Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe/Archive 5

Last paragraph on Academic freedom controversy section
The paragraph should, I think, be deleted. That paragraph is uninformative about the incident in question. The causal relationship between Hoppe's remarks and the UNLV anti-bias workshops, if it exists at all (and though one RS implies it, there is no clear evidence of that from university statements etc) is quite tenuous. The need to delete is compounded by the fact that the section is already extremely long. Several sentences about the nature of the anti-bias workshops and how professors (including one who remembered the Hoppe incident) spoke out against it has no clear place in a biography on Hoppe. Steeletrap (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, of course, I think it should remain. The controversy had direct consequences and the RS does more than imply such. The 2009 proposed policy is tied into the Hoppe incident too. I did consider re-writing and footnoting the 2009 info, and will continue to cogitate on that idea. – S. Rich (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First, regarding conference, SRich removed the specific thing the reliable source said regarding Hoppe which is important and substantial: "including UNLV administrators attempts to censure Hoppe, prompted the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, to hold a conference on academic freedom in October 2005." I think I'll integrate that back into his version.
 * Second, as we've said before, this shows the academic freedom issue regarding censure of Hoppe continued at the university for several years. (Unfortunately the fact that the proposal was squashed doesn't seem to be in a WP:RS, though we can still look around for evidence. Obviously it is NOT on their website as a current policy if you look for it.) Haven't we been over this issue a couple times before above? ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 15:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reference to the Hoppe incident, a few months prior, is quite enough. We don't need to give undue emphasis to the fact that some people at UNLV were seeking to censure him. – S. Rich (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Traditionalist views on race
Hello esteemed colleagues! I am thinking that this entry would be enhanced by a discussion of Doc. Hoppe's "traditionalist" views on race. This statement is illustrated by the fact that he invited to his PFS to give lectures on race both an editor of a Neo-Nazi Journal (Volkmar Weiss) as well as Richard Lynn, a man who, while moderate and even liberal on race compared to Weiss, has argued that " What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples." (Update 5/31: http://rightwatch.tblog.com/archive/2007/02/ is the source for Weiss/Lynn attending PFS; this was cited earlier in the article by user SPECIFICO but I put it here to defend myself against a user's charge that I am making speculative, unsourced claims Steeletrap (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC))
 * [Insert reply to update]: As noted on another thread, the reason we don't use sites like rightwatch.tblog.com and see them as unreliable; often they just publish inaccurate rumors or make stuff up to trash people. Please check WP:RSN where you can search past discussions and see if they've ever been looked at as reliable. Same with VDARE which I'm pretty sure has been nixed already. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 16:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Carol. That was the original source used to source my true and easily documentable claims, and I wanted to make that clear. However, there are other, better sources which I privately confirmed via Google before making these true and easily documentable claims. (for instance, Professor Paul Gottfried: here confirms that Weiss and Lynn were invited to speak at the conference, and notes that the Southern Poverty Law Center called Hoppe out for that.) Steeletrap (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * [Insert]: You should strike and replace comments after others have replied, though in this case the article is a confusing personal rant so it's hard to tell who was invited and who wasn't. (Must have failed to save my reply on this one.) Then there's the problem of sources that bring in millions of dollars a year scaring the heck out of wealthy elderly people being used for anything but factoids from the most neutral and factual reports. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 17:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Carol. The Southern Poverty Law Center and Professor Gottfried are no longer my only reliable sources. Please note that I just uncovered the following source from the website of Hoppe's Property and Freedom Society (http://web.archive.org/web/20080515130524/http://www.propertyandfreedom.org/resources/PFS-meeting-program-2007.pdf). Weiss did speak there, in a lecture titled "History as Cycles of Population Quality." Also on the subject of race, there were speeches by Tatu Vanhanen and Richard Lynn, entitled IQ and the Wealth of Nations and The Global Bell Curve respectively (speeches almost certainly based off of their books by the same title, both of which advance the thesis that some races are biologically inferior to others with respect to intelligence). I guess something good came out of the incorrect NPOV violation charge against me, as I uncovered material will be helpful to discussion of the topics discussed at Hoppe's society, which should be posted in the future to Hoppe's wikipedia page. Steeletrap (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The following quotation, in which Hoppe uses the "old-fashioned" term Negroid to describe the blacks and how they (like the gays) don't plan for the future (have a "greater time preference") as well as whites, in the context of defending his view that democracy is less efficient than monarchy in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary, is also instructive: "It would be an error, for instance, to illustrate my theory of comparative government by contrasting European monarchies with African democracies or African monarchies with European democracies. Since Caucasians have, on the average, a significantly lower degree of time preference than Negroids any such comparison would amount to a systematic distortion of the evidence." (see: http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/benegas.pdf pg 5).

In lieu of RS, I am not going to add this material without gaining consensus first on the talk page. But I think it's clear that it would be a very important addition to Doc. Hoppe's entry, in terms of accurately representing his views and affiliations to the world. I would note that it is NOT contrary to WP policy to simply paraphrase or quote the view of a living person from an original source so long as it is bereft of interpretation or explication. (i.e. stating he believes blacks have a lower time horizon/quoting the diddy listed above; and indicating that he invited Lynn and the Nazi journalist to talk about race at his club.) Steeletrap (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Update. The RS VDare describes Hoppe's PFS ""Property and Freedom Society" as group "that holds conferences for the remaining right-wing libertarians and other politically incorrect outcasts such as Richard Lynn, Paul Gottfried, Paul Belien, Tatu Vanhanen, and Peter Brimelow." (See: http://www.vdare.com/articles/lew-rockwell-and-the-strange-death-or-at-least-suspended-animation-of-paleolibertarianism) Additionally, VDARE has also published the remarks by Brimelow, a white nationalist and former National Review columnist (former because he went the way of Joseph Sobran, I suppose), delivered to PFS an anti-immigration speech. The speech featured remarks such as "Immigrants, above all immigrants who are racially and culturally distinct from the host population, are walking advertisements for social workers and government programs and the regulation of political speech—that is to say, the repression of the entirely natural objections of the host population" (emphasis mine). As well as claims such as "when the government monkeys with the racial balance through immigration, it matters" in part because "if you import more members of the "protected classes", you disadvantage Americans who are not members of the "protected classes". (See: http://www.vdare.com/articles/immigration-is-the-viagra-of-the-state-a-libertarian-case-against-immigration)


 * Without making the OR claim that Hoppe/PFS are racist, the remarks (and affiliations, or in Brimelow's case, white nationalism) of the speakers Hoppe invited to PFS should be noted in the race section. Steeletrap (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what edits you are proposing, or, more generally, what sort of edits you have in mind. But maybe I'm trying to read between the lines and doing so unsuccessfully. In any event, how does Vdare fit in? Is Arthur Pendleton a noteworthy contributor? Is Vdare RS? In looking at the Charity Navigator page, the Vdare Foundation looks like pretty small potatoes. Vdare showed up on the WP:RSN archives twice, but only as tangential citations. I do see that Hoppe posted a piece on Vdare here: but what are we to do with it? – S. Rich (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right that I wasn't particularly clear above. What I am saying is that Hoppe's remarkable views on race ("Negroids" having a higher time preference than Caucasians) should be presented somewhere in his WP entry. (where would those fit? I am not sure. But they should be included.) I am also saying that the views on race of the lecturers of the PFS, and the statements about race they make in their remarks to the PFS, should be presented under SPECIFICO's proposed section on PFS. I believe that former National Review columnist Peter Brimelow and VDARE meet the criteria for RS, especially in such a benign context (just transcribing what Brimelow said to PFS and describing the ideology of some speakers at PFS). Steeletrap (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Srich, don't forget: The von Mises Institute is pretty small potatoes. The University of Nevada Las Vegas School of Business Administration is small potatoes, etc.  To channel Donald Rumsfeld, we edit with the potatoes we are served, as long as they are WP:RS well-sauced.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear! WP has an article on the old fashioned term Negroid. What are we to do with the fact that Hoppe used the term? – S. Rich (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the question, could you be more specific? Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't "do" anything with the fact that Hoppe used the term "Negroids", apart from quoting Hoppe accurately and bereft of analysis (unless an RS has commented on that particular passage). Our readers can decide for themselves why he chose to use the term "Negroid", in the context of an unsubstantiated, unscientific claim about the "time preferences" of the blacks. (by the way, Wikipedia also has entries for the N-word and faggot. And the first paragraph of Wikipedia's entry on Negroid says "The term is commonly associated with notions of racial typology which are disputed by a majority of anthropologists.[4] For modern usage it is generally associated with racial notions, and is discouraged, as it is potentially offensive.[5].") Steeletrap (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously what Hoppe writes has not been considered significant by a WP:RS as you yourself note. Yet you launch into long speculations about it anyway. Please see WP:BLP about not using wikipedia to share titulating and defamatory info about people that has little likelihood of ending up in the encyclopedia. Please take these conversations to emails where it will not make Wikipedia look bad. You have been warned for weeks about this sort of thing but you just keep it up.
 * There's something called WP:Reliable sources noticeboard where you can type in links and get past opinions on reliability which can be a clue to future opinions. I'm quite sure VDARE would not pass muster. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 22:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Involved editors:
 * Change. I think that "controversy over views on homosexuality" is a better title than "Academic Freedom Controversy." I think that because everything in the section relates to the former while only some parts of the section relate to the latter. The section proceeds as follows: 1) Hoppe's potentially derogatory in-class remarks about homosexuals are presented 2) It is noted that a student complained that the comments were homophobic/discriminatory 3) A university official agrees with the student's assessment re homophobia/discrimination 4) The official contacts Hoppe and tells him, in a letter in a non-disciplinary letter, to stop making derogatory comments about homosexuals bereft of empirical evidence 5) Hoppe contacts the ACLU, which agrees with Hoppe's characterization that the non-disciplinary cease-and-desist letter violates his academic freedom, despite the fact that they sympathize with those offended by Hoppe's (allegedly homophobic) comments 6) the President of Hoppe's university agrees with this view, saying that offensive/non-mainstream positions can't be squelched, bc this violates academic freedom. 7) The aftermath of the scandal is described, with commentators expressing their views on Hoppe's remarks and whether they are protected by academic freedom. Each of these seven parts of the section relates to a "controversy" regarding Hoppe's views/statements on homosexuality. However, only some of them relate to academic freedom. The former title is therefore more accurate in describing the section as a whole. The controversy stemmed from, and consistently relates to, Hoppe's remarks on gays. Steeletrap (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Leave as is 1) Section has had its title for many years (starting off as "Controversy" in 2005). 2) It follows WP:NDESC, particularly as to NPOV requirement. 3) The disciplinary process re Hoppe's comment was resolved on the basis of academic freedom and the anti-gay discrimination charge was dropped. 4) The bulk of the section deals with the UNLV administrative process and the associated controversy – the RS supports the academic freedom aspects of that process. (In fact, UNLV held a conference on academic freedom six months after the complaint matter was closed.)  5) The section does not discuss Hoppe's actual views (pros & cons & whatever), but only the fact that one student heard something perceived as anti-gay and made a complaint. 6) Changing the section title opens the doors to an unbridled section on his "views" (or alleged views) with claims & counter-claims. In fact, there has been much debate on this talk page. (See sections 1, 1.1, 8 above.) If there is to be a section about Hoppe's views, it should be set up as a separate section. 7) Last point – Advocates for changing the section title seem to have negative views as to Hoppe personally. The classroom remark was described in the above discussion as undeniably "hate speech" and "crackpot", but that characterization is hardly supported by RS. Steeletrap, who has suffered "ostracism and bulling" says "Shaming Hoppe for asserting baseless stereotypes about gays isn't attacking him for what he does; it's attacking him for who he is. [Emphasis in original]" Changing the section title (and thereby opening a can of worms) only assists in an effort to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.  – S. Rich (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction. Rich implies that article is not about "Hoppe's actual views", but rather hearsay from a student. This is incorrect; not only do numerous RS attribute those views to Hoppe, but Hoppe himself verifies he said the views attributed to him by the student here. Steeletrap (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a correction. I do not deny that Hoppe made certain comments. I do wonder if the (classroom) comments accurately state what his overall views are about homosexuals or homosexuality. Taking the classroom comments, the student's reaction, the resulting academic freedom controversy, and turning this into a section about his overall views is improper. – S. Rich (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep : Change to something reflecting all concerns While I have my concerns below, I can see that enough people are concerned enough about his comments about homosexuals that the remarks should be mentioned in the title. (If he'd said all the same things about women no one probably would have complained. Sigh...) Anyway, I think acceptable and NPOV language has been suggested and/or could be improved on. What is process for coming up with that?
 * 1)These were not highly negative and defamatory comments about one group's economic planning and he included the "very young and the very old" as people who may not plan adequately for the future. Should there have been a claim of ageism as well? There probably are a lot of other groups he should have included, including poor people surviving day to day. He was accurate in stating that other economists had mentioned John Maynard Keynes and homosexuality and planning per Niall_Ferguson, which WP:RS don't seem to have commented further on in regards to Hoppe himself. (The real bias here is that its not widely known he was a bisexual not a homosexual, but that's not necessarily a Hoppe bias since it's not even in the Keynes article.)
 * 2) The initial ruling was overturned on free speech and academic freedom basis, with help from the ACLU.
 * 3) The newest material from the Las Vegas Sun shows overwhelmingly that the Hoppe incident remained an academic freedom issue on campus, became part of nationwide discourse, and even 4 years afterwards Hoppe's connection was mentioned as a person whose academic freedom had been challenged. And the ACLU once again got involved on free speech grounds to squash the "bias" proposal. In fact if it was not for that new last paragraph I would think the whole incident only should be one paragraph in a better organized "life and work" section or under controversies if there are any other real public controversies.
 * 4) What do prominent people say in the article? Nevada ACLU executive director: "academic freedom means nothing if it doesn't protect the right of professors to present scholarly ideas that are relevant to their curricula, even if they are controversial and rub people the wrong way" and UNLV President: "In the balance between freedoms and responsibilities, and where there may be ambiguity between the two, academic freedom must, in the end, be foremost" and Martin Snyder of the American Association of University Professors wrote that he should not be "punished for freely expressing his opinions." and faculty members who the LV Sun said were worried about "academic freedom". Given that most Wikipedians are averse to censorship, a few editors trying to emphasize through a section title a non-defamatory statement, while burying the "academic freedom" aspect really is quite questionable. Two more new article emphasize that the university received bad publicity for thwarting his rights to academic freedom.
 * 5) BLP reads: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content. Given that overwhelmingly his academic freedom was supported and only the student and a couple adminstrators complained, it is clear that that changing the title would be a WP:BLP violation and even RfC "consensus" (whether or not obtained through canvassing) cannot overturn policy. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 17:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments section:
Comment I, an involved editor, agree with the above uninvolved editor Chris G that the title is about Hoppe's remarks on homosexuality. Everything in the passage relates to those comments while only some of it relates to academic freedom. It's the main point of the section, not "defamation." I also agree that the section should be shortened. The "aftermath" stuff is a quick candidate for deletion, as that has little to do with the original controversy and the RS cited therein only mention Hoppe's controversy in passing. Steeletrap (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe link to relevant discussion above for overview/background. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 02:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Minor note, I'm uninvolved in this, but I did just correct the bare urls and removed the reflinks tag. It seemed uncontroversial and the easy thing to do for checking the sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The only thing ChrisGualtieri did was to tweak the bare urls. No comment was made about Hoppe's remarks or section title. – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)04:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Rich, you missed her comment above...
 * Steeletrmp: You should note that you wrote the "aftermath stuff" and I fixed it to show sources treated Hoppe as an aggrieved party, not the whole reason for creating the bias policy as was inferred. Anyway, that should be discussed below, not here. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 04:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No Carol, you are again incorrect in your reading of diffs. Others added the aftermath content. I merely expanded on and accurately explicated it (e.g. what UNLV meant by "bias"). Steeletrap (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments regarding possible closure: The default period for RfCs is 30 days per WP:RFC. Moreover, as this is a contentious issue we should have a formal closing. (This is not to say I am adverse to a consensus closure, but we do have time to do more work on this.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So at some point We'll figure out what to call it here? I.e., formal "final name of section" section or something? Thanks. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 16:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Title Proposals
How about "Claims about homosexuals and ensuing academic freedom debate." Seems to me about as comprehensive and succinct as we can get in a tough situation. Steeletrap (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Academic freedom debate after remarks on homosexuals" more accurate. We avoid "claims" in Wikipedia - see WP:CLAIM. And academic freedom debate is focus of the article. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 16:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your title relegates the homosexual remarks to a peripheral role, Carol, by implying (with use of the term "after" rather than "resulting from" or "caused by") that they are only relevant insofar as they preceded the academic freedom controversy. I do appreciate your concern with the term claims.


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


 * Revised: Academic freedom debate resulting from remarks on homosexuals. Resulting is acceptable; homosexuals is word most used in refs and I think by him and is more encyclopedic; academic freedom is the larger issue; it's only his remarks in an academic context making generalizations about different groups that is an issue. (Obviously kids and seniors should have had a fit too over ageism, but they weren't in the classroom. Not to mention poor people who were left out entirely. And then there are variations in ethnic views on time preferences, say the Germans vs. the Greeks. Not very academically thorough. But then it wasn't taped, so who knows what he said that day, which are only remarks in question here.) ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 17:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – While Carolmooredc's suggestion is a bit long, it does comply with WP:NDESC. 'Debate' is shorter than 'controversy'; and the debate was re 'academic freedom' & the 'remarks'. The debate was not about his particular 'views' (good/bad; pro/con; etc/etc). The remarks were pretty much confined to time-preference observations, and did not touch on morality, etc. The debate involved the student's reaction to the remarks, his claim/charge of discrimination, and whether UNLV should censure Hoppe for making the remarks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

How about 2004 controversy as the section title? It takes no sides on the matter, and lets the reader determine what is controversial or not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC) It didn't specify what the name should be changed to; to specify that it must contain homosexuals gives the section title a non-neutral POV by emphasizing a specific interpretation of the event. So I would oppose any section title that includes homosexual or academic freedom in it, as it would give one interpretation of the event an overemphasis and thus violate NPOV. My proposal is neutral and specific as the subject, as far as I am aware, did not have any other controversies in 2004.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The consensus in the RfC is entirely clear - the section title must state that the controversy arose as a result of Hoppe's comments regarding homosexuals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment by OP – Yes, the Academic freedom controversy arose because of one student's reaction to Hoppe's comments regarding homosexuals. – S. Rich (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Further comment – if there is RS to support the fact that other students reacted or complained about Hoppe's classroom comments, then such sources out to be provided. (Hoppe's views regarding homosexuals or homosexuality outside of this incident can be and should be provided in another section of the article.  – S. Rich (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The controversy arose because Hoppe made the comments. If he hadn't made them, there would have been no controversy. Frankly, I find your attempt to shift the blame onto a student rather offensive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the RfC didn't say that it must include homosexuality, it states quite clearly "Should the title for the "Academic freedom controversy" section be changed"
 * I'm sorry, but that argument seems entirely unconvincing. Other sections have headers which tell the reader what they are about - we don't have sections entitled '1988 book' or '2005 remarks'. The date of the controversy is an irrelevance - what matters is what the controversy was about: Hoppe's comments on homosexuals, and the ensuing debate about academic freedom. A 'neutrality' that is achieved through omission of salient facts is a disservice to our readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply by OP – Yes, I did post this as a question as to whether it should be changed -- period. No suggested headings were posed. (And some notifications of this RfC were posted that had vague suggested new headings, which I revised IOT keep as neutral as possible.) Since then, as I have read the comments, I see that some editors want to put homosexuality in the heading even though the overall controversy was not about Hoppe's views. If others, students or non-students, were opining on the classroom comment, or on Hoppe's 2004 views in general, then that material (classroom comment or in general) could be discussed. (Where is the RS to support such article discussion?) But the fact remains that the whole thing started because a student made a complaint, UNLV investigated and sought to censure Hoppe, and then the discrimination complaint was dismissed. Most importantly, IMO, everything that occurred after the classroom comment involved the issue of academic freedom. – S. Rich (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it any more true. 'The "whole thing" started with Hoppe's remarks, not with the student complaining about them - or are you suggesting that the student complained before the remarks were made? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I post remarks and replies because the comments fail to address important/pertinent points. Characterizing a comment as "nonsense", without rational argument, does not make the counter-argument any more true. And where did anyone ever suggest that the student complained before the remark was made? – S. Rich (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing 'rational' in your assertion that "the whole thing started because a student made a complaint". It is self-evidently false. It started when Hoppe made the comments. I'd say that getting the facts right is important. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that Hoppe did not provide "peer reviewed" evidence for his generalizations (which I recently noted was in his disciplinary letter) is noteworthy and actually should be in the article. So the remarks are noteworthy enough to mention in section. However, since it turned overwhelmingly into an academic freedom debate (to use non-peer reviewed evidence, evidently) that needs slightly more emphasis. Thus a title like "Academic freedom debate resulting from remarks on homosexuality" seems most accurate. (By the way, this whole conversation reminds me of how few sections there are in BLPs called "Allegations of sexism" despite so much evidence which doubtless could be presented in so many BLPs.) ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 13:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

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


 * The difference being that Summers went on ad nauseum about a whole sexist philosophy and his ideas were debated - and there is no mention of academic freedom in that section. In Hoppe it's a couple of things said in a lecture as (may I soapbox and say unverified, incomplete and therefore crappy examples) which became overwhelmingly a big academic freedom issue.  Obviously mentioning both is the middle ground here. (Except for those who want something even more general.) ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Or mentioning neither; an all or nothing solution (mentioning both being all, mentioning neither being the nothing).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It all stared with the lecture. A lecture that we know for a fact was about time preference, which is an economic concept that will bias the audience in no way, shape, or form. --Abel (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with that. So the only question is, should title be "Academic freedom debate resulting from remarks on homosexuality" or "Remarks on homosexuality leading to Academic freedom debate". Since there is little discussion of the remarks, it seems Academic freedom should go first. (Per npov, there should be mention of discussion of time preferences so it's clear it was academic related and some off hand questionable comment, and that this was not a view published in peer-reviewed publications). ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 15:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Despite the consensus being clear that both issues should be in the section header, user steeletrap has chosen to impose her/his original title. Who wants to revert it? I've lost track of whose done it which time! ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  21:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:Canvassing concerns
This RfC was posted to numerous Wikprojects by User:SPECIFICO (see May 24th edits) with the very biased title →‎RfC on anti-gay bias and academic freedom: new section). These projects include human rights, Universities ‎ t Biography/Science and academia, Investment, Economics, Sexology and sexuality, LGBT studies, Sociology, Psychology, Biography/Politics and government. Therefore I believe [the RfC] should be automatically invalidated. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 03:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC) (Note: Involved editor who thinks process has been corrupted.)
 * [Inserted later per request] a couple relevant diffs of the canvassing to groups where obviously there will be a strong response which may overwhelm any NPOV BLP concern:
 * Diff of campaigning posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies
 * Diff of campaigning posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
 * Diff of campaigning posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights
 * (Later insert from Canvassing: Inappropriate notification includes: Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand.[1]; Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. FYI. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 04:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a spurious charge. Asking for other editors input with no commentary, which is all SPECIFICO did on the economics and other pages, does not constitute canvassing. Please stop making false accusations about users' conduct on Wikipedia. Steeletrap (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While the notice was improper because of the change in the RfC title, this was not spamming. Spamming involves notices to individual editors. – S. Rich (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read: Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. It does NOT specify where and therefore includes noticeboards. By the way I am going to leave an appropriate note on the libertarianism wikiproject. Do not remove template. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 15:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I did just notice that User:Srich did change all the wikiproject alerts to a more suitable alert, something you should not have had to do in the first place. Nevertheless, one or two people evidently have come here from the original alert and, besides leaving up canvassed template, perhaps the best thing to do is to put a "canvassed tag" on their entry as advised in WP:Canvass so that all will be clear. Will figure out how to do that. Thus I will feel free to join in discussion. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 15:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: possible canvassing templates I put on two editors comments, WP:Canvass does not provide very good guidance on how individuals should respond or if it's just an "FYI". But I assume this would be the place if they choose to. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 18:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Carol, SPECIFICO's remarks were not canvassing. Nor is the proposed title change to the academic freedom section -- whether descriptively apt or not -- defamatory. Nor is the proposed sub-title of "Controversial remarks on homosexuality" on the Democracy section of Hoppe's entry -- whether descriptively apt or not -- defamatory. Nor are your other loaded charges of defamation or BLP violations on this page remotely plausible. Please refer to what literally every user other than yourself who has addressed these matters has said. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Posting to 10 Wikiprojects is interesting ... WP:CANVASS only requires that the projects be directly related to the topic under discussion. Several of the projects posted to are not so related, and legitimate issues about this may exist. Collect (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * I actually don't understand SRich's comment.
 * Re: Steeletrap's suggestion, so now you want two sections called controversy about homosexual remarks? (I.e., academic freedom section too) And the second section is about a number of groups Hoppe says might be exclused from a "covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin", i.e. "the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism –" Singling out just one of those groups for special attention is really POV pushing to the extreme.
 * And controversy has to be something that actually made the news, not just criticism and discussion among academics, which is what it is. Let's be proportionate here. I think sectioning is just WP:Undue in a short paragraph.
 * Finally, I read that somewhere in the section of the book being partially quote he says something like: "well, OK, some of our kids may get into some of that stuff when they are younger and well, maybe we don't want to be too strict" and I think the quote or a summary needs adding, even if a primary source, to properly reflect what he says in an NPOV encyclopedic way. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 16:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Carol, the simple fact is that the RS are responding to the claim about homosexuals. It would be my POV if these were just general criticisms of the passage, but they arent; we go off of RS, and they are most specifically and consistently responding to the claim about physically removing gays, not parasites or commies.
 * You mean what you have chosen to emphasize of their response is on that topic. I guess I wasn't paying attention to the POV you've got there and will have to fix that. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 17:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, am I right to infer that you just object to a title referencing homosexuality, but do not object to a sub-section entitled "Controversial remarks" per my reasoning above? If not, please explain why such a title would be inappropriate. Steeletrap (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see above where I write: And controversy has to be something that actually made the news, not just criticism and discussion among academics, which is what it is.  ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 17:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No. There can be "academic controversy" over obscure, pedantic philosophical or economic issues. Mention on the local news is not a prerequisite for calling something a controversy. Steeletrap (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's more a debate than a controversy. Only your POV makes you see a mountain where there's a molehill. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 17:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please strike your rude and insulting remarks indicating that my bias, rather than a good-faith concern for accuracy, is what's motivating my suggestions.


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


 * We edit according to what is in the article, not "other stuff" that exists. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 19:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Now that section is getting bigger, a section called "Covenant communities controversy" would be relevant. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 02:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing bias

 * See Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ: Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (but politely — one gets more flies with honey than with vinegar) and asking others to help. See Dispute resolution for more ideas. There is a point beyond which our interest in being a completely open project is trumped by our interest in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policies.
 * And then see this recent user talk page comment of yours. (Added later: Also this one.)I could come up with another dozen similar ones without even trying. I'm sure discrediting Hoppe would make it easier to discredit all the other people you discuss below.
 *  While I emphatically reject the principles of libertarianism, this ideology undeniably has serious scholars associated with it, as does the "Austrian" School of Economics; however, the "movement"/"Pure Rothbardian Anarchism"/"Ron Paul for President" strain is (as my research indicates) viewed as disreputable even by mainstream libertarians, such as Tom G. Palmer, whose critical remarks of Mises Institute scholars are systematically cleansed from the pages of their scholars. Operating from a non-empirical, "rationalistic" "economics" framework and invoking (and distorting) dubious philosophical concepts like natural law in defense of their moral absolutism, "movement" libertarianism is little more than a dogmatic cult. "Movement" supporters in this regard are akin to Scientologists, insofar as they not only personally lack evidence for their beliefs, but are incapable of examining data which differ from their ideology and integrating it into their worldview. Their edits to "movement"-related Wikipedia entries should be viewed the same as Scientologists' edits to pages like L. Ron Hubbard and Lord Xenu.
 * Do I have to share four or five more? It's WP:disruptive editing. Obviously I should have gone to WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard or WP:NPOVN soon after it became clear what was going on. But I was going easy on the Newbie.  ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 19:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


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


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


 * One cannot make vague general allegations and assert others' have biases without linking to on wiki editing comments. Belonging to a wikiproject or defending WP:BLP policy does not constitute the kind of bias I quoted from you above, and which is one of a number of such quotes. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

SRich. Please stop collapsing things you don't like. One third of your "hattings" are questionable. See Talk page guidelines. What does the quoted policy Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ say? maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly I've brought this up at his/her talk page in the past to no avail. So I'm bringing it up here. This is a brand new incident showing that this is an ongoing problem. If this doesn't work the policy suggests WP:DRN. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 22:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * User: Steeletrap: Note that per Talk_page_guidelines generally we do not alter our own comments once someone has responded as you did here We can strike what we wrote and even add a note that new content is added, but that's usually only to clarify some point, add a link, etc. Doing it one's own talk page as where you removed a criticism of Hoppe after someone replied probably is a bit more allowable, but still can be noted by others in relevant discussions,per the above. Thanks. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 22:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


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


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

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


 * I think it provides important context for my criticisms above about making this a second section called Controversial remarks on homosexuality. Also it provides context for my filling out the details of WP:RS' comments on Hoppes remarks so it is clear perfectly clear that they were about covenant communities first and foremost and have been used to attack him in the larger world - and obviously now on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is better than that. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 02:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that you've pointed this out, do you, Steeletrap, wish to reply? – S. Rich (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I do not want to report you. I want to try to move past this. We have all lost our tempers at times. I apologize for responding as I did previously to you, by posting repeatedly about your conduct on your talk page when you said you didn't want me to comment. I regret my mistake, and hope to grow as an editor by refraining from such conduct in the future. However, I think there is also room for your conduct to improve on this page. A good gesture would be hatting your personal attack heading above. Steeletrap (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Carol, is there anything else about this subsection that you'd like to add? – S. Rich (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict with above:]
 * It would help if User:Steeletrap would promise to no more make nasty remarks about, titulating speculation about and WP:Soapbox comments about subjects of groups of people or individual peole that you do not like. You can do it all you want on email but it just pisses people off on Wikipedia. If you had read Soapbox the first time it was mentioned you would see it says Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. If I felt you understood that I would not have to keep bringing it up. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 02:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the two of you take a wikibreak from Hoppe and this talk page. Like about 24 hours. How about no more comments until 31 May 2013 at 02:30 UTC? Includes no ANI comments or other interchange until then. Okay? – S. Rich (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If s/he wants to think about Soapbox in meantime, that would be great! In the interim you can do a temporary collapse and if s/he "gets it" and everything works out this section no longer will be relevant. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 02:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll do you one better. I'm abandoning this page. The constant personal attacks, harassment and false charges (libel etc) are too much. Goodbye, Doc Hoppe. Steeletrap (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Now User:Specifico and Steeletrap are going to the Murray Rothbard article and we already are seeing the same pattern of distorted interpretation of sources, etc. Well, I don't intend to get all emotionally involved again but to get clarification on best method to move forward. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 15:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Block quote expanded to make perfectly clear
I missed it at first, but in the "Democracy" section under discussion at this diff User:Steeletrap changed the accurate:
 * Walter Block wrote that Hoppe's comments calling for "homosexuals and others to be banned from polite society" were "exceedingly difficult to reconcile it with libertarianism" because "the libertarian philosophy would support the rights of both groups to act in such manners." to
 * were "exceedingly difficult to reconcile it with libertarianism" because "the libertarian philosophy would support the rights of" homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

This sounds like he's calling for some vague equal rights for homosexuals, not their specific rights to ban heterosexuals. Obviously the NPOV solution is to include his next paragraph which I did. It reads:
 * As for homosexuality, it is entirely possible that some areas of the country, parts of Gotham and San Francisco for example, will require this practice, and ban, entirely, heterosexuality. If this is done through contract, private property rights, restrictive covenants, it will be entirely compatible with the libertarian legal code.

Hopefully this will solve the vagueness problem... ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 01:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Quoting Hoppe first; Detailing Kinsella's important points
At this diff I put in the "Democracy" section Hoppe's earlier comment first and followed with more about what Kinsella said, i.e.,:
 * Stephan Kinsella writes that Hoppe's critics have accused Hoppe of "homophobia, bigotry, and the like" based on these passages. Kinsella wrote that that Hoppe's discussion of "physically removing" homosexuals and other groups only applied to "private, covenant-based communities" centered around traditional values. He shared a letter Hope wrote to him saying "the gay couple down the street who mind their own business would not be expelled, but only those who are openly hostile to the basic heterosexual or private property basis of society."

As I said in my edit summary, just because some choose to totally take his comments about of context and attack him, does NOT mean that Wikipedia should be used for the same purpose. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 01:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction and Warning Carol, please stop making loaded personal remarks on Wikipedia (i.e. claiming that edits are made to "attack" users). I also need to correct a mistake you made in the context of your personal remarks. Kinsella wrote the letter in question; he merely reported that Hoppe says he agrees with the letter. Please reread the RS. Steeletrap (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Given all the rants you have made against this group of economists, you must realize that you stir things up so people assume you are up to no good. Keep it on email and there will be far fewer problems.
 * And your edits to Kinsella were accurate. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 02:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Final warning. I do not want to bring this to any authority. I am tired of all of this stuff, and know that my conduct has been far from perfect on this page. But I cannot allow continual personal attacks to go unaddressed. Steeletrap (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)