays to the "very young" and the "very old" in their savings habits would be found offensive.) The fact that he repeatedly refused to provide evidence for the assertion was, according to Alden, crucial to this matter becoming so controversial. Steeletrap (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no "repeated" refusal to substantiate. And the article has been corrected in that regard. Like I said above, if we can create a separate section about Hoppe's anti-gay views, let's do it. But taking one (or more) purported statement in the classroom and creating an entire section out of it is UNDUE. The student made a discrimination and hostile learning environment complaint, Alden decided it on that basis, and Harter overturned the decision on another basis. The final decision by UNLV is the issue that the section should focus on. – S. Rich (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You're simply incorrect, Rich. Please reread the letter. (see: http://www.mises.org/pdf/hoppeletter.pdf) The conclusion Alden states is that "the grievance is hereby affirmed." He says that this affirmation "is based on the unanimous reports of the grievance panel" which "specifically determined that purportedly empirical statements [by Hoppe] ... regarding homosexuals were not reported by peer reviewed academic literature". He also goes on to state that Hoppe not only did not support his claims in class but "refus[ed] to substantiate" his empirical claims about homosexuals "at the [disciplinary] hearing." This leads Alden to conclude that Hoppe "violate[d] the appropriate standards of scholarship and instruction responsibility, as well as the accuracy obligation."

So you're just incorrect in your above statements, Rich. Hoppe did repeatedly refuse to substantiate his claims (in class and in the disciplinary process) and the ruling of Alden is explicitly "based on" the lack of evidence for Hoppe's statement about homosexuals. Steeletrap (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"purported past participle, past tense of pur·port. Verb. Appear or claim to be or do something, esp. falsely." Srich, are you asserting that the content of Hoppe's statement on homosexuals is in doubt or is disputed? If not, it would be clearer if you would strike that word, "purported." Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. The comment stemmed from your "This controversy was about Hoppe's insinuation of his views on homosexuality into what was purportedly a class in economics." I didn't think you were suggesting that the section describe the class in those terms, but I was concerned that other editors might pick up on that lead. So I wanted to put the kabash on any use of the term "purportedly" in the article. (And my remark serves as a lead-in to my other comments.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please strike the remarks, which can only serve to confuse other editors even as they have caused me to be confused, even knowing as I do the substance of my own remarks. Economists, especially Austrian School subjectivist economists, are not in the business of predicting the actions or preferences of heterogeneous groups of people aggregated under a single label such as "homosexual." Hoppe's statement as to the preferences and actions of homosexuals does not fall within the field of economics by any definition of economics and my use of the word purported referred to the fact that he was lecturing on an entirely different topic at the time he made those comments. Please adjust any of your writings on this page which misrepresent my use of the word "purported." Otherwise, future editors may become confused, hobbling the discussion of prospective edits. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that "Academic freedom controversy" has been the section title for several years. See: [2]. The section was first added as "Controversy" in 2005 [3]. Steeletrap added a new section here: [4] which did not address the classroom incident. User:FurrySings' edit to the section heading was the first one to change it in all those years. – S. Rich (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:CCC. What is your reason for reciting the history at this time? SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can change. And I am setting the record about the old consensus straight. You had said "(Undid revision 556201342 by Srich32977 (talk) I don't see any discussion of this title, which appears to have been intact for over a year. Per BRD let's not undo Furry before talk discussion.)" But the section title had been Academic freedom controversy for many, many years. The WP:BURDEN to change it is on the editor proposing the change and FurrySings made no effort to fulfill that burden. Once I opened up this discussion the other remarks have been more general -- that is, hashing about the homophobia issues. Those issues have revolved around various other, separate sections of the article, not the academic freedom section. The old "B" was not the consensus title, it was Furry's change. My reversion was the R, and it invited Furry to discuss. I do not see where anyone has provided a compelling reason to go against the old consensus, and this discussion should not be a back-door or a run-around effort to get the homophobia material into the article. I have said "Put it in". It just needs RS, etc. – S. Rich (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Srich, I please reinstate Furry's title for the section. There is clearly no consensus for the one you reinserted. In fact, while you and Carolmooredc prefer the one you reinserted, there are at least 3 editors here who prefer Furry's. As stated, "academic freedom" is not a controversial subject and was not the subject of any controversy in this matter. The controversy concerned Hoppe's statments themselves. Please undo yourself and let the article breathe a bit. SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As stated above "Please note that 'Academic freedom controversy' has been the section title for several years." The consensus for the section title was "academic freedom". If FurrySings wants to achieve a new consensus, then FurrySings should state the case and achieve a new consensus. But justification for any change must meet WP:NDESC. If editors want to have or expand a section on Hoppe's views about homosexuality, they can work on such a section. But what happened at UNLV may have involved a charge of discrimination, but that charge was dismissed. So we cannot have a section titled "Charges of discrimination" or "Alleged charges of discrimination" or "Dismissed charges of discrimination at UNLV". Each one implies some validity to the charges. And the degree of validity can be, should be, described in the text. Since the ultimate decision by UNLV came out as an academic freedom issue, then we gotta stick with that. (And of course there was controversy about academic freedom -- if academic freedom was so crystal clear, why didn't the Provost settle the matter right then?) Earlier I saw an analogy about someone who may have escaped a criminal conviction because of Miranda warnings (or some such technicality). Well, in the United States we have a presumption of innocence in a court of law until proven guilty. If someone gets off via a jury verdict or legal ruling, that person remains innocent under the law. Indeed, even if new evidence comes in which absolutely proves guilt, the Constitutional protection against double-jeopardy prevents retrial or ever proving someone guilty. As WP stands on NPOV, a neutral description of the controversy is needed. Describing it as other than academic freedom only gets into the topic of another section. Come on, FurrySings, state your case to the contrary -- why should this section heading, which stood untouched for years, be changed? – S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

See here: [5] The section heading doesn't say "Jury Nullification Incident." The arguments above are specious. The WP 'burden' policy statement is incorrect. The old language is not set in concrete. Consensus here so far is in favor of the change. Please leave a note for Furry stating your view of his obligations. The controversy was entirely about Hoppe's insinuation of his personal opinion into what was ostensibly a course in economics. It was adjudicated because the University has a procedure for processing such complaints. UNLV made no decision on the issue of academic freedom. It cheapens the article of this leading Private Law Society academic to have convoluted and defensive doubletalk prominently displayed in his article, as if he or his students should be ashamed of his views or his expression of them in the classroom. Racial, Gender, Religious and Behavioral stereotypes should be discussed proudly and openly. Hoppe did not hesitate to state his views, now let's not put him in the closet. SPECIFICO talk 12:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that the other side hasn't offered compelling arguments, I would note that it's three editors (SPECIFICO, Furry, and myself) against two (Rich and Carol; I don't count SAGEO because he hasn't yet commented on this matter, and in any case is, due to his conduct, limited by Admin in his ability to contribute to the Hoppe page), so we have a pretty substantial (50%) advantage in consensus. Steeletrap (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

On a more personal note, I remember as a young queer kid in the American South, how much ostracism and bullying I faced. I therefore have great sympathy for Hoppe, who faces at least as much discrimination just because he's a white heterosexual male Private Law Society traditionalist. Shaming Hoppe for asserting baseless stereotypes about gays isn't attacking him for what he does; it's attacking him for who he is. To obscure who Hoppe is through a title that denies Hoppe's true views on the gays is to, as SPECIFICO put it, "put [Hoppe] in the closet", thereby continuing to shame him for who he is. That sort of discrimination is unconscionable, and while encyclopedic merit is the strongest reason to restore Furry's title, I would hope that my colleagues would have enough of a heart to also consider the importance of compassion and empathy. Steeletrap (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Furry's change was "==Controversial views on homosexuality==" but the section does not discuss Hoppe's views. The student's complaint was about discrimination and a hostile learning environment, and the "discrimination/hostile learning environment" could well have stemmed from classroom remarks about religion, rock & roll, drug use, etc. The nearly year-long investigation was not decided on the basis of any of Hoppe's views, but upon the question of whether expressing any views (pro- anti- etc) in a classroom was appropriate. The nationwide publicity was not about his particular views -- it was about the expression of views (which students may or may not have agreed with) in the classroom. The follow-on academic conference was about academic freedom, not about anyone's views. Four years later, the classroom controversy popped up again at UNLV -- as an academic freedom issue. Hoppe's views -- beyond the classroom -- can be or should be discussed in other sections. – S. Rich (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• What remarks did Hoppe make about religion, rock and roll, or drug use? Please be specific. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply – Exactly, he did not make such remarks and the statement was rhetorical. What if he had brought up Islam in this economics class and remarked that Islamic prohibitions on interest had stifled economic development (or some other such thing) and what if an Islamic student found the remark to be offensive, and had reported it as discrimination that created a hostile learning environment? And, following an 11 month investigation, a reprimand was issued and then overturned. Would we be titling the section "Controversy on views about Islam"? – S. Rich (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Ans: Yes. However your having asked that question confirms that you do not understand my question that preceded it. Let me be more direct: Introducing irrelevant and off-topic what-if's and defective analogies does not advance your argument. It's flailing about in all directions, a new one each time, and failing to acknowledge the hate speech which -- nobody denies -- Hoppe uttered. Now this legal concept of hate speech has only been defined and limited in the US within the more or less recent past, but for better or for worse it is currently implemented in public, corporate, and institutional policy within the US. I urge you to re-read this thread and try to offer specific replies to all the questions and requests that others have made after taking the time to read your messages. Reciting specious analogies and fraught comparisons is not going to advance any rational progress in this discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Hate speech? As he "undeniably uttered" hate speech, perhaps we should title it "==Hate speech uttered by Hoppe in a class, one student's reaction to the hate speech, subsequent investigation and results thereof, and aftermath==" ? – S. Rich (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Hoppe did not deny that he uttered the hate speech as defined. This has been pointed out many times here on talk. If you have WP:RS to the contrary, I would have expected you to use it to improve the article by now. After my last posting here, am disappointed to read your reply above, which continues an unconstructive sequence of replies. I again urge you to give a careful re-reading of this thread and to join the others who have attempted to respond specifically and in detail to the questions and arguments which others have raised. I hope you will do this so we can make progress here. I've asked you several questions, the answers to which would help move us toward a resolution in this matter. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Rich, you should go back and read the RS. They all make it explicit that the student was offended by Hoppe's unsourced remarks about how the gays have the savings habits of heterosexual children (the "very young"); your comments about how it could have been about something else are simply incorrect. Steeletrap (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply – Yes, the RS says the student was offended by the remarks about gays. Should the section be titled "==Reactions of one student to Hoppe's comments about gays and how UNLV handled the matter before and after national publicity broke out==" ? – S. Rich (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• As to the broader discussion of Furry's proposed title, it seems clear to me that every RS mentioned in the section revolves around Hoppe's comments about the gays, while only some of them relate to "academic freedom". The "academic freedom" thing is only mentioned in the context of a failed attempt to discipline Hoppe for his baseless and offensive comments, which failed because they were given in "economics class". The main point of the section, which runs through all the statements made therein and through the RS which support them, is Hoppe's remarks about the gays. Steeletrap (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply– The broader issue is how UNLV handled the matter and eventually settled it after publicity had broken out. Moreover, the RS shows UNLV later conducted its' academic freedom conference not because of Hoppe's views, but because of the controversy. And years later, when UNLV tried to reopen the academic freedom issue, the ACLU criticized UNLV baed on academic freedom concerns. – S. Rich (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This section brings to mind the charming anecdote about Mises Institute mastermind Llewellyn Rockwell that libertarian Thomas Fleming shares on his website: "When I remarked to [Llewellyn] that (National Review columnist) Joe Sobran was now calling himself a libertarian, Rockwell asked me--entirely in jest--whether he was a tax cheat or a child molester, explaining that people became libertarians to find a justification for their moral failings. Imagine my surprise when Rockwell began telling me that I had authored this rather brilliant insight." Llewellyn's wry remark seems to anticipate the insistence on captioning this WP section as being about "academic freedom" when in fact it is solely about HHH's undisputed and conceded hate speech. Life imitates art. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I will post an RfC on this topic shortly. Hoppefully it will bring in other editors to comment. – S. Rich (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC is posted. I think interested editors can comment below. – S. Rich (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

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