Talk:Libertarianism

Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching Template:V0.5 Template:FixBunching

Deletion of left-wing groups

Zapatista Army of National Liberation

Why are they in this article? The source provided describes them as a revolutionary group with some anarchist elements mark nutley (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Zapatista Army of National Liberation? Even the nutters on this page wouldn't be ridiculous enough to claim that is a Libertarian organisation. It must be some random vandalism. BlueRobe (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Don`t think it was vandalism, it was cited, i`ve removed it now mark nutley (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, could you please strike out your expression "nutters on this page". It is a derogatory term referring to people who do not accept mainstream and rational views and may be offensive. TFD (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I was referring to the nutters of this page. I did not reply to you, or anyone else, by name. I can't help it if you, for reasons of your own, feel that my label is especially applicable to you or your friends. BlueRobe (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to call other editors "nutters". Please see WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Best wishes and warm regards -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Patrick Cuninghame, Carolina Ballesteros Corona, "A Rainbow at Midnight: Zapatistas and Autonomy" Capital & Class October 1998 vol. 22 no. 3 12-22
2. Casanova, Pablo González. 2005. The Zapatista “caracoles”: Networks of resistance and autonomy. Socialism and Democracy. 19(3):79-92. < http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/08854300500257963 >. (accessed 24 September 2010).

Really mark; we addressed your highly personal definition previously. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, the source used said quite explicitly they were a revolutionary group with some anarchist elements, i`ll go look at the ones you presented here and see what they have to say. mark nutley (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for Fifelfoo to include content about a Libertarian Division of the SS fighting on the Eastern Front during World War Two, lol. BlueRobe (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies mark: mea culpa maxima. I had projected out last interaction onto the current one unfairly. As a result of this I reviewed Ward at p16, and concur that Ward does not support the point. However, I would be greatly surprised if the point is not supportable from HQRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure A Rainbow at Midnight: Zapatistas and Autonomy describe them as libertarian? I do not have access to the pdf and have been reading through it here [1] Thus far they are called revolutionary`s and is the source itself reliable? The article as written is very very POV and Capital & Class looks more like a student rag than a serious journal mark nutley (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Capital & Class is peer reviewed. The relevant quote is, "The EZLN takes its name and to some extent its ideology from the libertarian, anti-statist element of the 1910-1917 Mexican Revolution gathered around the peasant army led by Emiliano Zapata and the slogan `Land and Freedom!'." (sadly I don't have Sagepub on this connection, but it is available at page 3 of the edition you gave. Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to drop that as a source, the group was founded in 1983, they have since then become revolutionary. In fact Anthropologica describe them as a guerilla group from the get go [2] mark nutley (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I felt we established during the WSM discussion that, until the broader editorial discussion on article focus is completed, that instances and examples should be included on either of two propositions:

1. Establishment in HQRS of notability to libertarianism; or,
2. Establishment in HQRS of
   1. notability (in a broader sense than just being worthy of having an encyclopedia article, in WSM's case it was contemporary, English language, long lasting, and winning successful tax strikes), and
   2. libertarianism

And, as no HQRS could establish either of these at the time, WSM was dropped pending on access to Gay & Gay's encyclopedia. Just to ground further discussion, is this your recollection of that discussion above?

To apply those criteria to this instance:

EZLN is notable for its ideology and its guerilla and social movement's impact in Chiapas; and, I think it is demonstrable from HQRS that they are libertarian. In fact, a variety of RS (not HQRS) that I can recall indicate that the EZLN is notable precisely for their impact on libertarianism, as finding a way out of the quagmire of revolutionary overthrow of the state in order to better the lives of their constituent communities. That they are also influenced by indigenous thought, anarchism, and socialism is beside the point.

I don't see how the EZLN's status as a revolutionary group indicates that the Capital & Class source ought to be dropped; could you try explaining your reasoning (or my misreading)? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) The EZLN takes its name and to some extent its ideology from the libertarian, anti-statist element of the 1910-1917 Mexican Revolution gathered around the peasant army led by Emiliano Zapata and the slogan `Land and Freedom! It is this quote from the source which makes me think they are not a libertarian group. To some extent does not a libertarian group make really. The sources i have seen describe them as a revolutionary group. As for G&G no need to wait, even in the snippet view you can see WSM described as anarchist mark nutley (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

[snipped] I now read your meaning clearly as focusing on "to some extent" from the quote. I'll let a third editor intervene. In any case the only reason I propose to use EZLN and WSM is to give illustrative examples in the text when describing libertarian socialism. Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, it is abundantly clear that Marknutley has been very patient regarding your claims that the EZLN and the WSM are Libertarian groups. Personally, I think you're laughing at anyone who does not immediately bin your RIDICULOUS suggestions when they are first brought to their attention - full credit to Marknutley for displaying such calm professionalism and bothering to check your (obviously unreliable) sources in the face of such WP:PatentNonsense when you proposed it. BlueRobe (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The current wording in the article is that EZLN "includes significant libertarian socialist elements". As worded, that's not a particularly sweeping claim, and surely it's consistent with EZLN taking its ideology "to some extent" from libertarian influences.

(By the way, can nothing be done about this endless uncivil conduct from BlueRobe? Reading this page is a real chore when you have to filter through all the vitriol.) Iota (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Industrial Workers of the World

Is a trade union? Were is the reference describing them as libertarian? Cos EB does not have them down as such [3] And nor does there wiki article? mark nutley (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidently, Fifelfoo is using any reference to "Libertarian", even when that reference is clearly to the etymologically archaic Anarchist concept of the term "Libertarian", to justify including Anarchist, Socialist, Marxist and Communist organisations in the content of the Libertarianism article. BlueRobe (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

mark,

1. David M Rabban, "The IWW Free Speech Fights and Popular Conceptions of Free Expression before World War I" Virginia Law Review Vol. 80, No. 5 (Aug., 1994), pp. 1055-1158 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1073625 ought to
2. Kenyon Zimmer "Premature Anti-Communists?: American Anarchism, the Russian Revolution, and Left-Wing Libertarian Anti-Communism, 1917-1939" Labor 2009 6(2):45-71; DOI:10.1215/15476715-2008-058 http://labor.dukejournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/2/45

Should both cover, no jstor atm. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Industrial Workers of the World says, "The IWW was founded in Chicago in June 1905 at a convention of two hundred socialists, anarchists, and radical trade unionists from all over the United States (mainly the Western Federation of Miners) who were opposed to the policies of the American Federation of Labor (AFL)." BlueRobe (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark, your edit summary indicates your removed the IWW on the basis of their being a trade union, not on the basis of them being unsourced. If this is the case, I will revert your edit summary. Your edit summary did not justify removing them. Nor is the discussion here finalised. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you hold off on that please until i have had time to check the sources presented above, thanks mark nutley (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries! I move slowly. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Makhnovist

Looking at this now, i am assuming the three sources at the beginning of the section are meant to cover the content which follows. Ref 1 describes them clearly as anarchist [4] Ref 2 clearly describes them as anarchist [5] Ref 3 [6] are citations from this book which surprisingly describes them as anarchist [7] As such i believe they have no place within this article and should be removed mark nutley (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark, the title of the Platform. Go read the definition given in Long and Woodcock. As repeatedly expressed to you: anarchist organisations are not necessarily not libertarian. A trade union is not necessarily not libertarian. I'll dig up some Voline and Woodcock for you in time. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A definition does not matter, were is the source which says these guys are Libertarian? If you bring me a source saying this guy says libertarians and anarchists share some common ideals and then bring another source saying such and such a group is anarchist but as the first source says they are similar then it can go it is actually wp:synth and wp:or a source describing them as libertarian is needed mark nutley (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This argument is correct for Long; but not for Woodcock. If Woodcock describes a group as anarchist, then, that group is necessarily libertarian for Woodcock. Instead of saying "they are an anarchist group" which is a positive claim, you'd be better of saying "this source doesn't describe them as libertarian." Moreover, rather than approaching this from the point "Current sources are insufficient; can we improve the referencing," your approach has been of a quick deletionist type. You know, you can relax, let the discussion run its course, and then be comfortable with a conclusive outcome. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I endorse these remarks. I think it's a bit tendentious to keep declaring groups toe be "anarchist!" as if anarchism and libertarianism are incompatible.

Also I think people on this thread with different views are actually capable of reaching agreement as to which groups are libertarian. So it would be better to discuss big changes here first and allow Fifelfoo (who seems to know a lot about this stuff) and others the opportunity to bring forward sources. Iota (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel confident that Mark and I can reach a consensus on what the HQRS identified actually say, and thus reach a consensus on inclusion or exclusion of groups based on the same. The WSM discussion was longer, and reached a consensus pending on me being able to reference Gay and Gay (a wait condition). But the IWW & EZLN discussions seems short enough to move into this session? Mark, are you opposed into moving the IWW & EZLN discussions above into this general discussion as a subsection? Fifelfoo (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, feel free to drop them down into subsections, it will be easier for us to work through them one at a time that way, good idea mark nutley (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your second and third links to snipped views don't substantiate your argument, you've also searched on one synonym of a group reasonable well known for multiple synonyms. I don't particularly think those sources were the best or most reliable though. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

autonomist

Ref 1 [8] does not mention them Ref 2 does not mention them [9] Ref 3 does not mention them [10] as such they should be remove from this article as unsourced mark nutley (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll check Steve Wright sometime in the next three days. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

CNT (National Confederation of Labour)

Another union? Who are described as having anarcho-syndicalist beliefs [11] Well they certainly do not belong within this article either mark nutley (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Some sources

• Nationalism and the nation in the Iberian Peninsula: Competing and Conflicting identities (Clare Mar-Molinero, Angel Smith) Berg Publishers, 1996.
  • P. 138 "statist forces were opposed by the radical Left, composing anti-state purist sectors of the libertarian movement (CNT-FAI-FIJL)".
  • P. 138 "The libertarian movement was composed of the anarcho-syndicalist trade union (CNT), the purist anarchist group (FAI) and the libertarian youth organisation (FIJL)."
  • P. 141 "Ironically of course the rapid political eclipse of the libertarian movement (CNT-FAI-FIJL) removed the force which more than any other on the Left had a discourse and practice of community"

• The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, Volume 2 (Robert Alexander) Janus Publishing Company, 1999
  • P1045 - "The last major clash came in the plenum of the Libertarian Movement ...This was a meeting of representatives of regional organizations of all three elements of the movement, that is, the Confederation Nacional de Trabajo [CNT], the Federcion Anarquista Iberica [FAI], and the Federacion de Juventudes Libertarias [FIJL]"

• The Third Revolution: Popular Movements in the Revolutionary Era (Murray Bookchin) Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005.
  • "Since libertarian theory in all its forms agreed that money was morally corruptive, the only paid officials in the Condederacion [the CNT] were the general secretary and the secretaries of the various regional federations." (p. 109)
  • "Nor was the CNT always able to convince its recruits that a libertarian society should be their goal. Although members heartily sang the CNT anthem 'To the Barricades', they often had only a limited understanding of what a libertarian social revolution would entail ..a longtime CNT leader, estimated that only a third of the union's membership could legitimately be called conscious libertarians. The CNT leadership did not educate them well" (p. 110)
  • "Its [the CNT's] workers centers or centro obreros (libertarian imitations of the socialists casas obreras)" (p. 110)
  • "During the First World World War the CNT was led by Salvador Segui, a textile-worker and moderate libertarian syndicalist.. Victor Serge, who knew him well, describes him as 'no anarchist, but rather a libertarian'" (p. 110)
  • "Whether anarchism and syndicalism could exist within the same movement - even a libertarian one, committed to mutual aid, decentralism, and confederalism - was not at all clear. The CNT's membership was marked by a great deal of ideological diversity. Indeed, the history of Spanish libertarian organisation was one of continual fracturing" (p. 111)
  • "Anarcho-syndicalists tried to use the CNT to strike revolutionary blows that would achieve a future society called libertarian communism." (p. 111)
  • "the congress had adopted 'libertarian communism' (communismo libertario) as the CNT's official ideology." (p. 116)

• The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, Volume 2 (José Peirats & Chris Ealham) Christie Books, 2001.
  • "..the libertarian movement's three wings - the CNT, the FAI and the FIJL." (P. 92)
  • "Later, they [the FIJL] spread throughout the whole of Spain until they came to represent the third branch of the great libertarian family." (P. 76)

Iota (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of source 1

This source contradicts itself, 123 anarcho-syndicalist 127 anarcho-syndicalist 129 anarcho-syndicalist 135 anarcho-syndicalist labour union 175 anarcho-syndicalist If anything this source reinforces the anarcho-syndicalist descriptor of them than the pages you presented which only loosely defines them as libertarian (as there are three groups bunched in there) mark nutley (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The source only contradicts itself if one accepts the proposition that there is some sort of contradiction between libertarianism and anarcho-syndicalism or trade unionism. With respect, that is just your own assertion. As has been repeatedly pointed out on here for weeks, many reliable sources define libertarianism in a broad way that includes both minarchism and anarchism. In any case it is a HQRS; it is not for us to argue with the authors if they define CNT-FAI as libertarian. Iota (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me, a mention in passing does not equate to libertarian, given the context of them being described as anarcho-syndicalist numerous times in the same source, you are giving undue weight to one line. More is required, this source does not cut the mustard. Also note, there are literary hundreds of sources describing them as anarcho-syndicalist and as such the weight falls with them. I will look to your second source now which i have sectioned below mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll just repeat that the fact they are described as anarcho-syndicalist is in no way evidence that they are not libertarian. So the "weight" does not "fall" with sources describing these groups as anarcho-syndicalist because there is no inconsistency between the two descriptions, no competing lumps of evidence to be balanced against each other. But moving along, could you clarify what type of evidence you would consider satisfactory? Iota (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You can`t be one or the other, anarcho-syndicalist [12] is quite simply not libertarian and a cherry picked line from one source against hundreds of sources will not do. Is there a source which goes into detail about their libertarian beliefs? All the sources i find describe them as i have said anarcho-syndicalist mark nutley (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Anarcho-syndicalist is quite simply not libertarian". That is your own assertion. Can we just stick to discussing sources rather than proclaiming your own beliefs, which are irrelevant? Iota (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not my assertion, it is backed by quite a reliable source which i linked in my previous respones to you [13] mark nutley (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Your source is a general definition of anarcho-syndicalism. The entry says nothing about the CNT-FAI or about libertarianism. It does describe anarcho-syndicalism as "a variety of anarchism", and we have many reliable sources stating that anarchism is synonymous with, or a form of, libertarianism. But I don't think this line of discussion is particularly constructive. Iota (talk)

I think you misunderstand me, the preponderance of sources call this group anarchist, one line in one book has no weight compared to this. Quite simply you are reaching here, you either need a source which covers their libertarian ideals with depth or they are just another anarchist group and do not belong in this article mark nutley (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of source 2

I gather that Mar-Molinero & Smith is a HQRS. The second is less certain. Iota (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Iota, are you sure of the second one? I only have volume 1 from 1999 was there a second edition printed the same year? mark nutley (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the link: [14], [15]. Iota (talk)

Discussion of source 3

I believe this is a HQRS. It is written by Murray Bookchin and the publisher states that "Academic proposals are peer-reviewed before we commit to publication, to help ensure quality and to support the career progression of our authors."

FAI

Iberian Anarchist Federation, are described as anarchist not libertarian, [16] [17] [18] They have no place within this article mark nutley (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Bookchin BRD

• Bookchin, M. (October 1991). "Libertarian Municipalism: An Overview." Green Perspectives, No. 24. Burlington, VT. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I just ran into that when looking through some files the other day. But what does BRD mean? Always good to include WP:BRD for newbies or oldies new to an abbreviation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I ought to add bs04 as a language tag, for "This user is guilty of using bureaucratic shorthand at an advanced level." Speaking of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Does anyone have a reason to remove Bookchin as an influential thinker? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Anarchism in the lede

I had moved some content which were duplicated in the lede and in the overview section for the obvious reason that anarchism was in the lede already. This simple edit seems contentious for some reason as both Iota abd Bigkhex have both reverted it, Iota without the courtesy of an edit summary [19] and bigk with a misleading one see no reason for the deletion of this summation from the lede as of course i had given a reason in my previous edit summary [20] Would either of you care to explain why you feel the need to revert this simple edit? And why you think anarchism should be mentioned in the lede twice? mark nutley (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the note on the reference that it does not support the claim, this removal seems appropriate -- although failing to provide a descriptive edit summary is annoying behavior. Also, I think it's accurate to say that Chomsky's sense of "libertarian socialism" is not within the notion of "libertarianism" described in this article (even the "broad" notion supported by the RFC). --FOo (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Insofar as Chomsky's views are given as examples of the left-libertarian facet of libertarianism, they seem valid for inclusion. BigK HeX (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

They had not been removed, they had been moved big difference, why did you revert the edit? mark nutley (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The content was not "duplicated" in the lede. But anyways, I think a good lede of this type of ideological article ought to cover the wikilinks to the sub-philosophies as a sort of disambiguation to the more narrow variants. Personally, I've never been happy with the gutted lede, but gutting it further should come with a fairly good rationale. BigK HeX (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

To Mark nutley ... your edit summary asked whether people thought there was sufficient reason for the text to be moved. My edit summary answered no. Obviously, discussion is warranted.... BigK HeX (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Then please discuss by replying to the questions in my first post, thanks mark nutley (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, it should be obvious by now that BigK HeX and TFD revert all edits regardless of how reasonable those edits may be. Why have they been allowed to get away with this sort of WP:MyTurf WP:BattleMentality for so long? BlueRobe (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is how things work around here, time and patience is required to achieve an article which will actually discuss what it should, not what a few think it ought. Chill and have a beer :) mark nutley (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Merging rest of overview to lead

The overview section was created in mid-August as a compromise to deal with the constant and unrelenting complaints of those who wanted to delete anything but their narrow form of libertarianism from the article. Since then we've had a couple RfCs and requests to move which have made it clear the community is opposed to such "deletionist" motions. Therefore I believe the couple concepts in the overview, not in the lead, should be moved there and the rest of the section, which is just redundant to the lead, removed. And I'll be doing so soon in the most NPOV way I can imagine. Also, note that I do think some reference to the more common brand of libertarianism (free market or laissez-faire having better refs than "capitalist" by the way) does belong there and have only temporarily taken it out since it was used as part of a WP:Synthesis presentation of Boaz' definition. Some of the early August versions do a good job at it and will review. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Carol, I think that the section should continue to exist, at least for a while. The article suffers from lack of overview / perspective material, and this gives it a good place to develop. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fiscally Conservative - Socially Liberal

In this Cato paper...The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama...David Kirby and David Boaz define libertarians as being fiscally conservative and socially liberal. What's interesting is the range of percentages of voters that fit into this category....from 14% to 59%.

If we say that libertarians are socially liberal and they strictly support a minimal government (courts and defense) then perhaps around 14% of the population would be considered libertarians. If we broaden the definition to the right and say that libertarians are socially liberal and they support a minimal government and/or no government then perhaps 14.1% of the population could be considered libertarians. Saying that .1% of the population wants to abolish the government for any reason is a very very generous estimate. The question is...how much do we have to broaden the definition to the left in order for 59% of the population to be considered libertarians?

To clarify...broadening the definition of libertarianism to the left is not the same thing as saying that this article should include left-libertarianism. Broadening the definition to the left means expanding the scope of government. For example, in addition to courts and defense, the scope of government would be expanded to include supply/control of the banks/money, infrastructure, etc.

Why do certain editors not want to broaden the definition to the left? Well...the more you broaden the definition to the left...in terms of proportion to prominence...the more insignificant the anarcho-capitalist viewpoint becomes. This is why certain editors have moved my recent posts on the topic over to my talk page...

• Scope of Government Survey
• Improving This Article

If we use the narrow definition (limited government) then anarcho-capitalism would be excluded. If we use the broad definition, which includes the far right, then logically, based on the numbers, it should also include the far left as well. The result would be the exclusion of anarcho-capitalism as well...based on the proportion to prominence policy.

BigK HeX, or any other editors who disagree with my point, let me forewarn you that if you hide or move this section to my talk page...a sufficiently clear pattern will be established and I will definitely report the incident. --Xerographica (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Cato Institute has to be taken with a pinch of salt as an authority in this area. Otherwise, it looks like you are seeking to define Libertarianism based on rather broad political criteria rather than use sources. As you know this is OR and your speculation on motives doesn't help much either. --Snowded ^TALK 06:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Cato Institute is the fifth most influential think tank in the world...and David Boaz is the vice president. He's also the author of several books on libertarianism and has written numerous articles on the subject...including the Encyclopedia Britannica article on libertarianism. Rather than just accuse me of Original Research, it would be more productive if you specified which points you disagree with. That way I can provide reliable sources which support those points. Xerographica (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The fifth most influential think tank in the world? Have you got a source for that? It is an organisation that supports a perspective on Libertarianism hence my comment. Produce something with sources rather than your generalised comments and I'll respond. For the moment your statement is your opinion and OR This talk page is not a debating club (or should not be) --Snowded ^TALK 07:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The source for that is the wikipedia article...Cato Institute. See how that worked? You disputed something specific and I provided a source. It's much more productive than accusing editors of soapbox or original research. --Xerographica (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Non peer reviewed report James G. McGann [Unpublished Report] 2009 THE GLOBAL “GO-TO THINK TANKS” The Leading Public Policy Research Organizations In The World. THE THINK TANKS AND CIVIL SOCIETIES PROGRAM, International Relations Program, University of Pennsylvania: 2010, p. 29 pdf (I had failed to sign, oops) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It was the only thing you said about which a specific question could be asked; other than pointing it out I don't respond to soapboxing and OR. As to the Penn study, a brief read of the method etc. makes it highly dubious and I can see why it states that it is not peer reviewed. The article uses it properly with the "according to" label which is the most that could be done. --Snowded ^TALK 08:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My post discussed a reliable source on the topic. On one hand you say you don't respond to OR or soapboxing...but on the other hand...you obviously responded to my post. So either my post was not OR or soapboxing...or you do respond to OR and soapboxing. Xerographica (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Why do certain editors not want to broaden the definition to the left?". Please discuss definitions only present in reliable sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, thanx for that singularly unhelpful response. BlueRobe (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not an answer. Yworo (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, would you say that this book by David Boaz is a reliable source?... The politics of freedom: taking on the left, the right, and threats to our liberties Xerographica (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's quite enough soapboxing, Xero. Please stop attempting to discuss the hypothetical reasons for editor's positions. Asking if a source is reliable requires some context. Precisely what did you want to source from this book by Boaz, published by the organization of which he is vice-president. That in itself is pretty close to self-published. So, give us a quote and tell us what article text you'd like to support with it. Yworo (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

David Boaz, The politics of freedom: taking on the left, the right, and threats to our liberties Cato Institute 2008. Cato isn't an academic press, so this isn't the highest quality of reliable source. Cato is a partisan press: it publishes material of a specific ideological bent. This WP:RS/N thread I initiated wasn't particularly conclusive, I'd treat Boaz publishing in Cato press as a reliable source for a person who has an expert opinion, but his opinion needs to be credited to him.

A better way forward is seeking Boaz in an academic press, or a definition based on Boaz in an academic press, such as Drieu Godefidi "The Anarcho-Libertarian Utopia – A Criqitue" in Ordo: Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Walter Eucken (Ed.) Bd. 56 (Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, 2005): 123-140 who writes at 123, "Libertarianism denotes a current of thought, mainly American, rooted in classical liberal ideas and values. … Libertarians are either minarchists, who want a minimal State, or anarchists (anarcho-capitalists), who pursue the pure and simple elimination of any kind of state structure." is a better idea. Unless Boaz proposes a unique quote which is notable because Boaz is Cato's director. I'm pretty sure that at least three of the US right wing organisations run academic peer reviewed journals, finding such definitions shouldn't present a hazard. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"The final group - those who favored a conservative position on economic issues and a liberal stance on social issues - are the libertarians." - Liberals, Populists, Libertarians, and Conservatives: The Link between Domestic and International Affairs by Ole R. Holsti and James N. Rosenau

Same definition...but this time by academics. Xerographica (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you gave a full citation. Ole R. Holsti and Janes N. Rosenau (1996) "Liberals, Populists, Libertarians, and Conservatives: The Link between Domestic and International Affairs" International Political Science Review 17:1, 29-54. That is a HQRS, and seems to be a definition in line with the "narrow" pro-property movement only definition. Good find. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Military noninterventionism cannot be excluded in any definition

• RE: The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama...David Kirby and David Boaz define libertarians as being fiscally conservative and socially liberal. While I won’t speculate on why they leave out military noninterventionis, note they do say “Libertarians’ concerns about Republican overspending, government growth, excessive social conservatism, and the war in Iraq” (ie, that there was one in the first place!)
• The politics of freedom: taking on the left, the right, and threats to our liberties by Boaz Contains a number of references to problems with and/or libertarians being vs. military interventions
• an article called '"Liberals, Populists, Libertarians, and Conservatives: The Link between Domestic and International Affairs" certainly would mention that libertarianism is against foreign entanglements and military interventionism. Since most of us don't have access to verify, please find the relevant quotes and include those.

Any definition limited to social liberalism/economic conservativsm are either ignorant, pro-military intervention - or come from people afraid of antagonizing pro-military intervention funders. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In my post on the scope of government...every libertarian listed at least two essential responsibilities of the government...provide security and justice. The freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor then military interventionism was completely in line with libertarianism. Same thing when terrorists attacked our country. Libertarianism is NOT pacifism...and it's definitely NOT anarcho-capitalism.

A volunteer military as proposed by anarcho-capitalists could probably keep Mexico from invading ...and it could probably stop genocide in many countries...but in no way shape or form would it deter attacks from countries with well funded armies. Additionally, our current military has numerous governmental checks and balances that a completely volunteer military would not have...given that there would be no government. The prominent libertarians all readily grasped these straightforward concepts when deciding what the basic responsibilities of government should be. Failure to recognize the necessity of the government in securing the safety of all its citizens is why anarcho-capitalism is not libertarianism. --Xerographica (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The definition you are using is present in some high quality reliable sources; but does not exhaust the definitions present in high quality reliable sources. Obviously the solution for the article is to present and attribute the major opinions on use of military force; if the issue of military force is WEIGHTy enough to be mentioned here and not at a topical article. Interestingly this is one area in which libertarian socialist theory actually has bothered to develop a number of significant contributions to theory (centred largely on the concepts more or less equivalent to revolutionary self-defence). Fifelfoo (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The question is what does one mean by "definition". As non-intervention belief (being a different from "no military" belief) is certainly common amongst Libertarians and many of the various Libertarian philosophies. And so by that definition, I would certainly say "yse". But if by "definition" you mean the short list of tenets which an overwhelming amount of Libertarians would agree with, then I don't think it would make that short list. North8000 (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Questionable Sources, general

This source:

• Watts, Duncan (16 March 2006). Understanding American government and politics: a guide for A2 politics students (2nd Revised edition edition ed.). Manchester University Press. p. 246. ISBN 978-0719073274.

May very well be a secondary school student textbook published by a UP. Can someone check? My suspicions are heightened by this author bio on Amazon, "Duncan Watts is Editor of the Politics Association Resource Centre and a part-time tutor in a sixth form college." And of course GCE Advanced Level which explains that an A2 is the equivalent of a year 12 matriculation. I would suggest we ought to seek a different source to support any points made by Watts, as a secondary school textbook isn't sufficient. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be a concern only if the source in question was a primary source for the material in question, where WP:RS#Scholarship is of concern. But that's highly unlikely for a textbook of any kind. Secondary sources are preferred, and a secondary school textbook should qualify as more than adequate in that regard. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I'd like to take this to A class, GA or FAC. Secondary school textbooks omit scholarly detail, simplify unnecessarily, don't reflect contemporary scholarship but aim at pedagogy. While the source probably reflects the truth here, it doesn't do so to a sufficiently high encyclopaedic level. Secondary school textbooks often also reflect the political will of the curriculum authority. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Most introductory textbooks are considered tertiary sources. There is no mention of high school textbooks, but it does not seem scholarly to use them, unless one is writing an essay for high school. TFD (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The source is fine, per wp:v and wp:rs unless i see a policy based reason against it`s usage it stays in mark nutley (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD's link to WP:TERTIARY and your link to WP:RS adequately explain the reason why we prefer secondary sources like academic scholarship to tertiary sources like secondary school student textbooks. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have taken it to WP:RSN.[21] TFD (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Need citation for libertarian socialism being part of the anarchist main branch of libertarianism

I keep adding a "Citation needed" tag to the following assertion about libertarian socialism being a form of the anarchism branch of libertarianism:

It [the anarchism branch of libertarianism] takes the form of both libertarian socialism ...

What I'm requesting is a citation of some text somewhere, preferably from a secondary source for this material, referring to libertarian socialism as libertarianism. Since there are no quotes or links associated with this citation, there is no convenient way to verify whether this citation does that. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There are quotes given above for the sources I added, Woodcock is in books. Yet another good reason for the source repository, which I'm waiting on a some time AND/OR other editors at the Wikiproject Libertarianism to approve or disapprove of. Additionally, the Wikiproject has an outstanding request for a guide to sourcing Libertarianism articles... given my strong interest in reliable sourcing, I suppose I volunteered myself when I saw that outstanding request. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology section demonstrates problem in this article

objection regarding this article potentially being about just "the word" already raised. The premise was REJECTED. See Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_22#Requested_move. No need to rehash a settled matter, per WP:IDHT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think the etymology section demonstrates two things. Given the current layout/focus/structure of the article, it's appropriate. That is, it fits. This shows the articles violates WP:NAD. WP:NAD states: "Sometimes an article really is a mis-placed stub dictionary article, that discusses the etymology, ..." *. The article also shows in the Wikipedia:Nad#Major_differences table that a major difference between wikipedia and wiktionary entries is the existence of etymology sections (they should only be in wiktionary entries). Now, I'm not saying that this article is a mis-placed stub dictionary article, just that it's about the word libertarianism rather than about the (singular) political view or philosophy that is predominately associated with that word today in the English speaking world (which is what it should be about), and the existence and appropriateness of the Libertarianism#Etymology section is evidence of that. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Disagree. An article about a word is restricted to its definition, pronunciation and phonology, evolution of its etymology, grammatical categories, etc. It's quite possible that the etymology section should be removed, though. I'll look through it. Yworo (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC) The etymology section is simply mistitled, it's not about etymology at all, which would be about its derivation from predecessor languages such a Latin, not about its historical usage in English. Yworo (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I suggest you review WP:NAD, including this: Note that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length. A full dictionary article (as opposed to a stub dictionary article, which is simply where Wiktionary articles start from) or encyclopedic dictionary entry would contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; and can be very long indeed. Short dictionary articles are artifacts of paper dictionaries being space-limited. Not all dictionaries are limited by the size of the paper. Wiktionary is not paper either. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC) You're clearly misusing it to soapbox. End of discussion. Yworo (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-English sources

There is no rule against non-English sources. Removal of them appears to be disruptive editing. Darkstar1st please self-revert. Yworo (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Please try and wp:AGF accusing an editor of disruption can be deemed to be a wp:PA, why have you posted this here when you already posted on his talk page? mark nutley (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly intended to be disruptive, user is just back from a block for edit warring on this very article, is aware that problems with sources are under discussion, and rather than bringing the issue up on the talk page, simply starts removing sources. Yworo (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

actually, there is a rule which was not followed Non-English sources: When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Then request the translation on the talk page. Removal is not appropriate. Yworo (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the references removed were not supporting foreign language quotations, which is what the guideline you quote is about. It's not required to provide a translation unless foreign text is quoted. Yworo (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

does the word "libertaire" qualify as foreign text? If not consider me requesting a translation, since none can be found after searching, i suggest we leave the sources out as a translation by an editor here may be synthesis. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Yworo (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No? No what?, what exactly are these sources supporting? If a foreign language source is supporting content then a translation must be provided so an editor can verify it mark nutley (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, discussion of a single word, 'libertaire', doesn't count as a "quotation". You'll also note that the first source removed clearly states that the source contains an English translation. The fact that 'libertaire' translates to 'libertarian' can be easily verified in any French-to-English dictionary, or via Babelfish. Yworo (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually i think you have misunderstood me, how am i for instance verify that the content is supported by the reference if it is not translated? And one of them is a dead link btw ref name="Graham" one mark nutley (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Hmm, it would seem they were the same ref, hard to translate that which is not there mark nutley (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not delete the source claiming an english translation exist, i deleted the other 2 in french ^ “De l'être-humain mâle et femelle–Lettre à P.J. Proudhon par Joseph Déjacque” (in French) ^ Pelosse, Valentin (1972). Joseph Déjacque and the Neologism Libertarian the 1st i deleted incorrectly credits dejacques with creating the neologism "libertarian" Darkstar1st (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The first reference refers to a book. It has Wikilinks but no external links, so what is there to break? In any case, that source contains the English translation of Joseph Dejacque’s 1857 letter to Proudhon, the second source is the same letter in the original French, so the first reference provides the translation, and the third source is a third-party source discussing that this is the first use of libertaire (libertarian) in French. This is quite clear even using Google Translate. I didn't add these reference, have never seen them before, but have no problem understanding what they are and how they apply. Yworo (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

is google translate now a wp:rs? the 1st link actually does not have the translation in english, rather links to a wp article. i am requesting the translation be provided, the other two sources will need separate translations as well. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement that the source be available online. It's a reference to a published book. I've not made any suggestion that Google Translate is an RS, I simply said that it provides a good enough translation to verify that the source verifies the text it supports. Do you dispute that? Yworo (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo your edit here [22] introduces this link which is a 404 [23] That is the source i am on about. DS1st can you link me to the sources you are refering to please mark nutley (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There may be something wrong with your browser, both links work fine for me (refs 16 and 17). Yworo (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In particular, it seems your browser is not detecting the end of the link and the beginning of the link text. The link is only [24], but your browser is translating the space following it as %20 and thus not detecting the end of the URL, which it shouldn't be doing. It may be due to the non-standard quotation marks (not sure whether they are "European" style or Microsoft "Smart" quotes). I've changed them, does that help? Yworo (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

i have never disputed the claim a person has translated the letter, i simply wanted it presented here. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's in a book I don't have. Use the library. Yworo (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I read the section on Translation requirements (Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources), and user submitted translations are acceptable ("Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians."). While we wait for a RS translation, I submit the following translations Google machine translation of french archive french archive

¶"Ecrivain fouetteur de femmes, serf de l'homme absolu, Proudhon-Haynau [Footnote in French edition: "Haynau, général autrichien qui réprima les mouvements révolutionnaires en Europe centrale et balkanique en 1848-49."] qui avez pour knout la parole, comme le bourreau croate, vous semblez jouir de toutes les lubricités de la convoitise à déshabiller vos belles victimes sur le papier du supplice et à les flageller de vos invectives. Anarchiste juste-milieu, libéral et non LIBERTAIRE, vous voulez le libre échange pour le coton et la chandelle, et vous préconisez des systèmes protecteurs de l'homme contre la femme, dans la circulation des passions humaines ; vous criez contre les hauts barons du capital, et vous voulez réédifier la haute baronie du mâle sur la vassale femelle ; logicien à bésicles, vous voyez l'homme par la lunette qui grossit les objets, et la femme par le verre qui les diminue ; penseur affligé de myopie, vous ne savez distinguer que ce qui vous éborgne dans le présent ou dans le passé, et vous ne pouvez rien découvrir de ce qui est à hauteur et à distance, ce qui perspective de l'avenir : vous êtes un infirme !""

The following translation has been amended by Fifelfoo from the Google Translation for grammar and grammatical word order, and two French words that aren't readily translated (knout, the-person-who-gouges-out-eyes), but not for the use of technical words (Anarchist, liberal, and Libertarian are left as Google translated them),

¶The writer who whips women, the serf of the absolute man, Proudhon-Haynau [Footnote in French edition: Haynau, Austrian general who suppressed the revolutionary movements in Central Europe and the Balkans in 1848-49.] who has to cudgel speakers, like the executioner of Croatia, you seem to enjoy all of the lewd lust of unleashing your fine paper on the victims of torture and flogging them with your invective. This is the Anarchist golden mean: liberal and yet not LIBERTARIAN: you want free trade for cotton and the candle, and you are advocating systems protecting man against woman in the movement of human passions, you scream against the barons of capital, and want to rebuild the barons of the male over the female vassal; logician to spectacles, you see the man with the telescope that magnifies objects, and the woman through the glass which decreases; thinker afflicted by myopia, you do know what you distinguish gouging out their eyes in the present or in the past, and you can not see what is up or remotely view what the future is: you're a cripple!

Notes from Fifelfoo's translation: knout is a Russian judicial whip or cudgel used to beat victims of the judicial system; éborgne means the person who gouges out eyes (what kind of language has a single word for this? Seriously?). This looks like a typical feminist attack on Proudhon. The French word used for LIBERTARIAN (small caps in original) is LIBERTAIRE which fr.wikipedia defines as, "On désigne par libertaire ce qui prône une liberté absolue et rejette toute autorité." which I don't believe I need to translate. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

does the google translation support the claims made?

isn't there something in the source Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas - Volume One: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300CE-1939), ed. Robert Graham that could support these claims? (The use of the word 'libertarian' to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon) Darkstar1st (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't here for the original claims made using the translated text, does anyone have a diff or remember what the claims being made from this were? I'd suspect that a documentary history is a set of original documents, collected by an editor because of their importance or interest, the original documents which would need to be treated as PRIMARY sources of opinion and cited as individual documents contained in the edited work. We could certainly say, "Déjacque used the word Libertarian to distinguish his own politics in an 1857 attack on Proudhon's anarchist position on the status of women." but I don't think that drives the article forward much. I really enjoyed the invective of the original source though. I don't think a quote from this text is really useful in illustrating anything: I agree with you we'd be better off making use of an RS's opinion on the earliest use of the word libertarian to refer to a political ideology. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading this diff it looks like it was relying on Robert Graham in some way. Perhaps Graham introduced the source? I wouldn't call a short introduction to a PRIMARY source particularly Reliable, unless he has extensively commented all documents. If only a page number had originally been given, we could ask the reference exchange people to try to get us a copy of the pages before the PRIMARY. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I just checked Dictionnaire de l'Académie française, the French OED equivalent, they list 1858 Proudhon as their earliest use. I have heard that they're deletionist as opposed to the OED's inclusionist stance. Then again, the OED is pretty lackluster on the word libertarian. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the definition provided in the 1st source has been removed

there are two definitions, the first was excluded as "metaphysical", if the first definition is incorrect here, what is the reason for not listing the full second definition? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Because Libertarian political parties are covered by the disambiguation page. This article is about libertarianism (little 'l'). Yworo (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian political tactics: destruction of property, rioting, class intimidation such as lynching, terrorism, political assassination, and armed insurrection.

Other direct action strikes, workplace occupations, sit-ins, sabotage, property destruction and graffiti. By contrast, grassroots organizing, electoral politics, diplomacy and negotiation or arbitration are not direct action, and not included here as tactics used by libertarians. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you want us to take note of here, please? BigK HeX (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

this section should be removed or rewritten, hardly representative of mainstream libertarian principles or tactics practiced by modern libertarians. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia article direct action is almost certainly wrong regarding grassroots organising, at least with reference to Franks, B. (2003) "Direct action ethic." Anarchist Studies, Volume 11 (No. 1). pp. 13-41. ISSN 0967-3393. The reason for inclusion of Direct Action (apart from the request for greater left libertarian content dating from October), is that it is the most notable structuring princple, "So strong is the connection [between libertarian socialists and direct action] that the autonomist-Marxist group Aufheben refers to the libertarian milieu as the ‘direct action movement’." (Franks, 15). The current direct action wikipedia article also appears from your quote to fail to mention bin-tax strikes, and petrol tax strikes by right wing rural communities. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

anyone want to try to reword it? otherwise unless there is support for keeping this section, i will delete it until a better summation of mainstream tactics is assembled if needed at all. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

libertarian party

[25] This is not on, a consensus will be needed before the removal of the largest libertarian party in the world mark nutley (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That was just added by North8000 without discussion. There is a whole section on Libertarian Parties later in the article. There is a hatnote linking to Libertarian Party. One particular country's Libertarian Party cannot be in the overview without mentioning all the others (NPOV). So it is best to leave all parties in the section on political parties. This article is about libertarianism, not Libertarianism and is required to present a worldwide view and not have a bias towards a single party of a single country's political platform. Yworo (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see next section that I'm adding below. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That was not just added [26] it has been there for weeks, i was adding refs to it just he other day mark nutley (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see Carol removed it recently, which I'd missed. My apologies. However, it's still wrong to include the US LP so prominently in the Overview section. I've added a "globalize" tag. It should either be removed, or it should be an overview of LPs worldwide. Yworo (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, see below. My intent was a statement of tenants in common globally, not an introduction of the USLP. People modified it since. North8000 (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As the largest party in the world it will of course be more prominent that others within the article, you can`t give the same weight to groups which are much smaller can you mark nutley (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an overview section, which means it should give an overview. Certainly within the Parties section the coverage should be proportional. Yworo (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

LP Party common tenets statement and "organizations" statement in the "overview" section

I originally added 2 paragraphs about 3-4 days ago. The first was an attempt to get sort of a "comment tenets" statement in the overview. I only chose the US LP's version because it's the largest LP organization in the world, (thus being one of the most RS's on this in a real-world way) and the statement looks like something that few would dispute. It has subsequently been reworded to look more like an introduction to the party, which I did not intend. I put this back in (essentially reverting Carol's deletion today) but did an edit which "undid" the party orientation a bit, plus made it more accurate. This was to say that the LP asserts that these are common tenets of Libertarianism, not a statement of their core beliefs.

The second paragraph which got stripped and stripped and deleted and now is down to one short milk-toast sentence which I put into the first paragraph is an into to the "practice in addition to philosophy" concept which I sincerely believe will help resolve the issues with this article. Most practice, advocacy, organization etc. of Libertarianism is by people with disparate philosophies but with certain tenets and objectives widely held between them. I think that mainstream Libertarianism is just that, rather than a particular philosophy. This could be the Rosetta stone for solving some of the issues here.

Finally, a brief note on a big topic. I think that any article with the title "Libertarianism" (not Libertarian Philosophies) needs to cover it as a whole. We have already decided on diversity regarding certain aspects; we should also include the most obvious diversity inherent in the title. Including dropping that "philosophy" preface. North8000 (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Apart from presentism; the other assumption in your comment is that all libertarian politics is organised through parliamentary politics. (Without presentism, we will to address historical Georgist parties, which we ought, and the extraparliamentary historical parties of the libertarian socialists, both with "numbers" claims… a somewhat silly WEIGHTing proposition anyway.) The best reasons to use the USLP are: it is well discussed in HQRS; it is demonstrative of minarchist and anarcho-capitalist beliefs; it has been active in the English language for a good number of years; it is the best exemplar of pro-property libertarianism organised as a parliamentary party; and, that the USLP articles ought to be well directed for internal wikilinking. These reasons don't go to WEIGHTing the rest of the article, but are excellent reasons to use the USLP to demonstrate a particular tendency in an eventually decided consensus of WEIGHT. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

While the comment tenets asserted by the USLP may not include other tenets, do you feel / do you think that many would dispute that they are a bad choice for common tenets? Or are you saying that there are no common tenets? If there are, where should we get them from? If you have a better place than the largest Libertarian organization in the world? Or would you have this article say that Libertarianism is just a zillion different philosophies that have the word "libertarian" in their name, and nothing else in common? FYI, I am not a promoter of the LP. As I mentioned before, I once even told Harry Browne over dinner that the US LP should not be a political party. So promotion of the party is not my motivation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think we should follow HQRS for definition, and weight out of HQRS. There are key divides, but, the primary divide we need to make clear in the article is the primary divide in the literature: between the identified pro-property and anti-capitalist libertarianisms. Using the USLP platform as the illustrative example for pro-property movements is safe and sensible. Using them first allows the differences between pro-property and anti-capitalist libertarianisms to be made clear by comparison and contrast. This idea of "tenets" isn't visible in the HQRS I've been reading. We ought to use the comparative and differential terminology present in the literature review HQRS. Then, based on the consensus weighting agreed [if ever] address the instances of libertarianism in terms of WEIGHT and their relevance to the article sections we've settled on (History, "Ideology", Groups & Movements seem to be our current divisions). In my opinion (aware it is an example, on an uncompleted consensus process) is that LS, regardless of weight, is much more relevant to history than to ideology. AC, for example, is far more relevant in terms of ideological output (arguments from deontology for example). Fifelfoo (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right, but such has been impossible to do for 5 years in this article. I was trying to go out on a limb a bit for a little forward progress that few would dispute. As an aside, that isn't the LP platform, (which I see as items that have >51% support in the USLP) it's from their "are you a libertarian?" def, which to exist there, I think needs/has >90% support in the USLP.

Sorry, my bad for inappropriately using a technical term when I meant a gestural term instead. I'm in favour of using the USLP "are you a libertarian?" statement as a descriptive illustration (as photographs are used often in wikipedia) of the more technical political science definitions we'll find in HQRS. But we ought to get a HQRS as the "backstop" to the more reader friendly USLP document. Similarly on illustrating libertarian socialist points: HQRS for the concept, major illustrative example from partisan opinion literature where and when such an illustration will improve article comprehensibility and readability. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Compare articles on Conservatism, Liberalism, Republicanism, etc. One thing I do note is that there are in-depth articles titled Conservatism in the United States, Liberalism in the United States, and Republicanism in the United States, but Libertarianism in the United States is just a stub. I suspect these articles had the same kind of problem and both resolved it the same way, by making nationally-oriented articles. I suggest we do the same here. Clearly Libertarianism in the United States needs to be improved and expanded. Perhaps those who find this article too broad should engage in working on that article. Yworo (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the analogies are applicable. The first 2 involve country-specific coverage, which I am not advocating. The third is on two unrelated topics(Republicianism and the Republican Party)North8000 (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Liberal Party of Canada is the world's largest liberal party, and it would be peculiar if the Liberalism article were edited to represent their views. TFD (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I was just trying to pick the biggest in order to have a better shot at being representative, plus that particular description looked like common tenets that few would disagree with. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Liberal Party of Canada is the world's biggest and is representative, but no one argues that the article about Liberalism should be about that party. TFD (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing for more on the USLP. Elsewhere I have been promoting / inserting more material on practice of Libertarianism (movements, organizations, publications, parties, think tanks etc.) i.e. not just the various philosophies of Libertarianism. And in the paragraph that we are discussing, I was just saying that we shouldn't have any wording that would exclude that. North8000 (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The assumption is that these organizations represent libertarianism, rather than a specific element of it, and you would need a source to support that assumption. Many major libertarian writers like George Orwell and Noam Chomsky did not belong to organizations that represented their views. TFD (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just advocating for more content in general regarding practice of Libertarianism, not just my examples, and not any particular group. North8000 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism as form of libertarianism - sources challenged

I am reinserting the "Citation needed" tag for this assertion in the intro:

"[Anarchism in libertarianism] takes the form of both libertarian socialism[6] and ..."

Footnote 6 is:

Woodcock, George. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Broadview Press, 2004, 8, 10. Laurence Cox, "News from nowhere: the movement of movements in Ireland" Social movements in Ireland Eds. Linda Connolly, Niamh Hourigan. Manchester University Press, 2006: 220,222. Anthony Arblaster "The Relevance of Anarchism" Socialist Register 1971: 157-184 at 159-160. Karl Widerquist, "Libertarianism" International Encyclopedia of Public Policy, Volume 3, Phil O’Hara (Ed.) Oxford: OUP : 338-350.

I just searched Woodcock's book at books.google.com. No hits for "libertarian socialism". I am removing Woodcock from this reference and calling bullshit on any reliance on Woodcock about anything related to "libertarian socialism".

Next, we have Cox in "News from nowhere: the movement of movements in Ireland", for which there is a total of 38 hits on google. Pathetic. And when I add "libertarian socialism" to that search, zero hits. Apparently this obscure primary source is virtually unreferenced by any reliable secondary source, and never referenced anywhere with regard to "libertarian socialism". Even if it does somehow support this assertion (which I doubt), no way can this be used for such a powerful assertion in the intro. Removed.

So, how about Arblaster's "The Relevance of Anarchism"? Well, a search for that produces 17,200 hits, which would be impressive except that when I add Arblaster to the search we're down to the pathetic number of 52 hits, and when we add "libertarian socialism" we're down to 2 hits, one of which is this WP article! The reference in the 2nd hit to Arblaster's work, in a piece by Blackledge, has nothing to do with libertarianism, much less is evidence of anyone ever refererring to "libertarian socialism" as libertarianism. Removed.

Finally, we have Widerquist. When I query for "Widerquist libertarianism" I do get a relatively respectable 527 hits, including his actual entry. Here is what the only potentially legitimate primary source has to say about this:

At least three distinct groups claim the name “libertarian” today. There is no clearly agreed terminology to distinguish the groups but the terms “left-libertarian,” “right-libertarian,” and “libertarian socialist” suffice. The three are not factions of a common movement, but distinct ideologies using the same label.

At most, this is sufficient to claim that there is one primary source who claims that a distinct ideology from what is commonly known in English as libertarianism also uses the "libertarian" label, and it should be noted that this same source identifies "left-libertarianism" as being as distinct from "social libertarianism" as they both are with respect to common (right) libertarianism.

I'll leave this one in but it is extremely weak, and the broad assertion is clearly not supported by any of this.

I'll also add that this source is much stronger support for the existence of at least two if not three distinct ideologies (and therefore articles) than evidence that "social libertarianism" is just another branch of libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the intro so that it reflects what the sources say and removed the citation needed tag I had just added. Changes. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I recommend reading Widerquist to all editors here. Here is another nugget:

Right-libertarians seldom call themselves right-libertarians, preferring to call themselves simply “libertarians,” often denying any other groups have claim to the name. It is perhaps poetically appropriate that property rights advocates have appropriated a term that was already being used by people who subscribe to the idea that property is theft, and that these property rights now accuse anarchists of trying to steal it from them.

One might say that is going on here. Maybe so, but the fact is Widerquist recognizes, unlike the proponents of "broad libertarianism" here, that we are discussing distinct ideologies, which he properly treats separately.

This also supports the fact that libertarianism is commonly used exclusively to refer to the so-called ideology of "right-libertarianism" (and that that ideology is the primary topic here). Yes, yes, I know, we've had rfcs and move requests on these points, but does anyone honestly think these issues were fairly presented?

Finally, I can't speak for others, but I've long said that the solution here is probably a dab page pointing to the distinct ideologies that each claim the name "libertarianism", which is not claiming the name libertarianism only for right-libertarianism and denying others the use. What I, for one, am denying, is that they are sufficiently related to be coherently discussed in one article. And this is supported by separate treatment by sources including Widerquist.

Just one example of the practical problem is the following statement in the Overview: "Libertarians exhibit differing approaches in areas such as the treatment of property rights, ..." That statement is only true if you define "libertarians" in the broad sense, for which I don't know of any significant English reliable sources (not that I've looked into and verified, not quite yet totally denying they exist). What's true is that "right-libertarians" and "libertarian socialists" exhibit differing approaches in areas such as the treatment of property rights. But if you use "libertarian" conventionally, then it's a false statement. That is, libertarians do not "exhibit differing approaches in areas such as the treatment of property rights". It's like saying Christians disagree on whether Joseph Smith, Jr. was a prophet - a statement which is only true if you include Mormons within the definition of Christians, something that can be technically argued but is normally not done. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes ... you've repeatedly pushed for viewpoints to be stripped from discussion alongside right-libertarianism, and the community has repeatedly rebuffed such proposals based on the reliable sources presented which have presented to support inclusiveness. Opposing viewpoints may exist but an article can still describe them both. BigK HeX (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you know of a view point in reliable sources that disagrees with Wilderquist about right-libertarianism and libertarian socialism being distinct ideologies? If so, please cite. If not, what opposing viewpoints are you talking about? Viewpoints that oppose what viewpoint, specifically (in the context of the issues being discussed in this section)? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the challenged cites, but I added cites on anarchism within the broad viewpoint of libertarianism. Trying to whitewash libertarian socialism, left-libertarianism, etc from the same concept of libertarianism as right-lib would be a disregard for the many RS that have already been provided that express that viewpoint. Some editors would do well to accept that the sources advance this view, even if one may not personally agree with it. BigK HeX (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It took me enough time to review each of the sources cited for the assertion originally. The onus is not on those who challenge content to find the source for it. I will be happy to verify/review sources actually cited for any particular challenged assertion, as I will what you just added. Thank you for continuing the discussion about these changes here. BTW, personal agreement or disagreement is irrelevant here; please don't bring it up again. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's no secret that personal agreement is clearly relevant to many of the problems on this talk page. Whether it'll have a large effect on the outcome of the discussion in this thread remains to be seen. I am hopeful for now.... BigK HeX (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Round 2

The statement has been reinserted:

[Anarchism in libertarianism] takes the form of both individualist anarchism (which includes anarcho-capitalism), as well as libertarian socialism.

with new citations:

• title=Right and Left Wings in Libertarianism | first=Vladimir| last=Sapon|first2=Sam|last2=Robino| journal=Canadian Social Science| volume=5|issue=6|page=3| year=2010|url=http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/css/article/view/1245/0
• Goodway, David. Anarchists Seeds Beneath the Snow. Liverpool Press. 2006, p. 4

Sapon

I've looked at Sapon/Robino before, which I've noted is almost certainly a translation from French (opens with, "In Political Science one can observe various discourses to defining the essence of libertarianism..." -- "one can observe various discourses" is not typical English turn of phrase; there is much of that throughout the paper). Since the issue here is about what libertarianism means in English (and, in particular, whether it can mean "social libertarianism"), I think it is especially important to stick to original English sources. I would also like to point out that the French title of this work is, "LA DROITE ET LA GAUCHE DANS LE LIBERALISME", and that the French word translated to libertarianism in English throughout the paper is "liberalisme". This paper, unlike Widerquist, equates (at least in the English translation) left-liberalism and libertarian socialism. In the apparently original French, they equate libéralisme de gauche (liberalism of left, literally) with le socialisme libertaire (note that here the French word is not liberalisme but libertaire, so really what might be a better translation is that social libertarianism is a form of (classical) liberalism, and so is libertarianism). To add to the confusion, in the Introduction on page 2 they rely entirely on Boaz for a definition of libertarianism, including the "Libertarians defend each person’s rights to life, liberty, and property" line, which, per the terminology of this current article applies only to right-libertarianism, not left-libertarianism or libertarian socialism. Finally, I can't find any references to this paper anywhere. In particular, if I search for "Right and Left Wings in Libertarianism" "libertarian socialism" -wikipedia there are only 4 hits, one of which is the paper itself, and 3 non-reliable sources. For this particular issue, and for something as important as an assertion made in the lead, I think Sapon/Robino can't be used. Not for the assertion that the anarchist form of libertarianism (as used in English today) takes on the form of "libertarian socialism" . I just don't see how it supports that.

Goodway

So, let's look at Goodway. First, the title is Anarchist [Singular] Seeds ...", not "Anarchists [Plural] Seeds..." (that cost me at least 10 minutes).

Okay, there are 11,700 hits, for that, and still over 2,500 when we add "libertarian socialism" to the query.

Good so far, now let's look at p 4 which is where the source for the assertion is supposed to be. Sorry, I don't see it. This certainly supports the use of libertarianism to refer to anarchism ("'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently used by anarchists to refer to 'anarchist' and 'anarchism'"), but there is no debate about that (from me anyway). There is no reference to "libertarian socialism" on this page at all, although Orwell is referred to as a "libertarian socialist" (but not as a libertarian or even as an anarchist). I don't see at all how this source is supposed to substantiate the assertion in question. It just doesn't say that libertarianism refers to "libertarian socialism", nor does it refute Wilderquists assertion that what the describes as right-libertarianism (what Boaz refers to as libertarianism) is a distinct ideology from "libertarian socialism".

Enough!

Okay, I think that's more than enough of this nonsense. I'm going to remove the assertion from the article once again and politely request that before anyone reinserts it to please first show your sources on this talk page and allow other editors to vet them before inserting the text into the article. I suggest that is being more than reasonable considering all the lame references that have been used to supposedly substantiate this assertion.

Also, right now we have a reliable source that indicates that libertarianism socialism (never referred to as just "libertarianism" in reliable sources), left-libertarianism (never referred to as just "libertarianism" in reliable sources) and right-libertarianism (almost exclusively referred to as just "libertarianism" in reliable sources) are all distinct ideologies which strongly suggests that they should be treated separately in distinct articles. Now, are we going to follow reliable source or just make up stuff out of thin air and keep these distinct ideologies combined here in an incoherent and unsupported fashion? Born2cycle (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Enough!"

The assertion will remain in the article, even if there are a few editors that may refuse to acknowledge the numerous reliable sources that very many other editors have agreed would support inclusion. Your demand that we "follow reliable sources" is fairly ironic. BigK HeX (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

On another note, I don't find your attempt at verifying support from the Sapon ref to be very thorough. A noticeboard may be able to advise more presuasively... BigK HeX (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've softened the assertion in the lede for the time being. The sources were reviewed at the oft-referenced RfC. So, I don't see much issue on that front. BigK HeX (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources were reviewed for what specific content?

Please add only content that is supported by the sources, and please be clear about how that content is supported by the sources. For example, we have a source for RL, LS and LL are being distinct ideologies that claim the label libertarianism, but the article refers to variants of libertarianism, listing all the following supposed sources for that phrase. For examples of philosophical literature describing the left/right variations of libertarianism, see:

• Bevir, Mark. Encyclopedia of Political Theory. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2010. page 811;
• Vallentyne, Peter (September 5, 2002). "Libertarianism". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved March 5, 2010. in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as 'left-libertarianism' {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help);
• Christiano, Thomas, and John P. Christman. Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy. Contemporary debates in philosophy, 11. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. [ page 121];
• Lawrence C. Becker, Charlotte B. Becker. Encyclopedia of ethics, Volume 3 Encyclopedia of Ethics, Charlotte B. Becker, ISBN , page 1562;
• Paul, Ellen F. Liberalism: Old and New. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007. page 187; and
• Sapon, Vladimir; Robino, Sam (2010). "Right and Left Wings in Libertarianism". Canadian Social Science. 5 (6).
• Roderick T. Long, "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class," Social Philosophy and Policy 15:2 1998, 303-349: 304-308.

Which, if any, of these sources, refer to variants of libertarianism? Are these primary or secondary sources? Well referenced and reliable, or obscure? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Okay, here's my review.

• Bevir - only 5 hits for "variant" in the book, none in reference to libertarianism.
• Vallentyne - refers to "version" not "variant" of libertarianism, and notes that RL is "better known". Unclear if "version" is closer to meaning to "variant" or "distinct ideology" here.
• Christiano - 6 references to "variant" in book, none in reference to libertarianism
• Becker - Four references to "variant" in book, none in reference to libertarianism and none on referenced page. References on that page to refer to "distinctions" with respect to libertarianism, and only then when "libertarianism" is "understood as the thesis of full-ownership".
• Paul - no reference to "variant"; does refer to "two broad forms" and versions; also that RL is the better known form.
• Sapon - discussed above. Not English (originally), obscure reference.
• Long - highly obscure. Nothing about "variant" in another paper.

Once again, we have a long list of sources none of which support the content in question. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed "variants" to "forms" because that is at least supported in some of the cited sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The long list of sources supports the text. Objections based on Googling for the word "variant" don't really seem worth the fuss.

Also, I'd say there is nothing unclear about whether the sources refer to related variations/wings/versions of libertarianism. As the sources were reviewed at the RfC, a single editor who has long refused to accept the RfC certainly would be hard-pressed to unilaterally overturn that consensus. BigK HeX (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Many folks have been misquoting the results of the RFC. In this case BigK via. implying that Born2cycle is conflicting with it. It said to include significant viewpoints as determined by reliable sources, and to follow wp:due/undue weight guidelines regarding space/prominence in the article. Due to the volume of this section, I'm not sure, but it appears that Born2cycle efforts above are trying to IMPLEMENT the result of the RFC. North8000 (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeking protection for article

I've really had it with the number of changes and reverts [some against policy like replacing WP:RS material (like LP statement about itself) with obvious WP:OR material (like their own summary of the platform)]. I think this article needs to be protected so people are allowed only one revert a day. And I think the worst WP:OR offenders have to be reported to WP:ANI though I don't feel like doing the work of documenting everything. Today anyway. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Carol, if you are speaking of the LP statement in the overview, I believe that the "assertion of common tenets" characterization is the most accurate one. It's not a statement about themselves, nor is it a summary of their platform. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This article was under semi-protection until February 2011. I have changed the protection level to full, without changing the expiration date. There appears to be a content dispute going on. Work out any changes on this talk page, and use the {{editprotected}} tag to propose any non-controversial or consensus-based changes to the article, and an admin will come along and make the edit. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Carol, the lp statement was sourced to a book as well, not just to itself, i am unsure why you think fpp is needed at this time? mark nutley (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Does there need to be a template on top of the article so new people passing by will understand it is protected and how to get an edit done? First time I've dealt with this myself and just read page for first time. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a template there already. See the gold padlock in the upper right corner of the page? I can change a parameter on the template so that the page will blare out a big message box at the top of the article instead, but I felt that would detract from an otherwise decent article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have specified I meant a template on the top of the talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such a talk page template. That doesn't mean there isn't one, although I don't recall seeing one. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Lemons into Lemonade? (Protection)

With FP on the article, everyone can either go to work trying to game the system / manipulate the administrators (via wiki-lawyering or whatever) , or we could take a breather and more calmly define and settle the core questions, and also support the concept that only changes with some discussion and some degree of consensus on this talk page (and maybe those noted here and supported by the related scope workspace sub-page) get made.

Also, the FP as currently configured (including 2011 expiration date) is overkill. We'll have to get a consensus to get that changed.

And so, I say to admins, please only make changes that have some degree of discussion and consensus in this talk page.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on heavy core sourcing issues, to build a source base, which will allow editors to evaluate the topic in the scholarly and popular RS discourses, and thus build consensus towards weight and article structure. Don't expect quick results from me on this. I'll announce the projects I'm working on to Wikipedia:WikiProject Libertarianism when they're ready for beta. In the meantime I've seen excellent suggestions on expanding the sourcing for Libertarianism in Country or Libertarianism and topic articles which are in the WikiProject's list of todos. Libertarian perspectives on contracts is a redlink, as is Libertarian perspectives on sex and Libertarian perspectives on sovereignty. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool North8000 (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI: If there's any manipulation .. it's people manipulating themselves into a position well-deserving of blocks. BigK HeX (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand, but it sounds like warfare. Lets move on. North8000 (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If full protection doesn't sit well with the editors here, I can revert it back to semi. If I lift the full protection, however, I will impose a strict 1RR probation, and require that all reverts must be discussed on the talk page. Violations will result in blocks. I'm watching this page; let me know what you decide. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd give it a week or two before lifting the full protection. At least then, we'll have a chance to try a more earnest attempt at consensus-building. BigK HeX (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that BigK's idea is also good, I was originally going to suggest that. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

support removing block i wish we could get the mediator back, our progress was greatly increased having a 3rd party act as marriage counselor/judge. most of the warring had stopped, and the issue of weight was being address methodically. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that we were making progress on the warring part and on the article at the time of the new block. The reasons given with the request did not hold water. I don't see the RR was the problem. But at a pace of 35 or 40 edits a day it was getting hard for anyone to follow. We need a practice here where significant edits are at least discussed in advance, even if a consensus is not achieved. I support removing the block and putting the article on probation of going back to FP if we can't start cooling this down a little. BigK's "1-2 week cool down" idea is also a good one, that was what I was originally goig to suggest. North8000 (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Support week cool down and 1RR block. 1RR block was what I originally requested, having seen it work very well on another article with a really bad edit war. A week to allow cool down WOULD be a good idea. It's gotten to the point there are just so many changes - and a certain percentage blatantly vs. policy - that no editor trying to be accurate, NPOV, and all good things, can possibly keep up with it all. Note that we've been trying to get an informal mediator with no luck and probably should look for a formal one next, per first posting. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I like the "cool down" purpose, but also to add what BigK wrote: "to try a more earnest attempt at consensus-building" North8000 (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep things as they are right now for a fourtnight and decide later Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidently people are not in a hurry to unprotect, which is fine with me. I have one big bugaboo which is reason I asked for protection in first place and probably tomorrow will re-propose it and hopefully we can agree and an outside editor can fix it.<signed belatedly> CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just place an {{editprotected}} tag on this page after gaining consensus for the change (if it isn't uncontroversial) and I or another administrator will make the change. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User Conduct - Deletion of Comments on Talk Page

Interested editors are invited to comment: here

--Xerographica (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's archive everthing but...

I suggest that we archive all the finished or particularly soapboxy/wp:or discussions (which have been firmly decried even by neutral editors at this WP:ANI. So let’s make it easier to proceed in a rational fashion. Below are the sections we probably should keep IF discussions are not finished. (Discuss below, NOT in between list, whether they are done.) Any others that include actual discussions of sources and proposals that are unfinished and important?

• Request we go to formal mediation
• Yet More Intresting and Fascinating HQRS
• Intro definition should be NPOV from widely cited source, not a cherry-picked obscure POV one
• Deletion of left-wing groups
• Anarchism in the lede (or at least “Merging rest of overview to lead” which I’m not done with yet)
• Fiscally Conservative - Socially Liberal
• Questionable Sources, general
• Need citation for libertarian socialism being part of the anarchist main branch of libertarianism
• Non-English sources
• libertarian party
• Libertarian socialism as form of libertarianism - sources challenged
• Seeking protection for article
• Lemons into Lemonade? (Protection)
  

Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

i would prefer hide anything you fell is suds, the let the overly prompt 7 days auto do the job. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just delete it - it is distracting. I cannot even follow the conversation. TFD (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I follow, but the idea of archiving everything and getting a nice fresh start in every respect sounds great. Maybe leave a little section or two to explain that we decided on all of this. Carol, just be bold and roll with it. We can reverse any areas where someone has a problem. I'll back you on it, if lil' ole' me matters any. :-) North8000 (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Having notice that the User who protected the page tweaked the automatic archiving, it occurred to me that manual archiving might screw things up. In seven days all the old archives hopefully will be archived. Though it looks like a lot of stuff already has been hanging around for longer than that. Hmmmm... CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No, manual archiving won't mess things up, but it's probably easier to change the thread age in the archive settings to something small and wait a day for it to happen, than manually moving big blocks of text. Currently the thread age is set to 7 days. You can set it to something like 3 days temporarily. All I did was reduce the number of threads that must be present on this page from 4 to 3. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the earlier requested move to Libertarianism (word) (of which I was the nom) be closed/archived. It's clearly dead and has been for some time. I was never a big proponent of it (I do believe the current content of the article is about the word, but I think the ideal solution is to fix that problem, not accept it and rename the article accordingly), just tried it as a possible compromise as preferable to the current situation. I closed it some time ago, which caused the notice to be removed from WP:RM. It was subsequently reopened but the notice was never reinstated at WP:RM. I believe the automated processing at WP:RM only supports one request at a time per page. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Deletion of left-wing groups can stay, i did not title that btw mark nutley (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To be conservative, did some today. Will do some more in next day or two. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Good. Fresh start. Keep rolling! North8000 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Long's definition

" Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power [either "total or merely substantial"] from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals" "

His definition didn't include " [either "total or merely substantial"] ", so we shouldn't have that on the page. Besides that, I don't see how "substantial" can count as "radical." byelf2007 (talk) 28 September 2010

A good definition, and fine if it is stated as just being his, but that doesn't mean that every word is a good description of Libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe Long later elucidates his definition, perhaps in the paragraph containing the quote and one following. Additionally, talk page debate indicated concern by a number of authors that "radical redistribution…from…state…to voluntary" indicated an exclusively anarchist definition, which Long does not actually make. In Long's case radical redistribution includes both anarchist redistributions and minarchist redistributions. Additionally, the Long quote was chosen for its demonstrative but not for its exhaustive nature in defining libertarianism. Other definitions exist in High Quality Reliable Sources. Long's was chosen as it does not advocate any of the more exclusive definitions, while it does not rule them out either, allowing the article to later discuss more exclusive definitions properly. Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fifeloo. It's best to start with a broad, non-exclusive definition. Then the lead would need to go on to state that libertarianism can be divided into two broad categories: so-and-so1 additionally defines libertarianism as blah, blah1 (this should be the "mainstream" view); while others, exemplified by so-and-so2 view libertarianism as blah, blah2. Since there are what are perceived as major difference between these two categories, the article should also be divided into two major sections.

Is there any agreement as to which form might be considered a "bridge" form? One that really places itself in the middle of the extremes of the range? Minarchism perhaps?

Oh, and our quotation policy does not permit the insertion of any editorial material not in the original source, so the "total or substantial" definitely has to go. Might I ask who inserted it? Yworo (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is from later in Long. "foo"<Long1> redistribution can either be "bar or baz"<Long2> might be the way? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, where was that dang sources page? What with all the discussion volume, I can't find the link anymore. Perhaps we could list discussion subpages at the top of this discussion page? Yworo (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources page I'm working on is too alpha at the moment for community discussion on it. The search archives works well leading to Archive 22 which contains an expanded quite from Long, "my definition does not specify whether this redistribution of power is to be total or merely substantial", Long is available at Roderick T. Long "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class" Social Philosophy and Policy 1998: 303ff. free here at 304-310. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to be a good dividing quotation.

However, I meant the talk subpage here where some sources were being accumulated. I still can't seem to find the link to it. Yworo (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The source accumulation page is in alpha and not ready for release. It took about an hour to provisionally process the current bibliography (not the refs list!), and it probably needs another hour to completely refcheck, verify, and quote extract from the online sources available for the bibliography only. After doing the bibliography I have to do the refslist. After the refslist the Talk: Archives for missed or rejected sources. I've notified the other editor who had a central interest in the sourcing issue and generating such a page. The page won't be a subpage of this Talk: but rather a generally available subpage of the WikiProject Libertarianism to allow for better general use across other Libertarianism articles. Thanks for your interest. Check back in a couple of weeks for the resource. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, perhaps you mean /scope#Sources for including LL? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible direction / compromise?

Without getting into a lengthy analysis / summary and elaborate case-making RFC:

I think that there are a lot of folks who feel that this article has serious problems, maybe a BIT less so with changes in the recent weeks. Ostensibly, within them there seem to be two "camps."

• Camp 1: One sort of says that this article is disproportionately overwhelmed with offbeat, unusual, rare or possibly non-existent groups, philosophies etc. that it is incoherent, confusing or uninformative.
• Camp 2 One sort of says that some of the included philosophies are so different or opposite from the main meaning of Libertarianism that they should not be in the article. Possibly some of them may feel that the most important problem is that voiced by Camp 1, and that exclusion is the best or only way to get it fixed. Or that UNILATERALLY giving ground on the exclusion topic would result in shifting the overall issues/article in the wrong direction.

Contrary to the common mis-quoting and mis-characterization of the RFC closer's comments, the core of them was to (this is my paraphrasing) include significant strands of with the word "Libertarian", "significant" as determined by RS's, and to apply wp:due/undue weight standards to all coverage of strands.

My thought was to let this a portion of the be a sort of "disambiguation article", and apply the closer's advice to decide what goes or stays, and what gets expanded or contracted coverage. I think that another Rosetta stone is solving this is to understand that "strands" of Libertarianism can be defined by sets of common tenets held by larger organized / non-organized groups of people which hold different philosophies. In short,Libertarianism in practice is more often defined by sets of tenets held in common rather than people organizing themselves into belief sets defined by a couple of philosopher/writers decades or a centuries ago. And finally, to at least temporarily put "exclusion-based-on-philosophy" arguments aside, and instead focus on paring, up-playing and down-playing the various philosophies based on significance. And let "significance" be based on a combination of presence in SECONDARY RS's (where the writer is writing about the existence of a clearly-existent philosophy, not creating one with the writing) plus actual practice of Libertarianism. Possible if make progress in this area, the concerns of the "camp 2" might be assuaged.

Rather than asking people to "agree" with the above, maybe it would be better to ask for a consensus to just sort of try something somewhat along the lines of the above for a few weeks and see how it goes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The disambiguation idea has already been rejected multiple times. This article is an overview article, written in summary style, which is the same style as Conservatism, Liberalism, Republicanism, etc. Those ideologies are just as diverse. There is no legitimate reason to make this a disambiguation page. This comment is pure soapbox. Yworo (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the insult, and for not assuming good faith. The "disambiguation article" is a way of looking at an article which explains widely varying strands, and an attempt to reconcile the various differences here. To those who would rather exclude the strand, it can instead be included and explained here. 14:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No insult intended, I was characterizing your comment, not you. Yworo (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

i consider saying that I was soapboxing in this case to be an insult. NOT a personal attack, but an insult. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Yworo. Clearly, proposals for disambiguation have rejected multiple times. If he's not assuming good faith, then perhaps there's a good justification.... BigK HeX (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that you both misunderstood me. I was NOT proposing or advocating a disambiguation page. I was proposing keeping all of these diverse strands in THIS article. I meant "Disambiguation article" as a middle-of-the-road way of looking at THIS article. North8000 (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The terminology for that is "summary style". That's what the article already is. A disambiguation page is something like Libertarian Party. So why precisely is a proposal to keep the current form of the article worth so many words? Yworo (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's funny that you always complain about "misinterpretation of the RFC" when you seem to one of the largest parties to that. Here's what the RfC actually said.

Are the various conceptions of libertarianism currently expressed on the page aspects of the same thing; that is, there is a valid concept 'Libertarianism' that encompasses all of these ideas – just like the idea of Christianity includes Roman Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, etc.

Or,

Is 'right-libertarianism' so different from 'left-libertarianism' and other concepts (e.g. 'geo-libertarianism'), that they are essentially different ideas that should be disambiguated to different pages. That is, the terms represent ideas as different as goldfish (fish) and Goldfish crackers, Queen and Queen (band), and inflation (a rise in prices) and inflation (the early expansion of the universe). In that case, as laid out by the disambiguation guideline, right-libertarianism as the primary topic, should occupy the page.

Wikipedia answers such questions using reliable sources, and in this case, editors who hold the 'libertarianism should be construed broadly' viewpoint have offered multiple reliable sources that attest to the first interpretation. Reliable sources treat, on the same page, multiple variants of libertarianism – treating them as aspects of the same idea. (Unlike, for instance, goldfish and goldfish crackers, which no reliable source treats as aspects of the same thing.)

The numerous reliable sources were reviewed in that RfC and largely regarded as sufficient to support the prerequisite prominence as a viewpoint. You may want to acknowledge that one of these days .... or persist against an established consensus (as you've done here as well). BigK HeX (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay, let's cool it.

Reliable sources like Widerquist note:

At least three distinct groups claim the name “libertarian” today.

...

The three are not factions of a common movement, but distinct ideologies using the same label.

See that?

• "Three distinct groups".
• "Not factions of a common movement."
• "Distinct ideologies using the same label".

Do any reliable sources say anything like that about Conservatism, Liberalism, Republicanism, etc.?

Yworo, please do not dodge this question, for then you'd be avoiding the central issue about this article that a myriad of editors have been complaining about for over five years, something that is not true about the other articles (and it's no coincidence that there are no reliable sources that refer to distinct ideologies that are not factions nor variants of the same movement that claim the same label). This is the point you keep ignoring, if not outright denying. But there it is in plain black and white English from a reliable source writing about political ideologies. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Other sources put the matter a different way. We're not relying on your single preferred source for this, you know. Yworo (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

First, it's not my source. This is one of the sources from the list of sources that supposedly support the notion that there is one general ideology of which all ideologies that claim the label libertarianism are variants. Second, you're dodging the question. Do any reliable sources say anything like that about Conservatism, Liberalism, Republicanism, etc.? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, wait, seriously? You think conservatism is a single coherent political philosophy? john k (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The fact that there are two points of view has already been discussed and it was determined that in such a case the broad view should be the basis of the article. The discussion that determined this was an RfC which involved outside editors with an interest in political articles.

I propose that the topic not be brought up again. It's not productive. See the previous section as an example of a productive discussion. Yworo (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo's understanding reflects common practice and common understanding of policy throughout Wikipedia. Anyone wishing to make Libertarianism an exception to that common understanding of policy (even though the understanding has already been reinforced by the closed RfC) has a long road ahead of them. Repeating the same objections on the talk page three times a day will do nothing to achieve that exception. Wikipedia respects QUALITY of arguments, not quantity. BigK HeX (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000 I do not belong to a camp. I have no preconceived views about the subject but insist that reliable sources are used. Could you please refer to sources, otherwise this discussion is a total waste of time. TFD (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Couple comments:

• Proposal wasn't terribly clear itself but from responses I can see what problem is with it.
• Please don't provide alleged WP:RS like in the box without a link to it or more info. Even if it was presented before, the link may have been archived and we shouldn't have to go searching for it, even if it's still on main talk page. [  Done link (sorry, and thanks) --Born2cycle (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)]
• Considering the page is locked except for consensus changes, the most productive thing might be for people who have controversial changes to create talk pages with THEIR versions of how the article should look. (Perhaps with changes in bold or colors to make it easier to find changes.) Only changes related to clear policy problems should be brought here as proposals. As I'll do soon. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Should I withdraw this?

Well, since I got accused of various things by BigK and Yworo, (although they may have misunderstood what I meant) and flamed by Darkstar on my talk page, that might indicate that my idea was truly middle ground, or that I totally blew it. Life's too short for this. If ya'll want me to withdraw it, I will. If y'all want me to withdraw from the article I will. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, you are the one that asserted that "[The ideologies of "Conservatism, Liberalism, Republicanism, etc"] "are just as diverse". Then, when I presented a reliable source that refuted this assertion, a source that was used in the bogus and way-too-prematurely closed RfC to which you refer incorrectly to support the opposite notion, you make no acknowledgment of this and instead call for the topic to not be brought up again, that it's "not productive". Yeah, not "productive" from the biased POV that wants to keep this article written in a manner that wrongly presents separate and distinct ideologies that happen to share the label libertarianism as variants of the same ideology. Can you make this argument without asserting soapboxing absurdities easily refuted by reliable sources? Or are you going to ignore this question too? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that some sources say that. Other sources say otherwise. It's not black and white, which is how you're presenting it. How is that not soapboxing? If you instead said, 3/5th of the sources present it this way, 2/5ths present it that way, you might have a point, assuming you are taking all major sources into account. Your argument based on a single source is deficient. There's really no point in responding to a deficient argument as if it were a valid one. Yworo (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, your source doesn't say anything about whether Conservatism, Liberalism, and Republicanism are unified or complex ideologies. We all know they are complex. Taking a look at these pages, they also in their lead indicate a range of positions which share the same label. Yet another deficiency in your argument. You claim that it addresses the difference in complexity of four ideologies when it only addresses one. Yworo (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, first you claim they are "just as diverse", now you admit it "it's not black and white". Which is it? My argument is that your claim is soapboxing, something not supported in the sources. There are no sources that say those other ideologies are "just as diverse". Besides, the issue isn't about diversity, it's about how related they are, whether all the ideologies have common roots from which they all evolved, or whether they have distinct unrelated sources. The complete dearth of sources describing any one of those other ideological labels as being comprised of distinct ideologies with original unrelated sources is telling. They are not "just as diverse". What is deficient about this argument? It makes no reliance on all sources about libertarianism making this observation. By the way, referring to the distinct ideologies as "variants" does not preclude the possibility of them being distinct with separate/unrelated origins.

No one is questioning the complexity of Conservatism et. al. Yet that article never-the-less correctly associates the topic of that article with the political ideology of the U.S Republican party, just as this article should associate the topic of this article with the political ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party, something you oppose (see below). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you've made clear that you have an agenda. Your agenda is not compatible with Wikipedia's goals. As such, you should educate yourself about Wikipedia goals, because you have clearly mistaken conceptions of what those goals are. Yworo (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000 .. your efforts to find a compromise here are valuable. I don't think it was a particularly good idea to preface your suggestion with the charge that people "keep misinterpreting the RfC" (which you've accused me of doing many times), but without that bit of commentary, the proposal of expanding on the commonalities among the various implementations of libertarianism is something I feel the article is in desperate need of.

This sort of thing could likely have been accomplished quite a long time ago. However, the refusal by many editors to accept that different strands should receive more than a token mention have ground a lot of progress to a halt though, since it's hard to expand text when there is a vocal minority screaming that it "really shouldn't be there anyways" and feel they can only "allow" it there as part of a compromise. BigK HeX (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the RFC, my apologies for saying it in such an unfriendly way. IMHO the two "operative" statements from the closer were:

The consensus was:

"Libertarianism" should be broadly construed to include all significant viewpoints from reliable sources.

and

"Although all variants should properly be described on this page, the weight given to various viewpoints should depend on their weight in reliable sources. This includes the weight in the lead, which should summurise the article, and reflect the weight given to various ideas in the article. Concepts that are only briefly mentioned in the article need not be mentioned in the lead."

And that anyone who quotes things from analysis or "pre-amble" sections without noting the operative statements from the above is not representing the closing accurately.

If I were on the "narrower" side, ans saw that the RFC had the result that the "broader" folks grabbed the gained ground of the "broadly" word, and ignored and refused to move on the due/undue weight finding, then I would certainly dig in my heels and note the flaws of the RFC process here, ones which could merit it being revisited.

Personally I think that the finding, at least as I see it above, was a good one. But flawed in one way which is that it went along with one false premise of the question, which is that an article can cover Libertarianism via a description of various philosophies as written by the original philosophers. In reality, I think that the bulk of the practices of Libertarianism (organizations, groups, movements, advocacy, politics, think tanks, media etc.) is defined by sets of common tenets between those who have philosophies which differ in other areas. North8000 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Careful, that's getting into precisely the area (original research using Venn diagrams), that got Xenographica blocked for soapboxing. The pertinent question is, do you have a source that says that "the bulk of the practices of Libertarianism (organizations, groups, movements, advocacy, politics, think tanks, media etc.) is defined by sets of common tenets, etc." If you don't, then you are only expressing a personal opinion. Yworo (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No and No. On the latter, you are saying that every comment or statement on a talk page that doesn't have a citation (such as the one that you just made) is "OR". Why don't you flip through some article talk pages what fraction of talk page statements have citations? Or, start by counting what fraction of your statements in this talk page have citations? North8000 (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yworo wrote a note on the talk page of the admin who banned Xenographica, linked to my "Possible direction / compromise?" idea, and said that it was showing me as being intent on soap boxing. Huh? What a vicious place this article is! North8000 (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove redundant WP:Undue WP:Synth in "Overview" section

Per this diff I removed the material because it was a) POV WP:OR synth from both sources mentioned (this is the Understanding American government link which was not included in edit) (some also consider this a non-WP:RS source; I am undecided); b) redundant to later material about Libertarian Party; and c) WP:UNDUE to an Overview. The material was reinserted anyway despite my and/or others' objections detailed here. The Overview has been moved, so the paragraph and quote should be removed manually by the editor. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion seeking consensus below:

On WP:Undue issue

• Support Yworo (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I was the one who originally put it in. The goal was to just list common tenets held by most Libertarians, and having it come from the largest Libertarian organization in the world is a good place to find something like this, and identifying their assertion as such. The "third largest party" stuff was added by others; I would have preferred that that not be these. This was there to be an attempt at a "common tenets" overview, not an into to the LP. Carol, you have not said what your actual objection to this is. North8000 (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• oppose, the case for OR or synth has not been made to my satisfaction, "undue" is still being debated. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - "undue" is not really being debated, it's being soapboxed. Once someone provides a source detailing global demographic or survey data for the various libertarian positions, then it can be debated. Yworo (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • incorrect comment - "undue" is being debated, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/ (the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism) meaning it be the major and left be the minor according to wp, minor should be minimized. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Major and minor would not eliminate a 51%/49% balance to the article without further sources. Yworo (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • wp is very clear, "minimized" meaning not in the prominent parts of the article, but a moved to a section near the bottom of the page. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Err what? That's the opposite of the treatment recommended in policy (i.e., "folding disputes into the narrative"). BigK HeX (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

left libertarian is the lessor well known articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight

• Oppose The political ideology of libertarianism, with respect to what it generally means today when used without qualification throughout the English speaking world, is closely aligned to the ideology of Libertarian parties in English speaking countries, just like the political ideology of Conservatism is closely aligned to conservative political parties like the U.S. Republican Party, which is properly covered in the last paragraph of the intro of the Conservatism article, and appropriately referenced elsewhere in the article. The NPOV-violating transparent attempt here to try to separate what libertarianism generally means in English today (what an article named Libertarianism should be about) and the ideology of the U.S. LP is not supported by reliable sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You are incorrect about what a Wikpedia article is supposed to do. All Wikipedia articles are supposed to give a global view of a topic, not an English-speaking countries' view. Yworo (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Note that Wikipedia:Systemic bias is an essay. That means it's what some people think; it has not necessarily gained consensus. Please do not represent it as a consensus view of what "Wikipedia articles are supposed" to do unless you have evidence for that.
    • That's sort of a procedural comment. On the merits, I haven't read through the whole previous discussion, so I'll just say in general terms — sure, libertarian thought in France or Russia or Nigeria is relevant to this article. However that's libertarian thought as it would be described in English. The existence of cognate words in other languages, with different meanings, does not make their referents suitable to this article; those topics would go in articles talking about whatever we call those currents of thought in English.
    • I hope the distinction I am making is clear? The whole world is relevant, but the language we use to talk about it is English, and therefore in questions of language, the practice in English-speaking countries does in fact control. (The English used in non-English-speaking countries is not particularly relevant.) --Trovatore (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Yup, and the fact is that there are English-speaking people who adhere to the views which this editor is trying to eliminate from the article. There are English-speaking writers who write about their views and there are English-speaking writers who neutrally describe these views. So the characterization of the differences here is deficient and misleading. Yworo (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
        • As I say, I'm late to the dispute so I don't know exactly which views those are. The question, though, is whether they are standardly described as "libertarianism" in English. If they are not, then they can still be covered in Wikipedia, but the main coverage belongs under their most standard English name. It would be appropriate to mention them briefly here, as things called by a cognate name in another language, with a pointer to the standard English name. --Trovatore (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
        • And of course "in English" does mean "in English as used in English-speaking countries". --Trovatore (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Yup, these views are described as libertarianism in English. Yworo (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Yes, exactly, Trovatore. That is exactly the point I was making. Well stated. Thank you.

            Yworo, please identify English reliable sources that describe the ideologies of "libertarian socialism" or "left libertarianism" views as "libertarianism" without qualification as "libertarian socialism" or "left-libertarianism". If you can't provide such sources, then please stop claiming that "these views are described as 'libertarianism'".

            And, yes, there are sources that refer to "variants of libertarianism", but then they go on to write about "libertarianism socialism" and/or "left libertarianism" without ever referring to those ideologies as just unqualified "libertarianism". However, there are a plethora of sources (starting with Boaz, quoted in the intro of the article) that refer to so-called "right-libertarianism" (called that only in contexts where there is a need to differentiate from the "variants" that are never referred to as just libertarianism without qualification), as "libertarianism" in English. That's the point. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

            • Those sources have already been supplied by other editors. Many of them are used in the article. "I didn't hear that" get old pretty fast. And by the way the phrase "variants of libertarianism" doesn't remove the domain of discourse from libertarianism. For somebody who throws around the word "semantics", I'd have thought you would know that. Yworo (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You're confusing two issues. We're talking here about semantics - what a particular word (i.e., "libertarianism") means. We don't need to consider what that word means in any language other than the English that is spoken by native English speakers. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm have some education in semantics and I disagree with you on that point. You have an agenda and you're proposing applying systematic bias to this article, using whatever excuses you can come up with, one after another as each is countered. Yworo (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Prominent libertarians all indicate that at a bare minimum, the government should be "limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence." Limited government is a defining tenet that differentiates libertarianism from modern liberalism and anarcho-capitalism. --Xerographica (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how you may have missed the memo, but in the Libertarianism article, editors have largely decided that there is NOT a sharp, unequivocal differentiation between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Your comment loses value if premised on such a restrictive POV. BigK HeX (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

most editors here agree there is a sharp difference anarcho-capitalism is for no state, a position most (major/better known, etc) libertarians oppose. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Some are missing the point. I put that statement in as the best I could do in an attempt to common tenets of Libertarianism on a worldwide basis. If something in common like this does not exist, then what is the basis of these being in the same article? I just went to the largest Libertarian organization in an attempt to do this, and do it per WP:standards. finding a source that is a RS in both Wikipedia terms and real world terms instead of us trying to create a summary. That is also which I want to their common tenets type statement and not to their platform. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "I just went..."

I think that's the issue some find problematic here. You made a choice on "who best exemplifies libertarian tenets", and that choice seems to have been fairly arbitrary and, more problematically, it may not have a basis that can be supported by RS. So, yes, we need to discuss commonalities in the article, but we can't decide on our own that Organization X is the one to mine for commonalities. BigK HeX (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Choosing the largest organization in the world, by far, that uses the name "libertarian" (in English), is hardly arbitrary. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is arbitrary or not is moot, since it clearly violates the Wikipedia's core principle of maintaining a neutral point of view. Yworo (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is about not excluding certain viewpoints, it's not about excluding the most widely held relevant viewpoint. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK, I second what Born2 said, plus: I think that the choice shows a best effort at FOLLOWING WP:NPOV. Do you know a better place to go to with respect to this? North8000 (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do take it to the NPOV noticeboard. I've already set the context. Yworo (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Responses to a few points:

• It’s WP:Undue because it singles out one organization in one country, and I don’t notice a WP:RS saying ‘’the Libertarian Party is the most significant libertarian organization in the world’‘ and that no other organization has as many members/contributors/etc. If Cato raises, say $5 million a year and the LP it’s $1 million, should that be taken into account? Some might think Ron Paul’s Republican libertarian campaign was the most significant libertarian organizational effort. It got a heck of a lot more publicity than anything the LP did in 2008. (However, to me this is actually less of an issue than the fact that someone’s WP:OR/synth is presented as if it was a quote from the Libertarian Party. Very dishonest and against Wikipedia policy.)
• People are going off topic into the broad versus narrow discussion which already was settled by RfCs and Request for moves. Maybe all those comments should be hidden and people should give more relevant reasons for putting the LP in the Overview. If the description actually reflect sources, I might even support it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The various strands of Libertarianism must have something in common (other than the word in their name); if not the what would they be doing in the same article? I think that one step out of the incoherent mess that this article still is is to try to cover these. Carol, do you agree or disagree with this? And, if you agree and have a better idea on how to do it than mine, (which was using the common tenets wording from the largest Libertarian org in the world as a source) great.....what is it? North8000 (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just notice recommendation that I take this to NPOV board and maybe I should. But first will see if I can come up with better language. Of course, the other problem is I still think overview should just be merged to lead. Maybe that's the needed proposal. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

On WP:OR Issue (Not representing sources accurately)

Given that we can't get consensus on getting rid of the section, I will propose language that actually reflects the source and does not misrepresent the sources, including making them look like a quote. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

IMHO cool, want to draft something? Also, remembering the goal of an overview via trying to state common tenets, if you have a better idea / source(s) IMHO that would be cool to draft. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: remove all references to any ideology never referred to as just "libertarianism" without qualification in English WP:RS

We have reliable sources in English that refer to so-called "right libertarianism" as just "libertarianism" without qualification, starting with Boaz (quoted in intro of article) and the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

However, we have no reliable sources in English that refer to the ideologies known as libertarian socialism or left libertarianism as just libertarianism, unqualified.

Therefore, presuming the continued absence of presentation of any such sources, I hereby propose that all references to Libertarian socialism and Left libertarianism in the article named Libertarianism be removed, except maybe in a hat note at the top of the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. As nom. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Variants of libertarianism fall squarely within the domain of discourse of this article and are topical to this article. Previous RfCs have supported this position. Yworo (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • For the record, Yworo has not provided any reliable sources in English that refer to the alleged "variants" of "libertarianism" universally referred to in English as Libertarian socialism and Left libertarianism as just "libertarianism", unqualified. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• strong supportrastafarian is libertarian, but no mention of them here either Darkstar1st (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as #@$@??? Even if it were true that "we have no reliable sources in English that refer to the ideologies known as libertarian socialism or left libertarianism as just libertarianism", it would have zero relevance since there are numerous reliable sources that DO describe the listed ideas as THE SAME libertarianism as right-libertarianism. See any/all of the following for scholarly sources that describe left-libertarianism AS BEING "LIBERTARIANISM":

1. Bevir, Mark. Encyclopedia of Political Theory. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2010. page 811;
2. Vallentyne, Peter (September 5, 2002). "Libertarianism". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved March 5, 2010. in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as 'left-libertarianism' {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help);
3. Christiano, Thomas, and John P. Christman. Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy. Contemporary debates in philosophy, 11. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. page 121;
4. Lawrence C. Becker, Charlotte B. Becker. Encyclopedia of ethics, Volume 3 Encyclopedia of Ethics, Charlotte B. Becker, ISBN , page 1562;
5. Paul, Ellen F. Liberalism: Old and New. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007. page 187; and
6. Sapon, Vladimir; Robino, Sam (2010). "Right and Left Wings in Libertarianism". Canadian Social Science. 5 (6).
7. Roderick T. Long, "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class," Social Philosophy and Policy 15:2 1998, 303-349: 304-308.BigK HeX (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note the absence of any actual reference to any sources that actually refers to LS or LL as "THE SAME libertarianism" as RL. Speaking of ridiculous; if they were THE SAME, there would be need for the THE DIFFERENT labels. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ummm ... absence of sources? Not really. You beat me by a little bit, but it just took an 20 extra seconds to fish them out for the zillion^th. I think your last challenge to the sources was to attack the (obviously-English) Sapon&Robino source with the speculation that it may have been translated from a different language. BigK HeX (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nothing in the above list refutes my claim.

Note the absence of any actual quotes (i.e., text) that uses just the term libertarianism, unqualified, to refer specifically to the ideologies in question -- Libertarian socialism and Left libertarianism. Note, also (since Libertarian redirects here) that you will find myriads of references to right-libertarians like David Boaz and Murray Rothbard as "libertarians" in reliable sources (I'm presuming no one disputes that, but I can provide any number of sources for that if requested), but there are no references in English reliable sources to libertarian socialists like Noam Chomsky as just "libertarians", unqualified. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Are you old enough to understand what the term "broken record" means? means? means? means? means? Yworo (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. This is probably the LAST time (for the near future) that I can, in good faith, idly entertain proposals about stripping well-sourced viewpoints from the article. It is starting to become clear disruption to continue this push, after multiple proposals based on disassociating "left libertarianism" from being conceptually related to "right libertarianism" failed in these recent RfC's: Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_19#RFC:_Should_this_page_discuss_only_right-libertarianism.3F, Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_22#Requested_move, Talk:Libertarianism#Requested_move_.28Forms_of.29. BigK HeX (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No one is proposing "stripping well-sourced viewpoints from the article". This is a proposal to strip references to any specific ideology that is never referred to as as just "libertarianism", unqualified, in an article about "libertarianism". --Born2cycle (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Same difference. Yworo (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy pretty clearly refers to left-libertarianism as a "version" of libertarianism. john k (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. "However, we have no reliable sources in English that refer to the ideologies known as libertarian socialism or left libertarianism as just libertarianism, unqualified." Woodcock. Cox. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment Born2, I think that your proposal is logically sound, but it goes right to the heart of the most un-solveable dispute here, and may not be the only way to make this a good article. Any chance you would set this aside for a while and see if we can make progress on getting a better article without that change? North8000 (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support This short youtube video of Chomsky comparing the different meanings of the word "libertarianism" supports the conclusion that we're talking about very different ideologies...Chomsky on Libertarianism. Chomsky's discussion is as confusing as this current article...and for the exactly the same reasons. Organizing articles by labels rather than tenets is completely illogical and the result is confusion and conflict. The solution is simply to rely on the disambiguation page to direct people to the meaning that they are interested in learning about. --Xerographica (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment have you really listened to that. He states what traditional libertarianism is and goes on to state that the views of libertarianism in the US are "perverse" and opposed to traditional libertarianism. Yworo (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If anything, that argues that the article should take an historical pov, start with what libertarianism was from the Enlightenment until now, with a distinct section on the changes which came about primarily in the US starting the the 1950s. Yworo (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Changes? Look over the long history of libertarian thought that I outlined in my scope of government section and please let me know what the major changes have been. Herbert Spencer and David Boaz and everybody in between all agree as to what the bare minimum scope of government should be. Chomsky combined the socialist and anarchist traditions while Rothbard combined the anarchist and capitalist traditions to create new political ideologies. Comparing their ideologies to libertarianism is a suitable topic for a new article but is clearly outside the scope of the libertarian tradition. --Xerographica (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Clarifying Comment John K (and others), there is no dispute about the existence of uses of "libertarianism" in English reliable sources in a broad sense to refer to the category or collection of specific ideologies that uphold individual liberty to some significant degree. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy referring to "left-libertarianism" as a "variant of libertarianism" is an example of that.

  What's at issue here is whether the term libertarianism, in isolation, without qualification, is ever used to refer in a specific (non general/broad) sense to any specific ideology other than "right libertarianism".

  The basis of this proposal is that libertarianism is never used in English reliable sources to refer to the specific ideologies exclusively known as "libertarian socialism" and "left libertarianism", which are never referred to specifically as just "libertarianism", without qualification. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  • OTOH, there are no sources referring to right-libertarianism just as libertarianism prior to 1950 or outside the United States. Seems to me that the period from the Enlightenment to 1950 shouldn't be ignored in favor of a view only 60 years old. Yworo (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand why that is what is "at issue". "Libertarianism" can refer just to right-libertarianism, but it can also refer to the whole nexus of ideologies that describe themselves as "Libertarian." If it could not, then the Stanford article on libertarianism would not mention left-libertarianism. john k (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's only "at issue" because born2cycle thinks this article should only promote the views of the US Libertarian Party. It's pretty much been a long-standing political attack on this article and its scope. Yworo (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That's false, and was addressed refuted here. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A link to a thread heavily derailed by BlueRobe's soapboxing isn't exactly helpful. What is it we're supposed to see in there? BigK HeX (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"He never chooses an opinion; he just wears whatever happens to be in style." --Leo Tolstoy. Yworo (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The opening comment of that section provides examples of usage of the terms libertarianism or libertarian referring to right-libertarianism from the UK and Australia thus refuting the contention that the use of libertarianism to refer to right-libertarianism is specific to the U.S. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Examples are just that. They can indicate that something needs to be included, but can never be definitive with respect to exclusion. Yworo (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The examples show that the use of libertarianism, unqualified, to refer to right-libertarianism, is not exclusive to the U.S. Libertarian Party or the U.S. Yes, I believe the topic of this article should be the specific political ideology espoused by the U.S. LP, but I also believe the topic of this article should be the specific political ideology espoused by the primary libertarian organizations of the U.K. and Australia, which is the same ideology! By characterizing my view only in terms of the U.S. LP you are unfairly implying the existence of a U.S. centric bias in my position that is simply not there. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Close, but not quite, John. My contention is that libertarian socialism and left libertarianism never describe themselves as just "Libertarian", unqualified. That is, libertarianism can mean one of two things, either "right libertarianism", or the broad category of ideologies that are based on individual liberty, but it alone unqualified never refers specifically to "libertarian socialism" or "left libertarianism". Therefore, anyone typing in just "libertarianism" is highly unlikely to be looking specifically for libertarian socialism. That leaves the question of whether they are most likely to be looking for the broad category or the specific ideology of right libertarianism. I suggest you google "libertarianism", at books, UK, AUS, scholar as well as in general, and then tell us what you think... Because that's what this is about. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

So, it is ACKNOWLEDGED that the ideological concept of "libertarianism" is used in reliable sources to encompass versions such as "left libertarianism" ...? If so, then what in the world could be the Wikipedia policy basis for this proposal??? BigK HeX (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy that addresses appropriate scope of an article. However, there is plenty of precedent, including Christianity which excludes Mormonism even though Christianity (in a broad sense) encompasses Mormonism. Where is the WP policy basis for that limitation in scope? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm .... policy most certainly addresses scope. WP:DUE requires us to describe understandings that are prominent in reliable sources. What is NOT addressed by policy is this arbitrary idea to strip from the LIBERTRAINISM article these prominent understandings of the political ideology of LIBERTARIANISM based on their more-specific names. Try as I might, I really can't fathom a single way to understand this proposal, other than as a means of POV pushing. BigK HeX (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you're trying to understand the proposal, and I appreciate that.

WP:DUE does not address scope, it presupposes scope. That is, no matter how valid a viewpoint about bicycles might be, no one is going to suggest content about that belongs in this article because it is clearly out of scope. What WP:DUE addresses is whether certain opinions about the topic belong in the article; that the content in question is within the scope of the topic is presumed.

I admit that content about libertarian socialism is not nearly as clearly out of scope for this article is as content about bicycles, but that's just a difference in degree. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no presupposition in WP:DUE. If reliable sources hold a prominent viewpoint that bicycles are an integral part of libertarian ideology, then bicycles would fall within the scope. If it seems that editors are not finding Libertarian socialism to be "as clearly out of scope" for the Libertarianism article, it might well be because, by-and-large, editors have voiced their opinion that Libertarian socialism is NOT out-of-scope of the libertarianism article, and that is based on an analysis of the reliable sources presented. BigK HeX (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK, WP:DUE does not deal with what the scope of the article encompasses (that is how broad or narrow in scope it should be), but, rather, whether a given opinion about the article topic (which is presupposed to be known) should or should not be included in the article. That's very different.

The example they give is about whether the concept that the earth is flat should be included in the article about Earth. They say "no" not because it's "out of scope", but because "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" (though sufficiently notable to warrant its own article at Flat Earth). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Correction. Although not specifically addressed as "scope", arguably WP:CFORK deals with scope. So, another way to characterize this proposal is to fork this article in a way that is not a content fork. For example, "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. ". Except, I suggest that if the fork is done there will not be a significant amount of information in common with one another.

In fact, the dearth of common material that the supposed "daughter articles" of this article, right-libertarianism and libertarian socialism, have with each other, clearly shows that they are distinct topics and should not be covered in one article. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's 85 sources discussing traditional libertarianism, a qualifier that is only necessary because right-libertarianism is the odd man out that monopolizes the conversation, pretty much like you are doing. Yworo (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is . Most of those references to "traditional libertarianism" are to Libertarianism (metaphysics), which everyone agrees is out of scope here. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That was quick and not accurate. Adding "-metaphysics" still yields 81 results and adding "-philosophy" still yields 71 results. Adding both still yields 68 results. So clearly the bulk of the results do not refer to Libertarianism (metaphysics). Yworo (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but I still don't understand your point.

Would like your answer to the question I pose at #Cat when you get a chance. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, and these constant attempts by one faction to try and claim ownership of a word are becoming really tedious --Snowded ^TALK 22:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The proposal is a policy violation. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. While English sources are preferred if you can find them, if you can't find them, non-English sources are perfectly fine. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and Libertarianism is not a philosophy that only exists in English. --GRuban (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your input. This proposal does not suggest that non-English sources not be used as sources for article content that is within scope, which would be a policy violation. The proposal does suggest that non-English sources not be used to determine what the term "Libertarianism" means in English for the process of determining article scope. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. I'm afraid, however, that my objection still stands, as does that of our policy. What the term means is a rather crucial part of the article about the term, so you're clearly proposing excluding those sources to determine article content. This article is about Libertarianism, the philosophy, which is a concept that exists independent of language. It is not about "Usage of the word Libertarianism in English"; that would be the scope of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the third time this RfC has occurred in a short period of time. Born2cycle obviously ignores what other editors write and is wasting peoples' time. TFD (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • How many comments do I have to address in ways that obviously show I'm reading and understanding what they're saying, and asking questions in the few cases when I don't understand, to prove that I'm not ignoring what any other editor writes? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • How long is it going to take you to figure out that we get what you are saying and strongly disgree with it? Yworo (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
      • As long as you (plural) argue that my position is U.S. centric or is a violation of WP:DUE and/or WP:NPOV, then there can be no question that you're not getting what I'm saying. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Then obviously you are very poor at expressing yourself. Yworo (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Perhaps it's because you said "just as this article should associate the topic of this article with the political ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party" in this comment. Maybe you didn't mean to be quite so explicit about your agenda? Well, the cat's been out of the bag since then. I don't see how you are going to get it back in. Yworo (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
          • You've taken that phrase out of the context of the sentence and paragraph in which it is made. Here is the entire sentence, slightly paraphrased to include context from the end of the previous sentence: "Yet the article at Conservatism never-the-less correctly associates the topic of that article with the political ideology of the U.S Republican party, just as this article should associate the topic of this article with the political ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party". That is, the article at Conservatism, even though it associates its topic with the political ideology of the U.S Republican party, never-the-less covers Conservatism from a global perspective; it is "restricted" to the ideology of the U.S. Republican party because there is little significant difference between the non-U.S. and U.S. meanings. Similarly, the article at Libertarianism could and should associate its topic with the political ideology of the U.S Libertarian party, for essentially the same reasons (the party represents a huge faction of adherents to the ideology), and it could so without being U.S. centric, because the common meaning of term libertarianism globally in English today is synonymous with the ideology of US LP.

            In other words, there is no reason to de-associate Libertarianism from the ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party just as there is no reason to de-associate Conservatism from the ideology of the Republican Party.

            This example of your taking my phrase out of context and thus misunderstanding what I was saying is why I believe you still don't get it. You can't blame me for not understanding what I'm saying because you're interpreting my words out of the context in which they were made. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

            • You see, I don't believe that the Conservatism (article) "associates the topic of that article with the political ideology of the U.S Republican party", correctly or not. Or that if it does, it's something that should be corrected. So the first part of your statement is ignorable rhetoric. As is the second part. Yworo (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The fact that there isn't a quote provided that uses the term in the sense that it has been coopted in modern times does not stand as a reason to strip out relevant and valid information about ideologies that are closely related, and were labelled interchangeably in the past. The idea that because people here in America say "Libertarian" meaning the modern flavor of American right-wing libertarianism (a la Ron Paul) does not mean that wikipedia should do so as well. This seems so patently obvious to me that I have hard time even understanding the couterargument as anything but an attempt to push an agenda. siafu (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Does it seem as patently obvious to you that just because the term cat is usually used to refer to the domestic cat and much less often to a lion, that doesn't mean that lions should be excluded from the article at Cat? Well, lions are excluded from the article at Cat. There is no obligation on editors to include every use of a term, modern or historical, in the article whose name happens to be that term. What editors are obligated to do is present material in articles named by a given term that is in accordance with actual modern use of that term. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And Cat. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The word "cat" has never had the general sense that you seeem to be implying; the primary meaning of the word in English has always been the domesticated animal. You can, in fact, learn this very bit of information in the Nomenclature and Etymology section in the article cat. Libertarianism, as a term, has historically been a blanket term for a set of ideologies centered around personal liberty, both left- and right-wing, and it is still used in this sense in much of the English-speaking world. Just because the discourse in the United States has adopted a narrower definition does not mean that wikipedia should do the same. See, for example, the articles on Liberalism and Conservatism, both of which have different historical and non-American meanings that are thoroughly explored in the articles. siafu (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Each time this has been brought up, the result has been the same: libertarian socialism and other forms of left-libertarianism, as well as anarcho-capitalism are considered by reliable sources to be forms of libertarian thought, and will be included in the article. Please stop being disruptive -- the consensus is clearly against this proposal, and it would be better if we could spend our time working on the article, rather than wasting our time rehashing something we've already made a decision on recently. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Some indication that you've at least skimmed the arguments here, much less given them serious thought before responding, would make it easier to not discount your vote/comment for not taking into account the stated arguments. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The very concept just "libertarianism" without qualification is itself WP:Original research. I have never seen such a concerted attack on an article, even by arch-Zionists trying to smear anti-Zionists as anti-Semites, so I really have to wonder about the origins of this extreme partisanship, now that we are working on the third RfC in a month on more or less the same topic (plus of course the two requests for move). CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "The very concept just "libertarianism" without qualification is itself WP:Original research". Huh? Statements about usage in reliable source in reliable sources is not WP:OR! --Born2cycle (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: By my count there have been five previous votes on this same basic question, all within just the last few weeks. I think we need less voting and more constructive suggestions to improve the article. Iota (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal Discussion

Cat

It has been brought to my attention that the analogy of Christianity (because it excludes Mormonism even though in the broad sense Christianity includes Mormonism) does not work because that article in fact does include Mormonism (as Church of the Latter Day Saints). Oops, and sorry about that!

So, then, I refer you instead to Cat, which, like libertarianism, has broad (the entire cat family; all political philosophies that value individual liberty) and narrow (the domestic cat, "right libertarianism) meanings in English. I suggest that the percentage of reliable sources about "cat" that use the broad sense of the word is higher than the percentage of reliable sources about "libertarianism" that use the broad sense of the word (just google both words and you'll see), yet the scope of the topic at Cat is still only limited to the specific topic of the domestic cat. Is that a violation of WP:DUE or WP:NPOV? Of course not! If limiting the scope of that article to the domestic cat is not a denial of the "viewpoints" that see lions as a variety of cat, then why is limiting the scope of this article to right libertarianism a denial of the viewpoints that see "libertarian socialism" as a variety of libertarianism? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Because libertarianism has a long tradition dating back to the Enlightenment. What you call "libertarian socialism" is more in line with what was originally meant by the word. So-called "right libertarianism" is the new kid on the block, dating from the 1950s. By restricting the article to it, the whole history of libertarianism has to be thrown out. In fact, maybe we should exclude right-libertarianism from the article and you could go create a separate article on it. If anything, right-libertarianism is the "Mormonism" of libertarianism. Yworo (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"By restricting the article to it, the whole history of libertarianism has to be thrown out." By that logic, by restricting the article at Cat to the topic of the domestic cat, the whole existence of the feline family has to be thrown out. Surely that's not what you think, is it? Then why is restricting this article to right-libertarianism mean the whole history of the use of the term has to be thrown out?

Nothing is being thrown out in either case. It's a matter of what does the respective term usually refer to in modern common English usage. In the case of cat, it usually refers to the domestic cat, rather than the broader meaning which encompasses lions and tigers, and so the scope of that article is limited to that. In the case of libertarianism, it usually refers to "right libertarianism", rather than to the broader usage (and never to the specific ideology of "libertarian socialism" - google libertarianism and see how many pages you have to sift through before you can find even one instance of the use of the term "libertarian" or "libertarian socialism" in a secondary source to refer to a "libertarian socialist" or "libertarian socialism" respectively. Let me know if you can find one, and how many pages in it is.

By the way, I agree what was meant by the term prior to the 1950s (really prior to the 1970s, if talking about overall usage in English) was something different than right-libertarianism. But the term itself was very obscure in English. In fact, it didn't enter the mainstream at all until even more recently than that. I remember as recently as the 80s respectable news sources often incorrectly referred to Lyndon LaRouche as a libertarian.

But if this is a WP:RECENTISM concern, the definition of "recent" applies more to a much more, well, recent definition of recent, stuff like Avatar. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate logic with you. While I'm sure your position seems logical to you, it seems completely illogical to me. If we are going to use logic, my logic is definitely superior to yours. How about some sources? Yworo (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How about some sources for what? What kind of sources are required to exclude the topic of lions from the article named Cat? The only purpose of sources in such questions of article scope is how the term in question is used in sources; with what frequency to mean what. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want an article that is limited to right-libertarianism, then you can find that at: Right libertarianism. The article at Libertarianism is certain to include all of the prominent understandings. BigK HeX (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. Of course.

But, here's the point. An article limited to the topic of the domestic cat could be at Domestic cat rather than at Cat. The reason that it's at Cat is because when the term is used in English today it's much more likely being used to refer to the domestic cat than to the family of cats. Similarly, the reason that the article at Libertarianism should be restricted to right-libertarianism is because when the term is used in English today it's much more likely being used to refer to the ideology of right-libertarianism than to refer to any other meaning, including to the family of individual liberty ideologies (the broad sense). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Most likely, you presume an awful lot in that explanation. It's highly doubtful that you participated in the discussion on the article naming at Cat. I'm not sure why you think your speculation on the decisions at Cat would be persuasive. BigK HeX (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh? How have I speculated about the decisions at Cat at all? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, stop wasting my time. Talk about sources, not your personal views. TFD (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you participate in any of the naming convention or move proposals related to Cat or Felidae? BigK HeX (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall ever being involved in any of those discussions, though if I was I would have supported having the scope of the article at Cat limited to the primary topic of "cat", per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - which is the domestic cat. It's the same reason I think the topic of this article should be limited to "right libertarianism" - per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

TFD, I'm not talking about my personal views. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact, there was a move proposal at Cat, here. Arguments are very familiar... --Born2cycle (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well ... you're free to review the arguments at this move proposal for the article at hand. BigK HeX (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are we talking about possible conventions at Cat instead of the conventions of similar articles (Conservatism, Socialism, etc)? This really seems like reaching. BigK HeX (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume this is a discussion of the proposal based on the WP:OR assumption about "just libertarianism" and not some new topic. Please clarify that in your first sentence, or make proper paragraphing if it's a different section. (One which doesn't contain any WP:RS.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Carol, to whom are you speaking about what? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

BigK, the reason we're talking about Cat here is because some have argued, including you (please correct me if I misunderstood or oversimplified), that since there are reliable sources for varieties of related uses of the term "libertarianism", then the article named "Libertarianism" must cover those uses, or its a violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. If that's true, then the same reasoning should apply to other articles with names that could refer to multiple related uses, like Cat. But it doesn't. Why? Why doesn't the answer to that question apply here?

As to other articles about political ideologies, there are no reliable sources that support the notion for any of those terms that some particular use is better known than other uses. There is for libertarianism... and that's right-libertarianism (if anyone needs actual cites for that, let me know, but it's stated and cited in the article). Nothing like that is true about any of the other political ideologies. That's why, in that sense, Libertarianism is more like Cat than it is like Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, etc. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

General warning regarding disruption

Further attempts in the next six months to dispute the topic and coverage of this article will be taken to WP:AN/I as disruption. The community of editors has clearly and repeatedly discussed this topic and reached a consensus position. The continual contesting of such a consensus has the effect of disrupting the encyclopaedia. Editors should also feel free to collapse such disruptive discussion during the next six months, rather than bringing the matter to WP:AN/I. The purpose of this general warning is to prevent disruption; not to prevent editorial opinion. In six months time considered editorial opinion on topic and coverage, backed up by policy and reliable sources, will be considered as normal. WEIGHTing discussions, backed by RS, are fine: they don't go to topic or coverage, but to extent and focus of coverage. WEIGHTing discussions haven't been disruptive. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll back you up on this. Was ready to do it two weeks ago, but side tracked by various admin moves against the worst offenders. But it still has not stopped the general behavior by other editors, making it difficult to discuss very specific issues related to policy without it degenerating into another WP:Soapbox fest in favor of deleting all but one form of libertarianism from the article. This behavior will make it necessary to keep this article locked in its current form forever, policy violations and all. So let's give it til maybe next Wednesday and revisit the issue, perhaps with a consensus complaint this time since these scattershot complaints that keep missing the main points obviously have not been effective. Perhaps draft on on one of your talk pages and ask those who generally agree to comment.CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I also intend to participate in this enforcement. BigK HeX (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for any disruption that the above proposal seems to have caused, but never intended for it to be an RfC or any kind of big deal. I did want to see what regulars here thought about that particular reasoning. I've achieved that goal and plan to incorporate it into the ongoing project at /scope, which I do plan on having an RfC for when it is completed. I anticipate that to be weeks if not months away, as I announced back when I started it. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Born2cycle, warnings do not apply to things which happened before they were issued!  :). This editorial group needs to cycle through a low and slow phase concentrating on sourcing first and foremost. As your /scope page and my work on a bibliography indicates, the Talk: page isn't working right now to provide the Reliable Source background to debate. Given that sourcing projects take considerable time, revisiting debates—some of us would like to see closed for the moment—in six months is no great problem for the encyclopaedic project, because eventually we'll all get it right at the end of the day. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Topic or Scope during the period 1 October 2010 - 1 April 2011
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't think it's unreasonably disruptive for me to continue to seek at least an indication of understanding about one particular point relative to the issue of scope and reliable sources. I'm not necessarily seeking agreement on this point, but at least a reasonable explanation for why there is disagreement, so we can agree to disagree. That point is the one I just tried to make (again) yesterday above at #Cat. As long as people keep repeating that having the article at Libertarianism limited in scope to right-libertarianism violates some kind of policy (WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:RS, etc.), that's an indication that they are not understanding this particular point, much less explaining why they disagree with it. In particular, if someone can explain why their argument that the article at Libertarianism must cover libertarian socialism because there are reliable sources about "libertarianism" that do so, but the same argument does not mean that the article at Cat must cover lions because there are reliable sources about "cat" that do so, and does not mean that the article at Bicycle must cover three wheeled human powered devices because there are reliable sources that do so, then progress can be made on this issue. That is, any policy-based argument based on libertarianism being a term having several related but distinct varieties as supported by reliable sources, including a broad sense and a more commonly used more specific sense, should not apply to just this article, but to any article named with a term having several related but distinct varieties, including a broad sense and more commonly used more specific sense. Both Cat and Bicycle meet this description, yet no one promoting the policy-based argument seems to be willing to say that those articles are improperly scoped per the same argument. So, what gives? Unless I missed something (which I doubt), this has not been done. So, again, I'm sorry if my efforts here have been disruptive, but I'm really just trying to understand the basis for the policy-based objection here. Progress could also be made if those objecting to limiting scope would concede that the reality is that there is no explicit policy-based argument supporting either side. However, I do think there is a scope guideline implied by the spirit of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which explains why Cat excludes lions and Bicycle does not cover three-wheeled human-powered devices despite reliable sources existing that clearly include those concepts as varieties of the respective topic. What I don't understand is why the same reasoning does not mean that Libertarianism need not, if not should not, cover libertarian socialism. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 1) Yes, it's disruptive. 2) Because the consensus from multiple RfCs is to do so. Yworo (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Why? How? "When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages." WP:CONSENSUS "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed." WP:TALKEDABOUTIT. You know, progress towards WP:CONSENSUS can be made in talk page discussion when good faith points and questions raised by the other (see my previous post above) are not ignored (see yours), but addressed and answered. ("All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles." - WP:CONSENSUS) Contrast the stonewalling/dodging demonstrated here (again), which I suggest is at the core of what is highly disruptive on this talk page (because progress cannot be made when one side is not continuing to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus), with the much more reasonable and progress-making discussion I'm having with User:John K on his talk page. If you have nothing constructive (working towards understanding/consensus) to add to a given discussion, I suggest not contributing. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Your last sentence is quite uncivil. Yes, consensus can change. But multiple RfCs on this very issue over several months have indicated that change in this particular case is quite unlikely. Please read WP:TEDIOUS which applies to your persistent behavior and may ultimately lead to administrative action if persisted in. Yworo (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC) The only thing I see that might arguably apply to me at WP:TEDIOUS is this: "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.". However, the remedy for that is exactly what I'm doing: "If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. " That's exactly what I'm doing... see my long post above from this morning, the one you ignored and cited as an example of being disruptive. Is there anything else at [WP:TEDIOUS]] that you think applies to my behavior? You might consider this part of it: "You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors.". (see above). In that light, here's a good faith question for you: can you please address the points I made above in the 17:03 post? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Sure thing. My answer is, I believe you are abusing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to promote your own opinions. Your use of it doesn't follow good logic or the standard Wikipedian interpretation or use of the guideline. As I said before, I'm not going to argue against clearly deficient logic. Please stop wasting our time. Good day. Yworo (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you. A couple of follow-ups. The alleged deficiency in the logic I presented in that post is not clear to me, even though my profession depends on my ability to think logically - software engineer. Perhaps I'm missing something. What exactly is "clearly deficient" in the logic presented in that post? What, if anything, do you believe justifies limiting the scope to a more commonly used specific interpretation of the respective term rather than to cover a more broad use of the term at articles like Cat (which does not cover lions and tigers even though they are "cats" in some reliable sources) and Bicycle (does not cover three-wheeled human powered devices even though they are considered to be "bicycles" in some authoritative reliable sources)? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC) I've supported that last RFC close, even though there were numerous problems with the process. However I see no progress towards the closer's operative statements, specifically starting to review the other strands to see if they are "significant, based on RS's" (otherwise not included) implementing weights based on wp:due / wp:undue. I.E. NEITHER "side" is following it. If we can't start making such progress, I could see many folks wanting to re-open it. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

left libertarian is the lessor well known, thus a minority and according to WP:NPOV should not be given as detailed a description or as much

This entire discussion went battleground
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
the views of tiny minorities(several of the forms listed qualify as tiny) should not be included at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight this policy is not currently being followed, but has been in the past. sources confirming LL is minor "...in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism” " stanford encyclopedia of philosophy "THE POLITICAL COMPASS & WHY LIBERTARIANISM IS NOT RIGHT-WING" J. C Lester, Libertarian Alliance (we've got an article on them too). Copied up from section below because usage of the term libertarianism in this British piece refers to the ideology of right-libertarianism. See comment below in next section. Basically, the title could be, "why right-libertarianism is not right-wing", without changing its meaning. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC) "Right and Left Wings in Libertarianism" Canadian Social Science, Vol 5, No 6 (2009) Vladimir Sapon, Sam Robino. In Political Science one can observe various discourses to defining the essence of libertarianism, which are based on (Boaz, 1998) different philosophical approaches to the institutions of central political power (especially the state). Today, interpretations of right-libertarian ideological complex are most popular in the scientific literature and in the popular imagination. Yet, since the middle of 19th century – the concept of libertarianism had been used in a left political context, and only in 1950s its right ideological context use came into fashion... "came into fashion means majority Darkstar1st (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC) No it doesn't, it means "came into fashion". We don't get to interpret sources. Yworo (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC) You did read the following sentence, right? siafu (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC) You mean "Consequently, the term and its derivatives in the left ideological context had been widely used in the West over the past century and a half." I guess that means we can just move this down into the opposed section? "Widely used" means we can move this into the "sources confirming LL is not a minor use" section. Yworo (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC) "Left ideological context" does not mean left-libertarianism! Right-libertarianism is arguably in the "left-ideological context" too. Left-libertarianism is the very specific ideology in which the right of individuals to own property is not recognized. That's not what "libertarianism" has ever referred to (and why it should not be in this article). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC) You said "That's not what 'libertarianism' has ever referred to". That's a clear misrepresentation and not helpful. Yworo (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC) "Libertarianism: Left or Right?", by Sheldon Richman (we've got an article on him). Is libertarianism of the Left or of the Right? We often avoid this question with a resounding “Neither!” Given how these terms are used today, this response is understandable. But it is unsatisfying when viewed historically. In fact, libertarianism is planted squarely on the Left, as I will try to demonstrate here. Another source copied from below up to here because it has no reference to property-rights-denying left-libertarianism whatsoever; it refers exclusively to pro-property-rights libertarianism, which is "right-libertarianism". --Born2cycle (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC) sources confirming LL is not a minor use Darkstar1st (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Sure. Sources that support the opposite moved up to other section. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry, folks, please don't edit my posts and move sections to other places. It's against our policy for how we interact on discussion pages, and, frankly, not nice. If you disagree they say what they say, say so, maybe you'll convince me. If you want to put your own copies in other places per your interpretation, go ahead. But please don't edit what I wrote. I put them where I intend them to go. Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I thought this was a special section for listing sources editable by the community, not an ordinary signed comment section. My bad. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Sure. "Right and Left Wings in Libertarianism" Canadian Social Science, Vol 5, No 6 (2009) Vladimir Sapon, Sam Robino. In Political Science one can observe various discourses to defining the essence of libertarianism, which are based on (Boaz, 1998) different philosophical approaches to the institutions of central political power (especially the state). Today, interpretations of right-libertarian ideological complex are most popular in the scientific literature and in the popular imagination. Yet, since the middle of 19th century – the concept of libertarianism had been used in a left political context, and only in 1950s its right ideological context use came into fashion... "Libertarianism: Left or Right?", by Sheldon Richman (we've got an article on him). Is libertarianism of the Left or of the Right? We often avoid this question with a resounding “Neither!” Given how these terms are used today, this response is understandable. But it is unsatisfying when viewed historically. In fact, libertarianism is planted squarely on the Left, as I will try to demonstrate here. Here again libertarianism is used to refer to a political ideology that understands property rights, but opposes corporatism (just like Ron Paul). This is quintessential mainstream (right) libertarianism. Here's a hint, if the ideology the source is talking about is referenced as libertarianism, and not as left-libertarianism or libertarian socialism, then it's referring to pro-property-rights right-libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC) "THE POLITICAL COMPASS & WHY LIBERTARIANISM IS NOT RIGHT-WING" J. C Lester, Libertarian Alliance (we've got an article on them too). Good enough? Of course I don't know if Canada and the UK qualify as sufficiently English speaking countries... :-) --GRuban (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC) neither does not support LL being the majority Darkstar1st (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Good enough? Of course I don't know if Canada and the UK qualify as sufficiently English speaking countries... :-) --GRuban (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Well, the Canadian one (Sapon/Robino) is problematic because the original language is French, and the translations to libertarian/liberal from the French approximate equals is at least questionable. At any rate, it's not a great source because of that. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC) There's no indication on the page linked to that the original language was French. The fact that the page has the abstract in both languages does not mean anything, as bilingual publication is extremely common in Canada (in fact mandated by law in many cases). The publication is apparently bilingual and the source text is in English; a French version does not seem to be available. siafu (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Wow, I thought I was joking! You're serious that you think Canada is not an English speaking country? And when a Canadian says Libertarian he doesn't necessarily mean what this article is about? Frankly I'm amazed. If you want to write an article about Libertarianism in the United States, go ahead. But this is not that article. --GRuban (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Well, there's Canada, and there's Quebec (in which the population is "predominately French speaking" and "the official language is French"). Have you read it? It's obviously either translated from French or written by someone who is not a native English speaker. Normally that would not be an issue, but when the topic is how a particular term is used in English, it's quite relevant, especially considering they translate French liberalisme to libertarianism, and socialisme libertaire to libertarian socialism. Again, with respect to seeing how libertarianism is used in English, or what libertarianism means in English, this is simply no better than a source from a Paris university that was translated to English. Regardless, the content of the text supports the other view anyway.--Born2cycle (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC) I read a bit of it, and read quite a bit like any other publication in English in the social sciences. The two authors are not obviously French, the text is not in French (though they provide a French-language abstract), and barring any particular reason beyond your personal belief, I don't see any reason to believe it was originally written in any other language than English. The translations you're citing are in the abstract; they could just as easily be mistakes made when translating into French. This argument is not going to go precisely nowhere. Moreover, that article specifically states: "Yet, since the middle of 19th century – the concept of libertarianism had been used in a left political context..." i.e., people used this word to mean more than just right-libertarianism. This is, as far as I can tell, evidence enough to warrant inclusion of other left and centrist libertarian understandings in this article. I can, in fact, see no benefit whatsoever from excluding them. I wonder if perhaps you believe that including these other definitions would mean presenting libertarianism as a predominantly left-wing movement or somesuch. This is not the case. siafu (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Okay, I read over Lester, and it's very interesting that you brought this here, because it definitely demonstrates the opposite. All uses of libertarianism in this piece about whether "libertarianism" is "left-wing" or "right-wing" refer to the ideology of right-libertarianism (a.k.a. Classical liberalism). Note this comment: "In figure 2, libertarians and classical liberals then find themselves in the top right-hand corner." The "top-right hand corner" includes a ration of 10 on his "property choice" axis, a right-libertarian position. Left libertarianism or libertarian socialism is not even considered, by name, implication or inference. The whole point here is that this is usage of libertarianism (and note that this is a British, not U.S., source) synonymous with right-libertarianism is very typical. At any rate, that source should be moved up to the section above, as it supports the notion that LL is a minority use of the term. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)  Done this is rubbish The only sources which can determine due proportion are global demographic or survey data. "Less well known" does not imply "minor" and "minor" does not imply "tiny". The entire premise of this post and its suggested methodology is completely bogus, and thus it is soapboxing. Counting sources is meaningless. Someone please collapse it. Yworo (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC) i am seeking a single source to refute the sep, before i proceed with aligning the article to meet wp standards, not a list please define the "methodology" being used here and how the sep is bogus? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC) I will say that the applicability of WP:DUE here at all is tenuous because that policy addresses what proportion of an article about a presumably controversial topic should be devoted to each viewpoint about that controversy. And that's not what's going on here. That is, we are not talking about views in support of or against the subject of this article. However, I think it's worth discussing since several people have cited WP:DUE in various contexts as if it is applicable here. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Comment This discussion thread is soap-boxing. If Darkstar1st has any sources he is welcome to offer them. However he has offered none. Please collapse this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC) SEp is my source, as well as WP:NPOV, either describe which of the 5 sections in the soapbox you are accusing my of violating, or strike your accusation. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Those are not sources. TFD (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Presuming that we are advocating following the results of the last RFC, the two operative statments by the close were: "Libertarianism" should be broadly construed to include all significant viewpoints from reliable sources." "Although all variants should properly be described on this page, the weight given to various viewpoints should depend on their weight in reliable sources. This includes the weight in the lead, which should summurise the article, and reflect the weight given to various ideas in the article. Concepts that are only briefly mentioned in the article need not be mentioned in the lead. still following the results" This discussion is absolutely germane to and in line with implementing that North8000 (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:Undue is only relevant issue now

The RfC's have resolved the issue of keeping in a mention of various forms of libertarianism and not just focusing on one. On Sept 8 I presented this content analysis of neutral, right and left content in the article. There three times as much right as left. I don't think it's changed that much since then. Individuals who thought there was too much left were invited to ad more right. The main thing I remember them adding was a WP:OR/synth (or maybe just really poor summary) of two sources which was presented in such a way to misrepresent the material as a quote. Anyway, this section seems to be yet another example of disruptive editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Topic or Scope during the period 1 October 2010 - 1 April 2011
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I challenge the notion that the RfC's have resolved "the issue of keeping in a mention of various forms of libertarianism and not just focusing on one". If nothing else, WP:CONSENSUS changes. But, also, the latest RfC is barely a day old and has had hardly any input from a previously anyone not previously involved here. Not to mention that that proposal was never meant to be an RfC, and was not written to be one. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC) I want to add that one of the reasons I believe consensus is particularly likely to change here is because we still obviously have a big misunderstanding about how libertarianism is used in the sources. For example, in the section above someone listed three sources as supposed support for left-libertarianism not being in the minority, and yet two of them (Lester, Richman) are actually quintessential examples of the term libertarianism being used to refer to the pro-property-rights political ideology of individual liberty... right-libertarianism, while the third (Sapon) clearly states that right-libertarianism is "most popular". --Born2cycle (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Yaaaawn. Ceaseless repetition does not make it so. "Most popular" is not a justification for limiting the scope of the article. Your inability to understand that you've completely lost your argument is getting exceedingly tedious. Yworo (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitions and differences

Definition of libertarianism

According to sources, the defining characteristic of libertarianism is "full self-ownership". Sources that make this distinction include:

• G. A. Cohen, Gerald Allan Cohen. Self-ownership, freedom, and equality, pp. 118-119. Cambridge University Press, 1995. ISBN 0521477514.
• Thomas Christiano, John Philip Christman. Contemporary debates in political philosophy, pp. 138-145. Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. ISBN 1405133228
• Lawrence C. Becker, Charlotte B. Becker. Encyclopedia of ethics, Volume 3, pp. 1562-1563. Taylor & Francis US, 2001. ISBN 0415936756
• Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller, Jeffrey Paul. Liberalism: old and new, Part 1, pp. 190-192. Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN 0521703050
• Ronald Hamowy. The encyclopedia of libertarianism, pp. 246, 288. SAGE, 2008. ISBN 1412965802

This gives us a common basis for all the forms of libertarianism and the lead sentence definition for the article.

Any comments about how we can use this to word a definition and structure the article? Yworo (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that there is support for the broad interpretation of the term libertarianism in reliable sources. But thanks for reminding us again.

However, there is support for the broad interpretation of cat in reliable sources too (to refer to the family that includes lions and tigers), yet the scope of the article at Cat is limited to the more specific topic, the domestic cat.

Given that you're appealing to general policy that applies to all WP articles (include Cat) and not to policy that applies only to articles about political philosophy articles, why do you think mere support for a general use of a term in reliable sources means the article named by that term must be about that general use for this particular article, when it clearly does not mean that in the case of other articles, like Cat? Or is there more to it? If so, what is it? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

1. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
2. Per my response to you above, I don't think that the article cat is really speaking to the proper question. If there had been a time when the general understanding of the word cat included lions and tigers in common speech, it might be more relevant, but this was never the case. siafu (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so you're taking into account the significance of what the term meant decades ago as opposed to how it's typically used today. I don't know if there is much if any precedence for that view in WP, do you? I mean, giving preference to usage today over usage decades ago is hardly a case of WP:RECENTISM. But, at least this is a reasonable answer to my question. Thank you for that. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources mentioned are current. In any case, general articles like this give the full historic picture. The current topical sources give the full historic picture. We follow and summarize current sources. Not doing so would be without precedence in WP. See for example Conservatism, Liberalism, etc. In any case, this thread is not about your pet topic (pun intended), so please desist with off-topic comments. Yworo (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The original question for the RfC, which is how I came to this discussion, was about whether or not Libertarianism should be construed narrowly only as the modern, American, right-wing Libertarianism that we all know so well. Doing that in particular is very much a case of recentism (and also Amero-centrism, I would argue), and was answered rather clearly by the RfC. The more subtle question we seem to be arriving at is what the relative proportions of this article should be, in order to satisfy due vs. undue weight. To that end, I think that it would not be unfair to note that particularly in American discourse, the two terms have been treated synonymously by and large, but I think it would be a mistake to conform this article to that narrow understanding. If I may propose my own analogy, schizophrenia is believed by many people to be identical to dissociative identity disorder but the two, in fact, are entirely different. The fact that the most common meaning for schizophrenia is multiple personalities would, I think plainly, not lead us to conclude that the article on schizophrenia should adopt that meaning. The solution used there simply makes note of the fact that common usage commonly treats it that way, mentioned in the lead. Here, I think we should take it further than just the lead itself, but make clear in the article proper that this is the most popular current form of libertarianism, and spend a good deal of space on that, but not to the exclusion of other definitions, whether they be currently popular or not. siafu (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the source of the notion that the use of libertarianism to refer to the political ideology that celebrates individual rights including the right to own property (i.e., right-libertarianism) is American or Americo-centric? This has been shown multiple times (most recently in Lester just above) to be common usage in British , Australian and Canadian English too. I'm still waiting for a single reference to property-rights-denying left-libertarianism as "libertarianism" in any variety of English. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless whether the usage was exported to Australia, Canada and UK, its origin was American. In addition, all the sources above include left-libertarianism within the definition of libertarianism and use both right and left to distinguish the two. One of the sources below identifies left-and-right-libertarianism as both belonging to a subclass, natural rights-based libertarianism, of an even broader definition of libertarianism. We do not use colloquial language to define topics, we use topical academic sources. Yworo (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Including left-libertarianism within the (broad) definition of libertarianism is equivalent to including lion within the (broad) definition of cat; neither is an example of using the term libertarianism or cat to refer specifically to left-libertarianism or to a lion, respectively.

I'm still waiting for even a single specific and exclusive reference to property-rights-denying left-libertarianism as "libertarianism" in any variety of English, and even from any time period. Have you (or anyone else) ever encountered such a source? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all five of the sources listed above. Yworo (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You added the word "exclusive" to the above comment after I'd answered the question, which isn't cool according to talk page policy. It doesn't matter though, there's no Wikipedia policy which requires exclusivity of the type you are attempting to require in the use of a term. So it's a moot point and my answer stands. Yworo (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the lead should summarize common tenets of significant strands, and you have done a good job of identifying and sourcing one of them. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not just tell us how you think it should read? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Not there yet, but we should probably also incorporate Long's definition from the linked previous discussion. The point here is that there are commonalities: they should be introduced first. I guess I'm looking for whether other editors have additional sourced commonalities to include in the initial definition. Yworo (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary difference between left and right libertarianism

Again, according to sources, the difference between the left and right forms of libertarianism is the treatment of ownership of natural resources.

• Mark Bevir. Encyclopedia of Political Theory, p. 811. SAGE, 2010. ISBN 1412958652

The above source distinguishes a third type of libertarianism, consequentialist libertarianism, proposed and advocated by Friedrich Hayek, and contrasts this with natural rights-based libertarianism, which includes both left and right-libertarianism.

Several of the sources in the previous section also discuss the distinction between left and right libertarianism as being in the area of the treatment of ownership of external resources. Hamowy (2008), pp. 288-289; Cristiano & Christman (2009), pp. 137-150; Paul, Miller & Paul (2007), pp. 191-203; Becker & Becker (2001), pp. 1562-1563; Cohen & Cohen (1995), p. 118.

So, these sources give us a basis for distinguishing two or three broad forms of libertarianism.

Any comments about how we can use this to word a definition and structure the article? Yworo (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not just tell us how you think it should read? Also what's your ref for Hayek? I personally don't know what left libertarianism base their ethics on. Also I think contractarianism is important. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless there are other sources that make this distinction, I don't think it's worthwhile. Hayek definitely recognized and advocated for the right to own property, so he's right-libertarian in that sense. Bevir is not the only one note that libertarians (meaning right-libertarians) arrive at the same belief via either the Hayekian practical route (it's what works best) or the Randian/Rothbardian moralistic route (it's the right thing to do), and some by both. But the destination is the same in all these cases... right-libertarianism (property-rights-recognizing advocacy of individual liberty). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You know, we don't write articles based on how you classify things. We write them based on how reliable sources classify things. This deserves a mention in the article, especially if other sources also use the term. Yworo (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course we don't write articles based on how I classify things. But, we need to do something coherent, if all the sources do it different ways. Otherwise we end up with, well, an incoherent hodgepodge. For example, if one source uses "left-libertarianism" and "libertarian socialism" synonymously, as Sapon does, while another source states that "left-libertarianism" and "libertarian socialism" are distinct ideologies, as Widerquist does, they are labeling different ideologies with the same terms. If we ignore that we end up saying something nonsensical like:

Left libertarianism (libertarian socialism)[Sapon] is a distinct ideology from libertarian socialism [Widerquist].

That's a problem.

I'm okay with noting the consequentialist distinction in the article, but if readers get the impression that Hayek did not support property rights (is not a right-libertarian), that would be incorrect. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's really quite simple, b2c, when significant sources take different positions, we simply describe these differences in position in clear language. Surely you're good enough at logic and writing to help accomplish that. Yworo (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out that just because two (or more) sources use the same terms does not mean they are referring to the same concepts. Do you not agree?

Therefore, if we mix and match what sources say without regard to to what each means by their use of any common term, we will get gibberish. The resulting error might not be as blatantly obvious as in my simplified illustrative example above, but would be just as wrong and misleading. Just something to watch out for.

In other words, you can't just cut and paste stuff out of sources without thought to context and meaning of the terms in the quotes. And before you cry WP:OR, consider what WP editors have to do when we rely on foreign language sources. It's obvious we have to interpret and adjust terminology in that case. We have to do it with English sources too; it's just more subtle. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle, however, in this particular case, I don't agree. The sources appear to use the terms fairly consistently. You've constructed as an example a mistake no attentive writer would make. In other words, it's a straw man argument. Same applies to your ridiculous cat analogy. There, you've been answered. Yworo (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Where did I say anything about whatever sources you're talking about? Communication is more productive if you don't try to read between the lines. I try very hard to be explicit about what I mean, so if you feel you need to read between the lines, there is probably a miscommunication of some kind. I'm just saying it's a general consideration that should be made, and am bewildered by your obstinacy and hysterical claims of creating strawmen to this rather obvious (but easy to overlook - which is why I'm mentioning it) point. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources in question are the topic of this discussion thread. If you're not talking about them, then you are disrupting this thread with your incessant soapboxing. Yworo (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude, we were talking about hypothetical sources in general terms if they were found - see the "if" in your comment at 23:14... "especially if other sources also use the term.". If at some point after that you started to refer to the specific sources you later found and listed below you forgot to tell me. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Consequentialist libertarianism

We've got a number of additional sources using this classification for a particular type of libertarianism which includes Hayek's and others work.

• Edward Craig. Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy: Genealogy to Iqbal, Volume 4, p. 618, Taylor & Francis, 1998. ISBN 0415073103
• G. W. Smith. Liberalism: Rights, property and markets, p. 4. Taylor & Francis, 2002. ISBN 0415223598
• Norman P. Barry. On classical liberalism and libertarianism, p. 42. Macmillan, 1986. ISBN 0333325915

I think it should be mentioned in the article. One of the sources goes on to identify three versions of consequentialist libertarianism: the 'Chicago' School, the 'Austrian' School, and the 'Virginia' School. Yworo (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If the sources are there to support it, then it surely should get a mention. However, there may be other things that be easier to tackle first. BigK HeX (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

my research has found this to be a tiny minority, thus ineligible for inclusion here. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediation status

Since the bot removed the thread, thought I’d put up a short version of our status, including couple relevant comments. Despite best efforts of some editors here to be very informal mediators, we probably still need more formal mediation here.

• Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-02/Libertarianism informal mediation request and various discussions here.
• Note one informal mediator dropped out because s/he was too busy.
• I'd recommend formal mediation, if we're going to deal with content. The acerbic disputes over deciding content (or perhaps more accurately, over getting editors to accept decisions over content) will be difficult to rein in using an informal approach. BigK HeX (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• If someone wants to request formal mediation, they still can go for it, given lack of new formal mediator.
• Currently while we're waiting for informal mediation and seeing if anyone wants to take initiative to request formal mediation, the article has become fully protected. Go to this {{editprotected}} link to learn how to use the tag to propose any non-controversial or consensus-based changes to the article, and an admin will come along and make the edit. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How bout this three sentence mediation: Everybody who wants to exclude strands based on philosophies being too disparate stop those efforts for a month in exchange for we all try to implement the operative comments of the RFC closer. Basically, vett strands for significance s based on RS's, and weight coverage based on wp:due/undue. Also try to develop a big picture summary (probably based on common tenets) in the lead or overview. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Keeping editors working within wikipedia policy is why we need a mediator, since obviously having trouble making it happen. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It needs more than that. It needs a meeting of the minds, and then policies, sources etc. to guide the implementation. Without that, policies are a method of warfare, not a solution to it. Have you EVER seen a war settled by policies? Just saying that, not saying that we don't need a mediator. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The policies are pretty good at encouraging consensus, if they are followed. However, if people "ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions" by mischaracterizing the questioning as disruption, which is against policy, however, then WP:CONSENSUS is much harder to achieve. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course I see and agree with your point. But what you are describing is(mis)using policies as methods of warfare. Of course, that is the more clever and difficult-to-stop way to conduct warfare in Wikipedia. At the granular level, the policies are imperfect enough to be abused. The workaround in Wikipedia (when it works) is consensus-based application of the based on both their granular-level wording plus spirit and intent. Hence MY point. Policies alone are not enough, and, in fact, can be mis-used to make the situation worse. A meeting of the minds in needed. North8000 (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Policies would ideally be enough. That's why we can change and evolve them when they fail. But starting with WP:AGF it's pretty difficult to really war while adhering to the rules. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to do it pretty well. Yworo (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at war with you or anyone else, Yworo, though if that's your impression it explains much. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Pointless discussion

Discussion of topic or scope between 1 October 2010 and 1 April 2011
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We have just had numerous RfCs about this topic and now Darkstar1st (who has asked me not to contact him on his talk page, which I consider to be immature), has brought up the topic again. However he has never presented any sources and my suggestion is to ignore his contributions unless he provides sources and argues from policy. TFD (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Let's get into the nitty-gritty details of writing the article and ignore the bleating of those who haven't yet figured out that they've lost their arguments due to the fact that those arguments are simply unconvincing. Yworo (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Re: "asked me not to contact him on his talk page"... Huh. The I-word you're talking about seems to be contagious. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC) That's a personal attack. Please redact it. Yworo (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC) It would be an embarrassment if readers came to this article and found that libertarianism was a synonym for the modern far right. TFD (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Just so. Yworo (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Sure would, though I'm curious as to what prompted you to say this. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)