Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe/Archive 9

beinglibertarian
https://beinglibertarian.com/response-hoppes-alt-right-speech/

Benjamin (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hoppe's position on the alt-right?
Here is the transcript of the Alt-right speech given in Turkey, October 2017: https://misesuk.org/2017/10/20/libertarianism-and-the-alt-right-hoppe-speech-2017/ Anyone care to make a sub-section in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightySaiyan (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003232639/http://thegodthatfailed.org/2011/10/01/jeff-tucker-interviews-hans-hermann-hoppe/ to http://thegodthatfailed.org/2011/10/01/jeff-tucker-interviews-hans-hermann-hoppe/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130903112107/http://archive.mises.org/3137/the-thought-police-and-hoppe/ to http://archive.mises.org/3137/the-thought-police-and-hoppe/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Making PFS speaker examples more diverse and representative
PFS speakers have come from many very disparate groups. I think there's some overemphasis of the white nationalist speakers, who were a small minority of speakers and only in some years, which featured many contrary opposing dissidents as well.

There is insufficient discussion of the European and near-Eastern invited speakers. Almost all of the speakers discussed on this page are from America, but the vast majority of speakers invited to PFS every year are from the Old World.

Can somebody identify and list all of the various ideologies that have been represented at these conferences? Jimbreeman3 09:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, Jimbreeman3. I have a couple of questions. Why did you revert me here, without comment or explanation, and why did you make an edit here that appears to be childish vandalism (which you later described as "accidental")? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator, the "childish vandalism" was intended for my sandbox, which I was experimenting with. I immediately realized I edited the real page and reverted it right away. Anyway, let's try to keep this section of the talk page devoted to the purpose it is meant for. Jimbreeman3 (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The talk page is for discussing the article, and there is no reason why you should not answer a reasonable question, wherever it happens to be asked. So once again, why did you revert me here, without comment or explanation? What was the reason for that revert, your first edit, and why did you make it without any edit summary? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This section of the talk page is for discussing the topic in the header for this section. If you wish to further discuss anything that is not relevant to this specific topic, please start a new topic on the talk page or post on my user talk page. Thanks for helping to keep this readable for those who wish to discuss the topic the section is intended for. Jimbreeman3 (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Then why did you answer my question about your apparent vandalism of the article here? Never mind, I will start a new section. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained revert
Jimbreeman3: For the third time now, why did you make this edit and why did you make it without any edit summary or explanation? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The reversion made the article more balanced and reduced editorializing. Jimbreeman3 (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How, specifically, did it make the article more balanced and reduce editorializing? I find your assessment of the effects of your edit to be incorrect. You restored a passage reading, "PFS has hosted conferences featuring alt-right and white nationalist speakers such as Richard Spencer and Peter Brimelow, the founder of VDARE. He has stated that his invitation to alt-right figures was a feature of his radical conception of free speech rather than common ground in ideology. Rather than inviting any alt-right figures to later conferences, he has claimed to oppose their ideals and instead invited speakers including Peter Thiel, who spoke about being a gay Republican at the 2016 Republican National Convention." I believe that passage is inappropriately written, and in particular, that the mention of Peter Thiel's sexual orientation and previous comments at an unrelated event are gratuitous and lacking in neutrality. And again, why did you make the edit without any comment or explanation? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the lack of explanation. I partially disagree with your assessment of the passage in question. I agree that the passage is inappropriately written, and made edits to it after reverting to improve this. I am now making an additional edit to remove the word "radical" because this is a subjective term. Why do you think that information is gratuitous? Jimbreeman3 (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you read any of the previous discussions at this talk page? I have repeatedly noted that it is an article about Hans-Hermann Hoppe, not an article about homosexuality or about Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel's sexual orientation is not a fact about Hans-Hermann Hoppe and has no relevance to Hans-Hermann Hoppe that anyone has been able to explain. Therefore, the information needs to be removed as being inappropriate and irrelevant to the article. And why exactly should the article mention something a speaker invited by Hoppe did at a previous event having nothing to do with Hoppe? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I will respond to this comment in the topic section intended for this topic Jimbreeman3 (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Really, and which "topic section" is that? As far as I can tell, this is "the topic section intended for this topic". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is "Overemphasis of comments on homosexuality" Jimbreeman3 (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Overemphasis of comments on homosexuality
Half the article is about two sentences he said. Extensive additions and/or revisions are needed to make this more balanced.

I have added context from pre-existing citations about the broad nature of his conception of covenant communities. The description was previously very narrow and focused almost exclusively on LGBT individuals rather than the broader controversy about whether property owners should have an absolute right to refuse service.

I also noted that Peter Thiel is openly gay, with citations and as noted on his page, and that he has been invited to speak at the Property and Freedom Society — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.96.114.255 (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Making false claims does not help you to make a case for changing the article. It is not true that "half the article is about two sentences he said." If you want to make a case for changing the article, or adding or removing certain content, please describe the issues involved accurately and in a non-sensational fashion. You have asserted that your edits improve the neutrality of the article, and bring it into accord with WP:NPOV. I do not accept that they do so. You will note that Wikipedia's system labels your edits "possible BLP issue or vandalism". That is a very good indication that you are doing something wrong, and should be enough to make you reconsider your approach. Some of the text you added reads, "He has stated that his invitation to alt-right figures was a feature of his radical conception of free speech rather than common ground in ideology. Rather than inviting any alt-right figures to later conferences, he has clearly stated his opposition to their ideals and cleared room for more libertarian speakers, including the openly gay entrepreneur Peter Thiel". You may have added that in good faith to correct what you consider misunderstandings of Hoppe's views, but in fact it is a very good example of the kind of non-neutral, pointed commentary that does not belong in a neutrally written article. The "Rather than inviting any alt-right figures to later conferences" part is particularly inappropriate. Properly written encyclopedia articles do not contain lists of all the things a person does not do. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * As an additional note, I am seeing no clear reason why it would be appropriate to mention Peter Thiel's sexual orientation in this article. Did Hoppe get him to speak about his sexuality? If not, why does his sexual orientation matter? In the absence of any good reason for mentioning that detail, it should stay out of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The detail about Thiel is appropriate because it is in the same section as the details about the alt-right speakers. I am provided new information. The section was outdated.

I recognize that you make a very valid point about how the term "misinterpreted" is subjective. I am changing this to "some interpretations". Let me know if you have any other problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.96.113.77 (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No, the detail about Thiel is not appropriate. It is 100% inappropriate. Where exactly did you get the idea that because the "alt-right" is mentioned in a section, that we automatically mention the sexual orientation of gay people in that section? Why would you imagine that other editors would simply accept the idea that mentioning the "alt right" in a section means that we also have to mention gay people's sexuality there? That section is about political philosophy and not people's sexual lives or sexual identity, and mentioning there that someone is gay or straight or has any other sexual proclivity is gratuitous. Someone's sexual orientation is mentioned in an article only if there is a valid reason why it should be. You have totally failed to suggest any such reason. That you think changing "misinterpreted" to "some interpretations" is somehow an improvement unfortunately simply shows that you do not understand what editorializing is or why it is unacceptable. The sentence reading, "Rather than inviting any alt-right figures to later conferences, he has clearly stated his opposition to their ideals and cleared room for more libertarian speakers, including the openly gay entrepreneur Peter Thiel, Transcript of Peter Thiel's speech at the Republican National Convention, in start contrast to misinterpretations of his statements regarding covenant communities" is lecturing readers and trying to tell them how Hoppe's ideas should and should not be interpreted. Properly written encyclopedias do not do that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The information on Peter Thiel's sexuality is not gratuitous. It is on his Wikipedia page too. It fits into the context of this article, which has a strong emphasis on "homosexuality". This is supported by a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.96.114.196 (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Apparently you are very, very confused about how Wikipedia operates. We have a policy called WP:NPOV, one portion of which is summarized at WP:PROPORTION. Let me quote it: "an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Peter Thiel's sexual orientation is a fact about him and it may make sense to mention it in an article specifically devoted to him. There is no reason to include it in an article about a completely different person, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, because it is not about Hans-Hermann Hoppe at all. It is irrelevant to this article, which is a biography, not a homosexuality article, whatever you may believe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the point of those edits appears to be to "treat each aspect with a weight [more] proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The article appears more balanced with the inclusion of these edits. Mentioning Thiel's sexuality would not be appropriate if not for the context of Hoppe's views on homosexuality. I removed some language that was not neutral and added a reliable published source on Thiel's invitation as a speaker.73.96.114.201 (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is a biography, not a discussion of homosexuality. Your reasoning appears to be that because the article already contains some mention of homosexuality, that therefore it is appropriate to include even more material about homosexuality. That is an unacceptable attitude to take. The fact that Hoppe has made one or another statement about homosexuality does not mean that it is appropriate to mention Peter Thiel's sexual orientation as though it were the most relevant fact about him. Your addition reads, "Rather than inviting any alt-right figures to later conferences, he has claimed to oppose their ideals and instead invited speakers including the openly gay entrepreneur Peter Thiel, in contrast to some interpretations of his statements regarding covenant communities." Some objective evidence would have to be provided that Thiel's sexual orientation merits a mention in this article; you have provided none whatsoever. As I noted, if Thiel had been invited to speak about his sexuality, the fact of his being openly gay would be clearly relevant; as your addition stands, the sexuality mention is simply gratuitous. The "in contrast to some interpretations of his statements regarding covenant communities" part is your personal commentary on Hoppe and a good example of the kind of rubbish that does not belong in a properly written article. Your comments simply go to show the frankly tendentious purpose of your editing here, which is to force your personal opinions about Hoppe on readers. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thiel spoke about his sexuality at the last speech he gave before he was invited to speak at the Property and Freedom Society. This is one of the sources provided.73.96.114.201 (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe he did, but that does not show that Hoppe invited Thiel to speak about his sexuality. I assume that if he actually had done so, you would have mentioned this in your addition? Without such an explanation, the mention of Thiel's sexual orientation is unexplained, gratuitous, and inappropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The original addition was not mine. Per your advice, I'll make a new addition explicitly mentioning that Peter Thiel spoke about his sexuality at his previous speech to a right-wing group (the RNC).73.96.114.201 (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not advising you to mention "that Peter Thiel spoke about his sexuality at his previous speech to a right-wing group". I advise you against that as it is another gratuitous irrelevance that diverts the article toward discussion of homosexuality and away from discussing Hans-Hermann Hoppe, its actual subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thiel's sexual orientation is relevant and should be included in the article because 1) Hoppe has garnered controversy with statements about homosexuals and discrimination/exclusion, 2) these statements have a significant effect on Hoppe's public perception; and 3) Thiel's sexuality likely affects Hoppe's public perception because their association together contrasts with perceptions of Hoppe's views on discrimination. Please see Relevance of content. Jimbreeman3 (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No. You are wrong on all three points. Your first point amounts to a suggestion that because Hoppe has made comments about homosexuality, that therefore the article needs even more discussion of homosexuality. It needs nothing of the kind. That Hoppe made comments about homosexuality is not an excuse for mentioning that Peter Thiel is gay, which has no genuine relevance to the article. It would be genuinely relevant if Thiel had been invited to speak about his sexuality, but there is no evidence of that. I am afraid I am not even entirely sure what your comment "these statements have a significant effect on Hoppe's public perception" is intended to mean. What "statements" are you talking about, and how do they make Peter Thiel's sexual orientation relevant to the article? Your third point, "Thiel's sexuality likely affects Hoppe's public perception because their association together contrasts with perceptions of Hoppe's views on discrimination", is personal opinion. We don't base articles, especially not biographical articles, on personal opinion or what people think is "likely". I can see why someone might want to include information about Thiel being gay, but just because you want to include it (and thereby affect what readers of the article think of Hoppe) that emphatically does not make it appropriate. Such an approach is the reverse of neutral. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm referring to the statements which the article section "Remarks about homosexuals and academic freedom" is about. This section describes some of their effects on the public perception of Hoppe, such as his rejection by specific critics. Public perception is not something that can be easily measured or quantify, so there will always be some degree of uncertainty when considering relevance based on the criteria of public perception – hence use of the term "likely". This does not mean the information should not be included. Jimbreeman3 (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Your case for including material about Peter Thiel's sexual orientation essentially boils down to, "Let's include something about his sexuality to alter the way readers of the article think of Hoppe." At least, that appears to be what your comment, "Thiel's sexuality likely affects Hoppe's public perception because their association together contrasts with perceptions of Hoppe's views on discrimination" amounts to. Did even it cross your mind that trying to alter Hoppe's image by including material about someone's sexual orientation might not be an appropriate thing to do? The relevant issue is not whether including the information would actually alter Hoppe's image or not; the relevant issue is that what you are trying to do (to change an article to attempt to alter someone's "public perception") is in principle completely inappropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I did not add any information for the purpose of influencing public perception of anybody. The information in question already influences public perception regardless of whether this information is on Wikipedia, and is therefore worthy of inclusion based on relevance Jimbreeman3 (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but what you are saying is incoherent. You yourself stated above that a reason for including information about Peter Thiel's sexual orientation was that, "Thiel's sexuality likely affects Hoppe's public perception because their association together contrasts with perceptions of Hoppe's views on discrimination". If "influencing public perception" is not a reason for including material about Peter Thiel's sexual orientation, why did you suggest that including it might affect Hoppe's "public perception"? You are contradicting yourself, which simply leaves me to conclude that you are unable to make any coherent case at all. As for your claim that the "information in question already influences public perception regardless of whether this information is on Wikipedia", what evidence do you have of that? Your say-so certainly isn't good enough, per Wikipedia's policy against original research. See WP:NOR. If you are familiar already with Relevance of content, a fairly obscure essay that you linked to above and which is not a policy or even a guideline, has no official standing whatever, and as such is really quite irrelevant, you should surely also be aware of a basic policy like WP:NOR, which does have to be followed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * To be clear, again, I don't make edits with the intention of influencing public perception of anybody. One can add information which has influenced, or is influencing, somebody's public perception without the intention of influencing their public perception. Here is an article demonstrating very clearly a nexus between Thiel's sexuality and Hoppe's public perception. This article includes some notorious remarks by Hoppe about homosexuality and makes note of Thiel's sexuality. https://www.queerty.com/peter-thiel-shamed-association-racists-20160729 Jimbreeman3 (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Very well, but you should understand that what you've said previously is open to interpretation, and does not necessarily come across the way you intended. I looked at the article you linked to above. What it confirms is that Hoppe invited Thiel to speak at a conference, and that Thiel did not actually speak at that conference (part of it reads, "At any rate, Thiel has now changed his tune, pulling out of the conference after Towleroad and others highlighted his attendance"). The article is primarily about Thiel and only incidentally about Hoppe, and so far as I can see it demonstrates nothing about "Hoppe's public perception." It certainly does not convince me that the article ought to mention Thiel's sexual orientation, or for that matter that the article should mention Thiel at all. I fail to see any reason why the fact that Hoppe invited someone to speak at a conference, and who eventually decided not to speak at that conference, should be mentioned in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I said nothing to suggest a personal motive for making any edits. Please review the good faith principle and avoid making assumptions and accusations against fellow editors based on statements that are unclear to you. As for the edit, this story was covered by several publications and Hoppe is not frequently covered in the media as far as I can find. Should somebody compile the sources on this story? Thiel's sexuality is mentioned prominently in several of these articles, as is Hoppe's poor reputation with the LGBT community. If the information was relevant enough to be included by journalists in a rare story involving Hoppe, does that not suggest it is relevant enough to include in the article? Do you believe it to be possible that this media coverage did not have an effect on Hoppe's public perception? Jimbreeman3 (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You said many things that might make someone assume that you had a motive centered on altering public perceptions of Hoppe. I am well familiar with the principle of assuming good faith, and am not violating it by pointing out the obvious in this fashion. Your latest comment fails to establish any basis for mentioning Thiel in the article. As you the one who wishes to include this information, the burden is entirely on you to show that it is worth including in the article. You have provided no evidence that "this story was covered by several publications". The one article you linked to above was almost entirely about Thiel rather than Hoppe; this suggests that Hoppe's invitation to Thiel is of insufficient importance to mention in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion (prelude)
Are both IPs the same user?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 18:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC) No 128.193.154.20 (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Erpert. I understand the principle of assuming good faith, but I do not believe we should automatically assume the IP is telling the truth. Even if there are multiple people behind those IPs, and actual sockpuppetry is not occurring, there may well be a violation of the rules against meatpuppetry. Per WP:MEAT, "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate." My understanding is that in some cases meatpuppetry can be treated in the same fashion as sockpuppetry. Notably, all of the various IPs (there are more than just two of them) geolocate to Oregon, so even if it isn't a single person behind them, it seems likely to be a coordinated effort by people who agree with each other and have been recruited for just this purpose. I also have to note that the IPs are not being consistent in their story about whether they are being used by the same person or not. For example, see this edit by 128.193.154.118, which has the edit summary, "My edits are explained on the talk page, as well as other areas I think need to be edited. Nobody has responded, but you are undoing my edits anyway. No reason provided. The purpose of my edits was to make the article more neutral and in line with Wiki's neutral point of view policy." The reference to "my edits" implies that the person using that IP range is in fact the same person who was earlier editing as 73.96.114.231 and 73.96.114.255. Let's not be taken for suckers. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I have now requested a sockpuppet investigation to hopefully determine the truth. See here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This is coming from the master of sock puppets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_FreeKnowledgeCreator 73.96.114.201 (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've used sockpuppets in the past. The issue was dealt with years ago and is irrelevant. You might want to consider that if you cannot think of a better response than that, then this only suggests that you are indeed guilty of sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry (recruiting people who agree with you to support your side of a dispute). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I know I am not guilty of sock puppetry or meat puppetry. I don't know the other people or person. I don't know anyone else who edits Wikipedia as far as I know. All I'm saying is that my IP is not a sock puppet or meat puppet73.96.114.201 (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The issue needs to be settled by objective evidence rather than by assertions. I have already provided evidence suggesting that you are in fact the same person as "the other people or person." It seems incredibly convenient that they would be there at exactly the right moment to help you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting conspiracy theory, but is not correct.73.96.114.201 (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I have already provided evidence suggesting that you are the same as "the other people or person", such as the edit summary used here by 128.193.154.118. If you were approaching this issue in good faith you could specify exactly which of the IPs are the same person as you and which are not. Can you explain the fact that the "other people or person" who conveniently holds exactly the same views as you about Hoppe, a relatively obscure scholar, all happen to be from Oregon? Do you understand how unlikely what you're claiming sounds? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No, that is not my edit. That is not my IP address. Mine is in the signature to the right. I never edited this page before today. You're assuming every single person who reverts your vandalism is the same person. This is not the case. 73.96.114.201 (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The edit by 128.193.154.118 effectively acknowledges that the person who made it previously edited as 73.96.114.255 and 73.96.114.231, which appear to be part of the same IP range and geolocate to Oregon. You appear to be using that same IP range, and your IP also geolocates to Oregon. Can you understand that your explanation that this is due to pure coincidence and chance looks incredibly unlikely? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the range of IP addresses is from an area associated with a recent scandal that is associated with Hoppe in some way, leading to increased awareness and curiosity in his views. Good faith should be assumed. I'm even assuming good faith for those folks, who are not me. Am I being interrogated? 73.96.114.201 (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * So you are suggesting, without a shred of evidence, that there has been some scandal associated with Hoppe in Oregon, that explains the interest in him there? Like having another user who agrees completely with you pop up at exactly the right moment for you, that seems too convenient for words. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have removed text that they wrote which violated the WP:NPOV if we agreed completely. My removal of their additions isn't convenient for them in any way. 73.96.114.201 (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"Physical removal"
There's currently a sentence in the second paragraph that says: "His usage of the term "physical removal" has proved particularly divisive, due to its particular association with fascism."

I'm unable to find any quote from Hoppe that uses the term "physical removal". The closest thing I can find in a quote from him is "physically removed".

I suggest either changing this to: "His usage of the term "physically removed" has proved particularly divisive, due to its particular association with fascism," or removing the sentence altogether.

The quote for "physically removed" is under the section Views on Democracy. Is it significant enough to mention in the main body? The source provided doesn't say anything about Hoppe or how divisive his usage of the term was. Would anybody like to add an appropriate source to demonstrate that his usage of the term was "particularly divisive"? 2600:100F:B101:CADA:4C6E:79F2:9A8B:5B07 (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your proposed sentence is very awkward. Why is this phrase so important? Anyway, the book cited says nothing about Hoppe at all. Jimbreeman3 (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment
With this edit I reverted a series of disputed changes to the article. I would not have done this had I believed that multiple editors supported those changes. However, Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbreeman3 led to Jimbreeman3 being blocked for a week for deceptively editing while logged out. The clerk who dealt with the case commented, "Given the timing of edits and geolocation of IP's, it's fairly clear that this is all one person." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarity on who quote is from
In the following line, it is unclear whether the first quote is from Hoppe, or is Block's phrasing of Hoppe's ideas. Looking at the source, the latter appears to be the case. However, a quick read of this wiki article gives the impression that the first part of the quote is from Hoppe. Is this misleading? Can anybody suggest a good way to make clear that this entire, divided quote is from Block, not Hoppe? "Walter Block wrote that Hoppe's comment calling for "homosexuals and others to be banned from polite society" was "exceedingly difficult to reconcile... with libertarianism"..." Jimbreeman3 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hoppe is not, never has been, a VDare contributor
The article says, "...the founder of VDARE, where Hoppe himself is also a contributor," and cites a Washington Post (WaPo) article as a source. A very quick look at VDare search results, as was done by WaPo in the article cited, may give the impression that Hoppe is a contributor to the site. This page exists: https://vdare.com/writers/hans-herman-hoppe ; however, the only two things on here are republished transcripts of Hoppe's speeches at PFS, which were published by other sources first. It's misleading to say Hoppe is a contributor. Should this phrase be removed entirely or should it be changed to say VDare has republished transcripts for two of his speeches? Jason Weinman (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If nobody objects in the next 24hr, I will remove the phrase. Jason Weinman (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. That WaPo article is nonsense. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I was about to make a request for a third opinion since FreeKnowledgeCreator reverted the edit twice with only a vague explanation. My understanding is that they believe the claim should be included since it was printed by a newspaper that meet's Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source. I think the claim shouldn't be included since the newspaper printed this in error and this can be independently verified by anyone, as shown above. There are strict standards against printing objectively untrue (and potentially libelous) material about living persons. Jason Weinman (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed a few more important things. The source for the claim is just a perspective essay, not a news article. Perspective/opinion articles aren't automatically reliable just because news columns for the same publications are. There's no source for the claim within the article. On another note, the article doesn't exactly say Hoppe is a contributor anyway, just that VDare "counts" him as one. Jason Weinman (talk) 09:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I agree that an opinion article isn't worth citing, especially when you can go straight to VDare and see that two of his speeches were just reproduced there. If someone insists on mentioning VDare in this article they should be honest about it, this is Wikipedia after all, not WaPo.  Pelirojopajaro (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The relevant policies are WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. The Washington Post piece clearly states that Hoppe is a contributor to VDare, and it qualifies as a reliable source, per WP:RS, since it was published by a respected newspaper with a reputation for checking its facts. Wikipedia's policies do not require that articles specify their sources; for our purposes, the article itself is a source. Declaring that a reliable source "is nonsense" is not a basis for removing content, as anyone can assert that about any source they happen to dislike or disagree with. I have to note that I suspect Jason Weinman of being a sockpuppet of Jimbreeman3, an indefinitely blocked editor with a lengthy history of conflict with me at this article. I asked him about this on his talk page and he refused to respond. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No original research was involved. All I did was look at the primary reference referred to by the opinion piece cited. WP:VERIFY says, "If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")". The page also says, "use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process". I refer you to WP:Inaccuracy, WP:These are not original research (section: Removing incorrect claims and pointing out errors), and WP:LIBEL. Jason Weinman (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

"Restrictive" limits on immigration
What supports the usage of the descriptor "restrictive" for Hoppe's views on limiting immigration? Could this be replaced with a more objective description? Text: "Hoppe also garners controversy due to his support for restrictive limits on immigration which critics argue is at odds with libertarianism and anarchism" Jimbreeman3 (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed, a lot of these articles are being used as sources are long debunked Washington Post articles, like claiming Hoppe is "alt-right" can we remove this source along with the claim that he is "restrictive" on immigration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.220.115 (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hoppe apology?
We need a citation to support the claim that he apologized to his class. I emailed him about this many years ago and he adamantly denied doing so. It doesn’t sound like him to apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:97F:C2D7:28F1:5A85:D76C:778A (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2022
Under Views on Democracy: "...populated by what Hoppe considers to be racially inferior people" Remove. Citation does not support this. 2601:2C4:C581:C80:D416:64E7:3C97:1B02 (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: These quotes from that paper - Since Caucasians have, on the average, a significantly lower degree of time preference than Negroids 4 (where the ref is to the book Race, Evolution, and Behavior which compares races) and lowers time preference degrees even further and exerts an additional influence in the direction of greater farsightedness and intelligence. - indicate at least some basis for that characterization. If you feel otherwise, establish talk page consensus first. Hemantha (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"political theorist"?
Is it appropriate to call an anarchist a "political theorist" when anarchists are opposed to politics - politics being actions involving government? Gd123lbp (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Missing Institution
Under the list of institutions, it reads "university of "; it's blank. 89.205.133.196 (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2022
Remove the assertion that Hoppe was “intimate friends with Ludwig von Mises.” - he was a student in Germany when Mises died. 86.31.110.53 (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done — Sirdog (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2022
2404:4402:27A6:2600:C045:7346:7136:69EE (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Hoppe is a Paleo Libertarian
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

See also section
I do alot of work on removing duplicate links in this section. I am going to tag this section and then work on reducing the links either because they are duplicate, can be worked into the body or are extraneous. Please feel free to discuss any edits i make, thank you in advance. Malerooster (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

A bunch of items from his profile are unable to be seen
These include the movements he his involved with and the list of people he has influenced, this should be fixed soon, I hope. StrongALPHA (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not contain "profiles" This is an encyclopedia not a social media site, and we are discussing an encyclopedia article. The infobox lists those who influenced him. Cullen328 (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The infobox may as well as be described as a "profile" as a contains the information that is considered the most important. Anyways, I was actually talking about the people he had influenced, not the other way round. Now you investigate all the things that should be showing, and there not, that should change. StrongALPHA (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)