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)

Content analysis and direction of article

User:Xavexgoem wrote: CarolMooreDC, I'm interested to know what direction you would take the article. Specifically, how much weight would be given to "right-libertarianism" and why.

First, definition. Many people outside libertarianism would consider any form of libertarianism that promotes private property and broad privatization of public services as “right wing.” However, the “deletionists” want to get rid of any mention of pro-property anarcho-capitalism/libertarian anarchy/market anarchism/free market anarchism as well as all mentions of left wing anarchism. I’m against that.

Then the question is what percentage of the article is and should be devoted to these variants. I actually divided the article up and counted (with my word processor) number of words in several categories below on my at my temporary talk page Content analysis of Libertarianism article. In summary:

1. Neutral Summary Language: 980 words
2. Language about "Right" (pro-property): 2281 words
3. Language about "Left" ("anti-Property"): 656 words
4. Language about other variants: 199 words

Give or take 150 words either way in the first 3, I don’t think that is overly-disproportionate to the libertarian movements worldwide. The material I intend to add probably would add about 200 words to neutral, 150 words to right, 50 words to left, 150 to other variants. Of course, reading through quickly I can see a lot of dubious material has snuck in that either should go or needs to be reorganized but I don’t anticipate that the proportion would change that much, if I had my way.

As for structure, I have some draft ideas for restructuring that would make the article more cohesive on my hard drive. But as long as this article is infected with POV Soap Box, Sock Puppets, Personal Attacks and Edit Warring, I’m not going to bother. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd second Carolmooredc about her proposed proportions (Neutral ~1200; Pro-property ~2500; Anti-property ~700; Other ~350). These are adequate to discuss the difference and distinction in a lead topic article. Carol: In your analysis, where did the Mutualist (etc.s) fit? I'm still a little concerned at the undertreatment of Civil Libertarianism (Other? Neutral?), and the need to note libertarian content in Georgism & Social Credit as pre 1940s social movements in favour of property. Having reread the article I'm very very strongly in favour of reorganisation. I agree with Carol about the article's editorial climate not being conducive to producing quality editorial decisions. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Civil libertarianism might get a passing mention in etymology or history as neutral. There used to be a section on mutualism but I believe was not defended with existing references linking it strongly to libertarianism and therefore removed. It might be "another variant," depends on WP:RS. Ideally the "right" and "left" differences won't be overly emphasized since they are sometimes about rather minor differences on property, depending on which groups you are talking about. As I've said before libertarian decentralism and libertarian municipalism also deserve mention and I have lots of WP:RS at whatever point I decide to put them in, but probably only as part of larger structural proposal I'll put forth if things calm down. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this this article isn't about balances between opposing point of view. The problem is that it so so loaded with sidebar stuff that it fails to communicate the main, core principles that run across 99% of Libertarians......smaller and less intrusive government. Including failing to communicate the 99% common principles as such.

Second I consider Carol to be amongst the 2-3 most active warriors here, in her case the warfare is by continuously over-claiming warrioring and other violations by others.

Exactly what IS the battle here? Everybody is off on the tangent of pretending there is is an ongoing battle regardign wheterh to not to completely exclude mention of other beliefs with the word "libertarian" in them.

If underneath it all, there are persons who really want to leave the article in such a confused state, then there might be a genuine underlying conflict. Otherwise I don't see one, it's seems to more like fighting for the sake of fighting.

Lastly I see no RSourcing that says that "left Libertarianism" is or was actually practiced, outside of in the minds of a few thinkers. If, as I suspect, it is/was at less the 1% of Libertarians, the article coverage should note or reflect that. North8000 (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism is not primarily about "smaller and less intrusive government" it is about individual freedom. However we see governments that reduce but not elimate some social programs while increasing the coercive power of the state and restricting civil liberties as libertarian. TFD (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:North8000: Have you tried to tell us what you think needs to be in, with WP:RS? All I've seen you do is add a section heavy on Libertarian Party stuff and hear you argue to get rid of the stuff you don't like. (And now accusing me of warrior-ing cause I keep complaining about disruptive editing behavior.) Please give us an analysis of what is missing. I can think of lots of stuff but am holding back on much work on the article until the talk page and article editing is more cooperative and civil. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That North8000 continues this odd assertion that left-libertarianism exists "only in the minds of 2 authors" is somewhat unproductive. Exactly what research did you do to come to that conclusion? BigK HeX (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

what evidence do you have left-libertarian is not a tiny minority of libertarianism? are there any rs that give the ratio of LL to RL? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly there are such RS. Let us know if you find some. Then you'd have evidence that actually supports your claim that they are such a "tiny minority" that consideration can be made to have it excluded despite it's prominence in reliable sources. In the meantime, there far more than enough editorial support to maintain the topic in the article, per the numerous RS. BigK HeX (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with Carol's order, but I think left-libertarianism is still over-emphasized.

In any case, the broad meaning has about the same usage among reliable sources as does left-libertarianism, perhaps even less. That is, when reliable sources use the term "libertarianism", in the vast, vast majority they are using it to mean something other than the broad meaning. Yet this article is written as if the broad meaning is the primary topic. That's totally backwards.

Even Darkstar1st has fallen into the trap, when he says, "left-libertarian is not a tiny minority of libertarianism? " That phrasing presupposes the obscure broad meaning of libertarianism. If you're using the conventional meaning of libertarianism, then left-libertarianism is not part of libertarianism at all. It is not part of the libertarianism advocated by either the U.S. Libertarian Party nor by the U.K.'s Libertarian Alliance. To say that left-libertarianism is even a minority of "libertarianism" is to refer with "libertarianism" to a meaning that itself has very little usage in reliable sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'll suggest that an actual source about the supposed "obscurity" of the broad meaning would make your assertion far more persuasive. BigK HeX (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

i set the trap Born, and it's a double-secret trap, hehe. i have given up trying to point out anti-property and pro-property are opposites, now i am trying to work within the intricate mechanisms of wp so brilliantly constructed to guide us thru this morass. by acknowledging LL does not have a political party hq, any voters or candidates, or even a place in most dictionaries, it is ineligible for any mention in the article according to the test subsection above. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a pretty poor trap, if that's the premise of it. BigK HeX (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK, even though WP relies heavily on relative prevalence of usage of meanings of terms in reliable sources, particularly in the area article naming, I believe this demand for an explicit source on the issue of prevalence of usage is unprecedented. It's as absurd as demanding that you or Carol find reliable sources that support the claim that the broad meaning of the term is the primary use of the term libertarianism. Of course, I won't demand that, because I try not to venture into the absurd. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's fine if you choose not to provide support for your personal assertion about "obscurity" ... just don't expect such an argument to hold much editorial weight. BigK HeX (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Dark, I think you missed my point. You're talking about a different trap. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

One of my main points and my main question were ignored. I think that the question of whether or not to 100% remove content on the more unusual forms of Libertarianism is more or less settled, most importantly per the comments of the closer, not as a yes/no to the mis-worded question. So we seem to keep pretending the settled issue is THE issue, instead of defining the real still disputed issue, if there is one. So, I ask again, could somebody specifically define the current dispute?

Second, I find it incredulous that people are saying that one must prove something is obscure in order to keep it to a small size in the article, or eliminate it. That is exactly opposite of how Wikipedia works, and you all know it! So, if I put in a section that takes up 5% of the article where two authors invented their own version of Libertarianism (let's call it Anthro-Zionist-Libertarianism) then you need to come up with than RS that has studied the frequency of practice Anthro-Zionist-Libertarianism in order to reduce or eliminate it's over-coverage in the article? Again, that is the exact opposite of how Wikipedia works, and you all know it.

Answering Carol's question on "what's missing" , it won't be easy, but what's missing is all of the statements to put all of the material in perspective. And the widely held forms or principles should be identified as such. And if there are any forms which exist only in the minds of one or two philosophers they should be eliminated. Of course, collectively learning that will be the tough part, particularly in this environment. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "I find it incredulous that people are saying that one must prove something is obscure in order to keep it to a small size in the article, or eliminate it."

Yeah. Someone should actually try to give a SOURCE (or five) for their assertion that a concept is "obscure", when dozens of sources have been provided which explicitly describe the supposedly "obscure" concept. BigK HeX (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, you didn't yet answer my question on what research you've done that prompts you to keep suggesting that "left libertarianism is a 'made-up' word that has no usage outside of 'a few writers'". BigK HeX (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has been saying "delete all that right libertarian stuff" or that non-right/left libertarian stuff, I think you can safely put in good WP:RS material. Now whether you'll put it in in the right sections or right order maybe debateable, but if it's good WP:RS info and not poorly or unsourced WP:OR, it's not going to be just deleted, assuming not WP:UNDUE. And the article probably could grow by another 20%. And if that's all the kind of material YOU think belongs there, then the whole issue of WP:UNDUE on lefty stuff is solved, right?? Do the work. No one is stopping you. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If I may throw in my hat here, I have a few comments I'd like to make. Before we can reach any solutions about the direction of this article I think we must first assess the underlying issues it faces. Right-Libertarianism, specifically Libertarian Conservatism, is a very popular form of thought in the United States right now. Many of the people who come to Wikipedia to learn about Libertarianism do so with certain conceptions of Libertarianism and other political persuasions (particularly Leftism). Because of the particularly polarized nature of contemporary American politics, a small percentage of these visitors will want to rewrite this article in a manner that more closely resembles their understanding of the term's relationship to other political philosophies.

As a valued source of information, Wikipedia should illuminate, not manipulate into unconsciously adopting a position on an controversy they may or may not be aware of. Personally I believe that in framing the future of this article we need to consider the presumptions people have about Libertarianism and emphasize the fact that political philosophies across the political spectrum seek to establish a free, non-coercive system under which the people may prosper. But at the very least we should create a controversy section that outlines the conflict that exists on the proper application of the Libertarian label. When I see these discussions about ommitting particular strands of Libertarian thought, I worry that they are the means by which the illuminating aspect of Wikipedia is undermined and in turn a particular POV is quietly introduced as the basis and critera of all Libertarian thought.

I also don't agree with the direction in which due weight is being determined in these dicussions. There is no doubt that Libertarian Conservatism is the most prominent of the Libertarian movements of today. But if we allow the popularity of a viewpoint to be the determinant of its definition then in all likelihood we end up with an article that is detached from the historical realities that shaped the development of Libertarianism in the first place. Imagine if we wrote the article on Fascism every time a large body of people came to regard their political opposites as Fascists - what a mess we would be left with. Or to use an earlier example I made, "Liberalism" in the minds of a majority of people refers to American Liberalism, Social Liberalism. If we were to rewrite the article on Liberalism to largely reflect the popularity of that perspective, it would mean drastically minimizing the great majority of the history of Liberalism, Classical Liberalism, and some of the most significant accomplishments of Liberals in general. The weakest aspect of this article is its inability to synthesize the various schools of Libertarian thought into a historical outline of their development. Hacking away at its topic matters until a simple narrative of Libertarianism is not only a step backward but more importantly a poor way to represent the bounty of differing perspectives that exist on Libertarianism Anatoly-Rex (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

" discussions about ommitting particular strands of Libertarian thought" - When a book organizes topics by chapters...does doing so omit any of the topics included in the book? Nobody is saying we should omit libertarian socialism or anarcho-capitalism...we're saying that this chapter should be dedicated to the "variety" of libertarianism that's politically relevant. To read a different chapter on another "variety" of libertarianism all somebody has to do is refer to the table of contents...the disambiguation page...and/or the "see also" section. It's simply a matter of good organization. --Xerographica (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, they feel that left-libertarian and associated views are not libertarianism, and should not be mentioned on this page. Editors who hold this viewpoint include: Xerographica Anatoly-Rex (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You both are saying the same thing. Xerographica is just trying to euphemize his desire to censor left-libertarianism within the Libertarianism article by describing it as "moving the information to 'another chapter'". BigK HeX (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Censorship is like when I could not access Wikipedia in China. The 3rd cousins twice removed in-laws of libertarianism would be equally accessible via the disambiguation page or via the "see also" section. The other ideologies are so distantly related to libertarianism that their kids would have 0% chance of birth defects. --Xerographica (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So ... you're acting like the Chinese government when it comes to left-lib/ancap/etc?? I don't get your point here. Also, thanks for more WP:OR, I guess ... this time about incest or some such. BigK HeX (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Acting like the Chinese government would be to completely remove references to anarcho-capitalism, left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism from Wikipedia. I'd really really enjoy hearing your explanation of why it would be incestuous. How are they related? By a love of liberty? Well...conservatives and liberals also love liberty...so we'd have to include them in this article as well. By love of capitalism? In that case we'd have to include conservatism and liberalism and exclude left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism. By the size of the state? In that case the closest relative would be conservatism. By wanting to abolish the state? Libertarians, liberals and conservatives do not want to abolish the state so, in that sense, no relation to anarcho-capitalism or left-libertarianism or libertarian socialism. Rather than answer the question of how they are related feel free to go with your typical response of "soapbox" or "original research" or "idontlikeit". --Xerographica (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"How are they related?" By the explicit description of a multitude of reliable sources. (Those things your soapboxes always lack.) WP:RS. Period. BigK HeX (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that there is just the usual squabbling over the lead (which should include the Overview now that former getting longer and latter is shorter than it!) While those who want to advocate ONE form of libertarianism keep soapboxing away, I don't see them adding any WP:RS info about their favorite form in order to have the balance they say they want to see. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism (word)

What does everyone think of following the lead of Orange (word) and moving this article to Libertarianism (word), probably with some revision? After all, this article is about the word; it even has an etymology section!

Then we can discuss whether the term has a primary topic, and , if so, what it is, and put that article here; or, if no primary topic, then put the dab page here at Libertarianism. Comments? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to create a Libertarianism (word) article. Wouldn't have much bearing on this article though. The article here has content that has mostly been deemed as policy-appropriate. BigK HeX (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine it actually happening, but a complete re-boot (of the articles) per Born2cycle's plan would be an excellent and structurally sound way to unsnarl this mess. And they have gone right to the heart of the problem. North8000 (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that's only true if by "mess" you mean, "not written to my preferred POV". BigK HeX (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. Sincerely, my only "POV" here is to have (a) good, accurate, informative articles. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You most certainly have exhibited a POV against left-libertarianism, given that you've continually derided its inclusion despite the evidence that you don't know much about it [since you've asked us on the talk page to give you very basic information on the subject]. BigK HeX (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you will look back, you will see that I have never said to not include it in the article, nor derided it's inclusion in the article. What I HAVE said is that any philosophies where they have had few or no followers should not be included. And that anyting that is not a "real term" should not be included. And I also said that I wanted anything with the word "Liberterian" in it which has has / had some substance of a following to BE included. I made the point of using the article as a disambiguation-page on steroids, because the topic is too complex to be handled on a regular disambiguation page. And I honestly don't know which is the case regarding "left Libertarianism". I certainly wasn't able to learn it from this incoherent mess trio of articles. The left Libertarian article just has a bunch of "some people say it means this" type statements, without any assertion that the term has a meaning or that there is any group of followers with this philosophy. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I apologize as "derided" is a bit too strong for your comments. "Seriously questioned"/"extremely dubious" or something along those lines are probably more apropos descriptions.

If you don't know whether there are any "real" left-libertarian movements, then you weren't looking for that answer in this Libertarianism article, which I know contains such evidence (since I'm the one who put it there). If the Wikipedia article is the extent of your research and you didn't find the indications which exist in the article, then your research doesn't seem to have thorough enough to really make the claim that you "see no RSourcing that says that 'left Libertarianism' is or was actually practiced". Just my 2cents on this suggestion you've made, as you seem to have repeated a number of times. BigK HeX (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, if anybody can point to an RS saying that there's a group of at least 10 people practicing what they themselves call "Left Libertarianism" then I will consider myself to have been educated and the matter settled. North8000 (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the RS that have already been suggested to you to see if such descriptions are in there? BigK HeX (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My question is about practice. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not necessary. Cf, other political ideology articles. venE though their adherents may divide into different groups the correct approach is to have one article about libertarianism and separate articles about the different types. TFD (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK, by moving this article to Libertarianism (word), the content would remain (more or less) what it is. The topic would continue to not be a single coherent philosophic subject but it would be okay because the topic would be the word Libertarianism, and coverage of all meanings of the word in the title (there, Orange, here Libertarianism), and discussion of their similarities and differences, would be appropriate. By not having it at Libertarianism we would no longer be incorrectly implying that the primary topic of Libertarianism is the word itself and all of its meanings. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Most editors do not see the article as being about the "word". The significant majority of editors see the current article (correctly) as describing the political ideology with its many variations. The "Principles" section certainly doesn't support any argument that this current article is somehow just about the "word." I don't find that argument to have much merit. BigK HeX (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be more like changing the article Orange (fruit) to Orange (fruit) (word) because Seville oranges are not sweet, Green Oranges do not have orange skins and Blood oranges do not have orange fruit. Not only that but these pseudo-oranges only represent a tiny minority of oranges and most people have never heard of them and would not recognize them as oranges, which are sweet with orange skin and fruit. TFD (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be true only if the fruit concept referred to as orange in reliable sources usually excluded the fruit concepts of Seville oranges, Green oranges and Blood oranges in the way that the philosophical concept referred to as libertarianism in reliable sources usually excludes the philosophical concept of left-libertarianism. But that's not the case.

When I google for orange fruit, ignoring WP hits, I get all kinds of references to concepts that are inclusive of all these meanings. Googling for libertarianism, either in general google, in news, or in books, results in concepts that do not include left-libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The current version of the Libertarianism article is NOT about the word even if you may really dislike the article. BigK HeX (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Simply stating your opinion is not constructive. Yes the article IS about the word. There, see how unhelpful that is? How about backing up opinion with some facts and reasoning?

The article currently at Libertarianism is about the word libertarianism as much as the article at Orange (word) is about the word orange simply because the topic of both articles encompasses not one particular concept associated with the respective word, but all meanings associated with that word.

And it's not about disliking the article. It's about the inappropriateness of having a relatively minor usage of a term be at that term. I don't dislike the article at Orange (word), but it would not be appropriate to move it to Orange, because the topic of that article is not the primary topic for orange. Similarly, I don't dislike this article, but it's not appropriate to have it at Libertarianism because the topic of this article is not the primary topic for libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a clear primary topic, and I think the best route would be to either (a) have Libertarianism be a disambiguation page, like Ubuntu, which points to Libertarianism (word), Right libertarianism, and Left Libertarianism, or (b) to use this article as a sort of "disambiguation article", which covers libertarian philosophies in general -- i.e. the ideas that all of these philosophies have in common, and links to each of the sub-articles in a section summarizing them (which is what it's currently doing, albeit poorly). Personally, I hate disambiguation pages, and would prefer to have the article discuss libertarian philosophies in general, and then point readers to differing varieties of it. If we can't agree to that, then I'd say that we should do a disambiguation page. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Though I disagree that the tiny minority should be allowed to dictate whether the article is scrapped in favor of a disamb page, I do agree that a structure such as the present one is preferable. IMO, if there weren't so much of this PRIMARYTOPIC mess being argued long after being settled, then it would be far easier to work on the finer points of the article. BigK HeX (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Simply stating your opinion is not constructive."

I didn't "simply state" anything. You repeated your conclusion, so I repeated mine. I'd already previously made my points on the matter, which hadn't been addressed yet.... BigK HeX (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this whole discussion just a Wikipedia:POV_fork#POV_forks. And particularly annoying give the above RFC]]?? And shouldn't the mediator should take the RfC into account, since the request for mediation came before the RfC, not after. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's even worse than a usual POVFORK. With the usual POVFORK, the forked material is maintained in some obscure location (i.e., The One True Libertarianism, Despite Numerous RS And An RfC). Here, the proposal is to take the POVFORK material and actually hijack the main page with it. BigK HeX (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Support move - Currently, this page has little to do with the predominant form of Libertarianism. This would be a reasonable solution if we are going to keep the page like it currently is. Toa Nidhiki05 20:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you didn't manage to argue your contention about what the page deals with in the above thread. BigK HeX (talk) 20:27, 9 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)

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)

Requested move

Libertarianism → Libertarianism (word) — [NOW REQUESTING SOMEONE TO REVIEW CONSENSUS AND CLOSE THIS REQUEST FOR US Request by User:BigK HeX] The subject of this article, an overview/summary of all meanings associated with the word libertarianism, is not the primary topic for the term. There is no consensus about what is the primary topic, so the dab page should be at the term itself, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page". Born2cycle (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Libertarianism (disambiguation) → Libertarianism

• Support - This makes reasonable since; you can't write about 'X' without knowing what 'X' is. Toa Nidhiki05 20:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - As nom. Slight preference for Forms of libertarianism over Libertarianism (word) as new location for this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. For the zillion-and-one^th time, per the ALREADY-CLOSED RfC.

  Also Comment. Given THE RFC WE JUST HAD, this request arguably is quite tendentious. BigK HeX (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Zillionth time? This is the first time I've ever seen an official move request for this article. This is not about what this page should discuss, as the content of an article does not change when it is moved. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's not waste time with semantic games. THIS page is the Libertarianism page. "Forms of Whatever" is a different page. BigK HeX (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not semantics. There should be no confusion between an article's content (which was the issue discussed in the short-lived RFC) and its title (which is the issue here). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"an article's content" ... Specifically, the RfC was about the Libertarianism article's content (i.e. the page with this title). BigK HeX (talk)

Article moves have almost nothing to do with article content. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how that statement is relevant. The contents of THIS article were largely deemed to be appropriate for THIS page (i.e., Libertarianism). Even more, per Skomorokh below, the premise for this request to move is nonsensical. BigK HeX (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The RfC did not deal at all with the question of whether the current title of the article was appropriate for the content of this article, or whether there might be a better title for it. It dealt exclusively with article content. This move request is addressing only the issue of title. It's like confusing going to court to get your name changed with going to a shrink to get yourself changed. Night and day. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support If we could come up with another way to fix this confusing mess of an article (actually, trio of articles), I'd be willing to change my stance, but I see no progress towards that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as the rationale is farcical. If the article is about the word, I suppose the major sections deal with a history of the word that is distinct from its etymology, the principles of the word, forms of the word, and organizations of the word? Ridiculous. It is blindingly obvious that the subject of this article is the American-style offshoot of classical liberalism. The different forms mentioned are all variations or derivations of that philosophy, not competitors for the title. Appeals to primary topic are noted, but there is no satisfactory disambiguation for this philosophy suggested, leaving this proposal dead in the water like its predecessors. Skomorokh 20:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Prefer Forms of libertarianism as new location for this article. It's illogical that the title of this article is "libertarianism" but then it discusses left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism. If we can't get the topic to reflect the title then we'll have to get the title to reflect the topic. The article here at libertarianism can have one section called "Forms of libertarianism" that gives a short overview on the distantly related "forms" and it would include a link to the main article at Forms of libertarianism. --Xerographica (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - no reason given for move based on policy or reasonable argument. TFD (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? Does not meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria is probably one of the most common policy reasons given to justify page moves at WP:RM. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The primary topic is libertarianism as defined in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is what, exactly? The problem of course is that libertarianism is not defined in any one way in reliable sources. There are multiple topics that are referred to by that term, and none of them are primary (at least there is no consensus about any one of them being primary).

The burden those who oppose this move have to meet is to show that the subject of the article currently at Libertarianism is the primary topic for the term libertarianism. You can't show that, because the article is not about any one subject - it's about all the meanings associated with the word. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There may be disagreements about use of terminology in reliable sources just as there are with other political topics. E.g., liberal may mean laissez-faire or interventionist, or both. There is one article because there is a shared history and a common core set of beliefs. Topics are defined by essential not accidental attributes. TFD (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• support the article is confusing readers with pro-property and anti-property being the same philosophy. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The article isn't "confusing", just because it doesn't push your preferred POV where Libertaranism is only about right-lib theories of property. BigK HeX (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Libertarianism → Libertarianism (word): [Added later: I have requested someone familiar with Wikipedia:Requested_moves move this to "Contested request" (not clear how to do that since text not there). Note that while this is not technically a POV-Fork, it's definitely in that spirit, as I wrote previously]: Wikipedia:POV_FORK#POV_forks under "Unacceptable types of forking" reads: In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. It is clear this requested move is a result of some editors not getting their way, including in this RfC on the topic. Libertarianism (disambiguation) should be a separate discussion since there are pros and cons. [Added later: As for WP:primary topic, that is a subsection of Wikipedia:Disambiguation so I don't see how it can effect the discussion of this article; just that of the Disambiguation page, and that conversation should happen there.] CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fork??? No new articles are being suggested here. Just a simple article rename to put the dab page at the term in question since there is no primary topic for that term. Very normal/standard stuff in WP:RM land. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose move to libertarianism (word). Bad disambiguator for a start, but the case against this article being the primary topic is also so chronically weak that in the context of the previous discussions it does look like an attempted POV fork. Andrewa (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose; it's not about the word in a linguistic sense, but about the philosophy/ies under that name. The name is fine as is. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You did not address the issue of the topic of the article currently at Libertarianism not being the primary topic for that term. Also, the alternative destination suggestion Forms of libertarianism meets the "about the philosophy/ies under that name" description. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -- per the the recent RFC. The primary topic for this subject is clearly the family of political philosophies which go under the heading of "libertarianism", and have in common the promotion of civil liberties and limited or non-existent state intervention. Both right- and left- libertarianism are proper subsets of this topic, and this should be what the article is about. What should then be determined is how much weight to give each of them. But this has all been discussed in the RFC that preceding this one by a few days, and consensus was reached that the broader definition is the primary topic and should be covered here. This has already been debated ad naseum, and I'd really like to see the vocal minority that is still pushing against the consensus on the topic, to stop wasting everyone's time, and start working on improving the article instead. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"The primary topic for this subject is clearly the family of political philosophies "... That indeed is the implied position of anyone opposing this move, but this argument implies that the subject being sought when a reader enters [libertarianism] in the Search box is much more likely than any other to be "the family of political philosophies which go under the heading of 'libertarianism'". Seriously? That's clearly true? Not for me. That's the whole point of this proposed move. But I'll gladly change my position to oppose this move as well if evidence of this being true is presented by someone (guidance for how to determine primary topic is provided at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). --Born2cycle (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: As I said a month back, libertarianism (word) branches into libertarianism (metaphysics) and libertarianism (political theory). This article is the latter. N6n (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think "(word)" is a terrible disambiguator. This article isn't about a word, it's about a family of related political philosophies. We don't have an article called "liberalism (word)". Also if this article were about the word we would have to add a section on metaphysical libertarianism, which is a totally unrelated concept. This requested move only makes sense if one accepts the implicit assertion that the different philosophies covered on this page are unrelated and have nothing in common but the word libertarianism. That assertion has been rejected in two votes already–so this is now the third vote we've had in two weeks on basically the same question. I don't think repeatedly voting on the same thing is constructive Iota (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's a good suggestion to add a summary section on metaphysical libertarianism to this article since the article is already a potpourri of uses of the term libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "potpourri"

To quote User:Iota, "That assertion has been rejected in two votes already...." BigK HeX (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: I believe the optimal solution to this never-ending chaos would be to expand the article libertarianism in the United States as an alternative. It could become what some people would prefer this article to be. Also agree that "(word)" is a terrible disambiguator. –CWenger (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose no valid reason given. Article is not about a linguistic topic. Rather, article needs better organization and an inclusive summary. Yworo (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would seriously injure navigation for our actual readers, and it wouldn't really stop the edit war, even if that were a reason for a page move. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. First, there is no sense having an article about the word rather than about the thing. Second, the problem here is not one of disambiguation of words, but of WP:IDHT - a small number of editors really do believe that their own take on libertarianism is the only libertarianism worth reading about, and persist in pushing this belief despite the resistance of the rest of the editing community. The above proposed change would not fix this at all. --FOo (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am not aware of whatever edit war or other problems may afflict this article, nor do I care to be. What I do know is that the article as it stands now is most definitely not about the word "libertarianism", nor should we have an article that is primarily about the word "libertarianism". The topic is correct and clearly the primary topic for this title. Powers ^T 00:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. At best this is a good faith attempt to solve editorial consensus and WP:IDHT problems by using incorrect technique. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support The term means too many different things. In Europe, libertarianism refers to anarchism. And how about sources that say the term specifically refers to capitalist philosophy? I have an idea: We could keep this article as it is, but rename it to something like "libertarianism (broad meaning)", but still refer everyone to the disambiguation page and it will be in that list. Rapidosity (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose No valid reasons presented for move. TFD (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

"... dead in the water like its predecessors". What predecessors? There have been other requested moves for this article? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Like EVERY OTHER attempt to significantly alter the concepts to be discussed at Libertarianism. BigK HeX (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the current plan is, it obviously isn't working. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems vastly superior to other recently proposed efforts, which seem to be focused on having the Libertarianism article push a POV. BigK HeX (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know which efforts you are talking about, but the core of the current contentions is essentially that the article massievly violates wp:NPOV by having such over-representation and lack of context for the 1% versions to the extent that it completely occludes the 99% one. And I don't see any substantive work or discussion to address that. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

When you provide for us some actual evidence for this "1%" theory that you keep repeating (instead of asking us to do your research for you/or for you to offer wild speculation on viewpoints that you admit to knowing little about), then you may find getting the potential issue addressed to be a lot easier. BigK HeX (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's just an educated guess, but I'll bet that most would agree that it's close, and from what's in the artclles so far the 1% might be closer to 0%. But I think that your statement has it in reverse. For inclusion there needs to be a reasonably amount of RS COVERAGE. From what I see, the sources are just the actual writings where people invented it in their minds. Those fail twice over, first for being primary, and second a writing that invents it is inventing it, not covering it. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you've been asking us about the matter, the suggestion that these authors "invented the term" has been nothing but wild speculation on your part, correct? BigK HeX (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to maneuver the conversation to be the reverse of how Wikipedia works. The article(s) do not even claim much less support that people actually practice this, identified as such. The way that WP works is that inclusion requires establishing it, not the opposite of having to prove a negative in order to not include it. North8000 (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

See that "search archives" box up at the top? Try sticking "move" or "rename" in there to get an idea of the volumnious prior discussion in this vein. Sincerely, Skomorokh 22:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have recommended editors read Wikipedia:POV_FORK#POV_forks several times over last month, but people just refuse to acquaint themselves with policy. Please do so. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's very perplexing to recommend reading policy about new article creation via forking in the context of a discussion about moving an existing article which has nothing to do with creating new articles, much less forking. I don't know what you see in there that might be appropriate, but I suggest you spell it out so other can help you find the source of your confusion. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have requested someone familiar with Wikipedia:Requested_moves move this to "Contested request" (not clear how to do that since text not there). You clearly did not read that very carefully. Note that while this is not technically a POV-Fork, it's definitely in that (negative) spirit, so I just left it there with that explanation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the box under "Current Discussions" on Wikipedia:Requested_moves says: "To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page." Who can figure out how to do that so it will end up under "Contested request"? Perhaps User talk:Born2cycle? CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think all page-moves listed there are presumed to be "potentially contested." Non-controversial moves are just done by any editor. BigK HeX (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Carol, it is you who did not read carefully (WP:RM as well as the stuff on POV forking, and probably the argument presented for this move too). This request is listed under "contested requests" at WP:RM and has been from the moment it was posted there by the RM bot. Pages move are not forks, much less POV forks. No evidence has been presented that the subject of this article is the primary topic for "libertarianism". --Born2cycle (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requested_moves says If you object to a proposal listed in Current requests, please relist it in the Contested requests section below. I would if I could figure out how to from the template at top of this section.
• Despite being frustrated at every turn (including in this request for move 9 to 5) the Deletionists keep coming up with new strategies to gut the article in what is very disruptive editing. Some of us would rather work on improving the article instead of dealing with these Refusal to get the point moves.
• As for WP:primary topic, that is a subsection of Wikipedia:Disambiguation so I don't see how it can effect the discussion of this article; just that of the Disambiguation page, and that conversation should happen there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Carol, I have a lot of patience, but I must say, this is getting ridiculous.

• What part of "This request is listed under "contested requests" at WP:RM and has been from the moment it was posted there by the RM bot" do you not understand? Current requests, which is under Wikipedia:Rm#Uncontroversial_requests, currently has only one entry in it, and, again, this request to move Libertarianism has never been listed there. It has always been in the next section, under Wikipedia:Rm#Current_discussions which is under Wikipedia:Rm#Contested_requests.

  You're apparently not very familiar with WP:RM and how it works, and perhaps have only skimmed that page which I hope explains your misunderstanding. If so, I suggest you take a few minutes to carefully read WP:RM (as well as WP:D, particularly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TITLE, which are polices often cited as basis for move requests at WP:RM).

• All move requests, including this one, have nothing to do with deleting content, gutting articles, or disruptive editing. This is merely a standard request to move a dab page for a given term to the actual term, due to a lack of consensus about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term at issue. The motivations of those who support or oppose this move are not relevant here, nor is anything that you or anyone else is frustrated about. All that is relevant here is the soundness of the arguments provided for showing that the subject of the article currently at Libertarianism is the primary topic for libertarianism (no such argument has been made).
• The whole point of this request is to move the disambiguation page -- Libertarianism (disambiguation) -- here to Libertarianism, because there is no consensus about there being a primary topic for the term libertarianism (which of course means first moving the article currently at Libertarianism somewhere else, and the two candidates suggested so far are Libertarianism (word) and Forms of libertarianism. For any move A → B, the discussion can be posted at either talk page, as long as there is a pointer to the discussion from one to the other, which there is in this case. I chose to put the discussion here because there is much more "action" here. If you really don't understand the relevance of WP:DISAMBIGUATION and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to this discussion, that explains much. Hopefully you do now. If you still don't, please read and reread this post, including reading the links I've taken the time to provide, to make sure you understand what this is about, because I just don't know how else to explain it to you. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• As I've said, I would support a disambiguation page. That is Libertarianism-->Forms of libertarianism and then Libertarianism (disambiguation) --> Libertarianism. The disambiguation page is not my first choice, but I would gladly compromise and accept it. What I do not support is moving Libertarianism-->Forms of libertarianism and then Libertarian conservatism --> Libertarianism. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• What you say here you support (the former) is exactly what you opposed above, precisely because it is a compromise (not to mention the fact that the move is sound since there is no primary topic for libertarianism). The latter is not being proposed. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv: Out of curiousity, what's your first choice? BigK HeX (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. As you know, there are basically two camps. Those whose first choice is to leave the article about the broad meaning of libertarianism at Libertarianism, and those whose first choice is to have the article at Libertarianism be about so-called right-libertarianism, or at least that it not include left-libertarianism and social libertarianism.

The compromise, for both sides, which has been proposed, is to put the dab page at Libertarianism. Not surprisingly, those who prefer the status quo to the compromise are going to oppose the compromise, and if the RM closing admin just goes with the apparent majority, there is no end in sight to the 6+ year long debate, thanks to the lack of willingness to compromise by that camp. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

To deviate from policy, standard practice, and clear community advisement, the editors in the vocal minority will have to propose some far more persuasive reasoning than, "We'll just keep complaining!"

So, your first step would be to find an agreeable REASON to compromise, first. The notion that the article discusses unrelated philosophies only sharing the word "libertarianism" has been rejected. BigK HeX (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The only camp deviating from policy is yours since you fail to even address the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument, much less provide an argument and evidence that the subject of the article at Libertarianism (a very broad sense of libertarianism which encompasses all political-philosophical meanings of libertarianism) is the primary topic for the term libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that we haven't addressed the primary topic objection is ridiculous. It has been discussed AND REJECTED multiple times already, most notably in the RfC. To quote directly from the closure statement of the RfC:

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

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

BigK HeX (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not take part in that prematurely-closed RfC, and, if I had, I would have pointed out that the undisputed existence of sources that interpret libertarianism broadly is evidence of existence of that usage, not evidence of that usage being the primary topic for libertarianism. How to show whether a given interpretation is the primary topic for a given term is explained at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That guidance has not been followed here. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That guidance has been applied. Your arguments have been rejected. That you can't accept the conclusion reached is no reflection on the fact that it has been discussed (and rejected). BigK HeX (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the guidance I'm talking about:

• Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere
• Wikipedia article traffic statistics
• Google web, news, scholar, or book searches

Since you claim this guidance has been followed, you should have no problem pointed me to where that was. By the way, finding some sources that uses the broad meaning is not an example of using this guidance to determine whether that meaning is primary among sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Check basically any thread on the talk page. The topic that people desire when they click the "Go" button is the political ideology, And That Is What We Have. BigK HeX (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

USer:Born2cycle writes: Wikipedia:Rm#Current_discussions which is under Wikipedia:Rm#Contested_requests. But Wikipedia:Rm#Current_discussions is NOT a subsection of Wikipedia:Rm#Contested_requests because both have two equal signs meaning they are equal categories. It's obviously a confusing formatting problem with the page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Given up on mediation??

Better late than never, it occurs to me that when you are in the middle of an informal mediation you aren't supposed to go initiating these types of requests. Does this mean that all those who signed that they supported this change have given up on it?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The mediator has not been saying much. The move request is a proposed compromise that is hoped to obviate the need for any more mediation. Opposition to it, especially based on so much misunderstanding, is disappointing. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope that no one's given up, but, of course, no mediator is going to be available around the clock for our squabbling. I think everyone's still on-board, though we may need more guidance on how best to conduct a mediated discussion. BigK HeX (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I politely contacted the Mediators' talk page to ask if informal mediation resources would still be available. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete disambiguation page entirely

The proposal to turn the libertarianism article into a disambiguation page is extremely POV and flawed. However, there is merit in getting rid of the Libertarianism (disambiguation) page which seems to go through cycles of growing and diminishing in size, depending on various people. I've usually just asserted it should be minimally inclusive or very inclusive, having a problem with POV inclusion/exclusion. I'm pretty tired of the cycle and have come to believe that this page is not particularly necessary. There should just be the libertarianism article with a note directing people to Libertarianism (metaphysics) on top. And then we can just mention every thing that WP:RS says calls itself libertarianism in the article, in proportion to its relevance. (With a few things not relevant to existing sections only listed under "See also.") So what we need is a deletion proposal on the disambiguation page, once this one is sufficiently buried. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Informal RfC: Disruptive editing

User:BigK HeX says...From WP:DISRUPT:

Refusal to "get the point"

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input..... Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act as though it is accepted when it is not.

The idea that variants such left-libertarianism belong in the article entitled Libertarianism (due to the numerous scholarly reliable sources that hold this viewpoint) seems to have been affirmed repeatedly in multiple requests for comment [most notably, here]. Do editors here believe it would be Appropriate or Inappropriate to consider the WP:RFC/USER or WP:ANI process for editors who propose edits based on a refusal to accept this editorial position for this article at Libertarianism? BigK HeX (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Appropriate, as 'nominator'. I loathe bringing scrutiny upon individual behavior, but this is getting very tedious. I think WP:RfC/USER would be more productive than WP:ANI. BigK HeX (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Inappropriate - Consensus was never reached and RfC was closed prematurely. So-called consensus was defined by the person who closed it, namely BigK HeX, who is by no means unbiased in this debate. Left-wingers have rejected a good-faith attempt by myself to reach an agreeable compromise, and are treating this page like a battlefield. This is a last-ditch attempt by BigK HeX to censor those who oppose him. Toa Nidhiki05 16:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

this section does not belong in talk please file your complaint in the appropriate forum. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The above proposal is very confusing. Big Hex started? Someone interrupted his proposal? Why proposed here? All confusing. I think we should just go to WP:ANI with a "refusal to get the point" complaint on editors who have been voted down in all or most of the actions above (RfC #1), (RfC#2), (Requested move), plus mention any behavior complaints about them. And request that all the people who opposed their various efforts chime in, if possible. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel the recent weeks on this talk page have been dominated by disruptive "refusal to get the point." I've posted this here because: A) the decision is about this talk page and I hope to get comments from the participants here, B) I want to know whether there are many editors who feel the same as I do, C) agreeing editors can put our heads together on what further WP:DR can be pursued, and D) if there are many editors who feel the same, then the editors who previously have not "gotten the point" may see that there may be good cause to rethink their efforts. BigK HeX (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that other editors initiated a Wikipedia:Requested_moves in the middle of a Mediation Cabal mediation, and the mediator didn't object, I can see why both of us would consider an RfC or ANI. But any formal move should wait until the Mediator has told us she/he has given up on this. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Second Carol. Request status from Mediator prior to next action in dispute resolution. Mediation is a a form of dispute resolution and (from my impression) is currently in operation. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Bright and early monday am. Maybe someone should ask on mediator's talk page if s/he doesn't weigh in by Tuesday am. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A possible compromise / roadmap out of this mess?

This make take several months, but that's better than our current situation of failure after 6 years. And this relates to the trio of articles.

Step 2 For the next about 3 months do the following

• Everybody start using the and only the "Libertarian" terms as they appear in the source that is supporting the statement. Remove any terminology that violates this. One exeption: Use of the terms "Left Libertarian" and "Right Libertarian" in the TITLES of those article is exempt. And include statements IN the article asserting use of the term wherever applicable. E.G. "persons with this described school of thought describe themselves as xxxxxx Liberterians"

• When a Libertarian term is used, try to define it's core principles, particularly as they differentiate it.

• Everybody find and add information about actual practice of the various forms of Libertarianism. Whether it be current organizations, movements / political parties, or some clan of 20 people in a colony in 1951. It can go in with the individausl "sects". or int the "organizaitons and movements section". This will kill many birds with one stone. Covering a much-needed missing area and providing information for the later described reviews.

• Put the battles and the battle related maneuvers on hold which we try to find and add this. Let's just have fun and friendliness building toward a good article and articles.

Step 3 About 3 months from now, review and make decisions based on what's IN the articles.

Decide the "big picture" at the title level of articles. Are the terms "Right Libertarian" and "Left Libertarian" really substantially used AS TERMS (not just as noun with an adjective added in passing). Would there be better article-level terms. And then decide the fate of the separate "Left Libertarian and "Right Libertarian" articles accordingly. And, if they continue to exist, decide whether to have substantial coverage on the in the "Libertarian" article vs. just a quick summary wiht "main article at...."

Then implement the decision, including doing any article combining or renaming decided.

Step 4 Review prevalence of the forms using the material IN the articles, and create wording and decide space accordingly

Implement due / undue weight standards. If it's prevalent, say so, if it's miniscule, leave it out, if it's in between, say so and include. So, we have fund while getting to great article(s)

Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Roadmap Comments

The current structure is fine as-is. This roadmap is unnecessary. If it is meant to state principles that are already standard, then it is merely useful, but redundant. If the roadmap is meant to allow the vocal minority a guide on how to slowly push their preferred POV over time, it does nothing but encourage disruption. We've ALREADY settled on the general content of the article here at Libertarianism. The far simpler roadmap would begin at simply acknowledging the community's input and moving from there. BigK HeX (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt, but I think it's more detailed than what we need. The current structure needs some tweaking, and if people would stop WP:Soapboxing about grandiose plans for Deleting much of the content, perhaps we could just focus on specific edits that tweak it or specific proposals for tweaking it that are backed by WP:RS and not WP:Soapbox. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I see it as being in bad shape. And most people (yourself included) are just firing volleys rather than discussing. And the only conversation seems to be about the moot point of whether or not to totally exclude those other forms of Libertarianism. And the folks on the "narrower" side are saying nothing was decided, and the folks on the "broader" side are completely misstating what was decided, trying to pretend that it broadly said "status quo". I think that the RFC closing said that this article needs major surgery. So, this article most of the problems of a typical "eternal warfare" article, compounded by the extreme complexity of the topic and the issues involved. Ironically, the only thing I see whee the situation is different than the usual warfare article is that, as far as I can, there is not an underlying POV outside-world-agenda clash here. To me this looks more like the Hatfields and McCoys, caught in a rut of fighting for who knows what reason. I saw my roadmap as a way to truly start sorting out the complexity issues, as well as suggesting a more positive fun path for everyone to take on this. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No one on the broad side is misrepresenting the RfC closing as "maintain the status quo." That we have to continually point out that IT DOES find clear support for the broad consideration, is a direct response to those who have continually ignored the RfC in dozens of recent threads. We don't even get to discuss what changes can legitimately be made, since the tendentious crowd continues to push efforts [censorship, pagemoves, etc] that are FAR MORE significant than the RfC closure supports. YOU may acknowledge that there should be no censorship, but it's pretty clear that is not the view of certain other editors. You've shown support for those who DO keep pushing for censorship, and it somewhat impacts your credibility as a sort of informal mediator here, though you shouldn't take this to mean that your efforts are unappreciated.

As I've recommended already the far simpler roadmap begins with the simple acknowledgement that viewpoints such as "left-libertarianism" have been reliably sourced as a variant of the same Libertarianism as "right-libertarianism" (or "common US libertarianism" or "US Libertarian Party libertarianism" or whatever description tickles your fancy). So long as editors choose to disregard that finding, it will continue to be difficult to move forward with the legitimate tweaks that should be made to the article. BigK HeX (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "You've shown support for those who DO keep pushing for censorship", to clarify, I support what the RFC closer wrote, with a minor exception that I recommend proceeding cautiously / slowly on full acceptance of the "left Libertarian" term. So, I guess that on that question I'm on the "broader" side. However, another question seems to divide along the lines of the same groups. That is the "status quo / this article is pretty good as-is and just needs minor tweaks" vs. "this article is a mess and needs major work" There I'm definitely in the "this article is a mess" camp. In short, I have no allegiance to any group, I believe that when one sits at this talk page their mission/interest/obligation should be, above else, to help make a good article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem and behavior you complain about has been present on this page for at least six years. The people involved change, but the problem does not. Because nothing changes, nothing changes. This is the epitome of insanity according to Einstein.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Here we finally have a compromise solution proposed to address this time-and-people-transcending problem, and yet many of you oppose it. That's insanity, according to Einstein. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't "finally" have anything. That "solution" is just more of the same (which is exactly why people are treating it the same as others and telling you the question has been addressed umpteen times). BigK HeX (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How is moving the dab page from Libertarianism (disambiguation) to Libertarianism "more of the same"? I don't believe the dab has ever been at Libertarianism. Has it even been proposed before? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, why do you keep quoting left-libertarians such as George Orwell and Albert Einstein? TFD (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not him, but I think I can tell you why we might use them:

Einstein was a socialist who supported a planned economy; such an economy can only be provided by the state. Owell, on the other hand, was a democratic socialist, who supported the creation of a federal socialist Europe, opposed communism, and believed the government has the responsibility to punish crime. Left-libertarians oppose any and all forms of government.

Second, I strongly admire both these individuals; I don't know about Born2cycle, but Orwell's writings on totalitarianism, such as Animal Farm and 1984, are among my favorite political fiction novels; while we may have very different political opinions, both of these are great commentary on the state.

Also, fact is not hindered by one's political views; that statement Einstein made is a great example of what you try and argue, and as that statement applies, we will use it. Toa Nidhiki05 15:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

User:North8000: The best thing for sincere editors who are unhappy with the article but are NOT deletionists to do is to just propose changes. That's what I'll do if there's ever a point my Wikipedia budget for the day isn't consumed with dealing with deletionist antics. Frankly, the problem with this road map is a) too cpnfusing/complicated, in that not clear where you are saying comply with policy and where you are making up new rules and b) can't trust that it would be followed, especially by those who can't even participate in a mediation without running off to file complaints or request moves or whatever. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Devolution in the Lead

This page evolved substantially over the past several months, from an observer's point of view, from a "bipolar" identity crisis to what was getting closer to a conceptually sound consensus. Recently, however, it has devolved back into its previous state that it was at somewhere around January or so. Just pointing out the current status. I'm not an academician and am not fit to write an encyclopedia, so my comments will remain in the talk page. Just giving a layman's perspective. The developments and "drama" on this page have been interesting, and I've enjoyed watching the conflicted developments. This is my first post, and I'm just voicing my concern that all progress has been brought back to square zero. We're back to where we started, which is an identity crisis. If this page were a person, it would suffer from borderline personality disorder---it was on the road to recovery, and now it seems to have had a relapse.64.134.29.126 (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

So should we delete this probable sock puppet comment? Just one more form of disruptive editing. Oi! CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Any you accuse us of making personal attacks? Really? I don't know if this guy is a sock, but you have no basis to prove it, thus it is an unwarranted personal attack. Also, you seem to love outside opinions when you are doing RfCs, so why are you attacking this guy, who happens to oppose your stance? Toa Nidhiki05 18:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reported this incident on the WP:AN/I; you all may or may not want to get involved. Toa Nidhiki05 18:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The article Libertarianism has been under assault for years by User:Karmaisking and various of his socks have been banned from it in the last week to ten days. Since the editing style so is similar to past disruptive posts in content and attitude, I was just trying to get an idea from other editors more experience with this sock if this might be him, since dealing with this kind of abuse can be very frustrating and time consuming. Note that another editor User:Ddd1600 also created a sock puppet for the article when he was temporarily blocked. I can figure out how to show all the diffs if necessary. User:Toa Nidhiki05 must have missed those various discussions as well as this talk page section: Talk:Libertarianism#Warning_on_Sock_and_Meat_puppets. User:Karmaisking also has been busy on a couple of talk pages of editors to this page, User:BlueRobe and User:Darkstar1st, both of whom have been warned about these sock puppets. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP OP is obviously not a new user. The question is whether its style can be demonstrated to be sufficiently close to those named editors to meet the "duck test". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

KarmaIsKing (aka KIK) wrote (but it was removed since he's banned): To ensure this discussion doesn't get side-tracked yet again with ridiculous peripheral allegations, I confirm I am KiK and no, the anon IP above has nothing whatever to do with me. Any half-decent admin could work out that the geo-loc of the IP doesn't match mine. Someone explained to me that I can easily got to a site like this and put in IP address and find out what country it's from and if it is Kangaroo Land Australia there's a very good chance it's KIK. Learn something everyday. However, KIK must note that not everyone is as tech savvy as he is and it is very disruptive to keep posting and thereby cast doubt on all AnonIps. Couple of constructive suggestions: Why not go start a shelter for homeless Kangaroos or work on getting a dish at Outback Steakhouse named after you. (Of course, note that KIK is NOT the only reason AnonIPs were banned from editing this article.)

But seriously folks, now that I have been Enlightened as to this handy tool, it does make me want to see where all the anonymous IPs of the last 8 months have come from. At my leisure. 16:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmooredc (talk • contribs) 14:04, 12 September 2010

It is easier than that to trace an IP. Click on the IP address and the "User Contributions" page appears.[2] Then click on "Geolocate" at the bottom of the page, and it tells where the IP address originates, including the name of the service provider. The location may not be exact, it may read NYC for someone in Newark for example. TFD (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is perhaps the worst example of 'assume bad faith' I have ever seen. Toa Nidhiki05 15:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Why do you suppose they have Geolocate on there in the first place? A significant percentage of IP entries are vandalism or disruption. It's helpful to establish if there's a pattern. It's not foolproof, but it's better than nothing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is some Wikipedia policy that states unregistered IPs mainly make constructive edits; regardless, having the 'all IPs on this page are sockpuppets of *banned editor*' is the wrong mentality; that not only scares away constructive ones, but also limits discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 00:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review the AGF policy, in particular the part where "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ... around here, we call it a DUCK. BigK HeX (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

At least if it's an Australian duck. Unless of course the person's posting is not in the same POV-stylistic vein as User:Karmaisking. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, thanks to TFD for Geolocate info. Very handy! And certainly makes one less paranoid in dealing with Anon Ips!! Probably good to mention it whenever the topic of who AnonIps are since I'm sure there is a certain % of clueless editors like me on this point in any discussion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that Geolocate limits your free lookups to 20 within any given 24-hour period. But it's a handy tool. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the real problem is finding the IP location for a registered user who's a sock. Then you have to ask an admin for a checkuser. The checkuser for http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ does not seem to be more up to date now than last time I looked. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

An article of interest

Roderick T. Long "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class" Social Philosophy and Policy 1998: 303ff. free here at 304-310 has an excellent discussion of a working definition of libertarianism. In fact Long so succinctly cuts across the issue of economic power, and the issue of small states versus no states, while presenting the debate as it exists, that I propose this article ought to be the basis of further definitional discussions. And it is free and peer reviewed. With some footnotes towards 19th Century syncretic / undivided movements in favour of liberty. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Long also makes some really useful points about the various different camps of libertarianism (left, right, and populist -- or in his terminology, LibSoc, LibCap, and LibPop). I've previously suggested that we rely on his definition of libertarianism (roughly, any political position that proposes to transfer power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals) because it aptly sums up that which all libertarians (minarchists, anarcho-capitalists, left-libertarians, mutualists, survivalists, Ron Paul Republicans, etc.) have in common.

As Long is both a scholarly and peer-reviewed source, and one who makes a strong effort to be neutral, I agree that his work is a good basis for definitions. --FOo (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's good to start with broadest Merriam Webster definition and then proceed to widely used ones and less widely used ones. Either in a bigger lead or elsewhere. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

How about the OED? "Laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens." Rapidosity (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

How about you paste the full OED definition when you're going to make an argument from authority? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend against using dictionaries as sources. Dictionaries are about the usage and history of words, whereas we are interested here in describing a phenomenon. The fact that some users may disagree on the usage of the words does not bear strongly on the facts about the phenomenon. For example: Ayn Rand abhorred the word "libertarian" and would not countenance Objectivism being described as libertarian. But few would deny Objectivism's influence on Rothbard and on the libertarian movement, continuing even today.

The existence of an article Libertarianism is premised on the existence of a phenomenon (specifically, a political movement) that is known as "libertarianism". What this phenomenon is, what its boundaries and its properties are, is not a matter for lexicographers (dictionary-makers) to decide. It is a matter for scholars and reputed writers in the field of politics to decide, and for us (as encyclopedists) to report upon. --FOo (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite often Wikipedia articles fail to communicate the main meaning / definition of a term. These tend to be ones (such as this article) where the offbeat stuff drowns out / occludes the mainstream stuff. In those cases a single sentence in a dictionary c an be more informative than 2,000 words of article because it can and does select the mainstream definition(s).North8000 (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a section about the origins of modern libertarian in the United States (pp. 123ff.) It says they were led by Murray Rothbard, called themselves "anarcho-libertarians", waved anarchist flags, called themselves "left-wing" and formed the Society for Individual Liberty with left-libertarians (the same name used by a faction of the UK Liberal Party). Members of the Young Americans for Freedom chanted "Kill the Commies!" "Kill the libertarians!" The Cato Institute also later tried to connect with the Left. The left-wing influence on right-libertarianism is clear. TFD (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And there is also a line of descent, as it were, from Rothbard and Karl Hess to Samuel Konkin, Kevin Carson, and the other left-libertarian writers. Rothbard's own views were hardly the Jeffersonian minarchist-patriot fluff that I recall from my Libertarian Party days. --FOo (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have modified the article to reflect this discussion and the RS, replacing a first line Dictionary Definition from a US Dictionary, with a peer reviewed High Quality Reliable Source. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's the most prudent move. BigK HeX (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is an open clear summary definition in a HQRS, it summarises the core issue of the topic, it is superior to a dicdef. I don't see a sourcing or UNDUE problem. Also, it is one of the few articles I've noted actually dealing with the entire literature rather than a specific sub-segment of immediate interest to the author. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Roderick Long definition is an anarchist definition. It doesn't apply to other libertarians who do not support a completely voluntary society, i.e. those who support existence of the state. Rapidosity (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't an anarchist definition, "that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals," does not include the obliteration of the state. Given the divestment of economic centralisation required for minarchist versions of capitalist libertarianism, how else would you characterise the desynchronisation of the military industrial complex, the tariff system, or copyright extension other than, "a radical redistribution of power" away from the coercive state towards voluntary associations?

Also, please don't revert content unconnected to your complaint about the definition suggested by Long. I proposed Long precisely because it covers the radical suggestion of change in power relationship between state and people present in minarchism, the USLP, libertarian socialism, capitalist anarchists, Labour Party libertarians in the 1930s, etc, etc, etc. It covers the whole field without claiming an elimination of the state, nor the continuance of the state, the elimination of capitalism, nor the continuance of capitalism. Long gets at the crux: the relative levels of power of the state and the people, regardless of the existence of the state. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

How is this an anarchist definition? TFD (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It may or may not be, depending on if you go all the way to eliminating govt. courts, police. But the more important thing is it does not belong as first sentence or even second or third. I don't have a problem with a few well known or important definitions. But though I like Long's material myself (he did a great article on libertarian feminism), I don't think he's one of the top 3-4 people for defining libertarianism. If people want to go with alternate definitions in lead, we should start with say Rothbard and Boaz, after the Merriam-Webster definition. And any well known lefty who has a coherent and relevant definition. (I know I've seen one up there before.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My mind springs to Goldman honestly, but she's a confused and rambling writer even if she has some brilliant moments of prose. Malatesta perhaps? But I'm very aware that these are examples of anti-state leftist libertarians, and would prefer a more generalist account which can handle the general bent of libertarianism of leftists. Le Guin is too slippery, being fond of the contradictions in all things, and often avoids saying things directly in her literature. I find Chomsky a painful bourgeois, without any of the shame that makes Orwell more interesting. Could probably hunt through the marxist libertarians (Cardan, etc.) to find a less anarchist left lib definition. In any of these cases they'd need to be clearly prefaced, "A definition of libertarianism from the left perspective which indicates the different interests of this tendency is given by..." Attempts to establish the topic as a whole within the encyclopedia should be non-tendential without being explicit attempts at artificial synthesis by that particular academic commentator. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

In Fifelfoo's (Long's) definition, "redistribution" itches me. It suggests that libertarianism will no longer exist when such a redistribution has been achieved.

However, it looks good as the first sentence. The Merriam-Webster definition says very little. If Long claims to have reviewed the field, and if the definition seems sensible (as it does to me), I think it deserves a prominent position, even though Long may be relatively obscure. "Voluntary", "free individuals/associations" and "State" are critical terms.

Under discussion: *Libertarianism is the advocacy of the maximization of freedom of thought and action.(MW), *Libertarianism is "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals."(Long) N6n (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is an anarchist definition because if there is a state, it isn't a voluntary society. When Long says he supports a voluntary society, he's talking about a stateless one, an anarchist one. Rapidosity (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"State" and "government" have been differentiated, although I don't know if Long does it:

It will be clear to anyone who takes the trouble to think the matter through, that under a regime of natural order, that is to say under government, which makes no positive interventions whatever on the individual, but only negative interventions in behalf of simple justice – not law, but justice – misuses of social power would be effectively corrected; whereas we know by interminable experience that the State’s positive interventions do not correct them. Under a regime of actual individualism, actually free competition, actual laissez-faire – a regime which, as we have seen, can not possibly coexist with the State – a serious or continuous misuse of social power would be virtually impracticable. ~ Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, The State. N6n (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The state is just one of several forms of governance/government and some of those can be voluntarily created and adhered to, whereas the state always has some minimal level of force in its area of monopolization. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No. We are not using an anarchist definition to define Libertarianism. Anarchism is not a major form of Libertarianism. 'Radical redistribution of power'? Wow, I bet Ron Paul and Glenn Beck would have something to say about that... Toa Nidhiki05 12:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Err... what is it that they would have to say? There's almost a 100% chance they would agree with the idea. BigK HeX (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Add the 'voluntary associations of individuals' (collective-minded; anarcho-socialist), then yes, they would disagree with it. And neither say they want 'Radical' change, either. Toa Nidhiki05 13:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that ~100% chance already meant having the "voluntary associations of individuals" part added-in. If you seriously trying to say that Ron Paul doesn't desire radical change, then you don't seem to know his political stance very well. Moreover, your apparent understanding of "voluntary associations of individuals" seems pretty badly flawed. BigK HeX (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What is a 'voluntary association of individuals', then? To me, it seems you are wanting to change the header to reflect your Left-Libertarian views, not like the vast majority of Libertarians, which want power transferred to the individual, not 'associations of individuals'. 'Associations of individuals' is the collective, and Left-Libertarians like yourself want the government to dissolve and transfer powers to the collective, which you are attempting to sugarcoat as 'Associations of individuals' so you can reflect your views on the page, and quite honestly, I'm sickened by how you try to force your views onto the page. Toa Nidhiki05 13:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

How amusing. I'm not sure that there's even one presumption in your most recent comment that is accurate. Ah well ... no point in continuing this discussion as if both of us here are acting in good faith, when it's clear that's not the case. Cheers! BigK HeX (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What is a contract in civil law if not a "voluntary association of individuals"? Fifelfoo (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is defined within the framework of the government. Once entered into, it is involuntary; either party can have the government enforce it. North8000 (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to solidify the point before I disengage from User:Toa Nidhiki05 here, I'll just post a blurb about Ron Paul's COMMIE-NESS, "The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES: All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social." Does Ron Paul love the communisms with his support for voluntary social associations???! BigK HeX (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Does he want to turn all power over to them, or to the individual? Toa Nidhiki05 14:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is such a cool conversation between you experts. Why don't you have some fun & keep it that way without getting nasty. And with the objective of sorting it out to have a good accurate article, leave everything else at the door. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, your definition of voluntary is not useful (and is not standard). Paying the taxi-fare after you have taken a ride is not an "involuntary" action. Did you choose without compulsion from human actors--if you did, then all the steps taking you from the original choice to the goal are voluntary. N6n (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where I'm going with this but.....I made the deal for the taxi ride voluntarily. Under the governmental framework (including laws) where I live if I made the deal, and took the ride, then payment is mandatory, not voluntary, and the government will enforce it. I knew that when I voluntarily made the deal and took the ride. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The most basic voluntary association between individuals under a free market system is one where one person sells something to someone else. TFD (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If it were involuntary, you wouldn't pay. You'll get down and say "I gave you the money, you threw it in the river", and walk away. The government only codifies what most people will do anyway. That this confusion arises is a monument to the state's rising power! Please read Albert Jay Nock's Our Enemy, The State, which has much to say on this issue. N6n (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to distinguish between (1) what Long intends with his definition, and (2) whether it might be confusing to readers. Long's intention is to provide an expansive definition that can include both the U.S. Libertarian Party, and socialists & anarchists. This is clear if you read on in his article; he writes:

This definition includes under the libertarian aegis a number of conflicting positions. For example, my definition does not specify whether this redistribution of power is to be total or merely substantial, and so allows both anarchists and non-anarchists to count as libertarians; it also does not specify whether the criteria for "voluntary association" can be met by communal cooperatives or market exchanges, or both, and so grants the libertarian label indifferently to socialists ..and capitalists.

However I agree that the reference to "voluntary association" in the intro is potentially misleading. I've tried to clarify it; so now the wording is this:

libertarianism may be defined as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether voluntary association takes the form of the free market or communal co-operatives.

I don't agree that there's a problem with "radical redistribution of power" meaning anarchism; and, in any case, another sentence of the intro makes absolutely clear that libertarianism includes minarchists.

I like Long's definition, but I think it would be good if we could find at least one other expansive definition of libertarianism (that includes left/right/anarchist/minarchist/etc) to go in the introduction. It would be better if there wasn't so much emphasis on just one writer. Iota (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

But, again, the state is not a voluntary association of free individuals. Many libertarians support a state. Roderick is an anarchist who is using the term "libertarianism" as a synonym for "anarchism." That is ONE of the meanings of libertarianism. It also means anarchism. So, if that definition is there then there ought to be another non-anarchist one to offset it. Rapidosity (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Rapidosity, did you read my whole post carefully? Roderick T. Long states "my definition does not specify whether this redistribution of power is to be total or merely substantial, and so allows both anarchists and non-anarchists to count as libertarians". I think that's quite crystal clear. Iota (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see that. I guess it's an ok definition. It would probably better then to put that into the definition in the article. Because without that stipulation it looks like anarchism. I'll try to paraphrase it to get Long's gist. Rapidosity (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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. Otherwise, Anarchism and Libertarianism become virtually synonymous labels, and that is clearly absurd. BlueRobe (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

@BlueRobe: If you mean to affect the material in the article, please accompany your assertions with reliable sources. BigK HeX (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so you missed all those reliable sources that I posted? No worries...I'll post them again. --Xerographica (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've revised the Long quotation in the lead a bit, but for now I've left in the clarification that the redistribution of power is either "either total or substantial". But personally I don't think it's necessary, because I can't see how "a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state" is taken to mean the necessary abolition of the state. What do others think? Iota (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Family of Political Ideologies

Original research discussion hidden.

Both Jrtayloriv and Iota used the word "family" to describe the topic of this article. How closely are the ideologies related and where do we draw the line? Here are the various ideologies grouped by tenets...

• Acknowledges the Necessity of the State

libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism

• Advocates a Limited Government

libertarianism, conservatism

• Advocates Abolishing the State

anarcho-capitalism, left-libertarianism, libertarian-socialism, anarchism

• Have Politically Relevant Parties

libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism

• Do Not Have Politically Relevant Parties

anarcho-capitalism, libertarian-socialism, left-libertarianism

• Pro-Capitalism

libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism, anarcho-capitalism

• Anti-Capitalism

libertarian-socialism, left-libertarianism, anarchism

• Private Ownership of the Means of Production

libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism, anarcho-capitalism

• Public Ownership of the Means of Production

libertarian-socialism

• Advocates Maximization of Freedom of Thought and Action

libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, left-libertarianism, libertarian-socialism, anarchism

How important is the state in preventing chaos? Everybody agrees that the state is essential to the preservation of order. The exceptions (extremists) are so statistically insignificant that saying "Everybody" is acceptable. Therefore, as a tenet, acknowledging the necessity of the state has weighted value...which means that conservatism and liberalism are more closely related to libertarianism than anarcho-capitalism or libertarian socialism. If the topic of this article is "libertarianism and related ideologies" then it stands to reason that it should also include a section on conservatism and liberalism.

If the topic of this article is not "libertarianism and related ideologies"...then what is the topic of this article? Perhaps..."libertarianism and unrelated ideologies"...or maybe..."libertarianism and anarchism"? --Xerographica (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For better or for worse, I think that the subject of the article is ideologies, movements etc. with the word "Libertarian" in their name. A case can be made that that is good or bad. I tend to lean towards "good" because: Where better place to explain the differences? (not that this confusing mess of an article with over-representation of rare views currently does that)North8000 (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is not about merely any "ideologies, movements etc. with the word "Libertarian" in their name." It is about the exact same concept of libertarianism that certain editors keep trying to push as the One True Libertarianism and other political ideas prominently described by reliable sources as variations intimately related to that version. BigK HeX (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh, so you agree that we're dealing with more than one ideology here but you disagree that the topic of this article is "Libertarianism and Related Ideologies"? --Xerographica (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope ... copy/paste error. Fixed. BigK HeX (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If you mean to affect the material in the article, please accompany your assertions with reliable sources. BigK HeX (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not. It's a fun game. I provide reliable sources and you ignore them. --Xerographica (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Families of ideologies are normally grouped according to history and core principles, but may have wide differences among themselves. Xerographica's list is just original research, something that may belong in a blog, not here. It is a wholly worthless and distracting contribution. TFD (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

not distracting, would you be able to show us where you disagree with his grouping? leveling charges about how the data is accumulated is not helpful if the data is uncontested. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with ... the whole thing as it is distracting WP:OR. BigK HeX (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out what commonalities left-Libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism (etc) share with mainstream Libertarianism to justify the claim that they're "variations intimately related to" mainstream Libertarianism. They differ with regard to private property rights, the application of the Harm Principle, the desirability of State-enforced Positive Liberties, the need for a minimalist State and the importance of Negative Liberty. So, er ... what are these "intimately related" commonalities" that BigK HeX speaks of? BlueRobe (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Before we get too far .... do you agree that numerous sources describe Left-libertarianism and your so-called "mainstream Libertarianism" as related variations of a single concept? BigK HeX (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that reliable sources also exist for the proposition that Santa is real, girls do like "really nice guys" and Elvis is a regular patron at my local supermarket. Given that any self-styled academic ideologue can qualify as a WP:RS, any attempt to refute that suggestion is futile. BlueRobe (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please provide an example of an RS for the assertion that "Elvis patronizes your local supermarket" or that "the iconic Christmas Santa Claus is actually a living person". BigK HeX (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

To lose your faith in Elvis is unfortunate. To lose your faith in Elvis and Santa seems like carelessness ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of thing to avoid! It goes nowhere. Stick to discussing sources and explicit content. please --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Since we're having fun, let's, at least, put together a list that represents reliable sources: Here are the various ideologies grouped by tenets...

• Acknowledges the Necessity of the State

minarchism, conservatism, liberalism

• Advocates a Limited Government

minarchism, conservatism

• Advocates Abolishing the State

anarcho-capitalism, libertarian-socialism, anarchism

• Have Politically Relevant Parties

liberalism, conservatism, left-libertarianism, minarchism

• Do Not Have Politically Relevant Parties

anarcho-capitalism

• Pro-Capitalism

right-libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism, anarcho-capitalism

• Anti-Capitalism

left-libertarianism

• Private Ownership of the Means of Production

right-libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism, anarcho-capitalism

• Public Ownership of the Means of Production

left-libertarianism

• Advocates Maximization of Freedom of Thought and Action

right-libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, left-libertarianism, anarchism

Welp .... that was a nifty exercise. BigK HeX (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Got any reliable sources for that? That looks like OR to me, and that would make you a hypocrite. For example, name me 3 Left-Libertarian/Anarcho-capitalist parties. Toa Nidhiki05 21:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article called "The rise of left-libertarian parties in Western democracies: Explaining innovation in competitive party systems". There are no anarcho-capitalist parties as BigK HeX points out. TFD (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Should I be surprised that he asked for sources on my list, and yet did no such thing for Xerographica's list? BigK HeX (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case .... TFD's source is a good one. There are other sources that I've placed into the Wiki article as well. The good thing about the list of left-libertarian parties in the source from TFD is that it lists the ones across 8 countries that have had far more electoral success than the US Libertarian party. It lists:

• the Socialist People Party of Denmark;
• Belgium's Groen;
• Iceland's Women's List (though now most likely the Left-Green Movement).

Other parties discussed in RS's include:

• the former Italian Radicals;
• the former Green Progressive Accord;
• Turkey's Freedom and Solidarity party.

So ... pretty clearly, at least some of Xerographica's list is WP:OR that didn't even bother to verify facts with reliable sources. BigK HeX (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Folks, please try to keep the original research to a minimum. Coming up with your own personal taxonomy of political positions doesn't contribute to the article, since we're not allowed to use original research in Wikipedia. The talk page is for discussion of improving the article only; it is not a general forum for chatting about our views on the subject. --FOo (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Original research? Seriously? Original research would be looking at the 2009 Federal Budget and concluding that paying for defense, the courts and some infrastructure would require a tax rate of around 4.5%. Of course, a peacetime defense budget would probably reduce that tax rate by half. THAT's original research. Trying to figure out the topic of this article based on which ideologies are included/excluded IS NOT original research. --Xerographica (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Pagemove request now "official"

An earlier informal pagemove discussion has now been given the official Page-Move header and request for input tag. Feel free to weigh-in with an opinion here: Talk:Libertarianism#Requested_move_.28Forms_of.29. BigK HeX (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What the heck? I closed the previous discussion because it was obviously not achieving consensus, and now it has been re-opened and an additional one, a clone apparently, has been opened? What's going on? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For the Move that you closed, see Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Conflicts_of_interest and then see [3].

The "clone" is the one that was started minutes before your proposal. It had gone for quite a few days without getting the pagemove template. BigK HeX (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand the technicality violation with a participant closing the discussion, but is there any practical good-for-Wikipedia reason to keep it open? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I second B2C; it was pretty definitive, so, technical issues aside, I see no point in keeping it open. Toa Nidhiki05 00:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Variations of Libertarianism "intimately related" to Mainstream Libertarianism

In an above thread, (that became hidden, possibly because someone (me) dared to make a friendly inoffensive joke in an effort to lighten an otherwise tense atmosphere), BigK HeX made the following declaration:

"It is about the exact same concept of libertarianism that certain editors keep trying to push as the One True Libertarianism and other political ideas prominently described by reliable sources as variations intimately related to that version."

This comment addresses the core of the dispute between those editors advocating a broad Libertarianism article, where left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism have equal prominence with mainstream Libertarianism in the Libertarianism article, and those editors advocating for a narrow Libertarianism article which accords predominance to mainstream Libertarianism and where the alternative aforementioned minor ideologies each have a small section to point out the notable features that distinguish them from Mainstream Libertarianism and/or relegate them to a disambiguation section/page.

The principles of left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism differ markedly from mainstream Libertarianism with regard to private property rights, the application of the Harm Principle, the desirability of State-enforced Positive Liberties, the need for a minimalist State and the importance of Negative Liberty.

So, what are the commonalities that the alternative aforementioned minor ideologies share with mainstream Libertarianism to justify the claim that they're "variations intimately related to" mainstream Libertarianism?

If we could resolve this issue, I think it would be significantly closer to finding some sort of consensus. BlueRobe (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Before we get too far .... do you agree that numerous sources describe Left-libertarianism and your so-called "mainstream Libertarianism" as related variations of a single concept? BigK HeX (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, clearly, that is begging the question. BlueRobe (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not question begging. If you're accusing the authors from RS's of question begging, then your accusation is not relevant to my question. My question is straightforward. Do you acknowledge that reliable sources have promoted the viewpoint that I've asked you about? BigK HeX (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

So ... the question remains the same, do you agree that reliable sources, such as those listed here, describe left-libertarianism and your so-called "mainstream Libertarianism" as related variants of a single concept? Yes or No. BigK HeX (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, please confine your comments to the editorial issue at hand: "what are the commonalities that the alternative aforementioned minor ideologies share with mainstream Libertarianism to justify the claim that they're "variations intimately related to" mainstream Libertarianism?" Answering this question would be a constructive step towards achieving consensus. BlueRobe (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't verify any of these, but the one quote you posted proves our point; Left-Libertarianism is a minor form of Libertarianism, if it can even be considered that. Your links simply prove its existence; that does not justify its addition to this page. When you find links from notable sources claiming LL as a 'significant' ideology, please post them here; your lack of doing so proves our point. Toa Nidhiki05 01:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a fair question and one that is being unfairly dodged by invoking a silly semantic point. It should be clear that for the purpose of this question the definition of "mainstream libertarianism" excludes "left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism". For the record, that would not be my definition, but I'm not the one asking thte question. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, indeed, I am merely trying to help find some degree of consensus regarding the commonalities that left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism share with mainstream Libertarianism. Personally, I don't know what these alleged commonalities are. But, if they are "variations intimately related to" mainstream Libertarianism, as BigK HeX suggests, then it should be easy for BigK HeX to help achieve consensus by listing these important commonalities. BlueRobe (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "mainstream Libertarianism", please take your US bias and lock it in a suitcase under your bed. The editorial direction summed up in the conceit of the phrase "mainstream Libertarianism" is historically and geographically blind, and very much so IDHT about RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you assuming bad faith? You might want to scratch that attack. Also, please provide RS for your statement, or else it is OR. Toa Nidhiki05 01:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

RS have been repeatedly given as to the breadth of the use of libertarianism and the variety of libertarian movements. Please refer to the archives. Also, your request is a rhetorical technique of demanding proof of a negative case. It is the positive case which is undemonstrated and unsourced. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So, User:BlueRobe, do you refuse to answer the question about the viewpoint of numerous WP:RS? Yes or No? BigK HeX

BigK HeX, please confine your comments to the editorial issue at hand: "what are the commonalities that the alternative aforementioned minor ideologies share with mainstream Libertarianism to justify the claim that they're "variations intimately related to" mainstream Libertarianism?" Please help us to achieve consensus by addressing this important question. BlueRobe (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone wanting to show good faith interest in consensus would be discussing the reliable sources (not to mention showing less WP:IDHT about the RfC we had). You've made it quite apparent, you're not willing to do that. BigK HeX (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, you raise a valid point, when you ask, "do you agree that numerous sources describe Left-libertarianism and your so-called "mainstream Libertarianism" as related variations of a single concept?" However, that issue is tangential and distracting to the editorial issue being address in this section. Let's address each issue one at a time. Please feel free to put that issue to the editorial community in a separate section of the Libertarianism talk page if you wish to do so. For now, please confine your comments to addressing the important question at hand:

"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?"

I believe that resolving this question is critical for achieving consensus among the editors of the Libertarianism page. BlueRobe (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The question cannot be addressed as it is malformed. The nature of its malformation is that it assumes a prior necessary consensus which either: does not exist; or, is a thumb in ear refutation of the significant opinion on what the topic of the article is. Reword the question if you seek it addressed. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, they are the words of BigK HeX. And I don't have a problem with his choice of words. The question is quite clear. So, let's move on to answering this important question. BlueRobe (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

DO NOT falsely attribute your question to me. BlueRobe's question was concocted by BlueRobe. BigK HeX (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I do have a problem with his choice of words. The question is unimportant as it is malformed. The foundation of this discussion is rotten with a number of assumptions not supported by editorial consensus. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe writes: The principles of left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism differ markedly from mainstream Libertarianism with regard to private property rights, the application of the Harm Principle, the desirability of State-enforced Positive Liberties, the need for a minimalist State and the importance of Negative Liberty. Fine, write a section complete with WP:RS on that. In fact, feel free to add anything in appropriate sections with WP:RS that elucidates what you feel is the real libertarianism. Attempts to merely delete or disambiguate material, without assuring anyone that there will ever be a replacement for all that is deleted, including from neutral sources, makes one wonder what this article would look like if those who want to delete away had their way. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, my question is reasonable and relevant to the on-going dispute that has been endlessly endured by the editorial community of the Libertarianism page. Indeed, I don't see how any consensus can be achieved by the parties to this editorial dispute without first reaching an understanding as to what commonalities left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism share with mainstream Libertarianism.

Carolmooredc, you and BigK HeX (etc.) are the ones insisting that left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism are mere "variations" of mainstream Libertarianism. Indeed, that has been the corner-stone of your arguments for the "broad" approach to the Libertarianism page over recent weeks. But, if they are "variations intimately related to" mainstream Libertarianism, then surely they must share some commonalities. What are those shared commonalities?

I would address this question directly to BigK HeX, again, but he has mysteriously disappeared. Carolmooredc, perhaps you can answer it? BlueRobe (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And, yet again, the reduction of Libertarianism to the politics of the USLP and the claim that this is the core of the topic without having substantiated this. A far superior question would be

• What problems or themes coherently or discoherently unite the history, social movements and ideologies of libertarian socialism, left-libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, and minarchisms such as the politics of the United States Libertarian Party.

An answer was given above in an RS by Long. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say, but please stop intruding with barely relevant tangents. They are detracting from the discussion at hand. BlueRobe (talk) 05:57, 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 [4]

Libertarian Party of Alaska [5]

Libertarian Party of Arizona [6]

Libertarian Party of Arkansas [7]

Libertarian Party of California [8]

Libertarian Party of Colorado [9]

Libertarian Party of Connecticut [10]

Libertarian Party of Delaware [11]

Libertarian Party of Florida [12]

Libertarian Party of Georgia [13]

Libertarian Party of Hawaii [14]

Libertarian Party of Illinois [15]

Libertarian Party of Iowa [16]

Libertarian Party of Indiana [17]

Libertarian Party of Idaho [18]

Libertarian Party of Kansas [19]

Libertarian Party of Kentucky [20]

Libertarian Party of Louisiana [21]

Libertarian Party of Maine [22]

Libertarian Party of Massachusetts [23]

Libertarian Party of Minnesota [24]

Libertarian Party of Michigan [25]

Libertarian Party of Maryland [26]

Libertarian Party of Mississippi [27]

Libertarian Party of Missouri [28]

Libertarian Party of Montana [29]

Libertarian Party of New York [30]

Libertarian Party of New Jersey [31]

Libertarian Party of New Hampshire [32]

Libertarian Party of New Mexico [33]

Libertarian Party of Nevada [34]

Libertarian Party of North Carolina [35]

Oklahoma Libertarian Party [36]

Libertarian Party of Oregon [37]

Libertarian Party of Ohio [38]

Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania [39]

Libertarian Party of Rhode Island

Libertarian Party of South Dakota [40]

Libertarian Party of South Carolina [41]

Libertarian Party of Tennessee [42]

Libertarian Party of Texas [43]

Libertarian Party of Utah [44]

Libertarian Party of Washington State [45]

Libertarian Party of Wisconsin [46]

Libertarian Party of West Virginia [47]

Libertarian Party of Wyoming [48]

Libertarian Party of Vermont [49]

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.[50] 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." [51]. 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. " [52] --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" [53], 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)

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.

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)

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: [54] or [55] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

(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)