Talk:Libertarianism

Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching Template:V0.5 Template:FixBunching

Request we go to formal mediation

Given the problems that have been identified not only in the short term, but in the long term, with different views of libertarianism, I request of other editors we request formal mediation, with the request to be made on September 1st if, despite a cooperative editing environment, we cannot resolve differences. If there is continued soapboxing with no attempt to discuss sources, and various hostile behaviors, then we will request it sooner. Any thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

agree, i suggest the request be moved up to the earliest possible date. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Sooner is even better. BigK HeX (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Good. One of you can request it if you want it right now. Just remember to use NPOV language in describing the issues. Sometimes it does take a few weeks. Meanwhile WP:RS editing should continue. I'm doing some right now on a related article which I will then integrate here. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

bigK hex, it is up to you, my monitor cracked after seeing the 3 of us agree on something. 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty .... I'll try to put something together by Friday night. I've never entered into mediation, so I'll have to do a bit of research. BigK HeX (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Informal mediation is the first step... Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal. As you can see, I requested informal mediation over a week ago. I had no idea that it would take so long for somebody to take up our case...otherwise I would have mentioned it before now. That's interesting though that the rest of you eventually came to the same conclusion. --Xerographica (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, please add my name to the list of those involved. I guess the next step is to wait until it's accepted by a mediator? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Informal mediation is best first step since it can take longer to get formal mediation. Best to wait to see what proceeds. However, as I know from experience on wikipedia, not all mediators are very skilled at dealing with either behavioral or content problems, which can be frustrating. But at least we are giving it a shot, which is a good sign. And we might get lucky with a good mediator. 207.172.88.133 (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC) [later signed] CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: A very biased (and rather dull sounding) requestion was put in here. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-02/Libertarianism. I gave my view on the talk page of the request being biased and disruption of editing being a major problem. I'm not sure how to change requests so for now will leave my commenting at that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I just edited the request to give both sides of the story, since the request was biased to support idea of breaking up the article and/or making it reflect one variety of libertarianism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added myself to the list of participants. I was in the discussion of Libertarian Socialism but decided to drop out until the ball got rolling on mediation. I'd also like to say I don't agree with the logic of searching for Libertarianism/Libertarian on NPR/CNN. If we were to repeat such a such with Liberalism/Liberal we'd overwhelmingly find reference to Social Liberalism or American Liberalism. This would hardly be a justification for focusing the Liberalism article solely on those modern developments and in turn ignoring the far most historically significant accomplishments and origins of the term. Anatoly-Rex (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

<Backdent>Update: One month since mediation requested and no result. FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an admin that stated that s/he would be available to take up the case (although I think that was supposed to begin yesterday). But, there is a small bit of action. BigK HeX (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have picked up this case. Please allow me 2 to 3 days to read over this talk page and its archives. If somebody wishes to point me in a certain direction, please provide a link and I'd be most grateful. Thanks! Xavexgoem (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thx! Darkstar1st (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck and thanks. I've been here three weeks and I still don't see what the dispute is, or even an underlying difference of POV's. Just a messed up article (or trio of articles) and a lot of what seems to be arguing for the sake of arguing. Just be careful not do do something random. Sincerely & thanks . North8000 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up. Note that the current problems started in January with one set of editors with same POV as another set that later came on board. In the past there had been less interest and more back and forth between editors of different POVs. The effort looks more concerted this time, and has brought forth concerted push back.

You will have to be very firm in dealing with behavioral issues. I think most of the behavioral issues are apparent from a reading or from notes about complaints to various noticeboards. A new example (besides one week block on BlueRobe for personal attacks) is this complaint by DarkStar1st on Conflict of Interest in which he continues to assert his point after multiple editors have told him he was being rediculous and even threatened him with a WP:ANI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

[snipped odd soapboxing by 68.59.4.188 ... showed no intention of improving the article] BigK HeX (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, except that there's clear indication that a variety of libertarians are methodological historical materialists (such as Irish Workers Solidarity Movement, or the defunct Solidarity (UK)). None of which is connected to the issue of editing an encyclopaedic project which relies, methodologically, on close reading and literary hermeneutics. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fyi there is now a Sept 14 request from User:BigK HeX for status update on informal mediation by mediator User:Xavexgoem, followed by my 9/18 request for an answer so we can request formal mediation if s/he is too busy (s/he notes in another section s/he is very busy). CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Another try at mediation

FYI, User:Xavexgoem confirmed s/he's too busy and has relisted this at Mediation Cabal. Meanwhile Mark Nutley is serving as informal mediator? Please confirm here to keep all this info together, and for those who don't want to wade through Ayn Rand section :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark is now involved in content so I'm not sure if he could act as mediator. I am, though, trying to get a handle on the talk page focus... an informal mediation on the content (which I am trying to avoid) would be useful. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

OK, hadn't gotten down to Talk:Libertarianism#Mediator where there's a discussion of Mark. I'd give informal til Weds or Tues in case someone good applies. Also I just posted something at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-02/Libertarianism#Updated_discussion_for_potential_new_mediator. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a busy beaver, but be sure to include the most recent request to differentiate 'cosmopolitan/european libertarianism' from 'american libertarianism'. I see any formal mediators jumping on this like a rabid beast looking for a creative solution. It is a creation solution, and all we as the "American Libertarians" request is that our page be plainly differentiated in the disambiguation page for the wikipedia search query: "Libertarianism". Much like an anagram or what have you. This is a real, concerted, wikipedia-changing request, however, it is a move which will bring this silly conflict to an end. So long as the link is plainly displayed in the disambiguation page, we will not complain anymore. Well, I won't complain anymore. I'll give the dissidents a hard time if this is put into place.68.59.4.188 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (Forms of)

Libertarianism → Forms of Libertarianism — User:Toa Nidhiki05 in the comment directly below explains his rationale for what is substantially a page move. Though this suggestion is older (by a few minutes), please note the next talk page section also contains a page-move request which received more response (because it was given the Page-Move Template quite a while ago). BigK HeX (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Anyway, my idea is this; move the current page to Forms of Libertarianism, removing the history section but keeping most of the content in the current 'Forms of Libertarianism' page. Of course, all forms would be added, and given equal weight. This includes all ideologies listed on the 'Part of a series on Libertarianism' infobox; anarchist, minarchist and minmal-state. I'm thinking a left-right division on the page would also help. Ideologies not currently covered, such as Civil libertarianism and Fusionism, could also be covered. The Libertarian redirect page that would remain after the move could be either deleted or moved to a disambiguation page linking to both Right and Left libertarianism, as well as anarcho-capitalism and minarchism. I think this compromise would be suitable to both sides; the right-wing side (myself included) would not complain, since there would be no base 'Libertarianism' page, and the left-wing side would get equal coverage, albeit on a separate page. Toa Nidhiki05 20:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the zillionth time. BigK HeX (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please give some discussion on this? I am trying to make a good-faith effort to reach an agreeable compromise, as opposed to both sides wanting nothing but unconditional acceptance of their terms. Toa Nidhiki05 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See the the ALREADY-CLOSED RfC for discussion. Usually, arguing the same point over and over, when the matter has been settled is not considered an act of good faith. BigK HeX (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of bad-faith editing, then? I'm trying to stop this pointless debate. Toa Nidhiki05 20:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You want to stop the pointless debate? See the closed RfC, then see WP:IDHT. BigK HeX (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I created the official Requested Move request below simultaneously. Those who support the move of this article may specify a preference for this target instead of Libertarianism (word) in the comments, as I did. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would conditionally support this. In principle this sounds like a great idea but I think we need to make a little more headway on defining Libertarianism in order from readers to properly understand what unites the differing forms of Libertarianism. I think this would involve taking a page from the Political Compass and talk about Libertarianism as a characteristic of a political position rather than a philosophy in and of itself. Anatoly-Rex (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be acceptable for me; I just want this debate over with. Toa Nidhiki05 20:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Such an important and fundamental concept as Libertarianism deserves a page of its own. Making it a disambiguation page is a cop-out, and a very poor substitute for correcting whatever ills exist with the current article. Powers ^T 12:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose:

1. The word libertarianism shouldn't be capitalised in the proposed title.
2. I don't think forms of libertarianism is a good way to disambiguate an article or that it has a clear meaning. A more logical and descriptive title would be something like libertarianism (broad definition).
3. If libertarianism is to be a disambiguation page then it would be best for it to include some explanation of the meaning and etymology of the term, and short summaries of each of the main varieties. You would then end up back with something a lot like what we have now.
4. The currently article follows roughly the same approach as liberalism and conservatism, each of which is about broad political families with many (sometimes contradictory) strands. We don't have articles called forms of liberalism or forms of conservatism.
5. Not really happy at being asked to vote a fourth time within just a few weeks. Iota (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support The various ideologies maybe have enough in common to be included in the same book...but certainly not in the same chapter. --Xerographica (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For the uninitiated, apparently, Xerographica's comment here is merely a euphemism for censoring certain reliably sourced understandings from the Libertarianism wiki article [his "chapter"], with the justification that these other understandings still have their own stand-alone Wiki articles somewhere in the encyclopedia [his "book"]. BigK HeX (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This recommendation is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarianism and none of the editors supporting the move have provided any sources to support their views just pages of arguments based on their personal opinions. I would advise them to read WP:OR and WP:V and read about libertarianism in sources provided in the articles about them. TFD (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, goes massively against wiki convention. This article should (and appears) to give a broad introduction to libertarianism, it's history and introduce the forms. This should be as broad and inclusive as possible. At which point it then should link out to the various forms. This is what normal readers will expect and thus what you should be aiming for. It looks like the article mostly does this... --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose These editors' attempts to gut the main Libertarianism article of everything except one narrow definition has failed in:

• This August 27 RfC on making it just about Right wing libertarianism,
• This September 3 RfC for removing a tag saying that the article lacked a “single coherent topic” (because it did not have the desired single POV,
• and [[Talk:Libertarianism#Requested_move|this September 9 Requested move to Libertarianism (word).

In all three cases wikipedia editors who read the relevant noticeboards took a look and agreed with those editors who want the article to have a broader scope. If this similar Request for Move isn’t Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_.get_the_point, I don’t know what is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose There should be a page called 'Libertarianism'. History + Forms + Movements (if any) of Libertarianism = Libertarianism N6n (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose high quality reliable sources indicate that the content being covered by the article is the object libertarianism. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Process issue

I've relocated this Requested Move section to the bottom of this page. This precise request (libertarianism -> forms of libertarianism) was added to Wikipedia:Requested moves today (15 September). As I understand the rules this means that the effective date of the commencement of this particular voting period is 15 September.

I think people should be aware that they should cast a clear vote on this specific move request to avoid any potential confusion or controversy in the counting of votes.Iota (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Due to existing comments in the thread, it think it might be less confusing to keep the thread in place. I've added a notification ot the bottom of the talk page. BigK HeX (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Iota (talk)

It's not fine. When I commented above, this was not an official specific move request. This is a mess. I already closed what was then the only official open discussion because clearly it was not finding consensus, and now both are open? How does any of this help achieve consensus? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If you don't think this move proposal needs to be addressed, then please refer your issues to the proposer, User:Toa Nidhiki05. He indicates today that he intends to follow up on this move request, despite the very clear results of your move proposal below. BigK HeX (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, there was a pretty clear consensus on your move proposal. People opposed it. BigK HeX (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I closed it. Technicalities aside, I don't understand why you reopened it. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for reopening this thread

"If it stays untouched for a while, I'll go ahead and move it." User:Toa Nidhiki05 on September 15th. [1] N6n (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream libertarianism

Above, the term "mainstream libertarianism" was used in a context that clearly referred to the political philosophy based on individual liberty and property rights, excluding anarcho-capitalism, libertarian socialism and left-libertarianism. Someone else declared, "There is no such thing as "mainstream Libertarianism", please take your US bias and lock it in a suitcase under your bed. ". I have heard this before, but I don't understand it. Consider these non-U.S. references to libertarianism that are uses of libertarianism in this sense:

• Libertarian Alliance (Great Britain) "promote free-market economics and civil liberties."
• Australian Libertarian Society "supports free-markets, individual liberty and the promotion of peaceful, voluntary interaction between people."

Both of these organization are clearly not left-libertarian, not anarchist nor libertarian socialist, yet they refer to themselves as "libertarian" and are not in the U.S.

Now, maybe there is usage of the term libertarianism in the English world that refers to a philosophy that includes libertarian socialism and left-libertarianism, but I have not seen any secondary source references for that. Does anyone else?

In any case, there is nothing U.S. specific about referring to libertarianism that excludes left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism as being "mainstream libertarianism". Maybe it's English-language-specific, but that is acceptable bias in the English language Wikipedia.

--Born2cycle (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Roderick T. Long, "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class," Social Philosophy and Policy 15:2 1998, 303-349: 304. Given, repeatedly, above. Didn't you simply did not hear that?
2. Newspapers in Australia 1830-1954 especially 1930s, for example, REBEL ADVANCE IN SANTANDER, More Moors And Arabs Join Franco. The Advertiser (Adelaide) 28 June 1937.

The LDP is a better Australian example, by the way, for your point that the politics of the USLP have an interest overseas. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add the predominant use of the term "Libertarian" in New Zealand's politics. While the Libertarianz Party is small, (even by the standards New Zealand's small population of 4 million), the principles of the Libertarianz Party are representative of the mainstream Libertarianism that is common within the United States:

"INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

Each individual is the owner of his own life and has the right to live it as he sees fit, as long as he respects that same right in others.

PRIVATE PROPERTY

Each person has the right to create or lawfully acquire property - real, and intellectual - and to control its use.

VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION

All interaction among adult human beings, in all spheres of life, should be voluntary. Voluntary societies are civil societies, coercive societies are not.

NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE

Physical coercion must be removed from human affairs. The only acts that may properly be banned in a free society are those that involve the initiation of physical force or fraud by one party against another.

COMMON LAW

In a free society, laws protect people and property from the initiation of physical force or fraud, and uphold voluntary contractual agreements.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT

The only legitimate function of government is to uphold these principles.

CAPITALISM

The only economic system consistent with these principles is the free market."

Fifelfoo, are you seriously citing media reports from the 1930s as a WP:RS for the use of the term "Libertarian" in contemporary philosophical and political discourse? BlueRobe (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes I am. Libertarianism as social movements and as ideologies goes back to the 19th century. You would do well to look into US populism and the Paris Commune. Your approach dehistoricises this article entirely. Perhaps if you were Just Another Friendly Aucklander you'd be more aware of NZ's other libertarian movement. One of the problems in your arguments about the article is that you turn to parliamentary parties as if there is something special about getting fifty signatures and going to the electoral office. If we open the article up to manifestos and platforms, then we may as well just cite libcom.org and institute Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia. There's a blindness to WEIGHTing in your constant turn to parliamentary politics, a blindness which means you're not engaging with the USLP as a social movement as well as a parliamentary party, which leaves the article weaker for that lack. It also means that you're not historicising pro-market libertarianism by investigating Single Tax Movements, Georgists, etc. The other missing element is the intertwining of minarchism and anarchism in US pro-market libertarianism in the twentieth century: your approach of turning to the largest parliamentary party with Libertarian in its name in the US at the moment 'de historicises the article. Your arguments are relatively apt for the article Parliamentary Libertarianism in the United States after 1990. Have you thought of taking them there? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, please refrain from using argumentum ad hominem when addressing the posts of other editors in the talk pages.

Btw, from memory, I have referred to Libertarian political party on 2 occasions. Despite your assertion to the contrary, that is not "constant turn[ing] to parliamentary politics".

Regardless, sources from the 1930s Spanish Civil War, a country where English is not even one of the official languages, is clearly not a WP:RS for our purposes. Try to find WP:RS that aren't so ridiculously obscure. BlueRobe (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You asked about English language useage. I have given you fifty years of twentieth century usage in Australian newspapers. They refer to civil libertarianism, libertarian socialism, and pro-market beliefs about freedom under the term "Libertarian." Fifelfoo (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, a search of Australian newspapers for the period 1830-1954 may well be relevant to an etymological note regarding the history of the word "Libertarian". But, beyond that, it has little relevance to our discussion regarding the contemporary concept of Libertarianism.

Further more, I'm a civil Libertarian. I view support for Civil Libertarianism as being a naturally implied consequence of being a (mainstream) Libertarian, (although, most of my self-declared Libertarian friends would passionately dispute this). But, Civil Libertarianism is not an ideology. Essentially, Civil Libertarianism is the advocacy of a collection of conveniently-labelled Negative Liberties that share similar characteristics vis-à-vis restrictions on the power of the coercive State over individuals:

Civil liberties are rights and freedoms that protect an individual from the state. Civil liberties set limits on the government so that its agents cannot abuse their power and interfere unduly with the lives of private citizens.

Common civil liberties include the rights of people, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and additionally, the right to due process, to a trial, to own property, and to privacy.

Thus, Civil Libertarianism is no more an ideology (let alone a version of Libertarianism) than Political Correctness is a distinct ideology or version of Paranoid Totalitarianism. BlueRobe (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the SOAPBOX and for demonstrating your unwillingness to comprehend historical analysis. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What is with this habit of editors shouting "soapbox!" every time someone dares to think for himself? I provided links to the relevant sources, including the WP source for the quote regarding Civil Libertarianism. Am I not allowed to string the relevant sources together to make a coherent point?

I dare to suggest that WP:Soapbox does not require us to leave our brains at the door. Indeed, I respectfully suggest that a few editors on the Libertarianism talk page should have another look at WP:Soapbox - it doesn't say what some of you seem to think it says. BlueRobe (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Although BlueRobe is not always this polite, (nor do I agree with him on total exclusion of the other forms from the article) I find BlueRobe's comments here to be very intelligent, informative and polite, and Fifelfoo's denigration of them here to be rude. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, personally, I would like to see a separate section, within the Libertarianism article, for each of left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism. Indeed, I would elect to retain a section on Anarcho-Capitalism, even if no other editors wanted it, because of it's obvious relevance to the Libertarian ideology. I have no problem with including a few paragraphs for each of those ideologies, especially for the purpose of noting the features that distinguish them from mainstream Libertarianism.

This compromise has been offered numerous times, by various editors, and has been rejected out-of-hand by the usual suspects every single time, (when they bothered to respond at all).

It is the equal prominence that has been afforded to left-Libertarianism (etc.) in the lede, and the Libertarianism article as a whole, that I object to. BlueRobe (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "I would like to see a separate section, within the Libertarianism article, for each of left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism..... I have no problem with including a few paragraphs for each of those ideologies..... It is the equal prominence...that I object to."

Let's contrast that with:

• this: "I have consistently been one of the most passionate advocates of having the fringe oxymoronic ideology of left-Libertarianism (aka. Libertarian Socialism) removed from the Libertarianism page entirely."

Ummm... yeah. BigK HeX (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case ... now that you have had an apparent change-of-heart, exactly what is it that leads you to believe that right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism are given "equal prominence"? BigK HeX (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I originally opposed the inclusion of left-Libertarianism in the Libertarianism article. I subsequently offered a compromise, where left-Libertarianism would have a small section with a few paragraphs in the Libertarianism article, for the purpose of building consensus among the editors of the Libertarianism page. What don't you understand about this? BlueRobe (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"What is with this habit of editors shouting "soapbox!" every time someone dares to think for himself?" It is because we are restricted by Wikipedia policy and what is found in reliable sources. By all means think for yourself, but do not provide your original research. Stick to policy and RS. TFD (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, nope, I can't find WP:BraindeadCopy&PasteDrones anywhere... BlueRobe (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

When a lawyer pleads a case they rely on laws and evidence. They cannot use common sense instead of the law and they cannot introduce their own observations as evidence. The process here is similar and it does not mean one is brain-dead. But nor does it mean one should argue one's own novel interpretations. There are blogs for that. TFD (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, there is nothing in the Wikipaedia guidelines that forbids drawing sound conclusions from the reliable sources. And frankly, at this point, I have no idea what you're wiki-lawyering about as you don't even have enough courtesy to point to any examples. BlueRobe (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"drawing sound conclusions from the reliable sources". Perhaps you missed WP:NOR. Forbidden on WP, is "any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." Your efforts may be appreciated elsewhere, but drawing your own personal "sound conclusions" is not permitted here. BigK HeX (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, it is difficult (nigh impossible) to have any idea what you and TFD are talking about as you have failed to point to any examples of my alleged inappropriate comments. Regardless, the day that "drawing sound conclusions" from reliable sources are no longer permitted in Wikipaedia's talk pages is the day that Wikipaedia should be dumped onto a funeral pyre. BlueRobe (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianz Party is not relevant on this page, as it is not a scholarly source. In general, "popular perception" and "popular movements" are almost irrelevant as to what is 'libertarianism', their place is a separate section labeled "Popular perception"/"Popular movements". They will decide what is when even the scholarly sources say that that is libertarianism. (which is not the case now.)N6n (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

N6n, I included the Libertarianz reference as an example of popular usage of the term "Libertarian" in a section that addresses the issue of mainstream Libertarianism vis-à-vis popular perceptions of Libertarianism. I'm not at all sure how much weight should be allocated to such sources (and there is no hard-and-fast WP rule prohibiting such sources), but that is the topic of this section. BlueRobe (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, below are some examples of your use of original research. You are using your own personal observations rather than what reliable sources say about the subject. Listing the declared principles of a NZ party is original research about the meaning of libertarianism. You must be able to back up your views with reliable sources. But it appears you reject those sources and would rather write the article based on your personal understanding of the subject.

As soon as an ideology issues a caveat that the entire jurisdiction of government authority is voluntary, or that there is no coercive State whatsoever, it no longer resembles a Libertarian ideology and becomes an Anarchist ideology.

The principles of left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism differ markedly from mainstream Libertarianism with regard to....

I'd like to add the predominant use of the term "Libertarian" in New Zealand's politics....

TFD (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, first things first. Basic formatting etiquette is designed to make it easy for editors (and casual observers) to follow the discussions at hand. Despite being asked repeatedly to stop making a mess of the threads, you have continued to do so. If you continue to blatantly ignore basic formatting etiquette in these talk pages, the offending posts will probably be ignored. After weeks of such recidivism, you will receive no more warnings on this point.

Second, your example is not from this - Mainstream libertarianism - section of the Libertarianism talk page, and has no relevance to the issues at hand. And frankly, dredging up a long-forgotten unrelated post from 36+hours/50+posts ago is disingenuous, at best, and detracting from the issues currently being discussed, at worst. Please try to keep your future commentary on point with the discussion at hand.

Third, as I have noted above, I included the Libertarianz reference as an example of popular usage of the term "Libertarian" in a section that addresses the issue of mainstream Libertarianism vis-à-vis popular perceptions of Libertarianism. I have no idea how you interpret that as WP:Soapboxing. BlueRobe (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(I will ignore your gratuitous comments on formatting.) You are again showing a fundamental misunderstanding of policy. See: WP:OR: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Your use of a primary source, a party website, which would only be considered a reliable source for the article about that party, to claim what the "predominant use of the term "Libertarian" in New Zealand's politics" is, is original research. I will take it to the OR noticeboard so that other editors may explain this policy to you. TFD (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course you will. Because running off to noticeboards and RFCs to have a whinge is what you and BigK HeX do. For God's sake, grow up. BlueRobe (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you would follow WP policies there would be no need to go to noticeboards. But since you are unable or unwilling to do so, it is necessary to do so. If you believe that your interpretation of policy is correct, you should welcome this. On the other hand if you disagree with policy then you should go to the policy talk pages and lobby to change them. The posting to the NOR noticeboard may be found here. TFD (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Blatant predictable trolling is ignored.

Well done, TFD, you have successfully wiki-lawyered this thread to death with your irrelevant posturing and pedantry. BlueRobe (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Take it easy, guys. Please. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream libertarianism - Checkpoint 1

So, my main point has not yet been addressed (that the meaning of "mainstream libertarianism" is not exclusive to the U.S. as has been claimed, except that it was pointed out it extends to New Zealand as well as the UK and Australia), much less refuted.

Further, only two sources have been provided in answer to my request for English secondary sources which use the term "libertarianism" to refer to the philosophy more commonly known as libertarian socialism or left-libertarianism (to show that they are part of "mainstream libertarianism"). The Long "work" is not even at Google Books or Amazon, but available only as an unpublished/ unsearchable PDF on the web. Hardly a reliable source, much less a secondary source as I requested (if you're not sure what a secondary source is, please click on that link). The second source establishes usage of the term in Australian newspapers prior to 1955 ("especially the 1930s"). That hardly establishes what "mainstream libertarianism" means today, which is relevant to this article.

Can anyone do better? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The British Columbia Libertarian Party of Canada. The homepage for that party states:

The British Columbia Libertarian Party (BCLP) is based on the libertarian non-aggression principle: that no individual or group shall initiate the use of force or fraud against any other, or as a means of achieving political or social goals.

The BCLP advocates civil liberties, and private property rights, including drug legalization, ending government controls on economic activity, and ending coercive taxation.

And the Libertarian Party of Canada, which lists a platform of:

Adoption of laissez-faire principles which would reduce the state's role in the economy. These would include, but are not limited to, the elimination of the federal income tax and government sales tax.

Supports property rights of all Canadians

Reducing government bureaucracy.

Support for civil liberties, such as free association and free speech.

Ending the war on drugs.

A non-interventionist foreign policy.

Abolishing the Bank of Canada

Abolishing the CRTC

Repealing the Canada Health Act

The Ontario Libertarian Party, which has an extensive list of policies that reflect mainstream Libertrtianism, including:

1. Each individual has the right to his or her own life, and this right is the source of all other rights.

2. Property rights are essential to the maintenance of those rights.

3. In order that these rights be respected, it is essential that no individual or group initiate the use of force or fraud against any other.

4. In order to bar the use of force or fraud from social relationships and to place the use of retaliatory force under objective control, human society requires an institution charged with the task of protecting individual rights under an objective code of rules. This is the basic task, and the only moral justification for, government.

5. The only proper functions of government, whose powers must be constitutionally limited are:

• settling, according to objective laws, disputes among individuals, where private, voluntary arbitration has failed
• providing protection from criminals
• providing protection from foreign invaders

6. As a consequence of all the above, every individual -- as long as he or she respects the rights of others -- has the right to live as he or she alone sees fit, as a free trader on a free market

Libertarian Party of Alabama [2]

Libertarian Party of Alaska [3]

Libertarian Party of Arizona [4]

Libertarian Party of Arkansas [5]

Libertarian Party of California [6]

Libertarian Party of Colorado [7]

Libertarian Party of Connecticut [8]

Libertarian Party of Delaware [9]

Libertarian Party of Florida [10]

Libertarian Party of Georgia [11]

Libertarian Party of Hawaii [12]

Libertarian Party of Illinois [13]

Libertarian Party of Iowa [14]

Libertarian Party of Indiana [15]

Libertarian Party of Idaho [16]

Libertarian Party of Kansas [17]

Libertarian Party of Kentucky [18]

Libertarian Party of Louisiana [19]

Libertarian Party of Maine [20]

Libertarian Party of Massachusetts [21]

Libertarian Party of Minnesota [22]

Libertarian Party of Michigan [23]

Libertarian Party of Maryland [24]

Libertarian Party of Mississippi [25]

Libertarian Party of Missouri [26]

Libertarian Party of Montana [27]

Libertarian Party of New York [28]

Libertarian Party of New Jersey [29]

Libertarian Party of New Hampshire [30]

Libertarian Party of New Mexico [31]

Libertarian Party of Nevada [32]

Libertarian Party of North Carolina [33]

Oklahoma Libertarian Party [34]

Libertarian Party of Oregon [35]

Libertarian Party of Ohio [36]

Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania [37]

Libertarian Party of Rhode Island

Libertarian Party of South Dakota [38]

Libertarian Party of South Carolina [39]

Libertarian Party of Tennessee [40]

Libertarian Party of Texas [41]

Libertarian Party of Utah [42]

Libertarian Party of Washington State [43]

Libertarian Party of Wisconsin [44]

Libertarian Party of West Virginia [45]

Libertarian Party of Wyoming [46]

Libertarian Party of Vermont [47]

I hope this helps. BlueRobe (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The definitions you oppose are clearly explained in mainstream sources such as The encyclopedia of libertarianism.[48] If you do not like these sources, you should challenge them at the RSN noticeboard. However you also must provide reliable sources supporting the content you wish to see and cannot provide original research. You may wish to comment on using the NZ website at the NOR noticeboard. TFD (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, please see secondary source. The encyclopedia of libertarianism is not a secondary source.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.

...

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source...

...

Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias

--Born2cycle (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, it does help, BlueRobe. Thanks. It has now been established that the political philosophy commonly referred to today as "libertarianism" excludes libertarian socialism and left-libertarianism in the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, as well as the U.S. That makes it fair to say then that this is "mainstream libertarianism" within the English speaking world that is relevant to this project.

Since the political philosophies known as Libertarian socialism and/or Left-libertarianism are not commonly referred to as "libertarianism" (shown by the dearth of relatively recent -- last 25 years or so -- secondary sources that demonstrate use of the term "libertarianism" to refer to them) is basis to remove references to these philosophies not only from the lead, but from the entire Libertarianism article entirely. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I read some significant posts by User:N6n (an occasional regular on this talk page) regarding the etymology of the word "Libertarianism". He had some interesting WP:RSs for the claim that the word "Libertarianism" was used as a synonym for "Anarchism" in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century, but fell out of favour with the Anarchist movements when mainstream Libertarianism gained a firm hold on the political landscape after the Second World War.

Political movements, and their names, tend to move with the times. But, academic labels are not nearly so flexible and it may well be the case the labels such as "left-Libertarianism" and "Libertarian Socialism" are merely versions of Anarchism that retain the archaic Anarchist use of the word "Libertarian". Goodness knows, the definitions of those ideologies certainly read like Anarchism. That is something worth looking in to. BlueRobe (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to avoid novel interpretations.... Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." So the source is fine but in fact represents the views of countless secondary sources, many of which have been supplied to you. But that does not justify conducting original research from primary sources.

BlueRobe, non-violent anarchists did use the term "libertarian" and the term is retained by their current successors, including right-libertarians, who developed out of 19th century libertarianism.

TFD (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A few relatively obscure tertiary sources that are supported by hardly any (if any) secondary sources does not qualify as a tertiary source that "can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." Those many primary and secondary sources that refer to libertarian socialism as libertarianism do not exist... that's the problem with relying entirely on relatively obscure tertiary sources that use libertarianism in that manner here to justify including libertarian socialism content in this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah they have been presented to you ad naseum. BTW is it not illogical to refer to the views of fringe parties as mainstream? Anyway make your point at the OR noticeboard. TFD (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake, TFD, your insistence on disregarding all so-called primary sources, because of possible misinterpretation, constitutes an over-zealous adherence to an unreasonably narrow construction of a Wikipaedia guideline in the face of common sense. Every editor in here is intelligent enough, and knowledgeable enough, to immediately recognise whether the principles of mainstream Libertarianism are reflected in the so-called primary sources provided for the examples of international Libertarian political parties. There's no room for ambivalence in any of them on such a black & white question, (indeed, none of the sources provided as examples of mainstream Libertarianism in this section have been challenged in any way). BlueRobe (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ad naseum? No secondary sources showing relatively recent English language usage of the term libertarianism to refer to the political philosophy of libertarian socialism have been presented. None. Zero. Zilch. None in the article. None in the talk pages. If I was wrong that could have been easily refuted at the start of this section. If you can refute it please do so here to preclude an unnecessary visit to the OR noticeboard. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Righting Great Wrongs: "...You might think that [Wikipedia] it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case.... So, if you want to... [s]pread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief... that has been unfairly neglected and suppressed by the scholarly community...you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. "Wikipedia is behind the ball - that is we don't lead, we follow - let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed."" TFD (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

More OR?

So .... we've got yet another whole thread of WP:OR with editors making up their own analyses (individually concocted definitions for "mainstream Libertarianism" and a ton of personal classifications for political parties)? BigK HeX (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

not actually OR at all each of the state parties listed are valid examples of how the term is understood by the most people today, which is the sole guideline for what the article should state. the number of RS explaining the different forms of libertarianism, is secondary, or even immaterial, to the understanding the most people understand. tiny minorities are not to be discussed at all, minorities are to be discussed sparingly. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement, "each of the state parties listed are valid examples of how the term is understood by the most people today" is OR. TFD (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how listing the ideologies of the various self-identifying Libertarian parties in North America and other English-speaking countries, and then using it to logically deduce that Libertarianism is widely considered to be synonymous (in the scope of the English Wikipedia project) to be what is called Right-Liberarianism here, is 'Original Research'; please explain why instead of just claiming that it is.

Also, your links from the 1930-1940s have pretty much zero relevance today; it would be like arguing to include the Flat Earth Theory in equal standing with the scientifically-proven Spherical Earth theory based on mid ninth or tenth-century, disproved scientific research, or using old, disproved scientific papers to justify noting Spontaneous generation as fact. Point is, words change, politics changes, and the meaning of political terms changes; conservatives 300 years ago would support a monarchy, and Classical liberals would be a considered radically left-wing; today, conservatives support a republic, and classical liberalism is considered center-center right. Libertarianism might well have meant 'Anarchism' or 'Socialism' 120 years ago in Spain, but it does not today, and we report more on today's meanings of words/political ideologies than 20th or 19th century meanings. Toa Nidhiki05 19:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"I fail to see how listing the ideologies...and then using it to logically deduce...is 'Original Research'" Your own description is basically a declaration that you're engaging in textbook WP:OR. BigK HeX (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)BigK, the only OR of significance going on here is the inclusion of the subject of libertarian socialism in an article about the topic of Libertarianism since there are no secondary sources showing relatively recent English language usage of the term libertarianism to refer to libertarian socialism. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if that were true, we don't go by your made-up criteria. We go by WP:NPOV. We've already beaten to death that there are zillions of reliable sources that argue for inclusion. BigK HeX (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Original_research#Using_sources:Using sources: Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic.

According to this, we have to use sources in context, and within the evidence of our research; our sources fulfill both. In the context that these are all parties espousing a Libertarian (aka. Right-Libertarian) doctrine, it is not hard to assume, in context, that the vast majority of Libertarian parties in English-speaking countries (the most reasonable to use, since this is an English-wiki) are Right-Libertarian; this then confirms our point, that Right-Libertarianism is Libertarianism, and should be treated as the Primary topic of this article, in accordance with policy on Due and undue weight. Other, minor ideologies, such as Left-Libertarianism and Anarchism, should only be given minor coverage, and should not distract from the primary topic of this article. Toa Nidhiki05 19:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's go through your post and highlight all the blatant indications of WP:OR ...

According to this, we have to use sources in context, and within the evidence of our research; our sources fulfill both. In the context that these are all parties espousing a Libertarian (aka. Right-Libertarian) doctrine, it is not hard to assume, in context, that the vast majority of Libertarian parties in English-speaking countries (the most reasonable to use, since this is an English-wiki) are Right-Libertarian; this then confirms our point, that Right-Libertarianism is Libertarianism, and should be treated as the Primary topic of this article, in accordance with policy on Due and undue weight.

Are we seriously now down to arguing that all these ADMITTED assumptions aren't WP:OR. Pretty tedious.... BigK HeX (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)BigK, the only sources (and it's far from zillions) provided that argue for inclusion of "libertarian socialism" as libertarianism are a small number of relatively obscure tertiary sources. No secondary sources supporting inclusion have been cited. None. Zero. Zilch. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if that assertion were true [it's not], did you decide you could ban tertiary sources from the article or something? If you've got some substantial issue, you're more than welcome to visit the RSN. Unless and until you do so, we'll go with the presumption that even the tertiary sources provided are perfectly acceptable, and I'll ask you to either follow-up on your concerns or to discontinue disparaging the sourcing. BigK HeX (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you love to throw N:POV around, BigK HeX let me show you some things from it you might find interesting, but you will probably ignore (it might stop you from using it as a defense for your views):

• Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that 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. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth theory.

• In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief.

• Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

• Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

• The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims.

Seems conclusive to me. Toa Nidhiki05 20:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, we have this bit from the N:POV page:

• When writing any of a long series of articles on some general subject, there can be cases where we must make some potentially controversial assumptions. For example, in writing about evolution, it's not helpful to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every page. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc.

Toa Nidhiki05 20:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! It is conclusive. Which is precisely why the overwhelming majority of the RfC comments indicated that it IS NPOV to include the viewpoints under contention and why other proposals based on arguments similar to your WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claims have been repeatedly rejected. But, by all means, continue the WP:IDHT. BigK HeX (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of responding to any of these important rules, you simply ignore them, and try to sell your company line? Classic straw man fallacy. Toa Nidhiki05 20:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My simple response for the two-zillionth time ... See The Closed RfC in which you participated. We thoroughly reviewed the "Inclusion is NPOV" vs "PrimaryTopic" issue. BigK HeX (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That short-lived RfC was presented in a biased manner, closed way too prematurely, and didn't cover any of these issues. For example, the whole point here about secondary vs. tertiary sources wasn't even raised there. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

To say that people didn't consider the sourcing is presumptuous. Moreover, much of the sourcing very clearly was linked in the RfC and discussed, so to suggest that sourcing issues weren't considered and discussed as being reliable doesn't seem to be a credible claim. As for the tertiary sources, again ... you're welcome to raise those issues at the RSN, otherwise, I must assume your objections to them are not serious, and not worthy of continued repetition here. BigK HeX (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, exactly what issue(s) do you think the RfC did cover? For reference, here's a sampling of the arguments considered:

Notable people have self-identified as left-libertarian, and have been identified as such by reliable sources.

All concepts that have been described as 'libertarian' by reliable sources should be represented on this page.

According to WP:NPV, all significant (as shown by reliable sources) viewpoints should also be represented on the page, more common viewpoints should be given more weight, but significant-minority viewpoints should also be included.

Other pages on contentious multifaceted ideas include discussion of all concepts encompassed by the term. e.g. Liberalism, Christianity, Conservatism. This page should be no different.

BigK HeX (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think the RfC covered the general issue of whether minority viewpoints about a given topic expressed in reliable sources should be covered in an article about that topic (of course, yes, but that's not the issue here, which is the bias conveyed in that RfC I referred to above).

Search for the word "tertiary" in that RfC; you won't find it. Using tertiary sources is fine when "many" primary and secondary sources are available ("Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." [49]. The availability of "many primary and secondary sources." is questioned in this case, especially since the tertiary sources being used are not mainstream encyclopedias (mainstream encyclopedias are reliable tertiary sources mainly because they have good reputations for basing their content on reliable secondary and primary sources). We should not rely on tertiary sources in situations that do not involve "many primary and secondary sources." I contend that is the case here, as this section is getting longer and longer and still nobody is providing even one secondary (or primary for that matter) source showing relatively recent (last 25 years) English usage of the term libertarianism to refer to libertarian socialism. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. " [50] --Born2cycle (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's clear that you're making up your own tertiary source policy, but as I've advised, if you have a serious objection to any of the tertiary sources, feel free to raise them at the RSN. If they're not serious enough to discuss there, I'm not inclined to give the objections much credence here. Whether the word tertiary was mentioned or not in the RfC is pretty irrelevant to whether people did take into consideration the sources and our policies. For you to reject people's conclusion on the reliability of sources, by suggesting their conclusions would be different if required to explicitly address the tertiary nature of some of the sources seems presumptuous and rather dubious.

Anyways, this thread is filled with rather blatant WP:OR, and I don't find the proposals to reject any of the sources based solely on the fact that a source is tertiary to have merit, and any PRIMARYTOPIC claims have been addressed pretty decisively, so I'll exit this particular discussion for now. BigK HeX (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Making up my own tertiary source policy? Please read WP:PRIMARY. I can't speak for others, but my argument in this section is based on direct quotes from that, and I contend is devoid of OR.

I'm not rejecting any sources solely because they are tertiary - I'm rejecting them because I question them as being reliable tertiary sources per the criteria at WP:PRIMARY (see, here comes one of those direct quotes again): "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." That is, I question the existence of the "many primary and secondary sources" that the tertiary sources being used here are supposed to summarize to be helpful to us. And I repeat, this section is getting longer and longer and still nobody is providing even one secondary (or primary for that matter) source showing relatively recent (last 25 years) English usage of the term libertarianism to refer to libertarian socialism.

In simple terms, the problem is this: While there are tertiary sources in which people are writing about libertarianism and defining it so broadly that they also write about libertarian socialism and left-libertarianism, there is no evidence of the existence of relatively recent English secondary sources that use the term libertarianism so broadly, and secondary sources (again, per WP:PRIMARY, not my opinion) is what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be primarily based on. The usage of libertarianism to mean libertarian socialism is simply not supported in the reliably published secondary sources we're supposed to be based on (newspapers, magazine articles, references in sources that are not tertiary, etc.). So by including libertarian socialism in our libertarianism article, we are presenting libertarianism with a meaning that is skewed as compared to what libertarianism means today in the English speaking world. That's a disservice to our readers. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Even disregarding your continuous erroneous claim that secondary sources haven't been presented [see again the RS list presented many, many times], I guess I should clear up your fallacy before I exit. Taking "tertiary sources are helpful to explain many secondary sources" to mean "tertiary sources should be banned without many secondary sources presented" is clearly fallacious (of the form "if many secondary sources presented, then tertiary good" => "not many secondary sources presented, therefore not tertiary good"). You are creating your own policy on tertiary sources. Moreover, you've even taken to creating artificial restrictions on what merits inclusion ... and your artificial restrictions even encourage a WP:Systemic bias by demanding that we use as our baseline "what libertarianism means today in the English speaking world". BigK HeX (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You're either misunderstanding or understanding but misrepresenting what I'm saying; I presume the former.

As you know, not every statement in Wikipedia article content needs to be sourced; but any questioned statement does need to be sourced (preferably sooner rather than later - whether a questioned statement should be deleted or temporarily tagged depends on the situation). Similarly, not every statement based on a tertiary summary needs to be shown to be based on "many primary and secondary sources" [51], but any questioned statement or questioned tertiary source needs to be shown to be so. Remember, we're talking about tertiary sources in which the reliability of the tertiary source is being questioned - just because it's published does not mean it's a reliable summary based on "many primary and secondary sources". This should never be a problem since reliable tertiary sources should themselves be properly sourced to verifiable primary and secondary sources.

As to "the RS list presented many, many times", apparently nothing on that list meets the criteria in question here, because not one such source has been presented yet. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it below, compare and contrast, for sake of argument Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL(or whatever you choose to compare)
CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream libertarianism - Checkpoint 2

So, someone is yet to provide a single English secondary source for the use of libertarian/libertarianism to include left-libertarianism and/or libertarian socialism (Long is a primary source for that), much less to show that such usage is normal. My contention that the usage of libertarian/libertarianism in English to primarily mean the political philosophy of individual liberty based on property rights (i.e., "Right-libertarianism") is not exclusive to the U.S., stands. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Editors: let's ignore all WP:OR/Soapbox and only discuss actual edits

I'd like to suggest that those of us who actually DO edit the article with new WP:RS ignore all the WP:OR WP:Soapbox on this page from now on. We only should discuss specific edits or reverts or very specific proposals (text and WP:RS) for such. (Except obviously any more RfCs, requests for moves, mediator questions should s/he return, etc.) This is a workable version of a suggestion at the most recent WP:ANI that we totally ignore the talk page. If soapboxers turn to edit war to disrupt actual improvements to the article, then that will be a cause for renewed calls for sanction, even more concrete than WP:Refusal to get the point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed it because of some of the intermittent noise, but the main point of the previous section is to discuss whether editing out material in the article that states or implies that usage of libertarian and libertarianism in reliably published secondary English sources today refers to libertarian socialism is warranted, because, apparently, there is no such usage. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess this approach is worth a shot for a little while --- ignore the talk page junk, and make sure there aren't any article edits based on talk page junk. BigK HeX (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, we have suggested "specific edits or reverts or very specific proposals (text and WP:RS)" over and over again. But, when we do, our constructive suggestions or questions or comments are inevitably deflected into yet another barrage of WIki-lawyering over every misplaced word. Indeed, we've learned to recognise when we've said something especially constructive because those are the comments that are ignored completely. Instead of receiving constructive feedback, unhelpful editors spend their time jumping at any opportunity (real or imagined) to hound us with revisionist WP:EverythingUnderTheSun Wiki-lawyering, as the previous thread clearly illustrates.

Carolmooredc, doesn't it strike you as odd that so many constructive threads spiral into absurd litanies of WP:THIS versus WP:THAT as a direct result of the behaviour of one or two recidivist editors? It certainly hasn't escaped my notice. BlueRobe (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Add something for a change instead of always trying to delete stuff according to your repeatedly rejected deletionist POV. I think that is something editors can safely ignore. Part of the package. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

lol .. you got soapbox'ed in your "let's ignore soapboxing" thread. BigK HeX (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, let's first focus on seeing whether the "left-libertarianism as libertarianism" content currently in the article is really as well sourced as it is claimed to be. See the section below this one.

Let's start collapsing all sections that are just soapbox??

That would be an ancillary motion to one above. Please stick to this topic or see off topic section resectioned or just collapsed. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream libertarianism (continued)

Carolmooredc, I'll repeat my initial offer of at a compromise solution(yet again):

Mainstream Libertarianism (aka. right-Libertarianism) is the predominant ideology in the Libertarianism article and the lede. The ideologies of left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism each have their own section, including a few sentences to note the features that distinguish those ideologies from mainstream Libertarianism, within the Libertarianism article.

Neither side will be especially happy with such a solution, but that is why we call it a "compromise". You have previously ignored/rejected this suggestion. What say you, now? BlueRobe (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OR... we could make mention of the various strains of Libertarianism, in places including the lede and throughout various sections of the article. Making sure that right-libertarianism gets fair weighting, while not censoring other views. This seems more appropriate. What say you? BigK HeX (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I respectfully suggest that your solution is akin to putting elements of the kitchen, and the bathroom, and the lounge into every room of a home. How is anyone supposed to understand the Libertarianism article if competing - and frequently, antagonistic - ideologies are being lumped together in the same sections and paragraphs?

For instance, what is the casual reader to make of a section on Libertarian property rights if left-Libertarianism (communal property rights and egalitarian distributive justice) and mainstream Libertarianism (private property rights and Laissez-faire economics) are lumped together? BlueRobe (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'll go with the obvious here, and say that a reader will make out that reliable sources describe there being differing views on property rights among libertarians... BigK HeX (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A core idea of the "roadmap" I proposed was to start finding and putting in sourced material about groups actually practicing, promoting or following Libertarianism. This would start building information to sort out the bigger issues later. Still worth considering, even as a sidebar to the main debate? North8000 (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I can already see the casual reader rolling her eyes as she reads, "Libertarians have differing views on... property rights, on the role of the State, on whether there is even a State at all, on egalitarian distributive justice versus Laissez-faire economics, on the voluntariness (or not) of State institutions, on the jurisdiction of the State, on the legitimacy of State coercion, on whether the functions of State institutions may be contracted out to the private sector, on the role of Positive Liberty vis-a-vis Negative Liberty..." I can already hear her saying "thanx for nothing."

Of course, such confusion could be resolved, to some extent, if you would address the issue that was repeatedly put to you yesterday:

"What are the commonalities that left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism share with mainstream Libertarianism to justify the claim that they're "variations intimately related to" mainstream Libertarianism?" BlueRobe (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Far more "confusion" would be resolved if we had an answer to the question posed to you. Do you agree that reliable sources, such as those listed earlier, describe left-libertarianism and your so-called "mainstream Libertarianism" as related variants of a single concept? Yes or No. (I'll be interested to see if there's yet another non-answer...) BigK HeX (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, you don't seem to understand how this works. I asked you a question. Now, you answer my (reasonable and extremely relevant) question. Then, you can ask me a question. I'm not playing "answer my question with a (rhetorical) question". BlueRobe (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, you should read about the subject. In fact the whole point of Wikipedia is that people like yourself, who are ignorant of topics, may read articles and elucidate themselves. Other editors are not here in order to provide private tutorials. TFD (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, as per WP:PlayNice, please refrain from using argumentum ad hominem and making nasty comments about other editors. BlueRobe (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The commonalities have been explained to you and of course you have the ability to read the literature. You may disagree with what is written but to pretend that you do not understand it is disingenuous. You have shown a level of intelligence that cannot explain your failure to understand obvious connections explained in numerous sources. So my question is why you continue to place objections you are well aware are insulting to everyone's intelligence, including your own. TFD (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's you who seems to miss the point. If you really want to somewhat misuse this talk page as a forum for your personal information-gathering expedition, then you can assure me that you've decided to discuss this matter in good faith, or I will not expend effort on a futile discussion. I generally don't mind having a reasoned (perhaps somewhat forum-ish) discussion with someone who has an open mind, when there's a good chance that it could work towards a solution, but obviously -- not being in the vocal minority here -- I'm OK with either outcome of us discussing or not. So, if your next response to me is not a direct yes/no answer to the question I've asked you about reliable sources and left-lib, then you can assume that I'm not participating in your fact-finding mission. BigK HeX (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, so, you are not going to answer my (reasonable and extremely relevant) question, then? I don't know why. Reaching some sort of understanding regarding the commonalities left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism share with mainstream Libertarianism would go a long way towards achieving consensus among the editorial community. And, as it is you who made the claim that they're "variations intimately related to" mainstream Libertarianism, I think it is only fair - and logical - that you have first crack at describing these commonalities. BlueRobe (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, you have the intelligence to understand what I am saying and know that I am merely repeating what is found in reliable sources. You are also well aware of WP policy that explains how and why reliable sources are used. However I have found a lot of people who have taken a similar approach to yours and am interested to understand this. But you should consider why you are presenting all these arguments which you are aware are unacceptable based on the criteria used by Wikipedia for inclusion of text and is ultimately wasting the time of numerous people who otherwise would be contributing to the encyclopedia and improving the advancement of knowledge. TFD (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, the claim that left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism are "variations intimately related to" mainstream Libertarianism is one of the cornerstone's of the "broad" approach to the Libertarianism page. The question regarding which commonalities those minor ideologies share with mainstream Libertarianism is critical for achieving consensus among the editorial community of this page.

If no significant commonalities exist, then, logically, we have a strong impetus for a "narrow" approach to the Libertarianism page. If significant commonalities do exist, then they may well provide the building blocks for a consensus-by-compromise among the editors.

Given the obvious importance of this issue, I am at a loss to explain why BigK HeX (and yourself) have failed to provide any commonalities whatsoever (let alone any that are backed up by WP:RS). BlueRobe (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your view of what "mainstream libertarianism" is SOAPBOXing. Your SOAPBOXing on this issue is disrupting the page. This discussion is not related to "actual edits". Please stop. I have taken this opportunity to warn you. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Commonalities about left and right lib have been presented. Even without that, you're more than welcome to research the commonalities for yourself in the reliable sources presented many, many times. It is NOT our job to do your research for you. Next time you want someone to humor you, then you might want to show that you're interested in doing the same. BigK HeX (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The commonalities have been explained to you and of course you have the ability to read the literature. You may disagree with what is written but to pretend that you do not understand it is disingenuous. You have shown a level of intelligence that cannot explain your failure to understand obvious connections explained in numerous sources. So my question is why you continue to place objections you are well aware are insulting to everyone's intelligence, including your own. TFD (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, clearly, these posts are aimed at achieving some sort of consensus among the editors to the Libertarianism page. In the current thread, I am merely asking BigK HeX (etc.) to provide some critically relevant information - the commonalities that left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism share with mainstream Libertarianism, (backed up with WP:WS). Without this information - the identification of these significant commonalities backed up with WP:WS - the ideologies of left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism have no significant relationship to mainstream Libertarianism and should be deleted from the Libertarianism article.

In short, I am simply consulting with the editorial community, and giving editors an opportunity to illustrate the alleged "intimate" relationship between left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Capitalism and mainstream Libertarianism, before I delete the inappropriate references to those ideologies from the Libertarianism article. It doesn't get more relevant than that. BlueRobe (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"before I delete the inappropriate references to those ideologies from the Libertarianism article"

Removing reliably sourced material about a viewpoint already supported for inclusion by an RfC would likely be considered to be disruptive. It's not recommended behavior. BigK HeX (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, please list the commonalities that left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism share with mainstream Libertarianism, with WP:RS.

To date, we have seen little to justify their inclusion within the Libertarianism article aside from a handful of references to second-rate academics who briefly mentioned "left-Libertarianism" and "Libertarianism" in the same breath. BlueRobe (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, you have the intellectual capacity to understand what we are talking about, you have read the literature and it is insulting to us to pretend that you are ignorant of the literature and WP policy. Although you may believe that you are striking a blow for your version of libertarianism all you are doing is persuading us that your groupuscule is misleading and sacrifices honesty. TFD (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, please respect WP:GOODFAITH. BlueRobe (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Goodfaith needs to be reciprocated BlueRobe. That means avoiding OR, respecting references and other material which have been provided and not arguing a case from the perspective of your particular ideology. I also suggest you don't attempt to delete reliably sourced material, especially after an RfC. I think most editors would consider that disruptive behaviour. --Snowded ^TALK 07:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, please respect WP:GOODFAITH. BlueRobe (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am BlueRobe, I am ...--Snowded ^TALK 07:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, you have implied that I am not acting in good faith, "Goodfaith needs to be reciprocated BlueRobe." You have accused me of "arguing a case from the perspective of your particular ideology", (I am not a Libertarian, I simply object to a Wikipaedia Libertarianism article that misrepresents Libertarianism). You have pre-emptively accused me of inappropriately planning to "delete reliably sourced material", despite the fact that I have not, at any point, indicated that I would ignore due editorial process (including the consultation with my fellow editors in this thread) before making such changes. Note: I have not made a single edit of the Libertarianism article in the many weeks that I have been a regular in the Libertarianism talk page, let alone an inappropriate edit, so it's highly inappropriate to accuse me of planning to disrupt the Libertarianism article.

Evidently, you are not respecting WP:GOODFAITH. Note: I would have put these points to you in your User talk page, but you deleted my attempt to address these concerns with you in that setting. BlueRobe (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Compare and contrast, for sake of argument

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (or whatever you choose to compare) Otherwise, if there are not any WP:RS in this section, let's collapse it as irrelevant soapbox. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Source questioned: "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class"

Resolved

 – Clearly peer-reviewed and reliably published BigK HeX (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The are a total of (5) google results for what is currently the 2nd source for this article (Roderick T. Long, "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class," Social Philosophy and Policy 15:2 1998, 303-349: 304.).

1. this article
2. a mention in a podcast
3. a mention in an email archive
4. a reference to "the paper" in forum for "Libertarian Democrats"
5. a blog of a "Freedom Democrat"

It's not on Amazon. It's not at books.google.com (There are no results searching for the title at books.google.com, which means no book there has ever referenced this paper supposedly "published" in 1998). How is this a reliable source? Is it reliably published? Where? By whom? I'm questioning this source and all information in the article based on it. I suggest others double-check other sources; many more are probably questionable like this one. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that confirms that the Roderick T. Long text does not constitute a WP:RS. BlueRobe (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(One would think that with as many academic degrees as are listed on your page, you'd have corrected the error, instead of sharing in it.) But anyways ... someone's odd lapse in reading bibliographies is hardly confirmation of anything. Though feel free to rush headlong onto the bandwagon anyways. BigK HeX (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ummm.... why are you posting the name of the publishing journal and simultaneously questioning how the paper was published????? In any case... see: [52] or [53] BigK HeX (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This constitutes disruptive editing. Please stop. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, who are you referring to? What are you referring to? It almost sounds like you've branded Born2cycle's post as disruptive because he demonstrated that a source, that was previously labelled a WP:RS, is not a WP:RS. But, that can't be right... BlueRobe (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean the source published in THIS PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL BY CUP? Do you either of you know how to read a footnote? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not appear that either of the editors had properly comprehended the academic Cambridge Journal footnote. BigK HeX (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

An article published in a peer-reviewed academic journal is a reliable source. One may challenge it by producing peer-reviewed articles that rebut it. But a website run by hoons is not a reliable source and providing dozens of such websites does not increase their reliablity. Some editors seem to have difficulty in distinguishing between an article published in an academic journal and statements written by a member of a fringe party on a website. Please read WP:RS which explains this. Also please detach yourselves from the subject. The article should explain how the subject is normally understood not how a fringe element in America describes themselves. While I find fringe groups fascinating and am interested in American extremist groups, this is not the article in which to describe them. TFD (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Citations

How many citations does "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class" have? For example, "Libertarianism: a primer" by David Boaz has 99 citations. --Xerographica (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question, but not particularly relevant: Citation counts and impact factors are notoriously inaccurate and not representative of scholarly impact in the social sciences and humanities. Fifelfoo (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In other words, not a single scholar or academic thought Long's article was worth citing. Yet, we use his definition in the lead over David Boaz's definition...even though David Boaz is the vice president of the Cato Institute...the 5th most influential think tank in the world. --Xerographica (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

✗ Not done This isn't really leading anywhere reasonable. The source is reliable, although it is important to bear in mind the lack of citation when it goes up against other sources in ver specific matters. On the other hand the fact that one author is more influential than the other is not really important as the material is all peer reviewed. Can we drop this line of reasoning and focus on specific issues --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Xerographica's claim that the paper is not cited is speculative original research (and inaccurate). That's part of the reason that I collapsed it. But, I'll let you take over with this OR stuff. BigK HeX (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This is as specific as it gets. Long's definition of libertarianism is the third sentence in this article. For some reason that I can't fathom his definition has replaced other definitions from widely cited sources. --Xerographica (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That may be a reasonable point for discussion. I suggest that the right approach is to run with a new thread and present a) this source and b) your counter sources all with the relevant quotes and take such a discussion from there. There is no relevance in finding ways to undermine the source purely on its own w/o comparison --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for pointing out the link to where this paper could be purchased, though I'm not sure why there is so much hand-wringing about this. For an academic paper over 10 years old, I found the apparent dearth of citations in reliable sources referencing it to be odd, and therefore questionable. I still don't think we should rely much (if at all) on such an obviously isolated piece, especially with respect to the issue of determining what libertarianism means in English usage today. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be a lead definition. One of several, showing variety of views, sure. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources for libertarian socialism

libertarian socialism has been added back to the lede despite being considered a minority element by several editors. secondary sources have been requested, but not presented, until that time i suggest it be removed from the lede and discussed futher. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Crikey. If I made unilateral changes to the lede, without notification or consultation with the editorial community, I would be blocked by lunch.

Darkstar1st, I agree. It should be removed until such time as the editorial community can discuss the appropriateness (or not) of its inclusion in the lede. BlueRobe (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The citation given in the article Sapon, Vladimir; Robino, Sam (2010). "Right and Left Wings in Libertarianism". Canadian Social Science 5 (6). http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/css/article/view/1245/0. is peer reviewed. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that a work originally written in French and then translated to English? Given the turns of phrase, that's how it appears to me, and would explain the unusual (for English) usage of the term libertarianism in it, since that usage is common in French. If so, then this is not a good source for determining English usage of the term libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the RS. Consider this a reply to the comments made about Long's relevance to contemporary usage as well. It may have very well been translated from Canadian French. The article explicitly deals with libertarianism as the existing social-political phenomena, as such, the subject of the article is unlikely to have been mistranslated as Canadian academics supervising a translation of their work from Canadian French to Canadian English. 10 years is a relatively short period of time in the social sciences, articles of a political-theoretical aspect tend to remain relatively useful for fifty or more years (Hayek or Keynes for example). Momentary usage does not establish the encyclopaedic description of a two hundred year object of academic inquiry. If you're particularly interested in contemporary and popular usages there's always wiktionary which needs editors and compilers.

A far superior line of inquiry would be finding equivalent HQRS which compare Libertarianisms which are pro-market and Libertarianisms which are anti-capitalist and claim that they are fundamentally different and not connected; that would be able to lead to a contested WEIGHT argument, which would have to be reflected in the article "One literature centred around [x] analysis believes…A; whereas the smaller literature that holds [y] considers…B." This would still leave the Long–Sapon & Robinio analysis in the article, regardless of which literatures exist, as FRINGE doesn't really apply where the literature already exists in the Scholarly press in this way. Thanks again. Fifelfoo (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Off Topic Discussion

I have warned Darkstar1st in relation to SOAPBOXing and IDHT here. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, we've noted your warnings about our alleged advertising and promotional comments, with mirth. Frankly, I have no idea where you get the absurd idea that we're advertising in these threads... McDonald's Coca cola Kentucky Fried Chicken. BlueRobe (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you probably know, but for the sake of WP:AGF I will point it out. You are using the page to promote a particular perspective on Libertarianism. You also seem to be using your talk pages as an alternative to facebook dating, but that is probably the least of the problems. --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, was that your cunning way of branding me a homosexual? I respectfully request that you adhere to WP:CIVILITY. BlueRobe (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec):I have no idea as to your sex or that of your protagonist, neither would I regard "branding" as an appropriate phrase to use in respect of someones sexuality; sounds a bit redneck to me --Snowded ^TALK 09:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, let me see if I have this straight. First, you throw in a barely concealed remark suggesting that I am a homosexual, and now, you're implying that I am homophobic simply because I noticed your highly inappropriate remark and called you out on it? Snowded, I respectfully request that you adhere to WP:CIVILITY. BlueRobe (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that it is unfair to expect editors of a similar view-point in relation to editing, no matter what that view-point is, to not discuss their ideas with each other via User talk pages. Editors ought to collaborate on-wiki, not on EEMLs. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of ideas relating to content between editors on-wiki is to be encouraged; using talk pages as a sort of glorified mutual cheer leading on the other hand is different. --Snowded ^TALK 09:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I agree. Indeed, off-Wiki communications reek of meat-puppetry of the worst kind. I see no problem with individuals sharing their philosophical views and information on their own User talk pages. Indeed, if we're going to start punishing user's for exchanging friendly comments in User talk pages then just about every Wikipaedia editor will be blocked by the end of the week (and Wikipaedia's server's will explode with all the RFc traffic).

Snowded, got it. No cheerleaders in User talk pages. Do you have a reliable source for that rule? BlueRobe (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'm not surprised that Snowded wants to hide his behaviour in that thread. BlueRobe (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing problematic in Snowded's behavior. He warned you about soapboxing, from which you managed to concoct some sexuality charges .... but somehow that part didn't actually surprise me. Snowded's behavior here was civil and the warning justified. BigK HeX (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm serious. Any more and I will hand out warnings. There is no need to continue this in any way, quite rising to each other! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

This is just a cautious suggestion that the Libertarianism article could use a separate section on Ayn Rand, (click the link for a mass of WP:RS). I will assume that you all know who Ayn Rand is, and why it may be appropriate to include a section on her and her philosophy. If you don't know who she is, please move along...

Interestingly, Ayn Rand herself passionately objected to being labelled a "Libertarian": "Ayn Rand condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservativism." Here's a relevant C&P from the Ayn Rand Wikipaedia article:

She rejected the libertarian movement, although Jim Powell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, considers Rand one of the three most important women (along with Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson) of modern American libertarianism.

Here is another C&P from the Ayn Rand Wikipaedia article:

Although she rejected the labels "conservative" and "libertarian", Rand has had continuing influence on right-wing politics, especially libertarianism. In his history of the libertarian movement, journalist Brian Doherty described her as "the most influential libertarian of the twentieth century to the public at large", and biographer Jennifer Burns referred to her as "the ultimate gateway drug to life on the right."

Here is a C&P from the Atlas Shrugged Wikipaedia article (Atlas Shrugged is the foremost novel written by Ayn Rand):

Rand's impact on contemporary libertarian thought has been considerable, and it is noteworthy that the title of the leading libertarian magazine, Reason: Free Minds, Free Markets is taken directly from John Galt, the hero of Atlas Shrugged, who argues that "a free mind and a free market are corollaries."

Can I please have some indication from the editorial community regarding whether a separate section on Ayn Rand within the Libertarianism article would be acceptable? BlueRobe (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)BlueRobe (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• At §Philosophical origins and history, we have the sentence, "Ayn Rand's international bestsellers The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957) and her books about her philosophy of Objectivism influenced modern libertarianism.[46]" sourced against "Brian Doherty, Ayn Rand at 100: "Yours Is the Glory", Cato Institute Policy Report Vol. XXVII No. 2 (March/April 2005)." Cato Institute Policy Reports are, according to Ulrich's periodicals list (the premier data service for these matters), not peer reviewed: time to ref-improve! Rapid book searching didn't indicate any sources of worth (Kelly The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand 2000 is published by Transaction, a publisher I have had the misfortune to deal with, they are no longer an academic publisher, not a good sign for Kelly's usefulness). Journal of Libertarian Studies published by Mises has some leads, and Ulrich's lists JLS as peer reviewed. Depending on the depth of material, and the tendency she most closely influenced (anarcho-capitalism seems to have reacted against her) she may well fit with two sentences in terse summary under a tendency heading. The third paragraph of §Libertarian Socialism in the current article might offer a way forward, where a sentence gives one line wikilinks to major sub-tendencies of that kind. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that she should be included. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Fifelfoo, a reference is appropriate (with a pipelink) but not a whole section. There is a vast amount of Rand material on the Wikipedia and a link to either Ayn Rand or Objectivism (Ayn Rand) will take people to it. --Snowded ^TALK 11:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand should be added, but now is not the right time. It'll cause a shitstorm with the more zombie-ish Objectivists, and we've got a large enough shitstorm going already. It has always been my intention that Rand get coverage though .... but we should hold off. BigK HeX (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I moved your post above the references sub-section. BlueRobe (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think that waiting is required. I just think that a dense set of highest quality reliable sources is required. HQRS trumps. Go for academic presses (UPs, major Academic Presses), Peer Reviewed Journal Articles. If in doubt, put the cites here or on WP:RS/N for opinions. Keep weighting in mind. Rand is one theorist, I don't think we strongly feature any theorist here at depth. Attach her to the tendency she most strongly influenced and use wikilinks to point to main articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"HQRS trumps" ... only in theory. I would really rather not add the headache of any ardent Rand POV-pushers' soapboxing to our current troubles on this page. I have weak support for the addition of Rand material, but I strongly advise that we resolve the current issues already being beaten to death on this talk page first. BigK HeX (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, it's not as if this isn't already one of the first Wikipaedia stops for the Objectivists (after Ayn Rand and Objectivism). But, the typical Objectivist probably scratches her head in confusion and leaves after reading a few sentences of the current Libertarianism article. BlueRobe (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think only people disinterested in learning beyond their own rigid POV do that.... BigK HeX (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean English language POV? At any rate, the sources support the association of Ayn Rand's philosophy to libertarianism much better than they support the association of anti-property-rights political philosophies like libertarian socialism to libertarianism. Include it; the sooner the better. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of the cites below. OUP, NAL, Continuum are fine. Public Affairs is a commercial non-fiction, not an academic press (Doherty's title also indicates problems "Freewheeling"), seek reviews in academic journals of Doherty to demonstrate HQ status. Burns 2009 is probably the best bet for good content. The NAL one would need to be used only for Gladstein's critical annotations and/or editorial introduction. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with another sentence or two on Rand influencing the movement with appropriate references. However, there should be awareness that the influence only is her libertarian views, not the anti-Muslim pro-military intervention line followed by some organized "objectivist" followers. A section would be WP:Undue unless you also had sections on Rothbard, Nozick, Bookchin and other influential individuals. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

With Rothbard or Nozick not having their own sections, I'd have to agree with CarolMooreDC here on relative weighting. BigK HeX (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the obvious solution to that problem be to actually include sections on Nozick and Rothbard rather than censoring the section on Rand? BlueRobe (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

References

• Burns, Jennifer (2009). Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-532487-7. OCLC 313665028. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Doherty, Brian (2007). Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement. New York: Public Affairs. ISBN 1-58648-350-1. OCLC 76141517. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Gladstein, Mimi Reisel (2009). Ayn Rand. Major Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers series. New York: Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-4513-1. OCLC 319595162. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Rand, Ayn (2005). Mayhew, Robert (ed.). Ayn Rand Answers, the Best of Her Q&A. New York: New American Library. ISBN 0-451-21665-2. OCLC 59148253. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Double Standard

All the "Forms" of libertarianism have whole sections in this article as well as their own main pages so the following comment really gave an indication that some editors could care less about the undue policy regarding coverage "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint"

Agree with Fifelfoo, a reference is appropriate (with a pipelink) but not a whole section. There is a vast amount of Rand material on the Wikipedia and a link to either Ayn Rand or Objectivism (Ayn Rand) will take people to it. --Snowded TALK 11:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

When people think of libertarianism they think of Ayn Rand...but she doesn't warrant her own section? If I provide reliable sources stating that she's the most well known libertarian or had the greatest influence on libertarianism...in terms of proportion to prominence...how much coverage would she warrant in this article? --Xerographica (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A ton; Rand is perhaps the most influential person on modern Libertarianism. She certainly deserves more than Noam Chomsky. Toa Nidhiki05 16:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica, rational reasoning - please provide such sources to continue the conversation --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Libertarians cite as progenitors Jefferson, Tocqueville, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill as well as economists of the Austrian school Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom (1944). But most Republican libertarians were first inspired not by these classical liberals but by the author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged." New York Magazine Mar 4, 1996

"From the outside, at least, many saw Rand and libertarianism as interchangeable and used Rand as shorthand for all libertarians." Jennifer Burns, From Goddess of the market: Ayn Rand and the American Right

There's the sources, now please answer the question. Based on her prominence...how much coverage should she warrant in this article? --Xerographica (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Errant, for goodness sake, just scroll up a page to my thread (which started the discussion of Ayn Rand!) for a list of a few WP:RS regarding Rand's influence and recognition regarding Libertarianism. It's one thing to ask for WP:RS, it's another thing entirely to be wilfully blind to the WP:RS that are staring you in the face. BlueRobe (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one while I'm at it..."Libertarianism has always remained the least influential of the three variants, yet the influence of Ayn Rand, its biggest star, on American public opinion should not be underestimated." Classical liberalism and international relations theory: Hume, Smith, Mises ... By Edwin van de Haar --Xerographica (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I may have misread what Xerographica was saying, I took it to be a separate point where he was promising sources and didn't deliver, :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to insert Left Libertarianism into the lead via edit warring.

Doing it via edit warring instead of discussion is going to make a mess out of the situation here. Also, the comment (which essentially said that every sect mentioned in the article can / should be in the lead) is in conflict with the RFC closing and also with wp:npov / wp:undue. Please revert. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Left-lib has been in the lede. Attempts to strip left-lib via edit-warring is making the mess. Obviously, the repeated attempts at censoring left-lib in some fashion have been rebuffed ... REPEATEDLY in many of the proposals made. I don't find it needs to be removed from the lede, though I'm not really happy with how the lede has been gutted over the past few months .... though, you should direct questions about that to User:Darkstar1st. I think the far better alternative is expanding the lede, rather than censorship. BigK HeX (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Leaving it out of the lead is not "censoring".

I ran out of time to search back (or participate further today), but are you saying that it has recently been in the lead (not counting the insertion yesterday)? I briefly looked and it didn't seem so. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been in the lede for months (prior to the RfC, IIRC). Darkstar1st's disruptive attempt to remove it yesterday is certainly not reflective of the general past versions of the article. BigK HeX (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A lede ought to summarise the article. We spend about half the article talking about major libertarian perspectives. We ought to mention these in the lede. Additionally, the citation supporting the diversity of varieties (Sapon, Vladimir; Robino, Sam (2010)) mentions libertarian socialism in its abstract and throughout. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

So you basically believe that we should screw logic (ie. Not putting conflicting statements in the lede), and include every Libertarian ideology under the sun there? Sounds like a really confusing way to organize an article to me, since the reader will be basically reading:

• Libertarianism is for AND against the state
• Libertarianism is Capitalist AND Socialist

Would this not be confusing to the reader? I hold that this is also a violation of WP:Primary topic, but your constant Wikilawyering gets us nowhere. Toa Nidhiki05 16:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

External reality in the form of the Reliable Sources indicate that Libertarianism is a series of political ideologies. They are treated as a domain (Sapon & Robino 2010, Long 1998). I refer you to the repeatedly cited reliable sources. And guess what the RS say? That Libertarianism is for AND against the state; That Libertarianism is Capitalist AND Socialist (Long 1998 304). I eagerly await your logic in peer reviewed articles and scholarly monographs. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Then Libertarianism would either be a Doublespeak ideology that stands for nothing, or an umbrella term. An ideology cannot be both Left AND Right wing, nor can it be both for AND against the state. And FYI, scholars and academia are, contrary to popular opinion, NOT the rulers of the universe. Toa Nidhiki05 17:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

off topic meta discussion

Please do not post any further WP:OR on this article page. Whatever you may personally think, you are arguing against RELIABLE SOURCES. If you feel the need to berate the contents of RELIABLE SOURCES, then a blog or something would be more appropriate. Per WP:NOT#FORUM, per WP:TPG, and per WP:NOR please desist. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No. I do not bow to you or your wishes, and I can post OR on this talk page if I want to. OR does not apply to talk pages, it applies to mainspace. Cease and desist your needless harassing and Wikilawyering of anyone who opposes you views. Thank you. Toa Nidhiki05 17:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your response is acknowledged. BigK HeX (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

As noted all over the place - can we stick to using sources to back up statements. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Original research

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This talk page consists of too much text where individuals express their own views, without reference to sources or even explanation of how they relate to changes to the article. Obviously we should not add anything to the article that is unsourced and should not remove sourced text unless it conflicts with better sources. This is so distracting that anyone who has been away from the talk page for more than a few hours has difficulty following the conversation and new editors are discouraged. I suggest that we ask an administrator to come to the talk page and enforce the use of the talk page to discuss improvements to the article using only policy and reliable sources. Regarding primary sources, they have limited relevance and may have none here and should never be used to support original interpretations of subject matter. Their most obvious use is to obtain information about organizations rather than ideologies, and in some cases to illustrate information pointed out in secondary sources. TFD (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I heartily agree, but short of ArbCom, I know of no mechanism for doing this. I believe admins have started watching this page, yet the WP:OR continues unabated. Hell ... we even have editors now who assert some RIGHT to post WP:OR here! I wish we could have general talk page guidelines enforced. The unconstructive contributions that have plagued this page for weeks/months would cease overnight.... BigK HeX (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Editors can be blocked for soapboxing or misuse of talk pages. TFD (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

They can be .... but, obviously, it's been going on for months, and little has happened. If anything, comments above indicate the WP:OR is getting bolder. BigK HeX (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This may be a good point to note... I am keeping an eye on the page and plan to fairly heavy-handidly "hide" anything that strays off topic or turns into comments about editors or other discussion of no relevance. If I see too much of this I will hand out warnings. And if it gets any worse I will go to AN/I for sanctions. Consider this fair warning to stick on topic, use reliable sources to back up any statements/position you may have and avoid, like the plague, commenting on other editors. This applies to all contributors to the page. I have no vested interest in the topic and will not be commenting on the discussion. Keep it calm and civil and we should be fine. Most of all don't rise to each other! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I, too, have intentions to collapse future WP:OR and unsourced soapboxing. BigK HeX (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)}}

(edit conflict)As long as this article continues to present libertarianism in a manner that is inconsistent with usage in the English speaking world (not just the U.S., see #Mainstream libertarianism) today, as reflected in the vast majority of English secondary sources that refer to libertarianism, there will be objections manifested in a variety of ways on this talk page, as there have been not for the last few months, but for the last five years or more. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV tag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Howdy, i am an uninvolved editor who has come here from ANI. There is a POV tag on this article yet to section here for the tag? I shall try to mediate the current conflict and ask people to point out what they believe is breaking WP:NPOV, i expect you all to keep comments as brief as possible and avoid commenting on editors lets stick to content here people mark nutley (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an ongoing issue that's been long-archived. However, I don't even think the active editors here who would likely oppose the tag feel they have yet dedicated enough specific effort on the matter to make an indisputable case to argue for its removal. Just FYI: Going into this issue might spark some premature drama, where we have an ample supply already. BigK HeX (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. If there is one thing that BigK HeX and I can agree on, it is the appropriateness of that POV tag. BlueRobe (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

We have recently have had two RfCs about the neutrality of this article and the overwhelming response is that the treatment of the subject is neutral. There is no explanation based on reliable sources to explain why the article should be tagged and therefore I will remove it. If anyone believes that the tag is warranted, please explain and possibly set up a third RfC.

While I admire mark nutley's desire to mediate, his previous history in promoting fringe theories, fringe views and fringe sources, including articles about global warming and Communism may disqualify him from showing neutrality.

TFD (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note; let's avoid questioning Mark's past actions too much. I suggest seeing how it goes; certainly any help is appreciated from my perspective. Mark I recommend reading most of this page - it is a long running and complicated dispute :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well... I don't think his interests can necessarily disqualify User:Marknutley, although the litany of sanctions against him (which I believe are still active) might be a small concern, though even then ... not necessarily. I'm willing to WP:AGF about his capabilities on this matter (unless there is evidence to the contrary, whereupon, we could always seek outside input). BigK HeX (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, what definition of "overwhelming" are you using? Aside from 2 or 3 random editors who were dragged in for one-off votes before disappearing again, the RfCs demonstrated how evenly split the Libertarianism editorial community really is.

WARNING! TFD, do NOT vandalise the Libertarianism page by removing the clearly-appropriate POV tag. BlueRobe (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's ever a situation where removing a tag is properly considered "vandalism" on Wikipedia. Perhaps, you mean some other description...?

""mark nutley has consistently promoted the fringe theory that global warming is a hoax, he was prohibited against providing fringe sources for global warming articles, and he refers to Communists as "Commies". He obviously does not have the understanding of policy or the neutrality required in order to be helpful. BlueRobe, please look up the definition of vandalism here and in dictionaries. Removing a tag can in no sense be seen as vandalism, but accusing someone of vandalism is a personal attack. If you believe the tag should remain then please explain why. But so far you have provided no reason. TFD (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, point made. Past unrelated actions, though, are not entirely relevant to an attempt to help out here. Wind it down or get back to discussing the POV tag or I will close this --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I'm also a sceptic of Man-made Climate Change theory. So are many eminent scientists. I don't see how a reasonable scientific (political?) belief that differs from that of the mainstream commentary disqualifies anyone from having a neutral or intelligent approach to other unrelated issues.

There is no consensus among the editors of Libertarianism for the removal of the POV tag. Indeed, even BigK HeX has endorsed retention of the POV tag in the Libertarianism article. BlueRobe (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok the tag is back, lets not argue over it, lets discuss what can be done to fix the actual issues ya? mark nutley (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley has placed the following comment on my talk page, "Sigh, TFD i (sic) have never said GW is a hoax ok. Now i (sic) have offered to help mediate the articles (sic) current conflict, i (sic) also asked editors to comment on content, yet all you have done thus far is comment on me, please refrain from doing so and perhaps the article can move forward?" I do not see this comment as an offer of independence and the comment on global warming is disingenuous. mark nutley must explain why he considers the article to be biased. There have been two RfCs on this already and mark nutley should explain what remaining disputes may exist. TFD (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Things were going very well, now there is argument of a tag.... as a remedy how about we use {{disputed}} (there is a dispute over content) and move onto the real issues --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, for goodness sake. And I thought I was paranoid about Wikipaedia's powers-that-be. All Marknutley has done is politely ask you (in private) to be WP:CIVIL and focus on the issues at hand with a view to achieving greater harmony in the Talk:Libertarianism page. How on Earth could you object to that? BlueRobe (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, the fact that someone can guess that you are a "sceptic of Man-made Climate Change theory" is disturbing. It means that you are promoting a fringe theory and that is obvious to everyone. Neutral editors do not push fringe theories, they demand neutrality. TFD (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Going forward

It's good to see some more editors eyes-on the page. So, lets re-encourage some more contribution. Reading up there are three immediately outstanding issues:

• Xerographica raised a point above about how there may be counter-definitions for libertarianism in a wider array of sources. I have suggested that rather than approach this from the perspective of undermining the one source for lack of citation it might be better to bring all of the counter sources into it and present the relevant quoted definitions in a new section.
• We have a discussion about Ayn Rand which needs concluding - perhaps it is about the time for someone to write a proposed addition and post it here for review? (there seems rough consensus for some form of inclusion)
• Issues about what descriptions/wording/types to include in the lead. This seems to have two threads with different issues - but the main one is probably Talk:Libertarianism#Secondary_sources_for_libertarian_socialism, the source is under discussion and could do with input.

Sound ok? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll put something together about Ayn Rand. It will take a few days as I check sources and formatting, etc. BlueRobe (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok we have errant and bluerobe working on content here, anyone want to chip in and help? mark nutley (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note I am not working on content - just trying to keep discussions on track (in fact I am deliberately avoiding too much direct interaction with content) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Errant, ironically, I am so concerned about due process, regarding notification and consultation with the editorial community, before I make any changes to an article that my restoration of the POV tag was my first edit of the Libertarianism article. You'd think that would earn me some brownie points... ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I just checked in after taking 36 hours off and the first thing I see and correct is blatant POV/WP:OR using existing sources. I think the whole lead has to be rechecked for this problem. But it's definitely sloppy editing at best, and POV editing warring at worst. When you have to keep checking misuse of sources, it's hard to add new content. And this discussion of POV tag is a total waste of time since it's obvious the article is considered POV by editors on all sides of issues. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Errant, here's the new section with quite a few counter sources... scope of government --Xerographica (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: should this article have a POV tag?

.

This article has recently been through several RfCs concerning whether or not it is neutral. However several editors insist that the RfCs were badly worded, etc., and insist on having a POV tag on the article. Should the article be labeled POV and if so what are the POV issues? TFD (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the last one here was initiated September 3, doesn't appear to have been closed manually, and by default the RFC bot lists RFCs for 30 days, it should still be open. Why a new one? Gerardw (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• POV tag is Appropriate Given the endless debate regarding the in/appropriateness of the content of the Libertarianism page, (a debate that has regularly been labelled a "battle" and has "enjoyed" countless warnings, threats, examples of personal abuse, WQAs and ANIs, etc.), isn't it painfully obvious that a POV tag is appropriate for the Libertarianism page? Veteran editors fear to treat in this forum for a reason.

The so-called battle, (which I admit is a horribly inappropriate word), within the editorial community revolves around a simple debate:

Option One: Mainstream Libertarianism is predominant on the Libertarianism page, with the minor ideologies of left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism restricted to a disambiguation section or the disambiguation page;

OR

Option Two: The Libertarianism page gives equal dominance to left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Capitalism and mainstream Libertarianism, throughout the article.

Note: Both sides to the debate have provided a variety of WP:RS. A compromise solution - that would justify removing the POV tag - has been offered many times. The offered compromise (which is still on the table) is to recognise mainstream Libertarianism's predominance within the Libertarianism article and the lede, while each of the minor ideologies would have their own section (with pipelinks - because they already have their own easy-to-find Wikipaedia articles!) within the Libertarianism article. This offer has been rejected every time.

While no compromise has been reached with the consensus of the editorial community, and the Libertarianism page represents one approach over the other, the POV tag is clearly appropriate. BlueRobe (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

@BlueRobe: We are not negotiating, and so the talk about "compromise", "still on the table", "giving an inch", etc is not useful. We are trying to do what is right. The consensus should not depend on where we started. N6n (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Remove - drama is not a valid reason to keep a tag. Yworo (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Remove Several RfCs have shown no reason that the article is not neutral. Keeping the tag is just rejecting the overwhelming consensus of these RfCs. TFD (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Appropriate until consensus achieved. Activity on talk page indicates that has not been achieved. (I'd appreciate a link to last RFC. Thanks!) Gerardw (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The previous RfC, also initiated by TFD, is here. Curiously, despite the vote coming out as 8 votes for "POV tag in inappropriate" and 6 votes for "POV tag is appropriate", TFD is describing that as an "overwhelming" consensus for removing the POV tag. BlueRobe (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The vote was actually on a tag that said, ""This article may lack a single coherent topic". That tag was removed and a "POV" tag was added. Incidentally you have never provided a single reliable source to support your views on this article. TFD (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter The public knows that Wikipedia articles are not reliable anyway. Rapidosity (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Appropriate The topic of this article is "Libertarianism and Anarchism"...but the title of this article is "Libertarianism". This article should only discuss libertarianism or this page should be moved to Libertarianism and anarchism. --Xerographica (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Does this really matter? - Consensus seems to be inexistent for removal of this. Toa Nidhiki05 02:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, I interpret your vote as "Appropriate", due to lack of consensus. Please correct me if I am mistaken. BlueRobe (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Remove Its use its only there because some don't like the outcome of the RfC --Snowded ^TALK 05:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, which RfC are you referring to? BlueRobe (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Bluerobe, please read multiple responses to your multifarious repeat questions and statements from many editors. --Snowded ^TALK 07:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, the previous RfC is here. Despite the vote coming out as 8 votes for "POV tag is inappropriate" versus 6 votes for "POV tag is appropriate", some editors are describing this result as an "overwhelming" consensus for removing the POV tag. Please read WP:CONSENSUS to learn more about consensus so you don't continue to misinterpret the results of the previous RfC. BlueRobe (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The one where you accused me of being a sock/meat puppet? The one that was raised again after previous RfC and related material? Raising the same issue time and time again means that people start to ignore you --Snowded ^TALK 09:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, the previous RfC was raised by TFD. BlueRobe (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Remove -- Placed there by a small minority of vocal editors who are refusing to accept clear consensus from several RFCs that article is neutral, and keep re-adding it against consensus without policy or source based reasoning. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, the previous RfC is here. Despite the vote coming out as 8 votes for "POV tag is inappropriate" versus 6 votes for "POV tag is appropriate", some editors are describing this result as an "overwhelming" consensus for removing the POV tag. Please read WP:CONSENSUS to learn more about consensus so you don't continue to misinterpret the results of the previous RfC. BlueRobe (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Appropriate as long as there is back and forth POV editing and people putting WP:OR in front of existing sources in lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Appropriate This article gives so much undue weight to a wide variety of "1%" and .000001% sects that it is an incoherent mess to the extent that it says nothing. North8000 (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Appropriate As long as the meaning of the topic continues to be presented in a manner that does not reflect dominant usage in reliable English sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• No ("remove") -- I am yet to hear anything other than WP:OR in support of it being not neutral. N6n (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Compromise/Civility

Imagine, if you will, two armies in battle. These two armies are fighting over a relatively insignificant chunk of land; both sides strongly believe they deserve the land. Now, imagine one of the armies proposes some ideas on how to end this obviously ridiculous battle, and work together to ensure an amiable compromise. In response to their ideas, however, the second army responds with a clenched fist, rejecting any and all solutions other than unconditional surrender by the first army. Thus, the two armies fight forever and never accomplish anything.

This is the current state of this article; I have no doubt both sides, including the one I am on, want this conflict to end; however, this conflict cannot end unless both sides make concessions and compromise. The uncompromising Battlefield mentality on this page (from both sides) is starting to drive me (and perhaps many others) insane. I would be willing to compromise; however, compromise cannot be accomplished unless both sides are willing to set aside their differences and work together to improve this page; compromise cannot be accomplished without both sides being willing to accept it. I would personally like this talk page to be a civil place to resolve this conflict. Will it work? Probably not, but I am willing to try, and I hope some other editors are too. Can we all agree to have civil discourse from here on, with no threats or attacks from either side, and to work together instead of acting so divisive? Toa Nidhiki05 02:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, good sentiments, and a great metaphor.

I too have experienced considerable frustration at the failure of some editors to give an inch towards achieving editorial consensus through compromise. Indeed, such frustration recently resulted in me being blocked for one week, lol.

To that end, I repeat the offer of a compromise:

We recognise the natural predominance of mainstream Libertarianism within the Libertarianism article and the lede, while left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism would each have their own sections (with pipelinks - because they already have their own easy-to-find Wikipaedia articles) within the main Libertarianism article.

While neither camp will be especially thrilled at such a compromise, I see this as the best way forward to achieving consensus within the editorial community. What say you, TFD, BigK HeX, CarolMooreDC and others? BlueRobe (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to airbrush out left-libertarianism because that would mean excluding the history of the movement and removing core beliefs. While you have explained what you want in the article you have not explained what you want to see. TFD (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

While the sentiments of this thread sound nice, actions speak louder than words. As my talk page has already been misused just today, you'll forgive me if I just wait around until I see what actual actions are taken.

Also, I'll repeat that WP:IDHT is not a sufficient basis for seeking concessions. Personally, I'm not swayed in the least by editors acting tendentiously and whose sole bargaining chip is the threat that they'll continue to rant, despite every one of the proposals from the vocal minority being clearly rejected by the Wikipedia community. If you seek compromise, then give us solid argumentation, reasonable proposals, and reliable sources. (For reference, proposals to reduce most of the mention of the well-sourced viewpoints, such as left-lib/etc, to mere "pipelinks" based on unsourced speculation fails every single one of those criteria.) BigK HeX (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX ... /facepalm BlueRobe (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX , as I noted above, the previous RfC on this issue resulted in 8 votes for "POV tag is inappropriate" against 6 votes for "POV tag is appropriate". Your continued description of this result as an "overwhelming" consensus for removing the POV tag is a clear violation of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IDHT. Please stop WP:SOAPBOXing and help the editorial community to work towards achieving a consensus through compromise. BlueRobe (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

arbitrarily collapsing this as it was sliding off topic

Why are you discussing your perception of a battle rather than article content? Yworo (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

@User:BlueRobe. I don't think you successfully applied a single one of those policies. Though if you keep shotgun'ing them out, you're bound to hit, one day. For future reference, ignoring the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY here is WP:IDHT. Attempting to justify WP:IDHT with regards to the RfC by suggesting that the editors who decided to respond should be written off as meatpuppets is often deemed to be WP:DE. And ignoring that fact that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the proposals offered by the vocal minority has been rejected by community input (with roughly 90% of all of the outside editors that we've heard from throughout the various Notices in the "Oppose" column) is defiance of WP:CONSENSUS. BigK HeX (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, you sound like a 15-year-old discussing a game of Dungeons & Dragons. Oh.... wait.... Yworo (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, that comment was neither necessary nor called for. Please refrain from using personal abuse in the Wikipaedia talk pages, in accordance with WP:CIVIL. BlueRobe (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The offer made was for a civil discourse. That sounds like a good approach; so how about we give it a shot :) take a look at the issues already highlighted and perhaps propose some source supported modifications to the article :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. A couple observations: I have been involved trying to help in numerous Wikipedia article trouble situations and there two things unusual about the situations here, one which helps make it's prospects better, one which helps make them worse. What helps make them better is that I don't see an underlying conflict driving this, as is the usual case with contentious articles. Instead the battle itself has massively eclipsed anything that it was about. What makes the prospect worse is the extreme complexity of the job of trying to put Libertarianism into an article or set of articles. This compounds with all of the other challenges on contentious articles. North8000 (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, as usual, you are the voice of reason. BlueRobe (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The underlying conflict is pretty blatantly obvious. There are editors interested in furthering the article's conformance to their own personal rigid, real-life POV, without concern for the viewpoints prominent throughout zillions of reliable sources and without concern for the community's overwhelming advisement that their claims of PRIMARYTOPIC are rejected. BigK HeX (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Second. Per WP:NPOV: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK and Carol, I would consider what you are writing about to be methods of warfare, and actually conducting that warfare. I don't consider that to be an underlying conflict. The most prevalent form of underlying conflict is when the article is a meeting place between persons/groups who are opponents of each other outside of Wikipedia. As a hypothetical example, if there were "Left Libertarians" and "Right Libertarians" (ugh, I can't believe I used those words) who were opponents of each other in the outside world. I don't see that here. North8000 (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Now, those insisting that the NPOV tag remain need to provide a clear, detailed list of where the problems are in the article which require the use of this tag. No disscussing "battles" and rambling on about non-content issues. List specific sections and what the content issues are in each section. This is a requirement when a POV tag is placed on an article. Yworo (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to second this prior to making a decision on the open RFC above. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, so, basically, you want us to provide a clear list of the things we've been arguing about for the last few months? Certainly. Could you please back your truck into the loading bay .. this could take a while... BlueRobe (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I offer to structure here some topical headings of issues I've had with understanding the editorial direction you've been suggesting? Such a structure would allow a presentation of issues in a form more readily comprehended by editors such as myself? The topical headings would provide a structure for the loading of cargo into the truck? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The approaches in dispute are as I described it in my vote in the RfC above:

Option One: Mainstream Libertarianism is predominant on the Libertarianism page, including the lede, with the minor ideologies of left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism restricted to a disambiguation section or the disambiguation page;

OR

Option Two: The Libertarianism page gives equal dominance to left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism and mainstream Libertarianism, throughout the article.

The main arguments against Option Two are:

1) It places WP:Undue Weight on left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism, which may aptly be described as fringe ideologies, despite mainstream Libertarianism has overwhelming prominence in popular recognition and in the scholastic literature;

2) Left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism have a tenuous link to Libertarianism, at best, and are generally recognised as variations of Anarchism;

3) Mainstream Libertarianism is barely recognisable among the editorial mess that has resulted from trying to describe multiple incompatible ideologies that have little/nothing in common.

The main arguments against Option One are:

1) Left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism would receive less coverage in the Libertarianism article, and they deserve equal recognition because WP:RS have been provided to show that someone, somewhere, has described them as being "Libertarian" philosophies.

2) Etymologically speaking, the word "Libertarian" was used in an Anarchist sense in the late 19th century and early 20th Century, so Libertarianism is a form of (synonym of?) Anarchism, so the inclusion of these Anarchist ideologies is appropriate.

You asked for a breakdown of the dispute, so I have provided it. Please don't kick-off at me claiming that this looks like WP:OR or WP:Soapboxing because I haven't provided WP:RS for the arguments thrown around by other people. I'm just providing a summary of the debate, as requested. As you would expect, there are many more arguments to this dispute. BlueRobe (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, it isn't Soapboxing or OR, you're outlining the constituent elements of an argument without advocating them. But this isn't what I was asking for. But I'll try moving forward based on your contribution in terms of RS required to substantiate issues. Someone making the argument given against option two would need to demonstrate using RS the following:

1. 1. That: each of the items given (LL, AC, LS) "may aptly be described as fringe ideologies"
   2. That: there is a thing called, "mainstream Libertarianism"
      1. That: such a thing has "has overwhelming prominence in … scholastic literature"
      2. That: it was correct to ignore the RS literatures of LL, LC, LS in determining the existence of "overwhelming prominence"
   3. That: Long, etc. is not an RS in refutation of LL AC LS having "a tenuous link to Libertarianism"
   4. That: LL AC LS "are generally recognised as variations of Anarchism"
      1. That: Previously given RS describing as Libertarianism LL AC LS are not RS that they are recognised as Libertarianisms

Someone making the argument given against option one would need to demonstrate the following using RS:

1. 1. That: Academic RS describe LL AC LS as Libertarianism
   2. That: Historical RS describe LL AC LS movements as Libertarianism

Does this summarise the requirements for reliable sources of the arguments you gave? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

break 1

It is worth immediately noting that none of the Libertarianism editors are claiming that the label "mainstream Libertarianism" has widespread recognition anywhere outside this forum. That term is used merely for the purpose of clarifying discussion in this talk page to distinguish it from Left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism. Outside of this page, the right-wing ideology that we are labelling "mainstream Libertarianism" (aka "right-Libertarianism" in this page) is generally recognised under the label "Libertarianism". This is the source of so much of the frustration of the editors who want mainstream Libertarianism to have predominance in the Libertarianism article - that is what the overwhelming majority of scholars and the public mean when they use the term "Libertarian".

Further more, no one is suggesting that we "ignore the RS literatures of LL, LC, LS in determining the existence of "overwhelming prominence"". As I pointed out in my post above, the objection lies in the Undue Weight that is being absurdly afforded those WP:RS. BlueRobe (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"the right-wing ideology that we are labelling "mainstream Libertarianism" (aka "right-Libertarianism" in this page) ... is what the overwhelming majority of scholars and the public mean when they use the term "Libertarian""

Are you going to source that assertion? Possibly, we should collapse that s_____x in the meantime.... BigK HeX (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

For goodness sake, BigK HeX, source after source after source has been provided over recent months to justify the ridiculously obvious assertion that ""mainstream Libertarianism" (aka "right-Libertarianism" in this page) ... is what the overwhelming majority of scholars and the public mean when they use the term "Libertarian"". Asking us to WP:RS that assertion every single time is not constructive. It's almost like you're asking us to spam our WP:RSs. Seriously, what libraries have you been visited where the label "Libertarianism" does not predominantly refer to mainstream Libertarianism? BlueRobe (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No .. source after source has not been provided about "right libertarianism being what the overwhelming majority of scholars/public mean". I'm not aware of a single source that has been provided about what the overwhelming majority believes. Please correct me and post some RS now. Or are you not going to make that good faith effort? BigK HeX (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, there's a WP:RS in the post you were replying to when you asked for a WP:RS! Or, is the Encyclopaedia Britannica - the gold standard of references - not good enough for you? BlueRobe (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica is not an RS, (unless the EB article is a signed article by a specialist academic). "Dog doesn't eat dog". Fifelfoo (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, it's difficult to imagine a better standard for determining the predominant meaning of "Libertarianism" than the Encyclopaedia Britannica. While other WP:RSs, especially those that are attributed to name-authors, are clearly appropriate WP:RSs for a vast array of questions/issues that arise within Wikipaedian discussions, nothing beats the Encyclopaedia Britannica for determining the predominant definition of a term. BlueRobe (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok for the sake of sanity:

• Blue are you able to link up 2 or 3 other WP:RS's that support this view (shouldn't be too hard, perhaps there is a section already on the talk page listing some) Rather like we have to the Rand section above
• BKH what are your thoughts on Encyclopaedia Britannica as a RS?? Do you have anything to refute it's view?

If we could be more specific with sources just one last time that would make todays progress worth even more. (struck one comment that was answered in the ec) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why my section above was archived? And why this thread started? Also exactly what sources are needed? Libertarianism has (i thought) been about freedom, small government and whatnot, like this [54] sums up what i think it is mark nutley (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark, your section was closed because it went off topic in discussing yourselves and was going downhill, I've previously said that I intend to be quite heavy handed about stopping discussions if they are not productive. As an RFC was started to discuss the tag there seemed nothing more fruitful that the section could do in its current state. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nozick is one of the foremost Libertarian scholars. Indeed, most universities use Nozick or instead of Rand when teaching Libertarianism (as did my University). Poetically, I was in the process of looking for an on-line WP:RS of that famous work, at the request of Errant. Thank you, Marknutley. BlueRobe (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

EB's article was written by David Boaz, Executive director of the Cato Institute. Boaz possesses no research higher degrees, he is not an academic. While Boaz's articles, when published in otherwise reliable sources, may be reliable, Boaz has no academic standing to convert EB's article into a reliable source. Regarding uses, wikipedia is not a presentist encyclopaedia of English uses; that's the job of wiktionary, a very worthy project. Regarding Mark's citation, Thomas Nagel [Review] "Libertarianism without foundations, Robert Nozick Anarchy, State, and Utopia." Yale Law Journal 1975: 136ff. Book Reviews aren't HQRS, unless they're listed as "Review Articles", as they're not subject to peer review. (It looks like a good review btw). Keep searching, you're getting close to HQRS items. You want items indexed in the "Articles" section of peer reviewed journals! Fifelfoo (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

break 2

The Glossary of Political Economy Terms is one of the "respectable information sources on the web" that is recommended by WP:Sources. It defines Libertarianism as:

"A contemporary 20th century political viewpoint or ideology derived largely from 19th century liberalism, holding that any legitimate government should be small and should play only the most minimal possible role in economic, social and cultural life, with social relationships to be regulated as much as possible by voluntary contracts and generally accepted custom and as little as possible by statute law. In other words, libertarians believe that the individual should be as free as is practically feasible from government restraint and regulation in both the economic and non-economic aspects of life. Thus, libertarians endorse stricter respect for private property rights, the establishment of a more laissez-faire laissez-faire capitalist economic system, rigorous separation of church and state, and greater respect for individual rights to freedom of expression and freedom of choice in personal lifestyles."

The Encyclopædia Britannica declares:

"Liberalism seeks to define and justify the legitimate powers of government in terms of certain natural or God-given individual rights. These rights include the rights to life, liberty, private property, freedom of speech and association, freedom of worship, government by consent, equality under the law, and moral autonomy (the pursuit of one’s own conception of happiness, or the “good life”). The purpose of government, according to liberals, is to protect these and other individual rights, and in general liberals have contended that government power should be limited to that which is necessary to accomplish this task. Libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty. They contend that the scope and powers of government should be constrained so as to allow each individual as much freedom of action as is consistent with a like freedom for everyone else. Thus, they believe that individuals should be free to behave and to dispose of their property as they see fit, provided that their actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others."

It is very significant that there is no mention of left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism or Anarcho-Capitalism in a reference material as comprehensive and respected as the Encyclopædia Britannica.

The Stanford Encyclopædia of Philosophy does acknowledge the existence of left-Libertarianism. However, it issues a caveat that left-Libertarianism is little more than an also-ran ideology: "in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism — right-libertarianism — there is also a version known as "left-libertarianism"." (my bold).

Similarly, Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner, two of the most recognisable left-Libertarians, have acknowledged that left-Libertarianism has significantly less prominence than "the more familiar right-libertarianism". (my bold) (Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner (2000). Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 1).

Please stop asking for WP:RSs we have already provided numerous times. BlueRobe (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I will NOT stop asking. I still do not see a single source that makes an assertion about "right libertarianism being what the overwhelming majority of scholars/public mean" -- which is the assertion YOU made and the one you are supposed to be sourcing. So, unless you seriously mean to tell me that you think statements such as "the better-known version of libertarianism" are equivalent to "overwhelming majority of scholars/public", I'll ask that you strike the assertion (like this). Otherwise, do I really have to go through the motion of requesting that editors comment on whether the two statements are equivalent??? BigK HeX (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

EB is not an RS as clearly explained to you. Vallentyne and Steiner indicate that left-libertarianism is part of libertarianism, as does the Stanford Encyclopaedia. So you've given us two RS which indicate that left-libertarianism is libertarianism. None of which indicate that it is FRINGE in WP terms. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

For goodness sake, the strongest evidence that mainstream Libertarianism is the predominant version[sic?] of Libertarianism is that most references to Libertarianism don't even consider left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism or Anarcho-Capitalism important enough to be worth mentioning! And most of those that do give it little more than a passing note.

What do you expect us to do? Are we expected to list and quote a random sample of a few thousand texts on political philosophy and count how many exclude left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism or Anarcho-Capitalism from their definitions of "Libertarianism"? Or are we expected to provide some mad quote where an author has expressly excluded the fringe ideologies of left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism or Anarcho-Capitalism from its definition of "Libertarianism", even though such an absurd suggestion never crossed the minds of most of them in the first place? While we're at it, let's find a farming manual with a quote that expressly declares that their definition of "cows" does not include sheep! BlueRobe (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting because I was reading libcom.org and the Brisbane LSO's expanded version of "As We See It / As We Don't See It" just the other day, and they didn't mention minarchist pro-market theories.

"quote where an author has expressly excluded the fringe ideologies of left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism or Anarcho-Capitalism from its definition of "Libertarianism""

Sounds exactly like what kind of HQRS you should find. And even then it only results in WEIGHT producing a "contested" decision, "Some literatures such as [x] describe libertarianism broadly, others, such as [y] describe it tersely, explicitly excluding [a, b, c]." Thanks for clarifying what's needed. Ideally you'd find it in a US minarchist interested publication which would also summarise their tendency, as in a quote characterising one libertarianism's rejection of other libertarianisms.

For example, in the peer reviewed journal article, [http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/3036/01/Direct_action_ethic.pdf Franks, B. (2003) Direct action ethic. Anarchist Studies Volume 11(No. 1):pp. 13-41., Franks rejects de-ontological libertarian capitalist approaches, while not denying that they are libertarian, "This rights-based approach is shared by liberal and anarcho-capitalists but is rejected by the main class struggle libertarian groups." Franks, Long, etc.'s approach indicates we ought to weight with reference to Libertarian Socialist publications and historical action. Looking at the article, I think the weight is sufficient, except in the methodology drawing in Frank's critique of de-ontological approaches shared by Libertarian socialists, probably this sentence is required, "Libertarian Socialists reject de-ontological approaches and use class-struggle methodologies (ie: historical materialism) to justify their beliefs.(Franks 2003 24-25)" Fifelfoo (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

off topic/commentary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You're straying into WP:OR again. You're not an authority on what "most references to Libertarianism" have considered. And worse, tertiary sources that CAN BE used as authorities on what's been considered throughout the literature REFUTE your assertion that Left-lib isn't "worth mentioning". BigK HeX (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC) BigK HeX, if you put as much energy into fixing the article's content as you do into endless Wikilawyering, it wouldn't be the shambles it is in today. And your absurd demand that we prove a negative is illogical and fallacious. BlueRobe (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC) A neutral view might consider that my amount of "wikilawyering" is proportional to the amount of WP:OR proposed as the basis of edits on this talk page. BigK HeX (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to provide a source for this assertion: "right libertarianism being what the overwhelming majority of scholars/public mean". There is no reason to provide a source for any assertion about usage; making assertions like that is not considered WP:OR. This kind of determination is made all of the time by Wikipedia editors when dealing with disambiguation issues, determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, etc. A common method employed for this is WP:GOOGLE. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right. There's no reason for him to source it, if he's fine with us finding no reason to grant it any credence. BigK HeX (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

break 4

Back to the topic at hand, are you going to either strike or properly source your assertion about "right libertarianism being what the overwhelming majority of scholars/public mean"? BigK HeX (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Blue has provided some sources, I'm no authority on it but some of them look reasonable. I'm interested, now, if we have any counter-sources that promote the idea of a broad sway of libertarianism? BKH, anything about on that score? What we are ideally looking for here is a scholarly consensus on what the global definition of libertarianism is and how prevalent/significant other forms are. Ideally we need a source that discusses the various forms and tries to put the consensus of scholarly thought --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe provided sources. If he used the sources that he provided to support the assertion about "right libertarianism being what the overwhelming majority of scholars/public mean", any WP:OR noticeboard would be pretty certain to reject the attempt as a misuse of sources.

Yes, we have sources about the broader left/right/anarchocap understanding of libertarianism. Most editors here have seen me post the list that I compiled a rather large number of times. The closed-RfC references the source list that I compiled. It factored into the closing of the RfC which concluded that prominent understandings outside of right-lib exist throughout reliable sources and should receive (at least some) coverage in the article. BigK HeX (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, we have offered to give "(at least some) coverage in the article" to left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism in the Libertarianism article in our compromise offer (which has been repeated twice today). We offered to give each of those ideologies their own sections, with pipeline links (and some note in the history section may be appropriate, as one editor pointed out earlier). If that is all you want, why are you still arguing instead of compromising with the rest of us? BlueRobe (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi tmorton, Long 1998; Sapon and Robino (2010); both given in the article specifically discusses all libertarianisms as libertarianisms. The article is currently rather well referenced on this point. Franks 2003 just quoted above does likewise when discussing deontology versus class struggle. These three I've given given are HQRS in the sense that they were peer reviewed academic publications Fifelfoo (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sapon and Robino looks an excellent source from the abstract. Has anyone got a copy they can pick relevant material out of? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy. (I introduced the source ... and most of the other "broad" ones.) Actually Fifelfoo has a decent snippet in his comment below... BigK HeX (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A break down of Sapon and Robino 2010's argument: Fifelfoo (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Following and quoting Boaz of CATO, "libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others"135
• "Today, interpretations of right-libertarian ideological complex are most popular in the political and historical literature and in the popular imagination. This interpretation is intensified by the fact that according to Alyson Edgley, the left-libertarian (socialist libertarian) message is that “on the contemporary American left-right spectrum libertarian is neither left nor right."135
• "Yet, since the middle of nineteenth century – the concept of libertarianism had been used in a political context, which could be interpreted as antibourgeois and pro-socialist, and only a century later – in 1950s – its right ideological context use came into fashion. […] 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."135
• "First, many contemporary anarchists and some “anarcho-sympathising” researchers in fact use the term “libertarian socialism” as a synonym for the concept of “anarchism”."136
• "The necessity of the use of the term libertarian in this context is explained in two ways. On the one hand, “libertarian socialism” became the ideological, organizational and practical counterbalance to “authoritarian socialism”…On the other hand, the new “label” became necessary in order to dissociate from the extreme forms of Action Direct, which were widely applied by some Anarchists in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries."136
• "Note that within the framework of this terminological tradition some researchers have semantically distinct concepts of “libertarian socialism” (as a synonym of Bakuninist «collectivism») and «libertarian communism»"136
• "The second version of the semantic use of “libertarian socialism / left libertarianism”5 has been presented in the works of some of political theorists and historians who try to separate it from the concept of “anarchism”." "Russian historian from Irkutsk (Siberia), Andrey Sidorov, comparing these concepts, argues: “libertarian socialism” is broader than “anarchism”. Among libertarian socialists can be ranked the Marxists (left-wing communists or communist of workers’ councils), rejecting the idea of V.I. Lenin […Lenin on party, professionals, transitional forms]"137
• "It can be argued that the view that “libertarian socialism” and “anarchism” – are closely related but not identical ideological and political currents which in rather different ways articulate their positions towards to the centralized political power, as well as to the methods and timing of transition to a stateless social self-government."138
• "We propose to adopt the approach which treats anarchism and libertarian socialism and right-libertarian as rather related, albeit not identical ideological and socio-political phenomena."139
• "While right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism seem to resemble the other, there are major differences and there are divisions with in right-libertarianism. (Kirsch, 2009) Boaz formulates the following key concepts of the right-libertarianism: [CATO snipped]"140
• "One can observe a commonality of assumptions of the left and right wings of libertarianism in such matters as the pursuit of harmony of interests of individuals, united in social groups, as well as protest against bureaucratic authoritarianism; both demonstrate no sign of nihilistic maximalism towards centralized forms of political structuring of society."141

BigK HeX, we have long since made the compromising gesture of accepting that left-Libertarianism is a variation of Libertarianism. What we cannot possibly agree to is the utter ridiculous suggestion that left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism or Anarcho-Capitalism does have, or should have, equal dominance with mainstream Libertarianism vis-a-vis the definition and concept of "Libertarianism".

Crikey, we know we must have said something right when you kick-off on one of these Wikilawyering tirades. BlueRobe (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to either strike or properly source your assertion about "right libertarianism being what the overwhelming majority of scholars/public mean"? BigK HeX (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it's not going to help just demanding it be struck or whatever, it's not constructive. Right now a couple of good counter sources would help. I partially agree that Blues comment is quite strong for the sources available (possibly a little synth-y) but they are useful in weighing this balance of significance. I'd suggest Blue backs the statements back to what he can directly support in the sources and the others get some counter-sourcing up if possible --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Long 1998, 304 "For the purposes of this essay, I propose to define as libertarian any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals."

Sapon and Robino 2009, "Since [1858], the specific term, has not only taken root in the lexicon of radical advocates of individual and collective freedom, but also has been actively used in political practice." [Spain, Delo Truda, etc.] (If you're familiar with the academic concept, Sapon and Robino are conducting a literature review of what libertarianism is, unfortunately they're not conducting a second level literature review of the literature of what people believe libertarianism to be.)

Which draws on McLaughlin, P. (2007). Anarchism and authority: a philosophical introduction to classical anarchism. ; which has been positively academically reviewed; but is Dead Tree Only for me. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick deletion of non-cited (article) material?

Something specific and useful on this topic [added later: in the article] is my proposal to delete within a few days any non-cited material since much of it is really is POV soapboxing. I'm definitely going to delete August stuff today. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the talk page ... or the article? I think we've got an unofficial consensus to let an uninvolved editor handle all of the soapbox problems. Might be helpful to let that process continue to work for a while longer. Personally, I'm seeing a surprising amount of success in the reduction of soapboxing issues. BigK HeX (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning! Do NOT start deleting the comments of other editors, as per WP:Vandalism. BlueRobe (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Bluerobe, please avoid the term vandalism, as noted on the page any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.. CarolMoore, I recommend not deleting Talk page comments per WP:TALK, let the archiver take care of it. I would consider it not all that constructive. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleting soapboxes is not vandalism, per WP:NOT#FORUM. Of course, a person's judgment on what constitutes a soapbox can be brought up for scrutiny by the community, but.... pretty clearly we have a wealth of soapboxing on this talk page. BigK HeX (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarified my point that I was talking about the article. I'm in favor of collapsing sections with nothing but soapboxing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The great irony of CarolMooreDC's threat to delete "non-cited material since much of it is really is POV soapboxing" is that, after a quick check of the current Libertarianism talk page, CarolMooreDC doesn't appear to have a single citation in any of her posts, (unless you count the link to a "duck"). Indeed, all I could see what blatant Soapboxing and a hell of a lot of Wikilawyering. BlueRobe (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Citations for talk page discussions are neither the requirement nor the norm. If someone were to delete talk page comments using lack of citations as a supposed excuse, I would certainly call that vandalism. North8000 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI. In case you missed it in above clarifications, I was talking about the article, so I guess no one has a problem with this proposal. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Carol, I don't know about the particulars, but please follow the spirit and specifics in wp:ver / wp:nor rather than what you described doing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

First, this is a heads up for people to check for unsourced material that they might want to quickly source if it's been hanging around with a tag for a few weeks. Second, Wikipedia:V#Tagging_a_sentence.2C_section.2C_or_article doesn't give a time period. WP:NOR (aka WP:OR) would apply where original research is pretty obvious, as opposed to assertions that may be true, but should be sourced just cause that's what we do here. Or are just stuck in for POV reasons, in which case another reason for removing quicker. Because everything is disputed here, wanted to check before deleted a couple things. I guess will wait a couple days and just get rid of one or two most obvious problems and people can revert when they get an actual source.  :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to revert to FA version and work from there

Reviewing the article history, I see that it was promoted to a Featured Article on May 11, 2005 and was reviewed and kept as a featured article on August 16, 2005. It was reviewed again on January 15, 2007 and demoted.

Clearly the article has devolved. I propose we revert to either of the linked versions known to have passed FA review and work from there. It seems silly to continue arguing at such length about this version of the article when there are peer-reviewed versions in the article history. Yworo (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The delisted FARC version is 15 January 2007. I don't favour this proposal. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I do not support reverting either. TFD (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Support I agree that the article has devolved. Limiting the scope of the article is necessary to prevent future devolutions. --Xerographica (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Support the hodge-podge of amendments over recent years have left the article resembling an incoherent and barely-comprehensible shambles. Which is primarily why some of us are so determined to fix it. BlueRobe (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose This should be an RfC to the community since it effectively contradicts past RfCs. Wikipedia has evolved quite a bit from five years ago and what was "solid" then cannot necessarily be considered thusly now, especially considering the article is missing important info which only was put in later on other forms of libertarianism. Not to mention that multiple references from after 2005 are now in the article. One more defacto deletionist supported (if not motivated) Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_get_the_point move. Can we stick to specific issues of what's happening now and stop wasting time with broad proposals that generate pages of Soapbox?? Looking at article I can see good stuff has been deleted and bad stuff stuck in, and none of that has been discussed because of endless soapbox. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose This is the fifth vote within the space of just a few weeks on variants of basically the same proposal: to delete left-libertarianism from the article. I think this kind of neverendum is not very constructive and an abuse of process. Also, having looked at the older versions of the article, they seem to have very few footnotes pointing to sources.Iota (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose quick close due to substantial duplication of the issue in the currently running RFC which has about 29 out of 30 days left in it Fifelfoo (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

support, the current form is a contradict of itself. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

hidden comments, unproductive

More accurately, the current form covers reliable sources that contradict your preferred understanding of libertarianism, which is NOT the same thing as the article contradicting "itself". BigK HeX (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I thought even you would recognise that the article is a fundamentally incoherent and inconsistent mess. I guess your habit of NEVER GIVING AN INCH ON ANY ISSUE WHATSOEVER continues. BlueRobe (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If your charge is that "I never give an inch" to proposals based largely on WP:OR being used to argue against RELIABLE SOURCES, then I wear that badge with pride. Thanks for the Wikilove! BigK HeX (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, it is impossible not to notice that you have refused to compromise, on any issue, in the Libertarianism page. You're the page's resident Wikilawyer - which WP policy are you breaking with that obstinate approach? BlueRobe (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Also "impossible not to notice" ..... the amount of WP:OR continually used by the vocal minority that prompts my references to policy. BigK HeX (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Support The current article is an incoherent mess. This would give us a much better starting point. Then let's quit the warfare and evolve it from there. FA status and removal of FA status are probably the strongest and most objective indicators. North8000 (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Further, this is a proposal which could actually move the article forward. Unlike all of the other ones (RFC's etc.) which seem more like volleys in warfare. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Conditionally support - I think this is very radical, but if this is the only solution/compromise, then we should do it. I'll change my vote if a better idea comes around. Toa Nidhiki05 23:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Support - the current article is much worse than it was when it was an FA primarily because the topic no longer reflects how libertarianism is commonly used in English. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Far too radical. Present article is workable, and the older article seems rather thinly sourced. BigK HeX (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose --

1. You can't just delete other peoples' work to solve an itch. You should have definite reasons about the work, not your problems.
2. It will solve nothing. This whole dispute will just shift onto that page.
3. The way to go about it would be to ask the reviewers to go through all the versions, going backwards starting from now, and stop when they find an acceptable standard. Then all editing on the Libertarianism should stop.
4. The reviewers aren't Gods. N6n (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose -- The only reason this is being suggested is because a small and disruptive minority of editors are not getting their way, and are refusing to accept the results of the last several RFCs and discussions. There is no reason to throw away all of the work that has been done on the article in the years since the FA version, just to placate them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment / Compromise? How about just reverting the lead to the FA versions, and then just use the FA version as a bit of a guide out of this mess? North8000 (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe et al, please comment on these sources

User:BlueRobe seems to be a prominent voice in the efforts against left-lib and maybe anarcho-cap, but any editors sharing similar objections are welcome to explain their feelings on the list of reliable sources presented (whether the feelings are positive, negative, or indifferent).

In order to explore the opposition to left-lib/etc, we would do well to discuss directly our feelings on the WP:RS used to support the material. So, for those in opposition, we can start with a basic question. Do you agree that there are multiple reliable sources (such as those listed below) which contain a description of left-libertarianism as being related to right-libertarianism and that both are described as variants/wings/factions/versions of a single concept? Yes or No.

For reference, feel free to review any/all of these proposed RS:

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.

Hopefully, getting a direct and unambiguous answer here will allow us to pinpoint any sticking points on this aspect of the dispute. BigK HeX (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, you have provided 7 so-called WP:RS for the claim that left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism have, or should have, equal weight/prominence with mainstream Libertarianism vis-a-vis the political philosophy of Libertarianism. I'll address each reference, in order:

1) Cannot be verified at this stage because on-line reference does not link the page referred to.

2) Error message from link: "The page you tried was not found. You may have used an outdated link or may have typed the address (URL) incorrectly."

3) States, "Sometimes two versions of libertarianism are identified - 'right' libertarianism ... and 'left' libertarianism..." (my italics).

4) Cannot be verified at this state because on-line reference does not link the page referred to.

5) Is the source that WE provided (and you derided) a couple of threads above.

6) States, "Today, interpretations of right-libertarian ideological complex are most popular in the scientific literature and in the popular imagination."

7) Cannot be verified at this stage because no on-line reference has been provided.

BigK HeX, it looks like you've helped our argument more than yours. BlueRobe (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Long is available here and here. Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, for the sake of compromise, we have conceded the point that left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism are variations of Libertarianism. Clearly, the focus of our contention is the WP:Undue Weight given to those minor ideologies. And I have seen no WP:RS that persuade me that those minor ideologies should have equal prominence with mainstream Libertarianism in the Libertarianism article. Indeed, your 6th reference helps our position on this issue.BlueRobe (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "for the claim that left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism have, or should have, equal weight/prominence with mainstream Libertarianism"

WTH?? How blatant can a strawman get? I NEVER referenced "prominence" ANYWHERE in my question.

How about you please just answer the question actually asked with a Yes or No, please. No More Dodging. BigK HeX (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. "Your" position ... isn't "your" position. No one here has ever seriously argued making left-lib more prominent than right-lib. BigK HeX (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, the fundamental issue in this dispute has, for weeks, been the WP:Undue Weight afforded to left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism. The equal prominance that has been afforded to Left-libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism with mainstream Libertarianism in the Libertarianism article is - as we have argued for weeks - inappropriate under WP:Undue Weight. Your sources do nothing to challenge our arguments on this issue. BlueRobe (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, if you do not like these sources then provide your own. BTW 1 and 2 link fine. Try again later or use another web browser. TFD (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a throwaway note: Ref #2 had an extra link in it, which I removed as broken. For that one, the title ("Libertarianism") is the actual link to click (unlike most of the other ones which have page numbers that are hyperlinked). BigK HeX (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is any doubt about the sources, quote exact sentences you want to use as ref and bring to WP:RS.

Also editors should be aware of: Wikipedia:PROVEIT#cite_note-1 which says that editors can request a direct supporting quote from the source be quoted if it is not online. In fact, after running into missing pages (which seem to change regularly) on books.google, I think we should start quoting everything from books google as well. (Even non-wiki people who are frequent users of books google also may run into page view limitations on specific books, or perhaps in general. Not sure how that works.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have no problem accessing any of the links. Yworo (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe ... your concerns about weight are noted. Now, will you acknowledge my question with a Yes or No? BigK HeX (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a technical question, (perhaps I'm just too technophobic, or maybe I'm just a noob). When I click references 1 & 4, all I get are book reviews, with no content from the texts. Am I doing something wrong, or is that all there is supposed to be? Btw, BigK HeX, thank you for fixing the link to the 2nd reference. BlueRobe (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I get the actual pages of the book. I am in the U.S. Google may behave differently in different countries due to copyright laws and author agreements, etc. Yworo (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. If I get time on Thursday, I'll try to remember to quote a page of those sources, if the link doesn't work universally. BigK HeX (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, you can't depend on everyone getting the same book.google returns, as I've learned in last month or so. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Scope of Government

Errant, here are some sources that I've provided in the past. Libertarianism is an ideology of limited government. Limiting is not the same thing as abolishing. For example, narrowing the scope of this article is not the same thing as deleting this article. Those are two very different things. That's why any ideology that advocates abolishing government is not libertarianism or even closely related to libertarianism.

So what do the reliable sources say? First we'll establish a strong connection between classical liberalism and libertarianism. Next we'll identify who the most prominent libertarians are. Lastly we'll look at their viewpoints on the scope of government.

Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism

• The word liberal has an odd history. It comes from the same root as liberty, and originally it simply meant ""free."" In that broad sense, the United States as a whole is a liberal country, and all popular American ideologies are variants of liberalism. In a more restricted definition, a liberal was a person who believed in limited government and who opposed religion in politics. A hundred years ago, liberalism referred to a philosophy that in some ways resembeled modern-day libertarianism. For that reason, many libertarians today refer to themselves as classical liberals. - American Government and Politics Today 2008: The Essentials

• The classical liberal movements of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are, of course, the forebears of contemporary libertarian thought. - Total freedom: toward a dialectical libertarianism

• Contemporary libertarians believe, with some legitimacy, that the greatest threat to liberty is an expanding government with a monopoly on state power. Their answer: limit government, protect a basic skein of fundamental rights, and the rest will work itself out. In this respect, libertarians are true heirs of the classical liberal tradition. - The Political Centrist

• Libertarianism has been more an intellectual than popular movement since its ancestor, classical liberalism, was first articulated by John Locke. William Maddox and Stuart Lillie identified six tenets of classical liberalism to which American libertarians subscribe in a modified form today: individualism, an instrumental view of the state, limited government, individual rights, legal equality, and representative government. These six tenets cluster around two domestic policy questions - the proper role of government and the prescriptions for apparent social inequalities. - Hostile takeover: the House Republican Party, 1980-1995

• Scalet and Schmidtz quite correctly identify the classical liberal contribution to political theory as its focus on limited government, rather than (as classical liberals are often accused of preferring) "weak" government. The size of government is not the primary concern of classical liberals; its limits are. Limited governments tend to be small relative to unlimited governments. They also note that "classical liberals have been champions of democracy." The two issues - limited government and democracy - have traditionally been linked together in classical liberal thought by the theory of constitutionalism, which limits the powers of majorities no less than of minorities. - Realizing freedom: libertarian theory, history, and practice

Most Prominent/Influential Libertarians

This source establishes the prominence of Jefferson, Tocqueville, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek and Ayn Rand...

Libertarians cite as progenitors Jefferson, Tocqueville, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill as well as economists of the Austrian school Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom (1944). But most Republican libertarians were first inspired not by these classical liberals but by the author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. - New York Magazine Mar 4, 1996

This source establishes the prominence of John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer...

John Stuart Mill, the great and generous theorist of liberalism, and Herbert Spencer, a major exponent of laissez-faire individualism, whose writings appealed immensely to the Spanish anarchists, can be - and have been - rightly designated as 'libertarians' - Anarchist seeds beneath the snow

This source establishes the prominence of John Stuart Mill...

In contemporary times, libertarians have positioned themselves as the heirs to J. S. Mill and his defense of individual liberty. Their ideas have grown increasingly influential. Contemporary libertarians embrace Mill's On Liberty because it "sounds important libertarian themes: that individuals should be free to live as they choose so long as they don't harm others and that the power of government should be strictly limited." - Putting ideas to work: a practical introduction to political thought

This source establishes the prominence of Robert Nozick...

With thirty years' distance on its publication, one can safely assert that Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) has achieved the status of a classic. It is not only the central text for all contemporary academic discussions of libertarianism; together with John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971), it arguably framed the landscape of academic political philosophy in the last decades of the twentieth century. - Natural rights liberalism from Locke to Nozick, Part 1

This source establishes the prominence of John Stuart Mill, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand...

This political philosophy has a long pedigree. It has roots in the classical liberalism of eighteenth- and nineteenth- century British thinkers such as John Stuart Mill, and, more recently, in the Austrian school of economics represented more powerfully in the United States by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. On a more popular level, the novelists Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein proved effective propagators of a radical anti-statist, individualist ethos, and according to historian Brian Doherty, more than half of the earliest Libertarians cited one of those two authors as their primary ideological influence. - Encyclopedia of American political history

Libertarians on the Scope of Government

John Stuart Mill's viewpoint on the scope of government...

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. - On Liberty

Ayn Rand's viewpoint on the scope of government...

The proper functions of a government fall into three broad categories, all of them involving the issues of physical force and the protection of men’s rights: the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws. - The Nature of Government

Herbert Spencer viewpoint on the scope of government (shorter)...

The challenge facing Americans today in defending constitutionally limited government was succinctly stated by the English libertarian Herbert Spencer in 1884: "The function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the powers of kings. The function of true Liberalism in the future will be that of putting a limit to the powers of Parliaments - Realizing freedom: libertarian theory, history, and practice

Herbert Spencer's viewpoint on the scope of government (longer)...

And now mark that whether we consider government from this point of view, or from that previously occupied, our conclusions respecting it are in essence identical. For when government fulfils the function here assigned it, of retaining men in the circumstances to which they are to be adapted, it fulfils the function which we on other grounds assigned it — that of protector. To administer justice, — to mount guard over men's rights, — is simply to render society possible. And seeing that the two definitions are thus at root the same, we shall be prepared for the fact that, in whichever way we specify its duty, the State cannot exceed that duty without defeating itself. For, if regarded as a protector, we find that the moment it does anything more than protect, it becomes an aggressor instead of a protector; and, if regarded as a help to adaptation, we find that when it does anything more than sustain the social state, it retards adaptation instead of hastening it. - Social statics

Robert Nozick viewpoint on the scope of government...

Our main conclusions about the state are that a minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified; that any more extensive state will violate persons' rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified; and that the minimal state is inspiring as well as right. Two noteworthy implications are that the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection. - The Political Theory of Robert Nozick

Adam Smith's viewpoint on the scope of government...

Although Smith was against governmental interference with the market, he had a a theory of government sometimes known as the "duties of the sovereign". The system of natural liberty required the sovereign to perform three duties; defense, the exact administration of justice, and the erection and maintenance of public works. Even though he was a libertarian, Smith realized that the market could not provide certain public goods which were too expensive for provision by private individuals. - Public Sector Economics for Developing Countries

Ludwig von Mises's viewpoint on the scope of government...

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists. We must emphasize this point because etatists sometimes try to discover a similarity. Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state. Liberals fully recognize that no social coöperation and no civilization could exist without some amount of compulsion and coercion. It is the task of government to protect the social system against the attacks of those who plan actions detrimental to its maintenance and operation. - Omnipotent Government

Friedrich Hayek's viewpoint on the scope of government...

These words were even more significant because of the government services to which he applied them - "without exception to all those services of which government possesses a legal monopoly, with the only exception of maintaining and enforcing the law and maintaining for this purpose an armed force, i.e. all those from education to transport and communications, including post, telegraph, telephone and broadcasting services, all the so-called 'public utilities,' the various 'social' insurances and, above all, the issue of money." In the last pages of Law, Legislation and Liberty, published in 1979, Hayek the classical liberal became Hayek the libertarian. - Friedrich Hayek: a biography

Milton Friedman's viewpoint on the scope of government...

First, the scope of government must be limited. Its major functions must be to protect our freedom both from the enemies outside our gates and from our fellow-citizens: to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets. Beyond this major function, government may enable us at times to accomplish jointly what we would find it more difficult or expensive to accomplish severally. However, any such use of government is fraught with danger. We should not and cannot avoid using government this way. But there should be a clear and large balance of advantages before we do. By relying primarily on voluntary co-operation and private enterprise, in both economic and other activities, we can insure that the private sector is a check on the powers of the governmental sector and an effective protection of freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought. - Capitalism and freedom

Dick Armey's viewpoint on the scope of government...

While one can reject this notion of a stripped-down state, libertarianism is a principled and coherent worldview. It provides an answer to every question. Police departments and the army - yes. Just about everything else - no. Ask most politicians, from Gingrich to Clinton, what the role of the federal government is, and you'll get a stream of mush. Poke a libertarian and you'll get a response like the one Dick Armey gave shortly after becoming majority leader: "Defend our shores, build a system of justice, and construct some infrastructure. Gee, I'm running out of other suggestions." - New York Magazine Mar 4, 1996

David Boaz's viewpoint on the scope of government...

Libertarians argue that we can and should move a long way toward minimal government; outside of the protection of our rights by police, courts, and national defense, it's hard to think of goods and services that could be produced more efficiently by a government bureaucracy than in the competitive marketplace. Libertarianism: A Primer

James Walsh's viewpoint on the scope of government...

Libertarians accept the need for a limited state - if only to provide basic levels of safety and security. Their focus is keeping the state limited to a disciplined - and small - number of activities. Anarchists still want to smash the mechanisms of state. As I've noted, anarchy is an emotional system. - Liberty in Troubled Times: A Libertarian Guide to Laws, Politics and Society in a Terrorized World —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica (talk • contribs) 01:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

While I'm at it...this is for TFD to chew on since he has trouble recognizing that libertarians are socially liberal and economically conservative...

It's fairly common for Americans to be economically conservative, but socially moderate or liberal. Sixteen percent of Americans fall into this category of responses. - The Gallup poll: public opinion 2004 By Alec M. Gallup, Frank Newport

Here's a simple yet effective definition of libertarianism...

A political ideology that is opposed to all government action except as necessary to protect life and property - The Challenge of Democracy: Government in America

My favorite definition...

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins. - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr

Government, like this article, should be limited in scope. These sources indicate what the scope of government should be and also indicate which ideologies fall outside the scope of this article. Given that libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism both advocate abolishing government it's clear that they fall outside the scope of this article. --Xerographica (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

sec break

Your sources indicate that the article can also cover the viewpoints of the sources listed (if not already in the article). Your sources DO NOT "cancel out" other viewpoints (or "limit the article's scope"). BigK HeX (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We can't limit the scope of this article AND delete it. We can't limit the scope of government AND abolish it. Those are two mutually exclusive goals. Meaning...they are completely different ideologies. When people refer to ideologies that advocate abolishing government they say "anarcho-capitalism" or "libertarian socialism" or "anarchism". However, all the sources I offered used the word "libertarianism" to refer to limited government. Even if a source says "minarchism" or "right-libertarianism" it won't slow me down one bit. You know why? Because tenets trump labels. --Xerographica (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. There are conflicting beliefs within many ideologies. These are presented in articles by stating that this subgroup believes X, and this other subgroup believes Y. X and Y need not be consistent with each other. Yworo (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether the government should produce infrastructure or not is a conflicting belief within libertarianism. Whether or not government should be abolished is a conflicting belief between very different ideologies. --Xerographica (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's simply your opinion, and it's contradicted by the sources provided by BigK HeX and others. Yworo (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly Yworo ... just like every other article, we treat ALL significant viewpoints in the same Wiki article regardless of whether they may have certain conflicts, and regardless of whether they line up with any Wikipedia editor's rigid POV. BigK HeX (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica. I agree with you. But between the practical WP realities, and also to provide a service to help the readers, my thought / idea / suggestion is to let the Libertarian article become a "disambiguation article". If the warriors would only let some perspective and organization come to the article, it could probably to both that and evolve from the worthless confusing incoherent mess that it is now. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK although wrapped in the usual trojan horse of continuously mis-invoking WP policies (and doing battle by doing so), I believe that that you and Carol are the two who are most fully warrioring here, and the two who most place all else as being secondary. This is going nowhere. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And yet ... when put to the question, outside opinions tend to view the issues in the same way as Carol, and in the same way as myself. Funny that, huh? BigK HeX (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to sidestep that to avoid a lengthy answer. What led me to my statement was that the other folks are more focused on debating the issues, whereas you and Carol or more focused on denigrating them or their statements via wiki-lawyering. If you said "I think that you're wrong, please provide your sources" I would have more respect for it rather than than to simply try to falsely imply that talk page statements are illegitimate due to not being cited. Citing is neither a requirement nor the norm for talk pages. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, your answer evades the issue and falls back on ad hominems about other editors. Sources are required on the talk page if there is a dispute about the scope or content of the article. It's the norm in content dispute to provide sources on the talk page so that positions espoused by the sources can be evaluated and integrated. If the scope of the article is in question, and one side presents inclusive sources, the onus is on the other party to provide sources which explicitly exclude viewpoints from the definition under consideration. I don't see that happening. It's not sufficient to provide sources supporting one of the points of view. It's necessary to provide sources that analyze, provide definitions, and explicitly exclude certain viewpoints from the definition. Yworo (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but I think that you may have missed my point. When someone attempts to denigrate or have have excluded another person's TALK PAGE comments via Wiki lawyering without even challenging them or their statements directly, I tend to think of it as bogus. Second, when they spend all of their time focusing on or trying to denigrate their opponents or their statements rather than engaging in an real debate on the topic, I tend to think that their job one is warrioring rather than a good article. North8000 (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your repeated use of the term Wikilawyering to denigrate another editor's viewpoint to be exactly what you describe. I suggest you read WP:POT. As to BigK HeX's response, he rightly points out that the outside opinions, gathered via RfC, agree with his and Carol's position. I've read the RfC and it was properly done and summarized. The conclusion is valid and for valid reasons. I see four editors who refuse to accept that. And who seem to believe that an argument's weight is measured by its verboseness, as if a sheer number of words could change the outcome. It's a waste of time. The thing to be doing is discussing how to present and balance the content, which it has already been decided will be inclusive, and providing sources to help do that. Yworo (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Xerographica says, "this article...should be limited in scope

See the closing statement of the RfC we had on that matter. Then see WP:IDHT. BigK HeX (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK Hex, I believe you meant to link to here. Indeed, it seems to be a waste of time to continue this debate. There are no new supporters of the narrow version of the article. There are still the same four, while newcomers seem to favor the broad view. I myself favor the broad view. So let's just drop that and get on with discussion balancing content which includes all viewpoints. Those who wish to claim that some viewpoint should receive less coverage need to come up with demographics to support that view. Yworo (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh.. thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, you say you support the broad scope yet you stated that this article has devolved. YOUR proposal was to revert to the 2005 version...but that version is obviously narrower in scope than the current version. The first source states..."In that broad sense, the United States as a whole is a liberal country, and all popular American ideologies are variants of liberalism." Well...if you support the broad scope...defined as "supporting liberty"...then logically you must agree that this article should have sections on liberalism and conservatism...with coverage in proportion to prominence. --Xerographica (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion was not based on the narrower scope of the older version of the article, only that it had been FA. The strawman exaggeration is not appreciated. The RfC about scope was quite explicit about the two options. The (quite specific) broad option won the day. I won't further respond to suggestions that that be overturned. Such suggestions are counterproductive soapboxing and out of line. Yworo (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica, could you please look at these sources before presenting them to us. American Government and Politics Today 2008: The Essentials ("it gives you tools to become a good citizen")[55] is a community college textbook and not rs. Total freedom: toward a dialectical libertarianism[56] sees anarchism as an influence on libertarianism. The Political Centrist[57] does not equate libertarianism with classical liberalism and mentions left libertarianism. TFD (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that community college textbooks are not reliable sources? Can you quote exactly which passages you are referring to in the other two sources? For example...according to "Total Freedom"... "The classical liberal movements of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are, of course, the forebears of contemporary libertarian thought." And according to the Political Centrist..."Like progressive liberals, libertarians want government to stay out of the bedroom. And with classical liberals, they want government to stay out of the boardroom." That idea is summarized as being socially liberal and economically conservative...which was mentioned in the reference I included just for you. --Xerographica (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all very nice. But what we need is various sentences for insertion and/or a paragraph or two summarizing these views with actual real life references that others can find. Otherwise this whole section is just more deletionist WP:SOAPBOX which should be collapsed per WP:collapse talk page sections (Feel free to fill in the wikilink to appropriate formatting page which I couldn't find.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please give full citations here for these? It makes life much easier when reading your claims. Author, title, place, publisher, year. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how it makes it easier to read my "claims". But if you're having trouble looking up the quotes then here's a tip to make your life easier. First, download Chrome...Google's browser (because it's the fastest). Next, highlight a portion of the quoted text. Then right-click on the highlighted text and click on "Search Google for...". Lastly click on the "More" tab and click on "Books".

Generally I make a judgement of the position of a source in the literature, and its reliability, based strongly on the Author and the Press / Journal. Giving a full textual citation, Author "Article" Journal vol year pages / Author Title Press Year, helps me greatly in participating in the discussion. It allows me to rapidly give credence to the HQRS, check journals for Peer Review against Ulrich's, and search for the press directly. It cuts out an intervening search step. It ensures that I don't get two items confused which have similar names. Cutting out one intermediate search helps greatly. It helps more so, for example, if I directly see something was published by Transaction after the mid 1990s, or by libcom.org, or if it was published in the Blue Emu Agricultural Newsletter. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

not helping --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Quit the sniping. It is reasonable to ask for links to sources where it is unclear - indeed it is probably a good policy for this page to use high quality links for every source, even if it has been reffed before. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sharing a time saving and super useful feature is "sniping"? "Search Google for..." is more efficient and effective because, unlike linking to the source, it takes you to the actual page of the Google book that contains the quote. --Xerographica (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Insisting that other editors download and run a different browser rather than simply supplying links to your sources is unreasonable. Yworo (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, clearly I did not insist that he follow my suggestion. Besides, I'm pretty sure it works with all the major browsers...with a few minor differences. I just mentioned Chrome because it was relevant to the topic of Fifelfoo wanting my help in making his life easier. Oh Fifelfoo, just thought of another one. In Chrome, and probably some other browsers as well, you can use the address bar exactly like a search text box. Doing so increases efficiency by 50%. It's amazing how many people type "google.com" into the address bar when they could just type in their search term instead. --Xerographica (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, let's end the endless generalized debate. What is it you want to use these sources for? Just either propose here or put into the article sentences, paragraphs you think article needs. If people think they are problematic policy wise they will either revert them or discuss them, depending on how problematic they are. My 5th or 6th request to editors with your POV. Thank you. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica, telling someone that he should Google for searches is, in my book, sniping and non-constructive. I appreciate that you went to some effort to get these sources but it is reasonable to request clarity on where they originate, Googling is not infallible and it is better ot have explicit sources. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Just a quick note, I made a couple of grammatical edits (I added a couple of periods) to the (well written and comprehensive) Libertarian political parties section of the main article. BlueRobe (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted thread...?

wholly off-topic

What happened to to the thread (diff) started by an anonymous user that appeared, for a few minutes, after the "Minor Edits" thread? Why has it disappeared? BlueRobe (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Because based on the nature of the talk and the IP address it is the sock of a banned editor and should therefore be removed. TFD (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC) You mean, you didn't check before deleting his (and my responding) post? BlueRobe (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC) I deleted the thread. I stand by that, and don't see any need to debate it ... especially not here. If you have further comments, please use my user talk page. BigK HeX (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC) BigK HeX, you stand by what? You haven't provided any reason for deleting another editor's post. Mere suspicion or hunch do not suffice. Please refrain from deleting the posts of other editors, as per WP:Vandalism. BlueRobe (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Report it, then. I'm done talking about it here, and will collapse this thread shortly, as it has abolutely NOTHING to do with the article. BigK HeX (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC) BlueRobe, you should not enter into conversations with banned editors. TFD (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC) TFD, I have no idea who the anonymous editor was, or whether he is a sock for a banned editor, and you have shown no evidence that he was a banned editor. Indeed, he sounded like a passionate newbie to me. BlueRobe (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC) IP address and behavior. And passionate newbies usually do not follow lengthy discussions and do not provide internal links to sections on WP policy pages. TFD (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

New section on Ayn Rand

I have added a section on Ayn Rand, as discussed and supported in this talk page, and as requested by the Wikipaedia moderator, Errant. Who is the jerk who deleted it a couple of minutes after I inserted it? Christ, some of you are petty. No wonder nothing ever improves around here. BlueRobe (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The section was poorly sourced and Rand is already mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"Jerk" speaking, the discussion above clearly supports at most a sentence or two on Rand and I can't see (in that discussion) a request from Errant, just a concern over one editors failure to provide sources. The article will never improve BlueRobe if editors ignore consensus whenever their particular POV does not gain support and indulge in name calling. --Snowded ^TALK 05:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no consensus against a section on rand, she has certainly been a very influential person with regards to libertarianism so i have reverted it back in. I think it would be better to discuss cutting it down in size rather than remove the lot so lets come to an agreement on how much scope she should be given within the article mark nutley (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion which shows no consensus is here. In addition Errant's advise to BlueRobe is "perhaps it is about the time for someone to write a proposed addition and post it here for review?". I.e. to use the talk page. There is consensus for some wording, but not a whole section. --Snowded ^TALK 07:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Marknutley. Indeed, it was my intention to ask for feedback from the editorial community (which is all the more appropriate given that this is my first ever substantial edit of a Wikipaedia article). It is disappointing that Snowded was so quick to use the hammer that s/he couldn't even wait a few minutes for me to come in here and ask for feedback before my contribution was deleted. BlueRobe (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have cut out a lot of the fluff and peacock, how does it look to people now? mark nutley (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes she has been an influence on modern libertarianism but so have countless others. The sources used are from a book by a Rand supporter and the Cato institute and are unrelated to libertarianism. TFD (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is also an issue of proper process. A whole section has been inserted in to the main text against consensus (see reference above). There is agreement to a few sentences, the wording for which should be proposed here, per discussion above and Errant's proposal. WP:BRD applies as Mark should know and BlueRobe can discover by reading the link. It should be reverted and any addition discussed and agreed here. --Snowded ^TALK 07:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources are fine as the they attributed and are wp:rs. Other well know and influential persons should also go into the same section like Michael Otsuka mark nutley (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Rand is already mentioned in the article. mark nutley, please read WP:RS. TFD (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just made a number of small edits to the Ayn Rand section. These were purely cosmetic (in other words, I'm still learning how to format citations). I think everything is fine now. That said, I have no idea why anyone is questioning the WP:RS of my sources. BlueRobe (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, for goodness sake, why do you feel the need to delete a brief section, the inclusion of which has consensus from the editorial community, before the editorial community even has a chance to give some feedback on it? BlueRobe (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand's website and books written about her by her supporters are not rs. And she was not a prominent philosopher. She is not in the same league as Wittgenstein, Russell, G K Moore, A J Ayre, Quine, Ryle. TFD (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wittgenstein and Quine? Since when were they Libertarian philosophers? BlueRobe (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about. You wrote, "Ayn Rand was a prominent philosopher of the twentieth Century" and I am pointing out who some of the prominent philosophers of the century were and she is not one of them. TFD (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for content removed

Ayn Rand was a prominent proponent of libertarianism in the twentieth Century and continues to influence people in the values of libertarianism. As the author of numerous fictional novels and philosophical works her works include the best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, she also conceived the philosophy of Objectivism

Any complaints with this addition? mark nutley (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

She is already mentioned in the article, it is contentious whether she was a libertarian, and you provide no explanation of how objectivism relates to libertarianism. Furthermore, it is not reliably sourced. TFD (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, sourcing is fine. Her influence on Libertarianism is substantial. And as for the an explanation of the link between Libertarianism and Objectivism... are you suggesting that we enlarge the section on Ayn Rand? BlueRobe (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD please explain how a book from a reputable publisher is not wp:rs please, once that is out of the way we can discuss content mark nutley (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Note, I have cut a little of the fluff out of the section. But, if it gets much smaller, it might as well be a postage stamp. BlueRobe (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Off Topic to the proposal

I see that A to Z is a reprint and was originally published by the academic press. But the website sources are not rs. TFD (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Added a little to it. What website sources are you on about? Two sources, both books mark nutley (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I made a point of trying to provide WP:RSs that were on-line so that other editors could readily check them for themselves. BlueRobe (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, you should read the text that you are inserting into the article and be aware of the contents. This link for example goes to an Ayn Rand website. TFD (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That`s irrelevant to the proposal above, it is also a wp:rs as it had been attributed but lets focus on what is currently proposed not what is now gone mark nutley (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, seriously? The reference to The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies includes a link to the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies? That is your complaint? This is starting to (read: well beyond) resemble a desperate witch-hunt. BlueRobe (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think that WP policy does not make sense then get it changed, but this is not the forum for that discussion. TFD (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How is this relevant

As of now, the article says (inter alia):

"Ayn Rand was a prominent philosopher of the twentieth Century. As the author of numerous fictional novels and philosophical works her most celebrated books include the best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. As a philosopher, she is notable for conceiving the philosophy of Objectivism.[135]

"The impact of Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has led to the establishment of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies[136] and Objectivist think tanks, including the Ayn Rand Institute[137] and the Atlas Society[138]."

Is this an article on Ayn Rand? I see no relevance for all this. In any case, BlueRobe should start a thread presenting his new section on this page. I am going to revert the section in the meantime. N6n (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you comment on the proposed version above please? mark nutley (talk) 09:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If we are to include a section titled "Ayn Rand's influences on Libertarianism", slightly trimmed third paragraph would be fine. "Despite her passionate rejection ... her Objectivist philosophy or not."

But,

• Accepting this would mean adding such a section (or sub-section) for many more people. Is it acceptable for the libertarianism article?
• It is badly sourced. The three sources which claim her influence are biographies at cato.org, two of which are simply webpages. None of it is peer-reviewed. What we need are sources reviewing libertarianism making such claims. N6n (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I want to avoid commenting too much on the content, because I think it hurts my ability to try and be objective/fair if I happen to come down on one side. However this addition highlighted what I think is the ongoing issue with the article. I'd have liked to have seen the section posted to the talk for discussion prior to inclusion; given the contentiousness of the article this is usually the accepted process - though I admit that might not have been clear in my proposals section.

In terms of the content itself please lets keep the assumption of good faith that BlueRobe tried to get a balanced section in after apparent consensus (and there was some sort of consensus - or I would not have suggested moving to the step of proposed content). In terms of what was added, BlueRobe, there were a few problems with what you wrote - the main one is that it is important to remember that this is an article on libertarianism, describing Rand in any detail is not required because we have a linked article for that. What the section or sentences need to do is describe Rand's relevance and significance to libertarianism. Even so, I applaud the effort to work on some actual content :)

In terms of WP:BRD this is the unwritten holy law of Wikipedia; and I want to repeat it. BlueRobe may have made a slight error in simply adding the content without presenting it here first but I insist we consider that a good faith move. What went wrong then was multiple things. When content is added and then reverted the next step is always to bring it to talk, that way a discussion can take place. Snowded; I would have like to see you bring it to talk after your initial revert. In such a contentious article you must have realised that this would quickly come out of hand and a decent talk page section a) saying why it was reverted and b) asking to discuss the content might have been helpful.

I have asked for a very short spell of page protection now, because this will rumble on and we are risking seeing blocks etc. for edit warring (which I specifically do not want to see happen). Please spend some time discussing the content here on talk --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediator

mark nutley has now reversed two editors with this edit and this edit, even putting "rv" in the edit summary) and can no longer be considered to be mediating. TFD (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you passionate antagonism towards User:marknutley has been obvious from the moment he arrived. Indeed, I don't think I have ever seen you so "agitated" about another editor. Please respect the WP guidelines regarding WP:CIVIL.

Frankly, the desperation with which you are opposing the inclusion of a brief section on Ayn Rand - the most significant Libertarian philosopher of the 20th Century - speak volumes about how poisonous this editorial environment has become. BlueRobe (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You are edit warring. The consensus above is not to include this section. I have placed a 3RR warning on your page, and also referenced your general incivility. I strongly suggest you self revert before either an admin spots the behaviour or a formal report is made. --Snowded ^TALK 09:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, by no stretch of the imagination is there consensus against the inclusion of a brief section on Ayn Rand in the Libertarianism article. If anything, there is clear consensus for including a section on Ayn Rand. Indeed, your wilful blindness to the consensus for inclusion of a section on Ayn Rand (about the only consensus this talk page has seen in weeks) is astounding. BlueRobe (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we need an RfC on this issue. BlueRobe (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In the Ayn Rand section we have Fifeifoo, Snowded, BigK HeK, CarolMooreDC & TFD (5 editors) arguing against a section and to varying degrees being open to a sentence or two. Against that we You, North8000, Born2Cycle (3 editors). Please explain how this is a consensus to include the section as you did this morning. Further please explain how your subsequent reinsertion of the text is not a failure to abide by WP:BRD. --Snowded ^TALK 09:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, BigK HeK's comment was: "Ayn Rand should be added, but now is not the right time. It'll cause a shitstorm with the more zombie-ish Objectivists, and we've got a large enough shitstorm going already. It has always been my intention that Rand get coverage though .... but we should hold off." His "objection" was little more than a suggestion that we delay inclusion.

User:Fifelfoo's comment was to express urgency for the inclusion of the Ayn Rand content: "I don't think that waiting is required.", but also suggested caution regarding weighting and sources.

Even CarolMooreDC expressed support for some inclusion of Rand: "I don't see a problem with another sentence or two on Rand influencing the movement with appropriate references." BlueRobe (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is possibly partly my fault; but I did suggest writing a piece for inclusion, but I did also suggest posting it here on the talk page for discussion before inclusion. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Errant, the section was attacked even before I had time to come into the talk page to ask for feedback. The zealousness with which the Ayn Rand section has been attacked is startling. All the more so, given that there was consensus for its inclusion. BlueRobe (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX also said this: [58] -- which is not presently support for a full section. BigK HeX (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't get too disheartened. WP:BRD is a reasonable approach; in case it was not clear before I suggest any further content additions are posted here to the talk directly and discussed prior to inclusion. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Errant, given the extreme extent of the hostility shown by a couple of passionate editors, what are the realistic chances of any improvements ever finding their way into the Libertarianism article? Currently, the Libertarianism is utterly worthless to everyone, and some editors seem determiend to keep it that way. Is it any wonder that this article has been demoted to such a low grade? BlueRobe (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose something here and I am sure everyone will look at it. Inserting a whole section when editors have specifically rejected that option (there was support for an additional sentence or two), the refusing to follow WP:BRD is not acceptable --Snowded ^TALK 11:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The draft Ayn Rand section

Ayn Rand

See: Main article: Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand was a prominent philosopher of the twentieth Century. As the author of numerous fictional novels and philosophical works her most celebrated books include the best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. As a philosopher, she is notable for conceiving the philosophy of Objectivism.

Objectivism is a comprehensive philosophy that covers Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and political and economic policy.

If you want Objectivism translated into simple language, it would read: 1. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won't make it so." 2. "You can't have your cake and eat it, too." 3. "Man is an end in himself." 4. "Give me liberty or give me death."

The impact of Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has led to the establishment of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies and Objectivist think tanks, including the Ayn Rand Institute and the Atlas Society.

Despite her passionate rejection of "Libertarian" label, and Libertarianism per se, Ayn Rand has been described as "the most popular and influential libertarian figure of the twentieth century." Indeed, The Cato Institute has noted Rand's "enormous contribution to the growth of libertarianism", and suggested that, "[m]any, and perhaps most, future libertarians first encountered libertarian ideas through Rand's novels, whether they ultimately accepted her Objectivist philosophy or not."

All editors are encouraged to provide feedback... BlueRobe (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

To long, i believe my proposal is more suited to this article

Ayn Rand was a prominent proponent of libertarianism in the twentieth Century and continues to influence people in the values of libertarianism. As the author of numerous fictional novels and philosophical works her works include the best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, she also conceived the philosophy of Objectivism

I know it`s shorter than what you have proposed but at the same time this article is not about rand mark nutley (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) I think there's probably a {{reflist}} somewhere else on the page. I've added group="ar" to each ref, and done likewise with the reflist. You'll need to remove the group="ar" bit from the refs when pushing them into the article. TFOWR 11:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Per previous discussions. A section on those influenced or who influenced may make sense, but if so then are several to be included. In Rand's case something of the above length is reasonable and the reference is not Cato which is good, however it should at least mention how she saw objectivism v libertarianism. --Snowded ^TALK 11:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, thank you for the assistance. As regards to your suggested Ayn Rand section, you do realise that Wikipaedia is supposed to provide information, not hide it, right? I seriously don't understand why some people are so determined to block this content. I'm not an Objectivist (mainly because I'm an epistemological Subjectivist/Sceptic) but I can see her obvious relevance to the Libertarianism article.

Snowded, I agree. There are several philosophers who should be included. Nozick is an obvious addition. I support the addition of other philosophers who have been influential to Libertarianism. BlueRobe (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, all I've done is (semi)fix the refs: I've made no comment about providing or hiding anything. TFOWR 11:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)BlueRobe, you should revert your revert while this discussion is taking place. There is a consensus for including (or extending) existing commentary on Rand, but the idea of a complete section was clearly rejected. Reversion to the stable overnight state would prove good faith on your part. You have now reverted three times and 3RR is clear that its not an entitlement its simply the point at which an automatic block comes into play. --Snowded ^TALK 11:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If one reads through the discussion about inclusion/exclusion of material Ayn Rand, I think that one gets the impression that the consensus was yes. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, sorry. I mistook marknutley's suggestion for part of your post. My bad (it's midnight here, lol). BlueRobe (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, you say it like you're not going to expend incredible time and effort to get me blocked anyway... lol BlueRobe (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If that was my objective I would have already made the report. I am expending a lot of time and effort trying to get you to behave reasonably. --Snowded ^TALK 12:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, thank you for your proposal for an Ayn Rand section. But, to be quite frank, the idea that Ayn Rand gets two sentences, and significantly less mention than Noam Chomsky (an Anarcho-Syndicalist), is so disturbing that I'd rather not contribute to any reference to Rand at all. BlueRobe (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's down to one subsection, with one medium sized paragraph. Let's take the tag off and move on. North8000 (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've got problems with the reliability of Cato's website, and Cato's Policy Reports (which aren't peer reviewed last time I remember checking Ulrich's, which was yesterday), for such large claims. Particularly when the Cato institute is a partisan group directly connected with the ideology. (Any peer reviewed works published by Cato, I'd have no problem with). This is a problem, as the reason for inclusion falls on these sources. Please try ref-improving! However, as I feel too closely involved to argue that the final paragraph is not substantiated adequately, I've taken the issue to WP:RS/N for those editor's expert opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Slow bump while waiting on RS/N to finalise to avoid this section being archived prematurely. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, who better than an organisation dedicated to the advocacy of Libertarianism to make an informed assessment of the influence of a philosopher to Libertarianism? BlueRobe (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Lack of peer review. SELF published material. Cato's role as a PRIMARY source on Libertarianism. Material published in a peer reviewed mode, or published by a commercial press but being edited by Cato is fine. In any case, I put it to the RS/N editors who do this day in day out. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree CATO cannot be taken on its own. I have made this into a list, which is what most editors agreed with a few key lines per person. More reading can be found by going to the respective pages. I took CarolMooreDC's list as a starting point, doubtless others can be added, but we need to keep the entries short. --Snowded ^TALK 13:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The article already says, "Ayn Rand's international bestsellers The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957) and her books about her philosophy of Objectivism influenced modern libertarianism". If we want to add to that we should say what this influence was. However there were many writers who influenced libertarianism and it makes no sense to have a separate section of her alone. Her "philosophy" may have had little influence on libertarianism and it is misleading to call her a "prominent philosopher" when the 20th century produced numerous prominent philosophers, e.g., Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Sartre, and she was certainly never considered to be one of them. TFD (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, at no point have I, or anyone else, suggested that Ayn Rand be the only "Influential Libertarian philosopher to be listed on the Libertarianism page. Clearly, sections on some other philosophers is appropriate. Regardless, please respect WP guidelines and refrain from soapboxing regarding your personal disdain for Ayn Rand, as per WP:SOAPBOX. BlueRobe (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to read up on WP:SOAP. All that TFD has said is that she is not the only philosopher and that she is certainly not a "prominent philosopher" per your original edit. There is a debate about whether she is even a philosopher given that she doesn't appear in any of the major dictionaries and encyclopedias and just has the odd reference in Universities receiving grants from Objectivist institutions. --Snowded ^TALK 06:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, WTF?! Now you're suggesting that, "there is a debate about whether [Rand] is even a philosopher"?! Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would believe you're lacking good faith... BlueRobe (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to calm down BlueRobe and let your behaviour and language match your "3 Bachelor's degrees and 3 master's degrees". The fact is that she is not listed in any major directory or encyclopedia of Philosophy and is not taught on Philosophy Courses outside of a very small number of US Colleges and there when we looked into the matter, most of them had sponsorship from Objectivist think tanks etc. There is some citation support, so by Wikipedia rules it remains a designation but not in any refereed material. There is nothing in my statement which has anything to do with good faith.

We missed the largest definition

The largest Libertarian organization in the world (the US Libertarian Party) defines Libertarianism as:

Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

And says that if the above is you, you are one.

How could we have missed this definition? North8000 (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian Party is not a "reliable source". "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (WP:RS)N6n (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello N6n

What do you think of these thoughts?:

This is a case (an organization stating what it's definition is) where a primary source is appropriate and definitive.

Your criteria would knock out the majority of sources on the more unusual forms of Libertarianism in the article. Most of those are a philosopher / writer essentially creating their definition of a particular type of Libertarianism as they write it.

Sourcing questions aside, what do you think of it?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

N6n is right; that source is fine for their own definition of libertarianism when attributed to them. Beyond that using it is problematic under primary source guidelines --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and that is what I think that I said. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, it's time to face the truth - no matter what sources we provide, or strong they are, they're going to criticise them. There is nothing wrong with my Ayn Rand sources, but they're even attacking those. BlueRobe (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that there are 2 or 3 people for whom the "battle" eclipses all else, even any issues. This is unusual, because in most warfare articles, the issues (and stances on them) drive the battle. But I think that that is just 2 or 3 people. And so I think that there is hope. North8000 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but those 2 or 3 people make up half the traffic on this page. And their arguments are absurd - source is too close to Rand/Libertarianism so must be too primary; source isn't close enough to Rand/Libertarianism so must be unreliable; source isn't on the internet so can't be verified; source is on the internet so must be unreliable... blah blah blah. NOTHING will satisfy them. My Rand section is better sourced than almost every other section in the Libertarianism article, but they don't give a damn. BlueRobe (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if people faced the truth. You've been told that some of your sources are weak. THAT is the truth. Binswanger is a pretty questionable source to cite for views on Rand which are to be relayed as fact. A random webpage off of the Cato site is also a bad idea for RS purposes. Moreover, the bias of Cato would force us to have to introduce a balancing viewpoint, which would only expand the section, when it's supposed to be fairly brief. BigK HeX (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(added later) I guess this should be in the Rand section, but responding here: Sourcing issues temporarily aside, do you think that there is anything wrong with the material in the Rand section? North8000 (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If we ignore the sourcing issues, then the issue that I see is that we need a more reliably neutral comment than one from Cato ... or we need an additional comment to balance the one from Cato, which can likely be considered to have a bias. The opening sentence is problematic, as it's relayed as fact, but is from a source which is certainly not uninvolved from the subject matter (I was going to say "certainly not objective" ... lol). Anyways, a tertiary source might be a good idea, since I suspect that there's going to be a fair amount of variance in opinions among secondary sources. BigK HeX (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Cato source is fine for Cato`s opinion so long as attributed. So long as it is pointed out through attribution that it is Cato`s opinion there is no need for a balancing viewpoint mark nutley (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

@North8000: (i)We don't care for how the Democratic Party defines 'democracy' or how the Republican Party defines 'republic'. There must be many more of these "democrats" than the scholars who care for them. Why then we don't ask for their definitions? (ii)How do you know that all the people voting for LP believe their definition to be correct? Perhaps they are just choosing the best among the options available, with no weightage given to how correct they think the definition of l. is.

I think that the two "sides" of this debate differ on the importance of scholarly sources v. the "generally understood meaning". This is what you call "battle for the sake of battle". For me, the "g. u. m." has no significance at all (I have come to this conclusion only recently!). I think an encyclopaedia's business is to just proportion things according to what "reliable sources" say, and as far as I see, WP policies agree. The "g. u. m." may have a section of its own though (I have no problem with this), but you need "reliable sources" to back up this claim too!

Your definition: If you add "(at most)" after "limited" in the definition, I would have no problem with it. You should check Rothbard's arguments on why "limited governmentstate(edited 2010-09-20)" is an absurdity though. (Those were pretty convincing for me.)N6n (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello N6n: I don't think that the analogy is applicable because "democracy" and "republic" are not the ideologies of those two parties. My main point being that the summary prepared by the largest Libertarian organization says a lot about a g.u.m. of the term. Next, I raise the question, when you say "according to what reliable sources say", the question is "say about what"? I would argue that an important topic is what RS's say the g.u.m. of Libertarianism is. And finally, by WP standards, if a source is presenting their own personal invention of a sect or term of Libertarianism, then I would argue that their material not an RS, and a primary source in a scenario where a primary sources is very unsuitable, as it is only reflecting on one person's invention. I think that this article is full of such non-RS "RS's" and to some extent has mistakenly been built around them. (I'll be mostly off line for a day after this) North8000 (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We could just as well go to the Conservative Party of Canada (the world's second largest conservative party) website and use their definitions of belief in "loyalty to a sovereign" and a belief that people "should have reasonable access to quality health care regardless of their ability to pay".[59] TFD (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello TFD. I don't think that you have made it clear what the point of your post is. I think that you are implying that the situation that you describe is analogous to the point I was making. If so, I submit that the situation is substantially different. Most importantly, in the case that you point out, I don't think that you are saying that this is them defining conservatism. There are several other ways that it is not analogous. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello North8000, I agree that 'libertarianism' is more relevant to the political parties having it in their name, than in the corresponding case for 'democracy'. But the case is no way clear-cut. The summary may have been prepared by "the largest Libertarian organization", but the said organization has very little motivation to conform to what scholars think about the term--the party will be judged by the voters, who just care about the issues, not the labels. If the Republican Party were to say that they support libertarianism, would we care about what they think of l.? I have some problem with head-counting to define a term (or guide the definition) too. "If one million people...still wrong." To follow the numbers is a dictionary's business, not an encyclopaedia's.

I think everyone here agrees with what you said about "primary sources". I had proposed a definition of libertarianism by Karl Hess with which most editors probably agree, but it was shot down as being a "primary source". (this thread: [60]) N6n (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into that. But It will take me at least a day. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried but the link is dead. Left a note on your talk page. Sincerely.North8000 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(per discussion on N6n talk page)Thanks. That sort of describes the common philosophical core common to most forms of Libertarianism. IMHO, not perfect due to being a bit ethereal, but much better than the current lead. BTW I think that the way that your idea was quickly dismissed was wrong on two levels. The norm in productive talk pages is to discuss the idea, and then to use sourcing in the discussion when needed, and then source it to put it into the article. There is no requirement nor is it the norm to have to have sourcing to put forth an idea in a talk page. This whole idea of denigrating talk page ideas SOLELY on not fulfilling this non-existent talk page requirement is way out of line. Second, it was certainly inconsistent, because many of the supposedly secondary sources used by this article are actually primary sources. They are basically an author or philosopher CREATING their own personal definition of "xxxxxx Libertarianism." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

STOP sniping --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BigK HeX, the sheer ignorance of that remarks speaks volumes for your approach to this discussion. Here is an on-line version of the Binswanger WP:RS. It shows - bloody clearly - that the Binswanger WP:RS is primarily an edited compilation of excepts from Rand's own works! WP:RS on Rand's own views don't get better than the Binswanger text. Have you no shame? BlueRobe (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC) The fact that you seem to believe your assertion somehow strengthens your defense of the source makes your use of the phrase "sheer ignorance" quite ironic. In any case, your claims about "Rand's views" are patently irrelevant to your contentiously written characterizations of Rand and her influence [the opening sentence]. BigK HeX (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC) BigK HeX, just click on the bloody link and type in the keywords yourself. You can do that much, can't you? BlueRobe (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC) I could, but it seems like deleting your contentiously worded/sourced opening sentence may be an even better idea. Alternatively, we could just have a more reasonable discussion, where you take the advisement of other editors into account. BigK HeX (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC) BigK HeX, of course, you have to come out with yet another taunt about your own bloody-minded determination to obstruct all good faith attempts to fix the Libertarianism page. As if you get some sort of thrill out of frustrating the well-meaning editors to the Libertarianism page. So much for your good faith. BlueRobe (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Posting crap like, "You can do that much, can't you?" doesn't indicate that you're interested in a reasoned discussion. My two choices with you (and any editor) on a topic in dispute are to try to work with you if you're showing interest in reasoned discussion, or to work around you if you're not. Perhaps one day you'll realize that my "bloody-minded determination" only exists when YOU make it clear that it's more productive at the moment to work around you. You being receptive to outside input eliminates the need for that. BigK HeX (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• This search shows the sentences don't even come from lp.org. Not clear where they originated.
• And while the LP is a reliable source on its own definition, it cannot be denied that The LP Platform's Section 3.7 reads: Self-Determination: Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty. Notice it doesn't say "statist" government but "governance" which includes non-state alternatives. You don't understand that many libertarians like myself defend non-state alternatives because we think they need to be experimented with, not because of any big ideological commitment to them being the best and only way to proceed. That's why it was put in there by one of the more "right wing" members of the party, as he admitted to me recently. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(added later) Carol, that came from the "are you a Libertarian" type section on their web site. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. For many reasons, I think that the non-statist should definitely be repr3esented..... not only represented, but significantly represented, because it represents a substantial view amongst Libertarians, although not including myself. Although I think that Xerographica might have you on the terminology (I think that any organization with the power to govern could be called a government) I do not agree with them disparaging your / the non-statist viewpoint. North8000 (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Again with your tribalism "soapbox". Might want to "correct" the Wikipedia article on governance because it currently says...

"governance" is what a "government" does

It's completely irrelevant though because democracies ensure that the majority will never have sufficient incentive to revolt. --Xerographica (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Only fools believe Democracy is really designed to produce representative government. The primary purpose of Democracy is to ensure that the political elite are less able to stray so far from acceptable parameters (in the eyes of the popular electorate) that the citizens revolt. All the other rationales behind Democracy are little more that PR spin-doctoring. BlueRobe (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:North8000: You still have provided an actual online a link for the quote that this whole section is based on from an LP.ORG source. And I still can't find one. So once again we have a section that probably should be collapsed for not discussing something properly.

User:Xerographica: Wikipedia Governance defines the word as something a statist government does and also says "In the case of a business or of a non-profit organisation, governance relates to consistent management, cohesive policies, processes and decision-rights for a given area of responsibility. For example, managing at a corporate level might involve evolving policies on privacy, on internal investment, and on the use of data." Considering that some people want to govern themselves via a business or nonprofit organization instead of a state (which some call anarchism, some call agorism, some call libertarianism, etc.) it obviously is a description of state and non-state methods of organization. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Carol, I went through the "quiz" on the LP site to get there, here's a link with my personal "red dot" http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz_result?e=80&i=100_80.gif&p=100. On your second sentence, you keep making up talk page rules that don't exist. In this case it would be to squelch a very useful & germane discussion. Sound's like warfare to me, but sorry if I misread that. Let's move on and have some fun here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The LP linking to a non-LP website cannot be considered a reference for what the LP thinks under WP:RS in wikipedia. It only reflects what http://www.theadvocates.org thinks. (For example, maybe http://www.theadvocates.org has changed their text since the last time an LP staffer checked a few years back.) I don't know which second sentence you are referring to, but if we are to have productive discussions here we have to cite real WP:RS for discussion or it's just more soapbox and I thought we had started collapsing that sort of thing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

One can find sources that meet the wp:"RS" criteria that say anything. The only talk pages that go anywhere have discussions on the topics (often guided by sources) and then find sourcing for what was decided. (And you are calling any discussion without citations "soapboxing"...I would not agree with that characterization.) Witness this discussion which has gone NOWHERE (or downhill) in 5 years. I agree that that is not an RS for putting that into the article, but I would consider it to be a very strong indicator. A third of the top 1/3 of the LP home page links to it. As an aside, I also conside such summaries to be a stronger indicator that a platform. To remain in such a high profile position, particularly if it is informal would typicaly need like a 90% or 99% consensus, whereas to be in the platform just needs 51%. Within organizations that are (supposedly) organized around a viewpoint, you would expect nearly 100% support of that viewpoint. I don't consider 51% to be an indicator of a viewpoitn of such an organization. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The only talk pages that go anywhere have discussions on the topics (often guided by sources) and then find sourcing for what was decided.; that is 110% the thing to avoid on this page. As you say it is possible to creatively source many things, and making a pre-formed decision is not a good way to approach sourcing material. Instead it is better to address actual content (say a sentence or inclusion) and then fi9gure out what the RS's are saying --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that we're both right sometimes, and that we're 70% saying the same thing. On the other 30%, I think that your way is the best on a very specific question, but submit that that doesn't work well on large scale / complex/ strategic issues such as this article has. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Labels versus Tenets

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Libertarianism has two major tenets...limited government and social liberalism. "Limited government" excludes both anarchism (no government) and modern liberalism (large government). Conservatism is excluded because it is socially conservative. That's the "tenets approach". Simple, no fuss, and supported by numerous reliable sources which I provided.

Currently we are using the "labels approach". Here's the problem with the "labels approach". Yworo wrote of minimal government versus no government..."There is no contradiction. There are conflicting beliefs within many ideologies. These are presented in articles by stating that this subgroup believes X, and this other subgroup believes Y. X and Y need not be consistent with each other." We can contrast Yworo's viewpoint with TFD's viewpoint. TFD said of Ayn Rand..."She is already mentioned in the article, it is contentious whether she was a libertarian, and you provide no explanation of how objectivism relates to libertarianism."

With the tenets approach, TFD's argument would hold no weight because Objectivism, like libertarianism, is an ideology of limited government and social liberalism. Deciding inclusion based on tenets is more logical and generates less conflict than deciding inclusion based on labels. --Xerographica (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(added later) I think that you hit the nail right on the head regarding defining 99% of Libertarianism. But due to the realities of the article(s) and the need for disambiguation on a complicated topic, I think that the other 1% should still be included. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Quit edit warring over this. Xerographica, what you have written above seems to have been dealt with a number of times in the last few days - including in an RFC the other week. I encourage you to remove or strike it (I will probably close it in half an hour or so anyway) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Errant, what I wrote is supported by numerous reliable sources...Scope of Government. Which has more weight...reliable sources or the "results" of a much disputed RFC...RFC revisited? --Xerographica (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I gave you the chance to close it yourself. As I note above you don't appear to have brought anything new to what was discussed previously (as I read it) so closing --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Murray Rothbard

This article currently says..."Murray Rothbard an American author, and economist who helped define modern libertarianism and popularized "anarcho-capitalism".[137] He is considered by some to be "dean of the Austrian School of economics, the founder of libertarianism, and an exemplar of the Old Right".[138]"

Lewrockwell.com is the source supporting the idea that "some" consider Rothbard to be the "founder of libertarianism". Rockwell is just one person and he was very close friends with Rothbard. Regarding Rothbard being the "dean of the Austrian School of economics"...Von Mises was clearly a significantly more prominent economist of the Austrian tradition. Here's what Von Mises said regarding those who wish to abolish government (anarcho-capitalists)...

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists. We must emphasize this point because etatists sometimes try to discover a similarity. Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state. Liberals fully recognize that no social coöperation and no civilization could exist without some amount of compulsion and coercion. It is the task of government to protect the social system against the attacks of those who plan actions detrimental to its maintenance and operation. - Omnipotent Government

Even if we assume a totally useless broad definition of libertarianism..."supporting liberty"...Rothbard's views were by no means widely held...

Lastly to be addressed is the apparent anomaly of Murray Rothbard. Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. - Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy

In terms of proportion of prominence...libertarianism is an ideology of limited government...as I clearly demonstrated with numerous reliable sources in the section on the scope of government. That this article includes the idea that Rothbard was the "founder of libertarianism" clearly violates the undue weight policy and is proof in point regarding the dangers of a broad definition. It's also clearly a double standard that editors required that Ayn Rand first be discussed for inclusion on the talk page while no such requirement was enforced for Rothbard. --Xerographica (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica you have made a good point; please do not hijack this with more of the same as you posted above. It is not helping. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Bothering to edit this article without first achieving consensus on what the topic of this article is...is a perfect example of putting the cart before the horse. --Xerographica (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've found "dean" to be a bit exaggerated, but too lazy to change it. Look at his article and/or find a more NPOV source to describe him. As for your 4 paragraphs of other (Soapbox) points, quoting a non-WP:RS author on a non-WP:RS site like flag.blackened.net is just irrelevant. If you'd just leave out the soapbox, editing could proceed more collaboratively. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, if you'd bother to read the article you would have noticed that it was originally published in a journal of anarchism. It's not my responsibility to find a more NPOV source to describe his relevance to libertarianism. If anybody wants to include Rothbard they should first discuss it here on the talk page...just as we've had to do with Ayn Rand. Personally, I wouldn't vote to include him as his ideology clearly runs counter to the defining tenets of libertarianism. That being said I would describe him as the founder of anarcho-capitalism and a prolific writer. --Xerographica (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't "clearly demonstrate" anything except that there exist people who hold a view of libertarianism as "limited government" and even on that account, a fair amount of your "evidence" did not even explictly exclude "no governance" from the concept of "no more governance that 'necessary'".

My observation is that the editors in the vocal minority (who bother to post sources) here seem to have a noticeable tendency to overstate the usefulness of the sources that might support their preferred POV..... BigK HeX (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No more! That specific issue should be considered put to rest for the moment - anyone mentioning it again is going to get collapsed, however, feel free to focus on the other point made --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's another reliable source on the topic...

In many ways, Rothbard's anarchism modifies the contributions of Spooner, Tucker, and Nock within a framework of Austrian economics - Total freedom: toward a dialectical libertarianism By Chris Matthew

In other words...anarcho-capitalism = anarchism + classical liberalism. --Xerographica (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• "all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical."
• "are libertarians anarchists? must be answered unhesitatingly in the negative. We are at completely opposite poles."
• " the ideas of the left-wing anarchists have become a nonsensical jumble, far more irrational than that of the Marxists, and deservedly looked upon with contempt by almost everyone as hopelessly crackpot."
• "anarchists, perhaps unconsciously seeing the hopelessness of their position, have made a point of rejecting logic and reason entirely."
• "today the anarchists are exclusively in the left-wing camp"
• "left-wing anarchism must in practice signify either regular Communism or a true chaos of communistic syndics" Murray Rothbard http://mises.org/daily/2801 Darkstar1st (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, let's not stray into original research, using articles written outside the academic mainstream. Here is a link to a section where Sara Diamond explains the origins of modern American libertarianism (pp. 123ff). Clearly Rothbard was part of it, and Rand is just mentioned in passing. TFD (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The good news is people are actually starting to discuss actual content of the article and wp:rs. The bad news is they are still using them to support broad deletionist soapbox. Sigh.

• Someone wrote: If anybody wants to include Rothbard they should first discuss it here on the talk page...just as we've had to do with Ayn Rand. This gives the false impression there was nothing in the article about Rand before.
• A link to the Chris Matthew source would be useful to see if it's something that should replace current statement. Not sure which article TFD was referring to, but he also provides a good source which can be integrated. Somebody do it :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Darkstar: Rothbard is here talking about anarchism in the socialist sense (its general meaning). For Rothbard's connection with anarchism in the broader sense, check the many references I have provided about Rothbard before. In particular, [61]. I myself have pointed out this distinction a couple of times in the past. N6n (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

apologies, but after following your link i still didnt find what you meant, would you post a line of 2 here to clarify? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The articles I referred to are the sources of the quotes from Darkstar1st, e.g., "Are we anarchists". These are primary sources and we should not use them to determine the content and weight of the article, because that would be original research. TFD (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD...did you actually read the article on Sara Diamond that you linked to? If so, how did you interpret where it said that her books "study and expose the agenda and tactics of the American political right wing."? --Xerographica (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I "actually read the article" (sic). I do not Google mine for quotes that support edits I wish to make and advise other editors not to do it either. Instead I look for the most appropriate and accepted sources about a topic. In this case the book, Roads to dominion, is considered one of the most important books written on the American Right. It was published by the academic press, it was fact-checked and as you can see here is frequently cited in the literature. That the author is unsympathetic to them is irrelevant. The facts in the book are considered reliable, her description of how the subject is understood in the literature is reliable, and her opinions are notable. I am not saying that her opinions should direct the article or even that they should be included. Some of her opinions do not enjoy consensus or are in the minority, which is the case with virtually all reliable sources for social sciences. In fact she explains in the book where her differences are. But is certainly rs for facts and for explaining the relative weight of different opinions. TFD (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, Murray's own words are acceptable under wp:primary "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source" Darkstar1st (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The are not "straightforward, descriptive statements", you are using them to form an original interpretation of libertarian history. TFD (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

actually they are straightforward, descriptive statements, how is posting a quote interpreting a primary source? these are murray's words, anarcho-capitalism is a term coined by him.

You're both partially right. But TFD's has a point; to make the statement "murray coined the term anarcho-capitalism" we need a third party source the make that claim. Using his words plus the fact they came first is a violation of primary sourcing - WP:TRUTH is the relevant policy in this case. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

how could tfd have a point about who coined the term? his objection was before "coined" was even brought up, he is referring to the quotes i posted above Darkstar1st (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

i am partially right? which part did i get wrong? Roberta Modugno Crocetta, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism in the contemporary debate. A critical defense, Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

^ Michael Oliver, 'Exclusive Interview With Murray Rothbard, originally published in "The New Banner: A Fortnightly Libertarian Journal", February 25, 1972. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

When I said "article" I thought you would be able to tell the difference between an "article" and a "book". You linked to the WIKIPEDIA article ON Sara Diamond. So no, obviously you did not read the article on Sara Diamond. And no, I wasn't Google mining for quotes...I was just reading the article that you linked us to. The wikipedia article on Sara Diamond clearly reveals that her books function as attacks on the right. Her goal was to "scare" the left into action...to establish a clear and present danger. To accomplish that she overplayed Rothbard's influence rather than Rand's influence. Why overplay his influence? Because Rothbard said that if he had the opportunity to abolish all government with the push of a button...he would blister his thumb pushing that button. If that thought doesn't scare you then you know you're an anarchist. --Xerographica (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm ... let's not cite another Wikipedia.org article as the basis for the direction of this article. BigK HeX (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Solid point from BKH. On the other hand it is reasonable to use sourced material in another article to highlight a point about the source; if its aim was as described (I have not checked, I will leave that to others) that does make it a questionable source for some areas (remember that WP:RS specifically points out that both publisher, author and content can undermine a source). When working with sources like this, particularly in social sciences, we end up in a "chicken and egg" situation. In the end we have to make some sort of editorial judgement about the reliability of sources for certain content. What I find helps is taking a specific piece of content that the source is supporting, break it down into what it is (e.g: entirely factual, factual interpretation, interpretation, opinion) and on which topic and then figure out if the source is reliable for that specific instance. For example in digital forensics (a topic I have a huge interest) there is a source that is a very POV discussion on whether police should be allowed to seize computer equipment under broad warrants, within which is actually some really good factual advice on how to sieze equipment. The source is unreliable for the first topic but very reliable (due to the author, content and publisher) for the second factual item. This is a minefield of good judgement. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to the book. But again, it does not matter why someone wrote a book so long as the book is accepted by the academic community as a reliable source. If you read her book, the right-wing that she finds dangerous is not Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand, but the Ku Klux Klan, American Nazis, skinheads, and people who shoot abortion doctors and bomb synagogues. However she writes about the entire American right wing. You will find that many writers present the Klan and other groups as dangerous, and that is no reason to reject them. Errant, the personal views of a writer have no bearing on their reliability whatsoever. One must look at the book itself: was it published by the academic press, has it been well-received by the academic community, is the writer one of the acknowledged leaders in their field, does the academic community accept that the facts in the book are presently accurately and in a fair manner. Does the writer present all the facts and make their arguments from them or do they present selective facts to support an argument. Read the book, look at its general acceptance in the literature. TFD (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

She talks about the KKK, Nazis, skinheads, religious fanatics...and she says that Rothbard...not Rand...was the major influence on libertarianism. So basically she highlighted the worst of the right...but then she was completely objective when it came to discussing the people who influenced libertarianism? --Xerographica (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately we do no have to speculate and conduct our own original research in order to determine whether she was completely objective. We rely on the reviewers at the academic publisher of the book and the opinions expressed by scholars in articles in peer-reviewed journals and academic books that have commented on her writing. We also should note that academics face severe discipline for publishing polemical work in academic publications and the publishers face a loss of reputation. That is why for example academics who wish to write polemical works do so outside the academic community and of course these are not reliable sources, just as the Cato Institute/Lew Rockwell websites are no rs even if the writers are highly regarded. TFD (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It boils down to coverage based on proportion of prominence. That Diamond even mentioned KKK, Nazis, skinheads, religious fanatics clearly indicates that she had an agenda. I certainly can't recall any of the reliable sources that I've run across having discussed those groups...and they certainly did not credit Rothbard with being a major influence on libertarianism. It's not a matter of "original research" it's simply a matter of critical thinking. --Xerographica (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Your review of the literature is irrelevant. If you certainly can't recall any of the reliable sources that discuss the far right, it is probably because you are unfamiliar with the reliable sources for this topic. TFD (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

@Xerographica: I agree with TFD above that our personal "critical thinking" here is not a simple matter, as far as WP policies are concerned. Our personal interpretations and deductions explicitly are not allowed here. See WP:OR. BigK HeX (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

TFD and BigK HeX, here are some reviews from Amazon...

• "Roads to Dominion makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of the continuing right wing attack." -- The New Yorker
• "Diamond's analysis provides good evidence to counter those who exaggerate the strength, unity and popular base of the right." --The Socialist Worker
• "... powerful, and chilling..." --Agenda
• "For all those casting wary glances at the ascendant right, Roads to Dominion is a must read.... Sara Diamond has done an excellent job of illuminating the nature of the US right. And she has laid the groundwork for more well-informed polemics against the rightist threat." --Covert Action Quarterly

It's definitely no surprise that neither of you can tell from reading her book that her obvious agenda is fear mongering. Her fear mongering tactics perfectly explain why she would credit Rothbard for being the primary influence on libertarian thought. That's exactly what I would do if I was an anti-libertarian. --Xerographica (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, puleeze! Yworo (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sara Diamond is one of the most respected academics who studies the radical right,including the Libertarian Party. People who study this party specialize in third party and extremist groups, and if you do not like that then you must present some other writer who does this. So the Socialist Workers Party admires her work, but so do the FBI and Homeland Security. TFD (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

this is not on topic, keep it ultra-polite please --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Socialist Workers Party and Homeland Security share a common interest in crushing liberty ... and you think their admiration for Sara Diamond is a positive thing? lol BlueRobe (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Please try to stick to discussing the article. Non-productive comments such as this just clutter the talk pages and prevent work from getting done. Perhaps you should take a look at WP:TPG, to get a better understanding of how to discuss things on talk pages. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Jrtayloriv, let's not kid outselves into believing that they have any intention of working towards improving the ridiculously incoherent and WP:Undue weight that has lowered the WP:Grade of the Libertarianism article to that of "laughing stock". TFD and BigK HeX have blocked every single improvement, and rejected every single offer of a compromise, without giving an inch. Let's be blunt: TFD and BigK HeX have demonstrated zero good faith in their approaches to the editing Libertarianism. Clearly, blatant sabotage is their agenda. BlueRobe (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Whether you think the article is a "laughing stock" is irrelevant. What is relevant is your bad faith accusations against TFD and BigK Hex (as usual, without any supporting evidence), who are two of editors here who have continuously based their suggestions and changes on Wikipedia policy and reliable sources. Again, try to make productive comments that suggest improvements to the article, based on reliable sources rather than attacking other editors and voicing your personal opinions. Please see WP:TPG-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Jrtayloriv, I suggest you have a look at the Article Milestones at the top of the page. If Libertarianism's WP:Grade gets any lower, we'll need shovels to find it. BlueRobe (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica -- Your opinions on Diamond, your low quality original research based on Amazon reviews, and your personal opinions about Rothbard are totally irrelevant. What matters is that Diamond's work is clearly reliable, and that reliable sources are what base articles on, rather than on personal opinions. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, it only requires a tiny bit of critical thinking to recognize that it's in the best interests of the left to portray her work as neutral and balanced. But even just the title on its own makes her agenda clear..."Roads to Dominion". Seriously? It's pretty darn funny that you guys are in the absurd position of trying to defend an obvious attack on the right in order to justify using it as a reliable source that "neutrally" covers major influences on libertarianism. Her book highlights right-wing extremism so of course she's going to want to exaggerate Rothbard's influence in order to justify giving him extra coverage. --Xerographica (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, your personal views on her work are irrelevant. Please see WP:OR and WP:DUE. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, There is obviously disagreement over the aims of the book - at this point we have to step away from our own views (because they clash) and try and source the reliability of the book. Words like "clearly" and "obviously" are exactly the ones to avoid unless you can source the assertion; does someone reliable and notable, that you can cite, support the view that this book has an agenda? Are you planning to use this source anywhere? If so for what purpose? Lets try and focus the discussion --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

@Darkstar1st: Differences in meaning of anarchism: I first said it here: [62] N6n (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Errant, on the Conservatism in the United States article her book is listed in the critical views section. These two reviews help identity the agenda of her book...

• "study and expose the agenda and tactics of the American political right wing." - Thomson, Contemporary Authors Online (from her wikipedia article)
• "Roads to Dominion makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of the continuing right wing attack." -- The New Yorker

In the beginning of the book she states..."This book sets the stage for our understanding of some of the tragic and perplexing events we now witness." The evidence supports her lack of neutrality and indicates why she would want to exaggerate the influence of the right-wing radicals. --Xerographica (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not sure that is sufficient; sure, the book is identified as critical, but to undermine it you need a non-partisan source that identifies it as unfairly critical or in some way factually inaccurate. Certainly it looks like the book will need to be attributed for material not supported by other sources, but right now it does not look to be readily questionable. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Every source we provide is challenged, and most of those challenges are ridiculous, (for instance, the bizarre challenges to the WP:RS I provided for the Ayn Rand section). Meanwhile, every source they have provided is accepted without question, and with exaggerated weighting, regardless of the degree of bias or political agenda that is blatantly implicit in those sources. BlueRobe (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think.. (and I know that I was trying to avoid this) the book is generally a reliable source, but enough concern exists that, editorially, it should be used with care. I am still unclear where the proposal to use this source is? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe -- we don't base our judgements of reliability based on editors' opinions about "bias". Every source is biased. What we base our decisions on is the quality of the publication -- it's importance, it's record for factual accuracy, the prominence of its authors in the field in question, etc. We don't say "that source is biased so we're not using it". The fact that you still think that "bias" is the issue, implies that you need to take the advice that has been given to you repeatedly, and go and read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Then start attempting to provide reliable sources, rather than attempting to provide sources you feel are "neutral", and I promise you your sources will be accepted. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for us slow people, the work being discussed is:

• Sara Diamond, Roads to dominion: right-wing movements and political power in the United States. Critical perspectives [Series]. New York, N.Y.: Guilford Press: 1995. Guilford is a credible academic press. As a result this work is a HQRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

To address Xerographica's concerns about "neutrality" in published HQRS. I've previously presented HQRS' which absolutely demolish bad "scholarly" works to a social science wikipedia article. The "best result" I could achieve was a short paragraph demonstrating the demolition. See paragraph 8 of This article section. It is pushing scatoliths up hill to refute a HQRS's statements in current policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the book peer reiviews, and if so by whom? This is the only real barrier to it being a definite HQRS. If the publisher and author are generally reliable there are cases where the material is questionable. For example, as is being suggested in this case, where they are partisan, or have an agenda. Usually this does not entirely undermine the source - but it is good practice to attribute anything beyond factual statements. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's put this in plain English - we can expect Sara Diamond's commentary on Libertarianism to be about as objective as Michael Moore's commentary on the Ford Motor Company. BlueRobe (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

tmorton, you may be unfamiliar with the non-fiction publishing process. Commercial presses send documents out to readers, who tend to read for commercial success or legal liability. Academic presses send documents out to academic readers, who read for the work being a contribution to scholarship. This second constitutes peer review, which is why HQRS monographs and chapters come from academic presses. As noted, Guilford is an academic press. Subsequent to publication, monographs are often (but not always) reviewed by major journals in the field. Journal reviews in otherwise Peer Reviewed journals are not in themselves reviewed, but are solicited from specialist academics. Hostile book reviews in a majority of the book reviews in scholarly journals would indicate that the monograph has failed academically. Unfortunately, such a judgement is beyond wikipedia's policy's capabilities as it would be SYNTH and OR; WEIGHT would apply. For example, "Smith Smithson's thesis on blue emus, that they are orange ducks, received blunt and scathing attacks in the academic journals.[footnotes]" This kind of situation usually occurs where the press is not in fact academic and is masquerading as one; or, where the issue is in dispute within the academic discipline; or, through a massive failure of the academic press editor and the external specialist readers prior to publication. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, the process of peer review is fraught with imbalance and distortion of the facts. Otherwise, all authors on any given topic would agree on the basic facts, and that is a patently absurd suggestion. BlueRobe (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies privilege it. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, we all "privilege it". But, some of us are sensible enough not to treat "peer review" like a certified stamp of Gospel awarded by the angels. We all know that bias occurs in peer reviewed literature and it would be foolhardy to pretend that authors who are infamous for their political agendas are unbiased, peer review or no peer review. Goodness knows, I've been reading peer reviewed literature for years and that standard means little to me. Indeed, more often than we'd like, the process of peer review is used by clubs of insiders to freeze-out outsiders who try to express some new and original ideas. BlueRobe (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There is general agreement on facts in peer-reviewed literature. TFD (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For the most part you are correct. Except: Hostile book reviews in a majority of the book reviews in scholarly journals would indicate that the monograph has failed academically. Unfortunately, such a judgement is beyond wikipedia's policy's capabilities as it would be SYNTH and OR; WEIGHT would apply. - does not apply because this is an editorial decision. This is exactly the sort of process we have to go through, if the book is academically panned and rejected it becomes a questionable and unreliable source. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that practice has developed here since the last time I had to deal with non-academic press book whose only academic review tore it apart! Fifelfoo (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Book reviews in peer-reviewed journals are not themselves peer-reviewed and are therefore of little relevance. Most bad reviews are that a book is unoriginal or boring, omits topics that should be included or makes dubious conclusions, not that it is factually incorrect. To determine the reception of a book one looks at its citation in academic writing. But again that normally refers to the acceptance of the opinions presented. TFD (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And as I've explained previously, citation analysis is widely accepted to be completely non-indicative in the humanistic social sciences and humanities. I have seen a few demolition reviews though. They're fairly rare. The external reader process generally works for scholarly monographs. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not mean we should look for a count of how often a source is cited but how it is cited. And errors of fact are rare in academic writing and usually can be corrected by comparing with other academic sources. Even Rummel's Statistics of democide: genocide and mass murder since 1900, which contains estimates that have been panned, is objected to for the opinions expressed rather than the data presented. His reporting of the documents found in the archives and the decline in telephone listings are probably correct. TFD (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I get what you're saying now. Not the volume of use made, but the quality of use, the characterising terms, "masterly, impoverished, failed," etc. Rummel is a more difficult moment, historians have a trade craft regarding inferences, and generally treat certain kinds of inference as having facticity; but that's a disciplinary problem off topic. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is important. We may accept Statistics, which was published in the academic press, but would rely on NPOV to determine the weight given to the conclusions, and would look to later writing to see if any of the basic facts were found to have been misstated. Death by government however could be rejected out of hand because it was published outside the academic mainstream. The relevance to this article is that we cannot pre-emptively challenge the facts in Diamond's book because she is unfavorable to the U.S, Right. TFD (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Founder and Creator

For reference...this article still says..."Murray Rothbard an American author, and economist who helped define modern libertarianism and popularized "anarcho-capitalism".[137] He is considered by some to be "dean of the Austrian School of economics, the founder of libertarianism, and an exemplar of the Old Right".[138]"

• [137] = Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-17944-5
• [138] = Rothbard archives, Lew Rockwell.com

We've established that Lew Rockwell.com is not a reliable source. Looking at the Blackwell reference it says that "...Rothbard is the principle founder of modern libertarianism". The thing is that Blackwell cites Rothbard's own book...The Ethics of Liberty...which states pretty much the same thing..."Rothbard became the creator of modern American libertarianism..." --Xerographica (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All facts in reliable sources ultimately derive from primary sources. We rely on secondary sources to determine the credibility of the information in primary sources, which is something we cannot do ourselves. It is similar to a legal proceding where the judge hears all the witnesses, weighs their evidence, and determines the facts of the case. Although the evidence comes from non-authoritative sources, it does not mean that the facts in the decision are not authoritative. TFD (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you may have been invoking wp:primary incorrectly for quite some time now, it actually says primary sources may be used. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, do not misrepresent what I said. I never said primary sources cannot be used and it is disruptive editing to misrepresent what other editors say. TFD (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Page 441 Hamowy's Encyclopedia of Libertarianism Rothbard article says Rothbard "was of central importance to the modern libertarian movement because of both his writing and scholarship and his personal outreach to young libertarians." This sounds like a good source. (Note: Sources pointing out he was often called "Mr. Libertarian". Probably should go in his wiki article.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter H Marshall Demanding the impossible : a history of anarchism. HarperCollins 1992, Fontana 1993; republished PM Press 2010

Wotcher,

I was trying to figure out if George Woodcock would make a useful one line addition to the thinkers section, and came across Peter H Marshall Demanding the impossible: a history of anarchism. HarperCollins 1992, Fontana 1993; republished by PM Press 2010. The PM Press edition is available in Google Scholar here. HarperCollins is commercial non-fiction. Fontana was the paperback imprint of Collins. Marshall appears to have had other works published in scholarly presses (Yale UP).

In particular the section 639-642 may be useful to the article:

{quote}The word 'libertarian' has long been associated with anarchism, and has been used repeatedly throughout this work. The term originally denoted a person quo upheld the doctorine of freedom of the will;… It came however to be applied to anyone who approved of liberty in general. … [anarchist uses] … For a long time, libertarian was interchangeable in France with anarchist but in recent years, its meaning has become more ambivalent. Some anarchists like Daniel Guérin will call themselves 'libertarian socialists' partly to avoid the negative overtones still associated with anarchism, and partly to stress the place of anarchism within the socialist tradition. Even Marxists of the New Left like E. P. Thompson call themselves 'libertarian' to distinguish themselves from those authoritarian socialists and communists… Left libertarianism can therefore range from the decentralist who wishes to limit and devolve State power, to the syndicalist who wants to abolish it altogether. It can even encompass the Fabians and the social democrats who wish to socialize the economy but who still see a limited role for the State. [341]

{quote}The problem with the term 'libertarian' is that it is now also used by the Right. Extreme liberals inspired by J. S. Mill who are concerned with civil liberties like to call themselves libertarians. They tend to be individualists who trust in a society formed on the basis of voluntary agencies. They reject a strong centralized State and blieve that social order, in the sense of the security of persons and property, can best be achieved through private firms competing freely in the market-place. In its moderate form, right libertarianism embraces laissez-faire liberals like Robert Nozick who call for a minimal State, and in its extreme form, anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman who entirely repudiate the role of the State and look to the market as a means of ensuring social order. [341-2]

{quote}While undoubtedly related to liberalism and socialism, true anarchism goes beyond both political tendencies. … Anarchism leaves Left and Right libertarianism behind since it finds no role for State and government, however minimal. Its roots may entwine and its concerns overlap, but ultimately anarchism forms a separate ideology and doctrine, with its own recognizable tradition.

Thanks. The editorial direction I would draw from this is that it strongly reinforces the other RS, including HQRS, that indicate that libertarianism is left-wing and not left-wing, libertarianism is right-wing and not right-wing, that libertarianism is anarchist and not anarchist. Though it is especially useful for its claim regarding Fabians and social democrats. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The usefulness of that information is limited to the etymology of the term "Libertarianism". BlueRobe (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Useful to etymology, but not exclusively so, as he clearly states two definitions regarding what libertarianism is on the left ("Left libertarianism can therefore range...") and on the right ("In its moderate form, right libertarianism...). Additionally, for the Section Libertarian Socialism he clearly marks Fabianism and the actually-socialist social democrats as libertarian, which provides a source for currently unsourced statements (which I'm about to add the ref to). Fifelfoo (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fabianism? As if the Libertarianism page isn't already overrun by inappropriate Anarchist content, now you want to dump a load of content about Socialism (the antithesis of Libertarianism) in there. BlueRobe (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is what the RS say. The current, and appropriate weight, for Fabians and Social Democracy is one sentence with wiki-links, to contrast non-revolutionary and revolutionary libertarian socialism. Consult for example, David Goodway Anarchist seeds beneath the snow: left-libertarian thought and British writers from William Morris to Colin Ward Liverpool University Press 2006 at 73passim where it discusses the relationship between the Fabians and Wilde; or, Ruth Livesey "Morris, Carpenter, Wilde, and the POlitical Aesthetics of Labor" Victorian Literature and Culture(2004), 601–616. 1060-1503. Cheers. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

About the only ideology you haven't embraced for the Libertarianism article is mainstream Libertarianism. Are you guys filming this dialogue for some Candid Camera TV show? BlueRobe (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, while you're throwing critical thinking out the window don't forget to add conservatism as well...

• However, most observers treat libertarianism as a strain of current conservative thought. - Leviathan on the Right: how big-government conservatism brought down the ... By Michael Tanner
• Libertarianism is a form of Conservatism often considered separate from the more mainstream conservative ideologies, partially because it is a bit more extreme, and partially because Libertarians often separate themselves from other forms of more mainstream Conservatism. - American conservatism: history, theory and practice By Brian R. Farmer
• Libertarianism, sometimes considered a type of conservatism, believes in the autonomy of the individual and a minimal role for the government. - The conservative tradition in America By Charles W. Dunn, J. David Woodard

Or, rather than just cutting and pasting every time you see the word "libertarianism"...you could just refer to this relevant source checklist --Xerographica (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Dunn and Woodward were writing about conservatism in the United States. Their views on that subject btw are based on the theories of Russell Kirk and have gained virtually no acceptance. The biggest problem of course if that most scholars do not consider what is called "conservatism" in the U.S. to be real conservatism, it is normally considered to be a type of liberalism. So their view that U.S. libertarianism is part of U.S. conservatism is true, the view that libertarianism is part of liberalism may be true, but the theory that libertarianism is part of an ideology that supports monarchy, hereditary privilege and a strong state is absurd. TFD (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD...therefore...we should include a section on American conservatism...and liberalism? --Xerographica (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you come to that conclusion based on what I just wrote? TFD (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What you just wrote did not address my point. According to those reliable sources...libertarianism is a form/strain/type of American conservatism...so should we include a section on American conservatism? --Xerographica (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I still do not follow you. Libertarianism is an ideology, yet we do not have a section on ideology. TFD (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You acknowledged a relationship between liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism. But you don't believe that conservatism or liberalism are intimately related to libertarianism? --Xerographica (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

request for the exact text supporting "anarchism continues to be a major strand within libertarianism" neither of the links supply the verbiage.

Major and minority strands are tantamount to the current discussion about undo weight. having the exact ext would be helpful to verify the source has been interpreted correctly. other sources like sep, jave classified left-libertarian as the minor. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, the claim that "anarchism continues to be a major strand within libertarianism" is so patently absurd that I don't know why we're even discussing it. Indeed, there would be an odd mix of outrage, laughter and raised eye-brows if we threw that claim around in the company of Anarchists. At the rate the lefties are poisoning the Libertarianism article with these oddball quotes, we'll have Papa-Smurf listed as one of the Influential Libertarian Philosophers within 3 months. BlueRobe (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't anarchism the most extreme variant of mainstream Libertarianism, rather than an opposite form as y'all are implying? North8000 (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As the sources in the scope of government section indicated...there is a very important distinction between anarchism and libertarianism. Here's another reference pointing out the distinction...

Libertarians accept the need for a limited state - if only to provide basic levels of safety and security. Their focus is keeping the state limited to a disciplined - and small - number of activities. Anarchists still want to smash the mechanisms of state. As I've noted, anarchy is an emotional system. - Liberty in troubled times: a libertarian guide to laws, politics and society ... By James Walsh

The key distinction is the existence of the state as a mechanism for providing "safety and security". --Xerographica (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Noam Chomsky, Carlos Peregrín Otero. Language and Politics. AK Press, 2004, p. 739. reads,

  {quote}Many ardent drug reformers are self-identified "libertarians." As an anarchist (I assume it is fair to call you that) what is your take on libertarianism?

  {quote}The term "libertarian" as used in the U.S. means something quite different from what it meant historically and still means in the rest of the world. Historically, the libertarian movement has been the anti-statist wing of the socialist movement. Socialist anarchism was libertarian socialism.

  {quote}In the U.S., which is a society much more dominated by business, the term has a different meaning. It means eliminating or reducing state controls, mainly controls over private tyrannies. Libertarians in the U.S. don't say, Let's get rid of corporations. It is a sort of ultra-rightism.

• AK Press is a commercial non-fiction press with a political bent, much like Cato. The work was first published in 1989 in Montreal by Black Rose books, another commercial non-fiction press with a political bent. Chomsky is like Doherty and expert without having a degree in the area (Chomsky's higher degree is linguistics, not politics). Treat as Policy Report by Cato is treated. In my opinion this isn't RS, but WP:RS/N is still deliberating on Doherty via Cato's Policy Reports. And their argument is leading towards yes for Doherty in Policy Reports. (I'm giving RS/N until their archive date, they're archiving on a 4 day basis at the moment). Fifelfoo (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

thank you fifelfoo! since Noam did not address the major or minor issue, we can exclude his source, now lets find the words from the other source. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Noam's claim is a bit more than anarchism being part of libertarianism, it is that for all but the US, libertarianism is anti-statist socialism—no mention of anarchism as such. I don't want to consider the implications Noam in AK until RS/N have a chance to finalise their discussion of Doherty in Cato. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

fife, this section is just about anarchy being considered the "major" strand of libertarian, i do not wish to minimize Noams comments as it relates to the rest of the article, simple point out it does not support the claims made by the editor in this single passage. do you have the other source? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't anarchism mean non-statist? And despite the claims of a writer or two, is it not obvious that there are non-statists in nearly every "sect" of Libertarianism.? North8000 (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-statist libertarians are the same thing as statist anarchists. --Xerographica (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm using Google Scholar / Google Books on a non-academic connection outside of the Sainted Home of Better Copyright Access. Other editors could ref-check themselves. It would help if when people want to discuss references that they give full citations. Really it would help. So very much. It isn't hard everyone, "Author/s "Title of contained work (article / Chapter)" Title of containing work (book / journal) [any editors] [Optional Place] Publisher: year: pages. Author (Year) Title Place Publisher: pages is also acceptable. The second source given was:

• Perlin, Terry M. (1979). Contemporary Anarchism. Transaction Publishers. p. 40.

  I loathe and detest Transaction Publishers. You cannot expect me to fairly discuss the reliability of this source; if you have concerns, take it to WP:RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

  The source reads:

  {quote}[40]The Cybernetic mathematician John B. McEwan, writing on the relevance of anarchism to cybernetics explains that: "Libertarian socialists, [synonym for non-individualist anarchism] espeicaly Kropotkin and Landauer, …"[fn8]

  {quote}[Two paragraphs on Kropotkin and Spainish anarchism's cybernetic insight omitted]

  {quote}A balance must be achieved between the suffocating tyranny of unbridled authority and the kind of "autonomy" that leads to petty local patriotism, separatism of little grouplets and the fragmentation of society. Libertarian organization must reflect the complexity of social relationships and promote solidarity on the widest possible scale. It can be defined as federalism: coordination through free agreement, locally, regionally, nationally and internationally. A vast coordinated …

  {quote}[41]The increasing complexity of society is making anarchism more and not less relevant to modern life. …

thank you for supply the text for the source, i will delete the text unsupported by the sources and disputed by the sep. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I would not use any book originally published by Transaction Publishers. TFD (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Transaction Publishers

The phrase "[Libertarian socialism…]as a synonym for socialist anarchism" has as one of three footnotes ^ Ross, Dr. Jeffery Ian. Controlling State Crime, Transaction Publishers (200) p. 400 The phrase "Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy”" has as one of two footnotes ^ Edward Stringham, Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice, Transaction Publishers, 2007, p. 268, ISBN , As Transaction is a bad press, and these phrases are footnoted by other sources, I propose we delete these two footnotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

""libertarian socialism" is equivalent to "socialist anarchism"" supported by one other footnote: ^ Perlin, Terry M. (1979). Contemporary Anarchism. Transaction Publishers. p. 40.Fifelfoo (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That is an argument for the claim that Libertarian Socialism is an Anarchist ideology, it is not an argument for the claim that Libertarianism=Anarchism. Stop gerrymandering the definitions. BlueRobe (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My concern here is to remove any Transaction published works regardless of what they say, because of the poor quality of Transaction publishers. All of the points which use Transaction works in a footnote, use other works as well. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Major strand

I have changed "minor strand" back to "major strand" with The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought reference. However, the sentence now looks like WP:SYNTH.

Today anarchism continues to be a major strand within libertarianism; including philosophies such as libertarian socialism, which is anti-capitalist, and anarcho-capitalism, which favours the free market. <ref--Blackwell> <ref--AK press>

The Blackwell reference only talks of Anarchism in the individualistic sense. N6n (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism if right is the better known, how can anarchist be the major stand? Blackwell is a stronger reference, but sep is more widely used/known? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember SEP being challenged as a source in some of the Ayn Rand debates - as I remember it is a collection of essays, and some of them are POV --Snowded ^TALK 17:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

would you support removing sep from this article? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Workers Solidarity Movement

From my neck of the woods are an anarchist group not libertarian, why are they in this article? mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

They're one of the most notable English language libertarian socialist organisations in existence today. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No, they are an anarchist group, were do you get the idea they are libertarian? mark nutley (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark, what do you mean by the adjective "Mick"? Iota (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a racial slur for Irish and I am removing it. TFD (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No it`s not TFD, i` m a mick. Do not assume to speak for my people, thanks. Stick to the fact that they are an anarchist group and don`t belong here mark nutley (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I'm sure you didn't intend any offence but please think again about using that word on talkpages. A random reader of this page would just see the ethnic slur, and would have no idea that you're Irish, until you were challenged and pointed it out. Iota (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

By no stretch of the imagination is the Workers Solidarity Movement a Libertarian group. It is CLEARLY an Anarchist organisation. Is this how far you are prepared to stretch the definition of "Libertarian"? The debates are becoming more and more ridiculous every day. BlueRobe (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As for marknutley's use of the term "mick", I am certain that he was using local colloquialism and intended no slur (especially given that, by his own admission, he is a "mick"). Let's not be too precious about our language in here. We already have enough things to argue about. BlueRobe (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So, let's settle this; is there a third party RS that calls this group Libertarian? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, in any country people have "local colloquialism"s about certain minority groups and although you may believe that saying "intended no slur" that is disingenuous. If mark nutley continues to use these pages to promote slurs against minorities, I will report it to ANI. I am redacting this ethnic slur which someone has reinstated. In any case it has no relevance to the subject of the article. TFD (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we call this point made. Mark may have not meant harm, but here on the internet with no way of verifying any claims about oneself it is best to shy away from controversial terms. Lets focus back on the sourcing issue. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, your passionate disdain for marknutley is impossible to miss in every single post where you address him. Regardless, as marknutley is, by his own admission, a "mick" (personally, I had to look that word up), I hardly see how he was "promot[ing] slurs against minorities". Cease your endless petty vitriol against marknutley, as per WP:HARASSMENT. BlueRobe (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

1. 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.
   • {q}Libertarian, in this context, means strategies that are not geared towards taking state power, whether by electoral or revolutionary means; movements organised on a bottom-up or non-hierarchical basis; and a preference for direct action over tactics (such as petitions and demonstrations to the Dáil) geared towards lobby-ing the powerful. [220]
   • {q}Understanding the movement of movements: the goals of the movement What are these global actors, in Ireland or elsewhere, seeking to achieve? One primary focus is opposition to capitalism’s tendency to commodification, to turn the resources and activities needed to meet human needs into sources of profit (Offe 1984); and to its tendency to externalisation, to turn the costs of production (unemployment as factories are moved, pollution and waste production) into costs for states or individuals rather than for producers. On a micro scale, this opposition can be seen in challenges to the privatisa- tion of water in Cochabamba in Colombia (Notes from Nowhere 2003), or the introduction of bin charges in Dublin and elsewhere in Ireland (Workers’ Solidarity Movement 2005); [222]
2. As of 2005, Nico Bever of http://www.broadleft.org/ hosted by Marxist Internet Archive classified the WSM as part of the then International Libertarian Solidarity (Solidaridad Internacional Libertaria, ILS/SIL) [63]
3. Anarkismo, the inheritor organisation of the ILS/SIL issued this statement in 2010 Libertarian statement of solidarity with the comrades in Oaxaca, Mexico
4. And of course, WSM "Our Perspectives" Online: WSM, 2008, §§2.2, 4.5ii, 4.6, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12ia,b,c,iic

• I think that ought to clarify your information requirements. If your concerns relate to a personal definition of libertarianism at odds with Cox, Long, etc. please discuss at Talk:Libertarianism/scope Fifelfoo (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The best source for what they are would be themselves The Workers Solidarity Movement was founded in Dublin, Ireland in 1984 following discussions by a number of local anarchist groups on the need for a national anarchist organisation. They also (unsurprisingly) are socialists mark nutley (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're also socialists and anarchists, this isn't particularly surprising for a Platformist group. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, they are only socialists and anarchists. They certainly do not describe themselves as Libertarian at all mark nutley (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

mark, please stop with this WP:IDHT: given immediately above: WSM "Our Perspectives" Online: WSM, 2008, §§2.2, 4.5ii, 4.6, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12ia,b,c,iic (forgot to sign) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The WSM is obviously wrong, if they do not describe thenselves as Libertarian and say they are anarchists then we really ought to take their word for it mark nutley (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

mark, please stop with this WP:IDHT: given immediately above: WSM "Our Perspectives" Online: WSM, 2008, §§2.2, 4.5ii, 4.6, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12ia,b,c,iic Fifelfoo (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

FFS Fifelfoo, they describe themselves as "Anarchists". Their policies are Anarchist policies. Everything on their homepage tells us they're an Anarchist organisation. Their Wiki page is part of the Anarchism Portal. Everything about them and their agenda spells "Anarchist". The Workers Solidarity Movement is part of the International Libertarian Solidarity, a blatantly Anarchist orgnisation (whose Wiki page is also a part of the Anarchism Portal). Your insistence that the WSM is a Libertarian organisation is bordering on WP:Patent Nonsense. And people wonder why I stop taking discussions in this talk page seriously... *sigh* BlueRobe (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not the most solid sourcing in the world, I'm not convinced it portrays the groups significance as a Libertarian group. BTW the groups own classification of themselves is only marginally relevant (for example if they overtly rejected a libertarian label that would be of significance) - we need third party discussion/classification.

1. The quoted source not strike me as particularly explicit in naming them as libertarian (it strikes me as Synth to take such a conclusion).
2. Classification in International Libertarian Solidarity is of note; is it significant? i.e. is it considered a reliable source for libertarianism and libertarian groups?
3. I'm not sure I see the relevance of #3 citation.
4. WSM clearly identify in that document as libertarian, but they are unreliable as to their own significance as a group within libertarian philosophy

My best guess conclusion from this is that at this stage we have two reasonably good source that identifies them as libertarian but we don't have any source that identifies them as significant in the scope of libertarianism. Anyone got anything else? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Errant, a very large part of the reason that so many Anarchists use the term Libertarian is because the term "Libertarian" was used in an Anarchist sense in the late 19th century. This archaic use has fallen into disfavour since World War Two, partly in deference to use of the term "Libertarian" by mainstream Libertarianism, as the term "Anarchism" gained popular recognition for their Anarchist movements. See the Etymology of Libertarianism. Some Anarchist groups continue to use the term "Libertarian" in the old archaic Anarchist sense.

Let's be clear: when the Anarchists call themselves "Libertarians", they mean the Anarchist sense of Libertarians, not the contemporary concept of Libertarianism. The two uses of the term "Libertarian" are as different as apples and oranges (both are fruits with a sweet taste, but they're still different fruits)- they're both political ideologies with a focus on liberty, but they're not the same ideology.

We've been watching Fifelfoo and TFD and BigK HeX misuse references to the Anarchist sense of the term "Libertarian" with dismay. This bizarre notion that the WSM is a Libertarian organisation is a clear example of such misuse of the term "Libertarian". It needs to stop. BlueRobe (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

tmorton, thanks for inquiring into the sources. BlueRobe, your personal opinions about what Libertarianism is and is not belong off wikipedia. Have you considered publishing in a peer reviewed journal or on a blog?

1. I disagree about the reading of WSM(I)'s status in Cox (2006), but such a difference of reading seems reasonable disagreement to me. The connection is that Cox describes a libertarian sequence of social movements, and that the WSM's organised bin tax resistance was a worthwhile example of direct action for a RS to note.
2. Nico Biver's website is hosted by Marxists.org, a major political science archive maintained by volunteers. Biver's site is indexed by intute.ac.uk a university funded library indexing consortium run by information professionals, who review Biver's site here as "This is a useful directory of links to the Internet sites of left wing political parties worldwide. … Minimal annotations on content." indicating that WSM(I) was a member of ISL-SLI. This indicates that secondary sources, in this case an index, recognised the ISL-SLI membership as significant enough to note. Maintaining indices of party or group membership in Internationals involves fact checking. intute.ac.uk seems to indicate that academic librarians believed Biver's site to be reliable for the purposes of identifying left-wing groups.
3. The third citation indicates that WSM(I) is a member of the inheritor organisation of ISL-SLI, an organisation which describes its statement of solidarity as a "Libertarian" one. Arranging agreement amongst members of an International to the wording of a statement, or gaining consent to word a statement in such a way, is no basic feat. The signature of the WSM(I) on the anarkismo statement indicates that WSM(I) self identifies as libertarian, and is in turn identified as libertarian by the following political groups with Libertarian in their names: Estrategia Libertaria (Chile), Unión Socialista Libertaria (Peru), Red Libertaria Popular Mateo Kramer (Colombia), Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (Switzerland), Alternative Libertaire (France)
4. I'm aware of SELF, but felt it relevant to note in the context of other sources, that this is a self-identified label.

I don't believe that a RS is required to establish them as relevant within libertarianism. I believe that RS need to establish two separate points: 1) that they are libertarian. 2) that they are politically relevant. This is because their role in the article is to indicate an example of a contemporary English language libertarian socialist group (in this, they are probably the most relevant due to their political success in a Tax Strike).

I believe 2) is established by Reilly, J., "Far left pulling the strings on bin charge campaign", The Sunday Independent, Sunday October 19, 2003. and other documentation in relation to the bins campaign, and generally, by the fact that they've stuck around since 1986 (a relatively long life for a non-parliamentary movement group without a rigid party structure). A variety of other news material is available to establish WSM(I)'s political relevance in Ireland, and I don't think people would protest this point.

I feel that I've established 1). One of the problems in establishing this is the speed at which extra-parliamentary political movements enter the academic literature, and the manner in which they do. As Cox demonstrates, they often enter as examples of strategy mentioned in demonstration of theoretical points.

The core material I would put ends up being stuff like this Advertisement for 2008 speaking tour by Andrew Flood "A decade ago the active anarchist movement in Ireland consisted of little more than a dozen people in two small organizations. Today hundreds of people are active and one banned libertarian demonstration in 2004 saw 5,000 people take part. Anarchists are increasingly replacing Irish republicans as the bogeyman of the mainstream media." Andrew is described here as a NEFAC member and former WSM(I) member "His publishing record includes well over one hundred articles, translated into over nine languages, chapters published in three books, and articles in seven English language anti-authoritarian magazines and newspapers." Fifelfoo (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I have no idea what you were trying to say to me. Regardless, I was merely summarising the points made in Etymology of Libertarianism. Btw, who is going to read that wall of text (aka rant) you provided? (I did read it, against my better judgement, and it just screams WSM=Anarchist mvement. How the HELL do you get Libertarianism out of all that?) Please read WP:Patent Nonsense. BlueRobe (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur with a lot of your rationale. Regarding #3 think that is OR; saying WSM is member of this organisation who issues a libertarian statement seems OR. With regards to your point 2) - I kinda disagree, I see the perspective you are coming from. But in the context of an article about libertarianism I'd argue that examples should at least be significant within libertarianism. Or, to put it simply, it would be really nice to have a source that makes the connection you make between 1) and 2) (i.e. they are libertarian, they are politically significant & sync that together) :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo regarding your linkys to the WSM, the first four or five paragraphs there talk of and describe the WSM as anarchist, they are and always have been anarchists. mark nutley (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately they directly and explicitly identify as libertarian too; so they may be significant in this article. If we trust it for one self-definition we have to trust it for the other :) Lets stick to the sources as much as possible --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Errant, it is unfortunate that you are ignoring the etymology of the term "Libertarianism".

Including Anarchist ideologies into the Libertarianism article, because some Anarchists occasionally use the archaic meaning of the term "Libertarian", is like using including the US Supreme Court in a Wikipaedia article about Trees, because of WP:RSs that refer to the Judiciary as a branch of government. BlueRobe (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well that example is singularly bad :P but I take your (pretty strong) point. Do we have any way of confirming which variant they are using (beyond our own beliefs)? What about their inclusion into Libertarian societies etc? This is why we really need a 3rd party RS to say these things because it clears up such matters. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem. While some of these uses of the term "Libertarian" are clearly in the Anarchist sense, as shown by a brief examination of the sources (i.e. the WSM example), other uses will need a fairly extensive examination of the sources themselves (and 3rd party WP:RSs). Otherwise, we get more examples of Fifelfoo's style of slight-of-hand where his use of the term "Libertarian" has strayed into the bloody ridiculous (as per WP:Patent Nonsense) - seriously, why are you still entertaining that nonsense? You're just feeding his ideological acid trip. BlueRobe (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Bloody" is not decent enough for an article's talk page. N6n (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Bloody is perfectly fine. Even the Conservative Prime Minster of Australia (Howard) thought that word was fine, and he's as boring and small-minded as they get. Chill out. BlueRobe (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To continue discussing the quality of available sources; similarly stuff such as MaRK, Class Against Class (NEFAC-Boston) "Platformism Without Illusions: Ireland" Northeastern Anarchist 6 (Winter/Spring 2003) (NEFAC) http://nefac.SPAMFILTER.net/node/365 "More recently we decided to join International Libertarian Solidarity. This however is a network intended to facilitate solidarity between different libertarian groups rather than an international of national sections." Which is an article in a non-peer reviewed magazine published for commercial and political purposes, but by an organisation other than WSM(I). This is in many ways, a natural sourcing problem for extra-parliamentary social movements.

I think the significance of their actions in a libertarian sense is given by Cox's definition of libertarianism (which matches a number of previously given), which is why Cox makes use of them as an example. WSM's significance to libertarianism is their series of successful direct actions, such as the bin strike. Their significant role in anti-war / anti-globalisation / etc actions in Ireland is easily provided from the Irish mainstream press (as well as some foreign presses, Green Left Weekly in Australia, a published for sale press of a non-libertarian socialist political party; but this function in the article could just as easily be provided by examples from the Italian autonomia. A great number of months back when I added WSM as an example, I did so because WSM are contemporary, long lived and stable (1986-2010), English speaking, and politically successful. They're also an example from an English speaking country other than UK-US. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

tmorton, I see what you're saying. http://anarkismo.net/about_us indicates that WSM are actually members of anarkismo. But this goes straight back to SELF. I can see your concerns with the tenuousness of the connection both within Cox, and supporting documents. If you could give me your opinion on MaRK (pseud) 2003 given just above, I think this conversation could wrap up shortly afterwards. One way or the other. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Anarchists often accept Marx's two-class theory. For example, this is what the Workers Solidarity Movement says The first in a series of radio shows, produced by the anarchist organisation, Workers Solidarity Movement, based in Ireland Encyclopedia of political anarchy Directory of British political organisations 1994 mark nutley (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

FFS, Fifelfoo, EVERYTHING you are saying just screams Anarchism! BlueRobe (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, please refactor your comment (WP:NPA).

Gay and Gay, Encyclopedia of political anarchy, ABC-CLIO 1999 mentions the WSM in the same breath as "The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists," as a platformist (ie: Libertarian) group, p61; at p62 in the footnote it mentions WSM published the first Irish edition of the Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists. Thanks mark!

Paul Mercer, Directory of British political organisations 1994 Longman 1994 mentions WSM but not libertarianism

Tom Wetzel's paper on parecon mentions that WSM uses historical materialism, I don't see the relevance of this. It has been established that HQRS define libertarianism in particular ways. Historical materialist methodology, for or against, is not part of any HQRS definitions I've seen.

Sadly I didn't have time to listen to a radio programme. Perhaps you can extract quotes with timestamps of when they occur?

Many thanks mark for Gay and Gay, 1999! Can you provide the full article from pages 61/2? My Google only offers snippet view. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So, now your delusional concept of Libertarianism is sweeping Communism into its embrace. At this rate, you'll have a Fascist version of Libertarianism in the main article by Friday. Kids - don't do drugs. BlueRobe (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, mind your language. N6n (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have warned you on your talk page regarding your behaviour in personally attacking me BlueRobe. Please refactor your comments. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, given the WSM describe themselves as anarchist, and the sources presented above describe the mas anarchists please explain why you reverted them back into this article? mark nutley (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Because, Mark, the RS sources we have for definitions of libertarianism do not exclude anarchists; and as the sources available also describe them as libertarian, including the WSM's own perspectives document. The Gay and Gay ABC-CLIO source you cited indicates that they are also libertarian in direct relation to platformism at 61-2, and I'm waiting on wikipedia's source exchange community for the very source you referenced in relation to them. A better reason for removal would be the current standing of RS here. Which (pending your next comment here that I hope will address the SELF issues) I'll accept while we wait on other editors to provide us with a fuller copy of Gay and Gay pp61-2. You could provide such a copy too! I hope you'll join me in pruning SELF and unreliable sources from the article soon! Fifelfoo (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a look in my library and no joy, sorry. That was one I thought I might have had but nada (which is odd - I "inherited" a lot of anarchist related books from a friend a few years ago - it may be in a box in the loft somewhere but no chance in finding it this side of Xmas :D) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Users keep declaring that the WSM are an anarchist group, as if that settled the matter. For example in his latest edit, deleting material about the WSM, Mark Nutley states "they are an anarchist group per the sources presented". With respect, that seems to me besides the point. No-one here disputes that WSM are anarchists.

This article currently assumes a broad definition of libertarianism. There are reliable sources describing libertarianism as a synonym for anarchism. There are also reliable sources, such as RT Long, that extend the definition of libertarianism to include not just anarchism but also minarchism. This is reflected in the wording of the lead which states "anarchism continues to be a major strand within libertarianism".

So if that is our working definition of libertarianism, is it really necessary, in the case of each individual anarchist group, to provide cast-iron sources describing it as libertarian, even if the group describes itself as libertarian? I'm certainly not an expert on Wikipedia policy in relation to sourcing and original research, but that would seem strange to me.

To make a comparison, Marxism is understood to be a subcategory of socialism. So if a group is described in reliable sources as Marxist, would it really be necessary to provide sources in order to refer to them as socialists?

Or is this actually just another thread disputing the validity of the broad definition of libertarianism? Iota (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the argument can be made that any organization that is exclusively anarchist (as the WSB appears to be) is not libertarian because libertarianism does not exclude minarchism. Also, I suspectlibertarian has a different (anarchist) connotation in Ireland/Irish than it does in English.

Anyway, what we need is an English (not Irish) RS (preferably a secondary one, that refers to WSB as being libertarian. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle wrote: "libertarian has a different (anarchist) connotation in Ireland/Irish than it does in English ...what we need is an English (not Irish) RS".

I assume by "Irish" you mean the English language as-spoken-in-Ireland? If so, sorry to be pedantic but I think I ought to clarify a few things: The sources from Ireland are written in English, not Irish or any other language. Irish is a Gaelic language spoken in Ireland (so you'll agree it's not relevant!). English-as-spoken-in-Ireland is sometimes called "Hiberno-English" by academics, but it is basically identical to British English (except it includes a few loan words and things taken from the Irish language).

On to my main point: It would be extraordinary to start raising the bar so that sources written in English by Irish people are not accepted on an English Wikipedia article. I think you would need some solid evidence that Irish people have a special, idiosyncratic meaning of the word libertarianism. I'm quite sure you won't find that evidence because it is simply not the case. Iota (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's just say it's similar to Quebecian English which has a French influence which manifests itself in ways that include changing connotation of the meaning of identically spelled words. I'm not suggesting we ignore any of it, just be wary of it. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of the sources currently listed for this information, ABC-CLIO publish in US Academic English, Cox published in UK Academic English, the Irish media publishes in English-as-used-in-Ireland, and the WSM publish in a combination of English-as-used-in-Ireland and the Platformist technical jargon of International English with obvious English-as-used-in-Ireland inflections. I don't believe the linguistic analysis is relevant in this topic, the WSM's primary use of "libertarian" is Platformist: ie, an International English which is shared across the Anglophone world by a technical group. Cox; and Gay and Gay (ABC-CLIO) are using academic uses of Libertarian. I think the matter pretty clearly comes down to the editorial issue of whether Cox clearly sees the WSM as libertarian (I believe Cox does, other editors in good faith readings believes she does not, my belief is then Cox shouldn't be used). Which means the matter comes to rest on what Gay and Gay say. I do think that any examples for the article anarchists who are also libertarians should be ones clearly labelled or considered in RS as libertarians: clear RS'd examples are best. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

New lede compromise proposal

I am proposing a new lede idea that can (hopefully) satisfy us. Suggestions and improvement ideas are welcome, of course:

Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action. 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", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.

In the English-speaking world, the most commonly known form of libertarianism is a free-market capitalist position sometimes referred to as Right-libertarianism. Anarchist varieties of libertarianism also exist, but are a minority of libertarians; they still play a role in politics, particularly those outside of the United States; numerous anarchist forms of libertarianism exist, including libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism.

Numerous libertarian parties exist, including the United States Libertarian Party, a right-libertarian party which has over 225,000 members and has had hundreds of candidates elected to public office.

Toa Nidhiki05 18:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No it does not have 225,000 members. TFD (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

yes, it does. please start looking up the references, ^ "2008 Registration Totals". Ballot-access.org. Retrieved 2010-07-19. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is pretty good. Might have to bite the bullet and use the oxymoron term "right Libertarian" as you did. Although it is logical to do so (the largest Libertarian organizaiton, with #2 being like 10 times smaller?) on the face of it it sound's a little heavey on the US Libertarian party. Maybe shorten that part?

Folks PLEASE review and discuss this on its merits! Let's not apply the lens of past battles and "sides". North8000 (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Registered voters are not party members. TFD (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Just like for the GOP and Dems, some of the registered voters are party members, some aren't. But 225,000 registered voters and hundreds of elected offices is significant. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It needs to make the right claim, and its not significant for the lede, main body yes. Article needs to summarise subject overall not promote one strand or organisation --Snowded ^TALK 19:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There are 72 million registered Democrats and 55 million registered Republicans. Compare that with the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom which had fallen to 250,000 members by 2008. TFD (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that the Libertarian Party is a minority party in the U.S. What's relevant here is not that, but the English usage of the term libertarianism, and in particular how often it's used to refer to a philosophy that includes left-libertarianism as compared to when it's not. The 250,000 registered LP voters is evidence of usage of the term not including left-libertarianism, since the LP obviously excludes it. Is there any counter evidence? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was any particular dispute that right wing libertarianism exists and seeks to exclude left-wng libertarianism. So what? --Snowded ^TALK 19:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

1. You'll have to quote what it is in Hamowy that refs "right libertarianism" since it's 3 whole pages, not easily found among the several pages listed, hard to read with some web browsers - assuming all readers even can get all pages, which they can't always get.

Snowded, no one is saying there is a dispute about the existence of RL. Not sure what you mean by RL seeking to exclude LL (RL is not a sentient entity that seeks anything).

The issue is about normal English usage of the term, and how much of it refers to RL, how much of it refers to LL, and how much of it refers to a meaning that is inclusive of LL as well as RL. By the way, even though WP:BALANCE calls for presenting "viewpoints in proportion to their prominence", this isn't even a WP:BALANCE issue. It's about scope. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Problems with proposal

1. You don't understand that various WP:RS consider anarcho-capitalism to be "right wing" so you are falsely excluding them. See this books google search.
2. I'd still like to see better defs than Long before Long. (But by time I finish reading miles of talk page I'm usually too tapped out and annoyed to bother.)
3. Neither source supports “minority” language.
4. You can say “registered voters” but does emphasis on one organization define a philosopy? And don’t forget the party still is rife with Rothbardian anarchists and thus supports the right to alter or abolish government in it’s platform, which should be mentioned. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Factually incorrect and US centric "In the English-speaking world". Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Please stop using the word 'compromise'. This is not a political negotiation, we are trying to do what is right.
2. Libertarian Party deserves no space in the lead. This is an article concerning political theory, not politics. Did you ever see an encyclopedia article on libertarianism starting with the talk of the Libertarian Party?
3. The number of people supporting the anarchist varieties may be in a "minority", but that has no relevance to the meaning of the term.
4. Roderick T. Long should not be named in the lead, just "A definition says ..." is fine.

So no. N6n (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

---

References

Scope subpage

I've created the framework for a subpage entitled Talk:Libertarianism/scope the purpose of which is to present arguments in favor and opposing the inclusion of libertarian socialism in the Libertarianism article. The basic framework is to have two main sections, one for the support argument and one for the opposition argument, and a rebuttal for each. Each section has a place for contributors to identify themselves. The intent is to edit only those arguments you favor (either the support or the oppose, and presumably the rebuttal to the other one).

There is also a section for collecting term usage information from google. Lot of work to be done in that area.

Hopefully this will be a more constructive use of our efforts. I would want to give us at least 30 days to complete it, and then maybe have an RFC about it, if we don't develop consensus somehow in the process. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about this page moved to the Discussion section on that page: /scope#Discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

looks like a really promising idea :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A sub page like that is a great structural idea for situations like this. Ideally it should have an "editable" section with succinct points and summaries and another typical talk page section. But I think that you might have narrowed the subject too much. My suggestion would be "Libertarianism article strategic planning and issues". North8000 (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC) The scope would be larger issues which are too big / complex to solve via just editing the article and where the format main article talk page is too transient and voluminous to serve the purpose. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Right libertarian/libertarian conservative" Libertarian Party is WP:OR

At this diff, Darkstar1st has reverted deletion of unsourced claims about Libertarian Party, now writing The US Libertarian Party supports a right-libertarian platform; a form of right-libertarianism aligned with libertarian conservatism is dominant among the schools of libertarianism in the US. His "reference" is the LP platform that doesn't use either phrase. If there are any real WP:RS for his claim, put them in. Someone else feel free to delete before I do tomorrow. Darkstar1st, please read policy. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

i read it, primary sources are allowed. please tell us which part of the platform is not right-libertarian? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Be careful. The issue does not appear to be about primary sourcing; but that you've originally researched a piece of text. I'm actually in agreement with Carol on this, I can't see how your source directly supports the content - to be clear, the source needs to explicitly make the same point that it supports in the text. Primary sources, by the way, can be used: but only if RS and they must never be interpreted (which I think might be the problem here). Primary sources can support direct fact or significant attributed opinion but that is it (this is a very strong policy btw) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, inclusion of content describing the Workers Solidarity Movement as a Libertarian movement is endorsed. No, there's nothing broken about Wikipaedia ... nothing at all. /facepalm

Remember the days when Libertarianism was so well-written that it was a Wikipaedia featured article? *sigh* BlueRobe (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it was removed (WSM) - I'll prompt an end to the discussion above --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's OR, there should be a RS that says this. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The primary source objection I mentioned in summary was really more to mis-using a primary source as a WP:RS for something not in the primary source. However, any use of the LP Platform would have to reflect the whole content in a balanced fashion, including the right to alter or abolish govt which is a whole section unto itself, as opposed to some points which are just one of several in a section. So obviously of great importance. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

We do not need "reliable sources" to say that something is "original research". Neither we need reliable sources to say that something has attracted no attention in reliable sources. Bascially things that are unknown are unknown. TFD (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

When people start actually disagreeing with the correctness, accuracy, appropriateness etc. of an insertion along with / instead of just trying to use wiki-lawyering to knock it out (without even disputing it) I'll believe that they are being sincere vs. just disingenuous and warring. North8000 (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's worth nothing that WP:PRIMARY is not a blanket ban on all primary sources. It urges caution, with several sensible guidelines (including the use of "common sense") depending on the nature of the primary source and what it is being used for. BlueRobe (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Insisting on WP:RS and contesting WP:OR is not wikilawyering. It's following clear policy.
• Yes, I contest the idea that the Libertarian Party platform is "libertarian conservative." (It's right libertarian, just like anarcho-capitalism is, but do we need to emphasize that in the article unless WP:RS do?) The "Self-determination" section replaces the old "Secession" section. However, throughout the party has had the "Omissions" section which reads "Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval." So the party is rife with radical anti-statists. Get used to it.

(inserted later, within Carol's post) Carol, finally, thoughts, ideas and opinions. Cool! North8000 (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Mick. It's an insult in Britain, less so in Australia. Depends on how its said and by who in US. But if your name isn't obviously recognized as Irish, use of term can be misconstrued. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

FFS, Carolmooredc, get over it already. BlueRobe (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To North8000:when people stop so egregiously violating policy (especially WP:Soapbox and WP:POV pushing) that you have to keep reminding them what it is, I'll be able to deal with the "correctness, accuracy, appropriateness etc. of an insertion." Since the extreme anti-statism of the LP platform is of interest to me, I bothered to correct Darkstar1stsWP:OR delusion that it is some constitutionalist minarchist document. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system.
• We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States.
• a free market health care system.
• parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government.
• We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment.
• We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest.
• We call for the repeal of the income tax.

not anarchist since they want an army, not left at all Darkstar1st (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

TO North8000: Not to mention its fruitless to try to discuss issues with people when they don't read or refuse to recognize plain English, like lp.org/platform which reads:

• Section 3.7 Self-Determination: Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.
• Section 4.0 Omissions: Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

These - together or separately - obviously easily could lead to an end to the US military, Congress, President, Supreme Court, etc. No wonder people say the LP is a bunch of danged anarchists. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

carol, they copied "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive" from the declaration of independence. agree to new governance means forming a new government, nor anarchy. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, that is just original research. TFD (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, Darkstar1st was using his intellect to indicate a notable feature. BlueRobe (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

ok, points made; OR should be avoided. Lets not get sidetracked. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If it's not explicitly stated in the source, it's original research. That's the way an encyclopedia works, and the sooner you understand and accept that, the easier it will be to engage in discussion that actually leads to improvement of the article. Yworo (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC) I will always be suspicious of editors who insist we leave our brains at the door. BlueRobe (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Then you may as well leave Wikipedia, because sourcing without interpretation is built into the rules. Yworo (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll give Darkstar1st til tomorrow PM to find some actual sources that say what he claims is true. If he continues to revert I'll report it to WP:No Original Research Noticeboard, hoping others will explain his error. Maybe that will end the Refusal to get the point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

i gave my sources? the lp site and the declaration of independence. maybe you have a source for your claim the lp is part anarchist? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Actual sources" mean ones that comply with WP:Reliable sources? Have you ever read the policy? Do you believe that you as a wikipedia editor have to comply with it? Do you need someone NOT editing here to explain it to you? That is the prupopse of going to WP:No Original Research Noticeboard. Though if some neutral editor decided to look at the history of your edits and see a pattern of blatantly disregarding policy, they might take some action. Meanwhile, hopefully a skillful mediator will step in willing to do so. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that you (or someone/not clear in diffs) have taken out the offending language. (Though you/someone missed the omissions section which should be included.) Without the ""Right libertarian/libertarian conservative" language, this is supported by your LP.org/platform reference.

FYI, here's what I wrote before see that, just so we don't need a long debate next time there is such a problem: "Actual sources" mean ones that comply with WP:Reliable sources? Have you ever read the policy? Do you believe that you as a wikipedia editor have to comply with it? Do you need someone NOT editing here to explain it to you? That is the prupopse of going to WP:No Original Research Noticeboard. Though if some neutral editor decided to look at the history of your edits and see a pattern of blatantly disregarding policy, they might take some action. Meanwhile, hopefully a skillful mediator will step in willing to do so. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Scope of Government Survey

WP:OR, very much the sort of approach to avoid, especially in this context --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 00:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
moved to User talk:Xerographica

Drawing Lines - Exclusion vs Inclusion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Today I shared a bell curve diagram representing the scope of government issue but the usual suspects moved it to my talk page. As far as I can tell, the content was not in violation of the Talk Page Guidelines..."The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission." But on the off-chance that I'm misinterpreting the specific exceptions I'll leave it off...but I would appreciate hearing exactly which guideline it sufficiently violated to warrant removal.

Drawing lines is necessary because the greater the inclusiveness the greater the difficulty ensuring that the various viewpoints are covered in proportion to their prominence. If all the reliable sources said pretty much the same thing then this would be simple. Editors could copy and paste and that's it. But in our case the reliable sources say very contradictory things...so blindly copying and pasting every reference to the word "libertarianism" is not acceptable.

The Wikipedia article on political ideologies notes that ideologies have two dimensions...goals and methods. Capitalism is a very distinguishable method of achieving a goal yet we have both capitalist and anti-capitalist views expressed in this article. Abolishing government is also a very distinguishable method of achieving a goal yet we have both minimal government and anarchist views expressed in this article. In order to help us quantity our different viewpoints I created the bell curve diagram...but our differences are so great that opposing editors removed it without discussion. Such behavior only supports the possibility that writing an article with so many fundamentally opposing ideologies will never work. --Xerographica (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't overly constructive. It presents no solutions, is unsourced and contains your interpretation of things. My issue is that this is not the first time you've added such content; there are at least two examples above. It's not helpful and I urge you to spend time looking for reliable sources to make your argument. I cannot think of any other way than closing this to make the point that this must be discussed with sourcing. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 00:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Libertarianism and Anarchism

The real issue here is that the word "libertarianism" has entirely different meanings in the US and outside it, particularly it seems among European anarchist. The current form of the article doesn't capture that, suggesting the two different meanings are intertwined far more than they really are. I'm not sure of the best way to attack this problem; it is tempting to create differing articles and disambiguate. At the very least, it should be made much more clear the differences in the two philosophies. Fell Gleaming^talk 13:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of intertwinings though, from the international uptake of USLP style libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, to the origins of USLP style libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism in early cold war discussion groups influenced by the European libertarianisms. Earlier interminglings are also present in individualism, or Georgism. I agree that disintwining would help the article, yet at the same time, both meanings are present in English and the scholarly sources. The disintwining wouldn't be helped by disambiguation pages, so much as better writing here. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism began in the 19th century with a commitment to liberty and mistrust of authority. In the 1950s some libertartians began to believe that liberty could only be achieved through the protection of private property. The original libertarianism is frequently called "left" and the modern version "right". Similar divisions have occurred in other ideologies, e.g., social liberalism vs. classical liberalism. When this occurs we end up with three articles. TFD (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Your statement sounds like the beginnings of a much better lede than what we currently have. Why don't you take a stab at it? Fell Gleaming^talk 13:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As per the usual with this article, the talk page is very informative and the article isn't. There are a lot of experts contributing here. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the claim that U.S. usage is different, please see #Mainstream_libertarianism, and the just-updated summary of that section at #Mainstream_libertarianism_-_Checkpoint_2.

Let's not conflate usage of libertarian/libertarianism among (French, German, Italian, Dutch, etc., speaking) European anarchists with dominant usage of libertarian/libertarianism among English speakers in Europe (primarily in the U.K.). This is one of the issues I hope we nail down on the /scope subpage. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also let's not forget the fact that "right" is used more by non-libertarians to describe free market viewpoints than many/most free market libertarians themselves should not be overlooked. Given that libertarians share more "left" views on civil liberties and foreign policy than right (and especially neocon) views, those libertarians who argue that IF left/right must be used, those who argue it is a left wing position (with market economics) should be mentioned. Lots of WP:RS exist on this. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that a US-branded libertarian is much further politically from your average anarcho-socialist than are Republicans and Democrats. The article lede in present form does not make clear the distinction. It seems to almost intentionally obscure the issue. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the term "right" is used here to show that they are to the right of left-libertarians, rather than to claim they are right-wing. TFD (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but right vs. left on an axis measuring what, exactly? The traditional single right/left axis is widely understood to be grossly inadequate for comparing libertarianism to other political ideologies. See this quiz, for example. I suggest it's meaningless to compare supposed variations of "libertarianism" on the left/right scale as well.

Therefore, I think the right/left designators are essentially arbitrary and intrinsically meaningless distinguishing terms, providing no more information than labeling one "variety A" and the other "variety B" would provide (provided that one presumes that "left libertarianism" is a variety of "libertarianism" in the sense that the term "libertarianism" is generally used in the English speaking world, which I do not). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Rapidosity (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If this refers to an agreement with the opening statement in this section, as the indenting implies, please substantiate the claim that "the word "libertarianism" has entirely different meanings in the US and outside it". I had hoped to have cleared that up at #Mainstream_libertarianism and #Mainstream_libertarianism_-_Checkpoint_2, where usage of the term "libertarianism" in the UK, Australia and New Zealand has been shown to be the same as it is in the U.S., and so I am dismayed to see this claim repeated (and lauded). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I just took the test and scored "centrist".[64] Since "left" and "right" are other possibilities, it seems the left-right scale is accepted. Even in the libertarian grid there is a left-right dimension, ranging from 50% economic freedom on the left to 100% economic freedom on the right. TFD (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, but that is a specific "economic freedom" left/right scale, not an undefined left/right scale. Is the distinction of L/R libertarianism intended to be on the economic freedom scale? So left libertarians are opposed to economic individual liberty and favor more government intervention/regulation? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You are the expert on the chart, not I. But it really does not matter whether we accept ideological spectra, or even if the terms applied by political scientists to libertarianism are meaningful, they use the descriptions "left" and "right". TFD (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"They use the terms 'left' and 'right' ...". Not really; certainly not much.

There is some use of the term left-libertarian in primary sources, but usage relative to "libertarianism" is obscure -- less than .1% as compared to "libertarian"; see /scope#Relevant_google_hit_counts -- and that's including primary sources as well as secondary ones. Usage among secondary sources is bound to be significantly less. The concept of left-libertarianism is fringe/obscure even in the already relatively obscure libertarian political world. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2, I fear you're reading far too much into a simple statement. No one is trying to draw a hermetic shield around the US, and claim that at every other single point on the globe, libertarianism is wholly different than that found in Skokie, Il. The statement simply means there's a radical different between the libertarianism found at some points including the US, and that found at other points which don't include the US. Is that more clear? Fell Gleaming^talk 18:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's clear, though it's not clear that that was intended with the original statement in question.

Anyway, I still must question this modified claim, especially if it is meant to apply only to the part of the world where English is the primary language. I understand that there are English speakers in France, Holland, Italy, Spain, Norway, etc., and they are likely to be prone to use libertarian in English with a meaning that is the same as it is in their native language, but that should not count much (if at all) in terms of how the term is used in English in the world. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is the main issue being addressed in the /scope subpage, and any assistance in that effort would be appreciated. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2Cycle, you appear to be confusing the terms primary and secondary sources. "Primary sources are very close to an event,... Secondary sources are second-hand accounts...."[65] Google.com searches return primary sources and are original research. TFD (talk)

"Google.com searches return primary sources and are original research" Huh? Did you mean to type that? Google can return a source of any type, and I don't know where you get such sources are OR. Fell Gleaming^talk 03:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming, I think you're witnessing the selective and revisionist approach of some of the editors to this page, first hand. Welcome to the land of double-speak. BlueRobe (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet More Intresting and Fascinating HQRS

Searching for "international use of the "word libertarian"" in Scholar produced some interesting leads.

1. HQRS (International Academic English): 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 books 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."
   • Obviously there are multiple HQRS academic definitions, varying from Cox (given above) who excludes pro-market forces, through to Godefridi who excludes anti-capitalist forces. With multiple definitions in the highest quality available writing, some of which are mutually exclusive, we must note all of them, and adequately characterise each.
2. HQR:S: Sapon and Robino (2010) already in use
3. HQRS: Anthony Arblaster "The Relevance of Anarchism" Socialist Register 1971: 157-184 pdf at 159-160, "There is a version of libertarianism which has a closer kinship with anarchism than with the narrower con- ceptions of conventional liberalism, by virtue of its strongly anti- authoritarian emphasis and its concern with spontaneity and the greatest possible degree of voluntarism. It is in this form that the influence of anarchism is strongest. The anti-authoritarianism of the international New Left is one of its central characteristics."
   • Arblaster also at times discusses the fact that Libertarian Marxists exist (Marcuse is given as one example), and that socialist libertarianism exceeds the label anarchist (speaking of the New Left)
4. HQRS: Karl Widerquist, "Libertarianism" International Encyclopedia of Public Policy, Volume 3, Phil O’Hara (Ed.) Oxford: OUP : 338- 350 the entire volume available as a pre-print edition, see pdf page 343, numbered as page 338 in the document. This is an academic encyclopedia, and Widerquist is a specialist (Politics, University of Reading) "Property rights advocates have popularized the association of the term with their ideology in the United States and to a lesser extent in other English-speaking nations. But they only because using the term in 1955 (Russell 1955). Before that, and in most of the rest of the world today, the term has been associated almost exclusviely with leftists groups advocating egalitarian property rights or even the abolition of private property, such as anarchist socialists who began using the term nearly a century earlier, in 1858 (Woodcock 1962:281). This entry distinguishes between three types of libertarianism: left, right, and socialist. It then considers the extent to which the policies of these three diverse groups overlap. The third section focuses on the policies of right-libertarians, both because they have popularized their associations with the name and because they have a more unified policy agenda."
   • This, and the rest of Widerquists' academic output bibliography lacking links appears to be gold. [it isn't, it is over specialised for this article] Widerquist explicitly answers the question about international useage and national useage of the term libertarian in a HQRS. I strongly recommend people read this signed academic encyclopedia article.
   • He also provides a HQRS for "Is Right-Libertarianism Right-Wing?" answering in a beautifully useful "yes but no" which allows for detailed discussion of the interface between USLP/AC policies and US Conservative and Neo-Liberal policies.
   • Should we just make a subpage for sourcing issues, so we have a constant reference point? ie so we can link to Talk:Libertarianism/sources#Widerquist2010 for example in discussions, and so that we don't lose Sources Given amidst other discussions in the archives?

Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the idea of a sources subpage, though I would make it be a subpage of the article itself (Libertarianism/sources) which would give it its own Talk page. It should be in alphabetical order by author surname. Each entry would have all the normal information about a source, plus the quote, and any relevant information about it, like an explanation of why it's relevant to the article, what it purportedly shows, other sources that support or contradict it, etc. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect we probably should not be using MainSpace Libertarianism/sources and I don't know if anyone else has done this before so we can copy their style, so I asked at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Where_should_a_source_related_subpage_go.3F to get expert opinion! Fifelfoo (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As a result of help desk suggestions, moved the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Libertarianism#Can_the_Project_house_a_sub-page_for_a_bibliography_of_sources for the WikiProject's opinion on them hosting it as a more reusable resource. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to Carol et al. to disambiguate Cosmopolitan (read: European) Libertarianism from American Libertarianism?

So this is a reasonable request. When it comes to mediation, its all about non-positional bargaining and creative solution-making. My request for myself and the rest of Right (read: property-owning) members of wikipedia is that we explicitly and plainly differentiate "cosmopolitan libertarianism" from "American libertarianism" on the main page, in plain sight. My realization has come after reading Chomsky's chapter on 'Libertarianism vs. Anarchism' in his book 'Understanding Power : The Indispensable Chomsky'. Could we, as "American Libertarians", please have our own page which is plainly differentiated and presented on/near the header on the main Wikipedia page? I have with great angst been worrying about this issue (read: unsexed capitalist), and just want to make sure the interests of the dominant parties with opinions on Libertarians are explicated in the open. All I, all "we" (read: American pro-freedom pro-commerce advocates) want is a fair share of the view. Socialism is just fine and dandy, but we (American Libertarians) want a bit of distance from extremist (per American Libertarian political propaganda) groups purporting to believe what we believe. The truth is is that there are deep, deep schisms within the Libertarian intellectual community, a fact which is easy to see after some experience on this page. All I request is that we, American Libertarians, receive the right of having our own page which is in plain sight near the header of the introduction to the main (read: Cosmopolitan/European) page of Libertarianism. I would nod DarkStar as the editor-in-chief for this page, but that's just me.68.59.4.188 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Dear IP. The current section "Overview" disambiguates concepts, though not particularly well. It is not clear from the current text that Minarchism is the scholarly term often used to refer to the politics associated with and surrounding USLP style positions. Scholarly terms I have seen referring to this tendency have been "Right-libertarianism" as term describing a general position in favour of markets, and within this classification "Minarchism" to draw the distinction between small-state and anti-state positions. In terms of article weight and tone, the article speaks as if minarchist and anarcho-capitalist positions are default positions being addressed, and clearly distinguishes positions and groups which are libertarian socialist when they are brought up in the body of the text. Volume of coverage here is also predisposed towards covering "Right-libertarian" positions, and within this "Minarchist" positions. Separate pages already exist for the various tendencies described in the article.
• I'm not disturbed by this, as the volume of text needed to cover other positions using the term Libertarian can be small and yet still achieve appropriate coverage through wikilinking. However, the writing at the moment isn't very good (despite a number of non-partisan editors trying to better word the lede, good job those editors). The writing is unlikely to improve until the core group of editors solve a number of ongoing discussions which would ground the writing.
• You may also wish to reconsider using terms like "extremist groups" on a talk page, which may be seen as offensive, and which some governments use as a justification for political persecution. The word "radical" may cover your meaning?
• I've not seen your term "Cosmopolitan libertarianism" in any scholarly works, do you have a reference we could follow up?
• I strongly agree with your concern for adequate breadth of coverage, failing to cover minarchism or anarcho-capitalism here would be a major editorial failure; similarly, it is my belief as an editor that failing to cover Libertarian Socialism here would be a major editorial failure. This issue is one of the number of issues currently requiring resolution amongst editors before we can improve the writing, including clearer differentiation of which libertarians hold and do what, and what commonalities have been identified in reliable sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

IP edit is by banned User:Karmaisking. Please don't reply in this thread. N6n (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Besides Fifefoo, what editors are opposed to disambiguating and/or removing the A-C information from this article? I see quite a few editors in favor. A small minority should not be used to prevent moving forward on improving the content. Fell Gleaming^talk 03:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(I do not think the IP is banned editor, but another IP who contributes.) IP, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libertarianism article. Please do not discuss off-topic subjects here. TFD (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

For goodness sake, N6n, not EVERY anonymous IP is a banned User. Stop labelling every newbie as a bogeyman just because they say something you don't agree with. BlueRobe (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please learn to differentiate these two strings "Fifelfoo 02:25, 23 September 2010" and "N6n 03:41, 23 September 2010"; and amend your comment above accordingly. Thank you. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, done, with my apologies. BlueRobe (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Several times I have seen posts to go right to the core of the issues with this article and its 5 year failure, and try to resolve them. And some POV warrior tries to squelch the discussion by claiming it's "off topic" yada yada. Let's stop that. North8000 (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If one polled every person and organization in the world in the world who clearly calls themselves (with respect to politics) primarily a Libertarian, I'll bet that 90% or 98% would both agree with the following, and also agree these are common tenets of 99% of Libertarian people and organizations:

"Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties." (from LP party "are you a Libertarian" site page)

This mess of an article gives absolutely no indication of that. I think that 68.59....'s proposal is one of many possible ways way to start rectifying this. Maybe the only way to get started is to say it's "American Libertarian" who, in the DEFINITIONS material, by WP:UNDUE standards, get 1/100th of the proper weight, where by wp:undue standards, some unusual sects that exist only in the minds of a few philosophers/writers are getting 100 x times the proper weight. IMHO in reality, these tenets are common to 90% or 99% of worldwide Libertarians, even if their philosophies diverge in other areas. North8000 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And finally, if you disagree with the above, please SAY SO instead of the usual maneuvers. North8000 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, I agree 100%. The Libertarianism is a diabolical shambles - it is incoherent, it is full of Anarchism, it barely notices important Libertarian philosophers (Rand and Nozick), it has a wealth of references to Chomsky (an Anarcho-Syndicalist FFS), etc etc etc.

Alas, I am also 100% sure that any response they make to your post will be the usual round of threats and warnings and any other wiki-lawyering they can conjure vis-a-vis WP:OR WP:RS etc. BlueRobe (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems as if some want to equate Libertarianism with the American Libertarian Party. They are not the same. This article construes the term broadly. If you want to edit an article that constrains itself to the American party line, perhaps you should focus on the Libertarian Party (United States) article. Yworo (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"They are not the same." You just admitted we have content for two different meanings in the same article. That's the problem we're discussing. The traditional way to solve that is by disambiguation. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, there are already articles on the various Libertarian parties, and a disambiguation page, which can be found here. This article is an overview article on the range of positions within all branches of Libertarianism. There can also be (and are, I believe) subarticles on those different branches. Nowhere did I say there were multiple meanings, though. You don't disambiguate an overview article. Yworo (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Though I take issue with characterizing the conventional meaning as that of the U.S. Libertarian Party. The conventional meaning, which definitely excludes left-libertarianism but arguably includes anarcho-capitalism, is intended the vast majority of the time when it is used in reliable sources, not just in reference to the U.S. Libertarian Party (though there too). The evidence for this has started to collect at /scope.

Anyway, this situation is normally dealt with by identifying a primary topic for the term in question, or by creating a dab page. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. There are no separate topics here. There is one broad topic, akin to Christianity. The way such a topic is normally handled is via an overview article with short sections on each of the branches, with a {{main}} template at the top of each section leading to the branch article. Yworo (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

When you say "they are not the same", you are saying "they are different". When you say "different" in relationship to a word, you're saying the word has different meanings. QED. This article is about Libertarianism, i.e. the protoypical usage of same. I'm still not convinced that Left-Libertarianism is similar enough to be included in the same article. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but you need to advance an actual argument. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't try to put words in my mouth saying what I mean. A single political party's platform is of course "different" from a broad political philosophy. This is not a case of different meanings, but of different domains of discourse. You do know what that means. don't you? Yworo (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I also know that differing domains are best served by differing articles. Which is why Wikipedia consists of several million different entries, rather than one single large one, entitled "All About Everything!". Fell Gleaming^talk 19:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What part of "there are already separate articles for the various Libertarian parties" did you fail to understand? Yworo (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

To Yworo on your comment of (me) equating Libertarianism with the LP. FYI, I've been an avid Libertarian for decades and I don't think that the LP should be a Party. I even once told Harry Browne that personally across a dinner table, that it should convert from a party to an organization. And so I certainly know the difference. And I am the one who posted their definition / description of tenets as a good indicator of common tenets of Libertarianism. I did that because a quarter million person organization is a much more reliable indicator than one philosopher/writer creating his /her own definitions. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"There is one broad topic, akin to Christianity." Akin to Christianity? I don't think so. Here's the difference. If you look at how the terms are used, including by googling Christian or Christianity, you will find that the vast majority of uses mean Christianity in the general sense, belief in God and Jesus Christ being His son. But if you look at the uses of libertarian, you will find that the vast majority means what we refer to here as Right-libertarianism, and definitely does not include left-libertarianism. For example, if you look at the first 20 hits from google for the search "libertarianism -wikipedia", you will find that it is used to refer to right-libertarianism, in which the right to private property is a key principle, in 16 of the 20 cases, 3 are indeterminate, and only once is there a use which is inclusive of left-libertarianism, in which the right to private property is shunned.

You will not find Christianity, or any other term about which we have a general article, used to refer to separate concepts that are fundamentally disparate from each other like that. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's similar. Protestant Christians at one time equated the Pope with the devil. Some still do. Can't get much more "fundamentally disparate" than that. Beliefs within Christianity are at least as diverse as those under the label of Libertarianism, if not more so. They've even fought wars over the differences in beliefs and Catholics subjected Protestants to the Inquisition. AFAIK, the great Libertarian wars have yet to be fought. Yworo (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Of course there are disparate views within Christianity just as there are within libertarianism (moreso within Christianity, I would say). But that's not what we're talking about.

If the predominate use of the term Christianity was to refer to Protestantism in a manner that clearly excluded Catholicism (or vice versa), then it would be akin, since the predominate use of term libertarianism is to refer to RL in a manner that clearly excludes LL.

This is why I think that Anarcho-capitalism should remain in the article, because predominate use of libertarianism does not exclude A-C.

When someone says "I'm a Christian" he may or may not be Catholic, and would almost certainly agree that being or not being Catholic does not determine whether he is a Christian. However, if someone says "I'm a libertarian", he almost certainly believes in property rights (if he doesn't, then he's highly unlikely to even say "I'm a libertarian" but would be likely to say "I'm a left-libertarian" or "I'm libertarian socialist"), and would almost certainly agree that anyone who does not believe in property rights is not a libertarian.

The term Christian is often used to refer to both Protestants and Catholics; the term libertarian is used almost exclusively to refer to property rights upholding defenders of individual liberty, and practically never to left-libertarians. That's very different; not "akin" at all. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Thread #332332 where the vocal minority argues for a narrow scope and engages in fallacious arguments -- color me surprised! The use of "QED" in such a blatantly fallacious argument adds a new element, though. "Tedious" doesn't even begin to cover this.

In any case, as Yworo has been kind enough to repeat for the Nth time, YES this article is NOT the same as Libertarian Party (United States), but it IS about the same political ideology of libertarianism, as described in a zillion reliable sources. You guys can start a dozen more threads about how your personal POV's don't line up with those reliable sources, but it's not going to change a single thing. BigK HeX (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal POV? Nice dodge, BigK (about how libertarianism is or is not akin to Christianity). And there is no mention of anyone person's POV here, explicit or implicit, except in your comment.

Anyway, no one is disputing that there are a (very) few reliable sources which use the term in the way in which it is currently described in this article. The issue is about what is meant by the term in the vast majority of uses in reliable sources, and how that meaning, which clearly excludes left-libertarianism, is fundamentally different (on the critical point about property rights) from the so-called broad meaning which is the current topic of this article, and which is inclusive of left-libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

See, that's where we all disagree. There are plenty of inclusive sources and they've been cited. But those who argue for a narrow view don't seem to be able to find sources which explicitly exclude the views that they want to exclude from the definition of Libertarianism. Instead, they argue (read: engage in original research) about what the lack of mention in a source might be construed to mean, or argue (read again: engage in original research) from a predominance of cherry-picked sources about what might not have been included or mentioned. And they have so little sourcing that they are falling back on word counts in Google searches!!! And they continue to argue about these personal opinions because they can't find sources that explicitly state what they want. What I don't understand is whether the lack of understanding is real or feigned. Can they really not get it or do they just think we and the various neutral editors who join in are stupid and will be fooled by it all? (P.S. You'll want to note that I have no irons in this fire; I don't edit the article and am only judging the quality of the arguments by both side: the broad side wins hand down, the narrow side hasn't presented any reliable sources that directly support their view. Just sayin'). Yworo (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of google testing is to avoid cherry picking, Yworo. It is the sources that are inclusive of LL that have been cherry picked. By looking at the top 20 (or whatever) hits at google, it's google doing the picking, based on popularity of usage and reference, not the editor and his POV.

If you don't cherry-pick, but instead use google (in general, just in .uk, just in .edu, just at scholar, just at books, etc.) to look for definitions of libertarianism in English sources, you will find the vast majority define it in a way that is based on the primacy of property rights, and thus implicitly exludes left-libertarianism. See the section below for further explication from a different angle. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word "implicitly" denotes original research. You must have explicit sources. No amount of arguing based on Google-searches will get you anywhere on Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? Have you ever been involved in discussions about primary topic? I'm not asking for sources to back up your assertion that this is a broad topic akin to Christianity, because source for assertions like that are not required. But if you applied the standards to which you're trying to hold us, it would be. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious who else besides Fifefoo and Yworo believe the LL usage should remain integral to this article? Fell Gleaming^talk 23:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK of course, Carol, and others. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There was an RfC on the matter which can be found here. Pretty much everyone who comes by not involved in that RfC agrees with it. Yworo (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I came by uninvolved and it seems clear this article is being hijacked by WP:FRINGE interests. Fell Gleaming^talk 00:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you have it 99% right. The folks fighting to keep this article overwhelmed in fringe stuff aren't fringe people, they are feuding people locked so deep in warrior mentality that they fight for more fringe even though they aren't fringe. They don't know any other path. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I was a drop-in the and commented but didn't vote. If we could evolve this into an article that puts these things in perspective, my idea would be to use this as a "disambiguation article" and include those. But it's hard to imagine it working in this environment. North8000 (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has become disgusting. @North8000: Can you stop using numbers like "99%" without reference? @FellGleaming: We are not going to reopen the RfC for you. N6n (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Christianity/Mormonism vs Libertarianism/Libertarian Socialism

To continue the topic started above... Please note that if you define Christianity as broadly as we currently define libertarianism in this article, it would include The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or Mormonism). But note how much coverage Mormonism gets within that article... Not a mention in the intro, not even in the body of the article, except in a footnote to this statement:

The three primary divisions of Christianity are Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox church, and Protestantism. There are other Christian groups that do not fit neatly into one of these primary categories.

I assure you, if Left-libertarianism received approximately as vanishingly little coverage in this article as Mormonism gets in Christianity, there would be much fewer issues. It should be noted that the reason Mormonism is excluded even though technically it is a form of Christianity (defined broadly) according to many more reliable sources than there are about left-libertarianism being a form of libertarianism, is because when people normally use the term Christian or Christianity the meaning they have in mind does not include (usually but not always) Mormons or Mormonism. It's a matter of language usage, and it's not a POV issue. Similarly, when people use the terms libertarian or libertarianism the meaning they have in mind normally does not include left-libertarians or left-libertarianism. This is abundantly obvious when you look at how the respective terms are used and to what they refer in various contexts. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source that uses that analogy with respect to Libertarianism? Otherwise, you are just soapboxing. We already know your opinion, now, can you back it up with sources? Yworo (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, it's getting difficult to take you seriously. You were the one who claimed that the situation here is "akin to Christianity", without explanation, much less any sources. I suppose I could have just fanned out my feathers, and declared (equally persuasively), NO IT'S NOT, but instead I carefully explained why I respectfully disagree. And you discount that as soapboxing? Like I said, it's difficult to take you seriously if you respond like that.

Let me know if you want to have a serious discussion, otherwise I'm done. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

So ..... you have sources indicating that Left-lib should receive "vanishing little" coverage? BigK HeX (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You're a little confused on WP:V guidelines. No formal source is required for making editorial decisions about content exclusion. The only rule is that what we do decide to include must be properly cited. Fell Gleaming^talk 00:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Any confusion does not lie with me. WP:V is hardly the only policy requiring sourcing. Review the talk page archives since roughly Archive 17 or so. The RfC in Archive 19, sums up much of the policy discussion. BigK HeX (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo is allergic to intelligent thought. Born2cycle's analogy makes perfect sense. The relevance of the analogy is obvious to all of us. But, instead of responding to Born2cycle's clear point, Yworo kicks-off with an absurd request for sources linking "that analogy with respect to Libertarianism"? Does Yworo simply not understand what an analogy is or is this yet another troll from one of this page's serial trolls? BlueRobe (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...I agree that Christianity provides a good template. Well...back then I was more open to compromise. That was before it became apparent that if you give anarcho-capitalists even an inch...then they'll try and take a mile. The only long-term solution is for this page to exclude any ideologies that advocate abolishing government. Simple, effective and supported by more than enough reliable sources. --Xerographica (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica, you're not the only one. I have tried reasoning with them and I have offered compromise after compromise. In return, they haven't given an inch of compromise in return, and all attempts to reason with them are met with threats and Wikilawyering. They test WP:AGF like no one I have ever encountered before - in Wikipaedia or in the real world. BlueRobe (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's never crossed you mind that the reason for this is that your position in insupportable? Yworo (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Because inclusion of content about the Zapatista Army of National Liberation and the Workers Solidarity Movement in the Libertarianism article makes so much sense? BlueRobe (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources for including LL?

Sorry but I can't find it in the article or in the discussions. Where are the sources for claiming that left-libertarianism (or libertarian socialism) is a form of libertarianism with respect to what libertarianism is generally understood to mean in the English world? I'd like the source and the exact relevant quote(s). Apologies if this has already been provided, but I can't find it. I promise this will be the last time since I'll put it here: scope#Sources_for_including LL. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I already have Long, Widerquist and the Sapon references, but I don't see how any of these support the inclusion of LL in this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow ... this thread stretches AGF, possibly beyond credulity. You, personally, started a thread and posted an entire list of "left-lib" sources already. BigK HeX (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS (provided over and over and over again) make it clear that Left Libertarianism is a form of Anarchism. It's inclusion in the Libertarianism article brings it into disrepute, but, left Libertarianism having equal weight (more weight?) with mainstream Libertarianism makes the article a farcical sham. If this issue was decided by a powers-that-be who had a clue what she was talking about, left Libertarianism would have, at most, a few sentences to distinguish it from mainstream Libertarianism. Instead, we have a hopeless incoherent ill-informed misrepresentative shambles that is doggedly protected by a handful of ideological zealots who will use all manner of threats and Wikilawyering and "I not allowed to use my brain" to suppress the ideas embodied by mainstream Libertarianism. It's censorship, by Wikipaedia's back door. BlueRobe (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please focus on the content and refrain from repeated personal attacks. Yworo (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no PA in the post above, focus on content and not accusations which lead to hostility mark nutley (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Born2cycle, definitions flow from HQRS. Where these are in conflict (and they are!) WEIGHT applies based on their standing in the literature. The literatures appears to have three clear definitions, RL only (Including subsets of Min only and AC only), LS only, and Broad. Our job as editors is to observe and note these scholarly differences, and then author a WEIGHTed article. It is not to base weight off original research about use in the hoi polloi; nor to base the article off HQRS's opinion about use in the hoi polloi. (I cited an HQRS article above which explicitly and in a scholarly way states the current (as of 2010) research on what the hoi polloi mean when the use the word. Widerquist 2010). Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You are confused about what constitutes a high quality RS. Scholarly articles are primary sources, and are less preferred in the context of an article such as this than secondary sources. Primary sources require interpretation by editors, and such interpretation is risky, and fraught with error. Fell Gleaming^talk 00:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Scholarly articles are primary sources"

That assertion seems to evidence a fair amount of confusion..... BigK HeX (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 [66] 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 [67] 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)

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 [68] 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)

Meet Ayn Rand, philosopher

Stanford is a thoroughly RS:

Ayn Rand (1905–1982) was a philosopher and a novelist who outlined a comprehensive philosophy, including an epistemology and a theory of art, in her novels and essays.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/ --Yopienso (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

She despised Libertarianism:

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974]

AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

(The Ayn Rand Institute is a RS on Rand's views.) --Yopienso (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso, Ayn Rand's antagonism towards the label "Libertarian" is addressed here (from above). BlueRobe (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but it's not right here. I didn't want to leave the impression I was saying she was a Libertarian philosopher; just wanted to clear up the dispute about whether or not she was a philosopher. --Yopienso (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso, sorry. I misunderstood. There was one editor who claimed that Rand wasn't a philosopher, let alone a notable or influential philosopher, but we've all pretty much stopped taking his trolls seriously. BlueRobe (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, my bad I guess, jumping in a bit blindly. Feel free to put a hat on this. --Yopienso (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK Folks, hang on, here goes

Maybe I have established myself as near the "middle of the road" of the war here. My "agenda"" is to have what the tenets that 98% of Libertarians hold in common have much prominence in the article, along the lines of:

"Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties"

Many strands of Libertarianism would agree with the change from the status quo defined by the above but would want more beyond that (e.g. total elimination of government). and thus disagree with the implicit limitations of the above statement. I respect that. Other strands would have unusual tenet in areas not covered by the above. I respect that, and would like the article to cover their views of their strands.

And my agenda is to put all of the above in perspective. It it's a view hel0d by 20,000 or 200,00 or 2,00,000 people, we should say so. If it's a view which only exists because 1 or 2 philosopher/ writers said it, we should say so.

People have wasted 5 years of their lives on this total failure of an article. And they are on track to waste another 5 years getting nowhere. I'm thinking about 5 weeks rather than 5 years before I leave this as a hopeless war. The good news is that, unlike other Wikipedia warfare articles, the one does not appear to be driven by "Outside WP" differences.

Finally, I must say that I have had the privilege of learning from experts on both sides of this war. There is only one person who I have mentally written off as a hopeless POV warrior.

So, now that you know my "agenda", I plan to wp:BeBold with edits towards that end. Since I am surrounded by experts here, I ask you (if you agree) to try to fix my shortcomings rather than using them as a reason to blockade this. If you disagree and say so (and edit what I wrote) I will have a lot of respect for you. If you don't state a disagreement and just wiki-lawyer me, I will have no respect for you.

Whether this is leadership out of this 5 year hell-hole,. vs. stupidity on my part will be determined by you.

So here goes.....

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate the sentiments of an editor who posted at almost the same time ... North8000 can you stop throwing around your 98%/99% claims without reference. By now, if nothing else is clear, it should be pretty well-established that editors on this page will reject WP:OR out-of-hand. If there was some more important point in your somewhat lengthy post, IMO, you tainted its credibility by prefacing it with blatant original research... BigK HeX (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I, for one, am not impressed, (albeit, not the least bit surprised), by your immediate denunciation of North8000's good faith attempt to fix the Libertarianism article by consensus through compromise. And labelling North8000's offer of a compromise as WP:OR is disingenuous, at best. BlueRobe (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I can understand the desire to be bold; can I suggest that you keep each conceptually distinct editorial change to a single edit to avoid baby-bathwater problems, (and of course, use HQRS :)? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

this edit needs a HQRS cite for "largest Libertarian organization" and probably an illustrative number and description of the number. You also need to cite from RS for their beliefs (as it is their opinion, their policy document would be RS it). It looks like a useful edit. The USLP article cites "Membership Report prepared 04/12/2004 for cutoff of 03/31/2004, circulated by the LNC. Retrieved May 14, 2007" as 115,401 reported members. It would need verification as to its truth, and a bit more detail for reliability. I've taken the liberty of adding these changes. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, you're seriously claiming that you honestly believe there is ANY doubt for the claim that the US Libertarian Party is the largest libertarian organisation in the world? Are you that stupid, that ignorant or that dishonest? BlueRobe (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am claiming that a claim such as that requires a citation, lo, even I supplied one. Please refactor your comment, as it appears to be both abusive, and based on a sad misreading of what I actually said. I'd like to remind you that your last warning for personal attacks was at level 4. I would like to see you refactor the comment today. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As the most likely candidate to have "been written off as a hopeless POV warrior" [AKA, the least likely to treat this page as a forum or to coddle the editors repeatedly throwing around WP:OR], I may as well make clear MY agenda. My agenda will to WP:BeBold in ruthlessly reverting any edits that defy any points of consensus established on this talk page, whether any members of the vocal minority respect that consensus or not. As a "warrioring" bonus, I'll close with this WikiLawyer Disclaimer: Any POV pushing in defiance of established consensus will be noted for intervention against possible disruption. BigK HeX (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, yet more Wikilawyering threats from you? I'm not the least bit surprised. And nor is anyone else. BlueRobe (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)