Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:41, 29 May 2013

Tu ne cede malis

		The Austria Barnstar of National Merit
		Presented to User Steeletrap. For tireless editing to improve difficult articles on WP SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You really helped me get on the right track after losing my temper earlier today. (Hope you don't mind I corrected the spelling of my name to Steeletrap. Steeletrap (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaving Hoppe

Hello Steeletrap. I am no longer contributing on Hoppe, because the harassment and personal attacks have made it too wasteful of my limited attention and intelligence. I just could not participate there in the current environment on edits and talk. Having worked a bit on Hoppe, however, I hope that editors will now muster the effort needed to undo the damage caused by the unfounded attacks on your edits in the recent past. This will require some real concentration to restore the best of the deleted content. I do hope that you are able to relax after having devoted so much energy to your defense. Good luck, and please do consider finding a way to add an email contact to your WP account. All best wishes. SPECIFICO talk 03:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC) |

I fully understand your desire to avoid harassment, SPECIFICO. (Though I do hope you join me in celebrating the embarrassing defeat of the false allegations against us.) Regarding Doc. Hoppe's page I myself am less optimistic than you; I do not believe our improvements to the page will make a difference. That's because I believe the "movement" will revert all of the RS content we added and replace it with citations fron "Mises Academy", "Mises.org", "LewRockwell.com", "Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics", "Journal of Libertarian Studies", and other proxy publications run by Hoppe's co-workers at the Mises Institute. I expect that the descriptively accurate WP:Con sub-title invoking Hoppe's opinions on homosexuality will be eventually replaced by the descriptively inaccurate, non-NPOV "Academic freedom controversy" title.

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 Misplaced Pages entries should be viewed the same as Scientologists' edits to pages like L. Ron Hubbard and Lord Xenu.

Therefore, attempts to improve the pages of "movement" "scholars" such as those affiliated with the Mises Institute are likely to be met by irrational hostility and attempts to shoot the messenger. I am unfortunately resigned to the fact that the Hoppe page will soon be "restored" to indicate he has never said anything bigoted about homosexuals, that the UNLV controversy primarily related to whether professors ought to have academic freedom, and so forth. Steeletrap (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

At least the Scientologists make some great movies. Did you see Pulp Fiction? I don't think the Miseans can dance. Unless you count the Bunny Hoppe. You might consider linking the ANI to the talk page so that new editors can refer to the discussion on BLP policy and not feel intimidated if they are again attacked for violating misrepresnted and nonexistent "policy." SPECIFICO talk 13:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

On the issue of musical ability, Hoppe's intellectual admirers have adapted a Snoop Dogg rap to honor Argumentation Ethics, the "high IQ" society, and other Hoppe contributions. (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-33cuur-hTc). Is that notable Mises scholar Stephan Kinsella rapping verse two? Steeletrap (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

On the issue of posting/discussing the BLP results on the talk page to contextualize Carol's dozens of false accusation on that page, I did this and was -- to my great distress -- falsely accused of a personal attack by another user. Said user then proceeded to "hat" my remarks on the talk page. None of this makes any sense whatsoever, since there was no PA and the BLP issue is clearly of substantive importance to understanding the context from which Misplaced Pages's "encyclopedic" entry on Hoppe sprang. (The full post for which I was condemned was: "Throughout this page,user:Carolmooredc has repeatedly alleged that my proposed talk page remarks/edits to the Hoppe page "violate BLP" by virtue of being libelous, defamatory, OR etc. Her charged and damaging accusations have been rejected at an ANI she filed, where, in a remarkably quick fashion (half a day) and with the approval of literally all editors who read both her allegations and my responses, no BLP violation was found (See:the ANI here)." Steeletrap (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Further to our discussion of ways to flesh out the article, I the youtube link would be an excellent addition, in a “reception” or “public reaction” section similar to other biographies of important figures:

Who says academics can’t also be fun? SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a slight reminder not to raise the temperature....

I will just leave you with a link to this, and it is about your templated warning on User talk:Srich32977. Imho, and I watched the Hoppe article and all the resulting kerfuffle from afar, it did accomplish nothing except raise the temperature by another degree. There is no need to take the discussion to the individual users talk-pages when you have an article talk-page to use. Take care, and keep up the good work, but please assume good faith and even the assumption of good faith. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Lecontar, you should know that the template-posting was in response to a previous (spurious) template-posting by user Srich, in which he accused me of making a personal attack for claiming another person's claims were false. You are right that I should take a breather. Steeletrap (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As unbelievable as it might seem to you, I noticed that, but we do not live by an eye-for-an eye here...... but I also noticed the rising tension allover, and users being on the edge. Every template, every sniping at each other, every post to the involved users talk-pages and vice versa....does not make thinks better. What I wrote above was not a warning, just as I said: a little reminder. And perhaps you also noticed that I reminded both Srich and SPECIFICO to let go a bit, some days ago, on Srichs talk-page. Take care. Lectonar (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

de Soto AfD comment

I rolled back the comment mainly because you removed a colon from Sageo's signature. I'm sure it was inadvertent, but it created a redlink. You can certainly re-post your remarks, but I suggest you revise them. Consider, did the other editor intend to imply bad faith? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the other editor didn't intend it, but that was the effect. It would be bigoted to regard everyone as non-notable who has had an article published by LvMI; this is what she or she accused me of. Steeletrap (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was unclear. You said "imputes bad faith" and I said "imply". The differences are subtle, but I think my concern applies in either case. That is: "Did Amanski intend to impute bad faith?" Or "Did Amanski intend to imply bad faith?" Either way, I think an objective standard should apply. That is, if Amanski said "The only reason Steele wants to delete the article is because Steele is prejudiced against all Mises Inst. authors and ... blah, blah, blah" we could say, fairly objectively, that Amanski is intentionally commenting on your supposed bad faith. But that is not the case. You had said Mises Inst. is "ideologically driven", and you are the OP. Amanski was fairly commenting on your rationale for the AfD. Compare, suppose Amanski had said "The fact that his writings appear in ideologically driven publications is not a sufficient reason to ... delete." If another editor does not intend to imply or impute bad faith, then we assume good faith and let it go. We don't let our reactions and feelings about these matters determine if bad faith by another editor is at play. – S. Rich (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Rich, my comments do not entail bad faith, or the claim that Amanski intended to impute bad faith. An observation that a comment may be read as failing to AGF does not itself equate to an accusation of bad faith (or bad intentions). I don't know where you're getting this notion from. Steeletrap (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You had said "This comment imputes bad faith onto me, and I ask that it be crossed." And it followed Amanski's comment which included your name. It seemed that you were concerned about Amanski had said. Besides, who else but Amanski would be the proper person to strike out/cross the comment? – S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It clearly related to Amanski. It was addressed to him (duh). I just don't know where you're getting these notions of intention from. People can say things that come across as imputing bad faith without intending to do so. His remarks were inappropriate, but I do not make any statement about his intentions. Steeletrap (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Do I read this correctly? Amanski was commenting on the merits of the AfD and you were commenting about Amanski? The best place to address concern's about Amanski is on the Amanski talk page. Comments about contributors themselves, in AfD or article talk pages, tend to distract from the main topic. – S. Rich (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Academic controversy compromise proposal

I think your earlier proposal "Academic freedom controversy over views on gays" was closer to the mark. I'd prefer "Academic freedom controversy over remarks about gays". That would leave the door open for a section about his views on gays. In any event, the best place to post any proposed compromise is at the RfC, not inside a hatted section. – S. Rich (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rich. The "hatted section" edit was an error on my part. "Gays" is better than "homosexuals" if used in a clear context because it's more succinct, and the section title is going to be a nightmare as regards concision in any case. Hoppe seems to endorse the views he stated in class, per his article about the thought police, so I prefer the first definition. Steeletrap (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I do see continuing comments in the RfC. I posted here because comments inside a hatted area are not visible. Also, sometimes discussions are labeled as "closed" in which case additions are improper. 17:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Say, on your posting ""Academic freedom debate over views on gays", .... Steeletrap (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)". Would you kindly put the proposed title in italics rather than bold. We generally use bold to indicate new comments at the beginning of remarks, but using bold for the proposed title looks like WP:SHOUTING. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Just changed it. Steeletrap (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was tempted to do so myself, but didn't want to rub you the wrong way. – S. Rich (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been herding cats and have managed to steer one your way

Srich32977 has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}