Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about Libertarianism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

User Conduct

Editors with an opinion may find it useful to comment:

here. -- BigK HeX (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

please remove this rfc user from the talk page. only rfc for this page may be posted here. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Pretty obviously there are allegations of disruption occurring on THIS VERY PAGE being discussed. The notification will not be removed. BigK HeX (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

you may link to the infractions on this page, but not advertise the rfc/u here. this section is inappropriate for the discussion of libertarianism. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You've already received my response on the matter. If you have a continuing issue with my use of the talk page, please explain your objections at an appropriate forum for doing so. BigK HeX (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

you may link to the infractions on this page, but not advertise the rfc/u here. this section is inappropriate for the discussion of libertarianism. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

you may link to the infractions on this page, but not advertise the rfc/u here. this section is inappropriate for the discussion of libertarianism. `````

You sore losers can't handle me challenging your lies and rhetoric in the Libertarianism page so you seek to have me removed from Wikipaedia? And you wonder why I have suggested that you lack integrity. BlueRobe (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to have you removed from Wikipedia. They are trying to get you to keep contributing, but to interact with other editors in a civil manner, and to base your changes/additions to articles on reliable sources, per WP:V. However, if you continue to act uncivil, and refuse to adhere to wikipedia policy, it is likely that you will be blocked. But that's not what we want -- we just want you to calm down and discuss things with people, in a civil manner, and to provide reliable sources for content. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, Leave me alone you fucking headcase! Stop following me everywhere! Stop obsessing over my every word! Stop trolling my every comment! Stop harassing me! Stop obsessing over me! Stop stalking me! FUCK OFF! BlueRobe (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

this section belongs elsewhere, please delete and/or move. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, those dogs will be coming after you next (actually, they're also showing signs that North8000 might be their next target for a campaign of harassment). NOW you know why, with the except of a handful of regulars, the MILLIONS of real Libertarians have abandoned this page entirely. Watch your back. BlueRobe (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

bigk and jr, you are reintroducing profanity which has been deleted. revert your edits for this section per wp:policy Darkstar1st (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You care to tell us WHICH policy? BigK HeX (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Undo weight in the lede

undo weight in the lede most of the lede is spent on an identity crisis over left/right, minarchist/anarchist, terms most libertarians have never heard. no one denies they exist, but rather if the majority of people searching libertarian on wp are looking for a form of socialism, anarchy, or a limited government and lower taxes. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think at least one sentence on each topic belongs in the lead, perhaps more. I've repeatedly asked you to just put up a draft of how you think it should look, but don't remember you having done so/ Nor doing I remember your making any such substantive edits. Refresh my memory if you have. I just remember constant unrelenting soapboxing about how neither anarchism nor left libertarianism belong in the article at all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

carol, for the record, we have all heard you on soapboxing, in an effort to save time, i will consider all of your future comments to imply this when speaking to me. my initial draft would simply be to remove the last 3 sentences. the lede appears to be arguing with itself over the very definition. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

First, to address another issue you wonder if if the majority of people searching libertarian on wp are looking for a form of socialism, anarchy, or a limited government and lower taxes. Wikipedia is not here to confirm people's pre-judgements, but to teach them about a subject. That's my interest.

Second, soapboxing is just opining. Providing a draft means proposing language with references. I just don't remember seeing any of that, unless it got lost in the soapboxing. Feel free to provide a link. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

1st, actually, wp is here to provide the mainstream view most people expect when they search a term, wp is not here to teach people to think differently about the term they searched. 2nd, my draft uses the exist source, Websters. again, we heard you on soapboxing the 1st 437 times you used the term since 2008. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

1. WP may teach people to think differently if they are thinking from one narrow viewpoint because they are ignorant of other existing views. 2. Where is your draft?? Article diff or talk page?? I have no idea. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

wp is not here to cure ignorance of terms related to libertarian, rather provide the definition the most people are trying to find when searching the term. my draft: "Libertarianism is advocacy of individual liberty[1]; libertarians generally share a distinct regard for individual freedom of thought and action, as well as a strong opposition to coercive authority, such as that of the state." Darkstar1st (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the lede, only one sentence addresses Libertarianism, and the remaining 3 sentences harp on about alleged divisions within Libertarianism. Meanwhile, the lede makes no mention of the sanctity of private property rights, the Harm Principle or Negative liberty - the three main features that define Libertarianism. How is that representative of Libertarianism? This is simply ridiculous. BlueRobe (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(added later) I agree 100% North8000 (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Darkstar1st and the lead, I think it's appropriate to note that it was initially Darkstar1st's idea to gut the lead. If anyone has a problem with the lead being so short, well .... BigK HeX (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

After all of above (which really is concrete editing stuff so I gave it own section) I'll agree that There are also broad areas of disagreement among libertarians. can be eliminated as being unnecessarily editorial and somewhat redundant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, in that case, I'll draft a new lede, and ask for feedback, sometime in the next few days. Although, to be quite frank, I'll be stunned if you don't object to a lede that isn't rife with Anarchism and left-Libertarianism. BlueRobe (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with removing one sentence from yesterday's lead, not anything you might write in the future. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely, even you lefties can't be happy with such an impoverished lede...? As it stands, it would barely rate a passing grade for the essay of a 14 year old student. BlueRobe (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there is undue weight in the lead where in mentions anarchism. There is no place for this in the lead. It's not appropriate. Areastrips78 (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that your account began editing today, you may have missed many of the discussions on this talk page. The question of whether some versions are "anarchist" is a reflection of reliable sources. BigK HeX (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Holding an M.A. in poli sci, this does sound a bit crazy to me, but I will definitely check out the sources. Areastrips78 (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, why not just define libertarianism as some combination of how the following people/entities define it: Cato Institute, Milton Friedman, etc. Areastrips78 (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia doesn't limit itself to Cato and Friedman. Per policy, we write about any and ALL understandings that are prominent in reliable sources. The view that certain anarchistic versions exist as variants of libertarianism is one view found prominently throughout a number of reliable sources. BigK HeX (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This libertarian-anarchy connection just sounds totally crazy to me. Never heard of this during my MA program. And a great deal of my research and courses touched upon libertarianism. I guess I don't really care either way though, as I associate with a completely different political leaning. Have fun with this page ;) Areastrips78 (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent change to lead by User:Darkstar1st

Darkstar1st recently made this change to the lead, which I reverted.

The problems that I had with it were:

It is an unattributed opinion, presented as a fact.
It does not seem to be supported by the sources cited. When asked for a quote, he stated that one of the sources said: "Most LL thus uphold some form of substantial income redistribution". But he has not provided a quote along the lines of "Most LL thus uphold some form of substantial income redistribution, and therefore they are statist", which is what his addition said. He seems to be drawing the (incorrect) conclusion "therefore they are statist" based on his own opinions and original research.
Even if he does have two sources, one of which says "they support income distribution" and another saying "they are all statist", it is a violation of WP:SYNTH to combine them together, unattributed, into one sentence.

I hope that he will read the policies I've linked to and remove the edit himself. But if he chooses not to, I won't get into an edit war with him, and will leave it to someone else to handle. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been explained to Darkstar1st -- in no uncertain terms -- how his edit constitutes blatant WP:OR (see: here). His misuse of sources to create edits that say exactly the opposite of what is actually in the source is pretty disruptive. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and ask here one more time for Darkstar1st to quote the relevant passage from the reliable source and post it for us here on the talk page. BigK HeX (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I can already smell a rfc coming Darkstar1st's way. You dogs must be so pissed off that doesn't facilitate shipping right-wingers off to the Gulag for their reeducation. BlueRobe (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

[the next post is copied from my talk page]

requested sources for left libertarian supporting substantial redistribution of wealth.

"For on most left-libertarian views, individuals have an enforceable duty to pay others for the value of the rights that they claim over natural resources. Individuals seeking economic justice could form organizations that, under certain conditions, could force individuals to give them the payment they owe for their rights over natural resources, and could then transfer the payments to the individuals who are owed payments (after deducting a fee for the service, if the person agrees)."

"most LL thus uphold some form of substantial income redistribution"

clearly not statist, and worthy of inclusion as it directly contradicts the claim in the lede LL is anti statist Darkstar1st (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "clearly not statist"? Because you've been putting the opposite into the Wiki article... BigK HeX (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not requesting sources for the statement "left libertarians support substantial redistribution of wealth." I know that this is correct, I know that there are plenty of sources that say this, and you provided me a quote from a reliable source that says this. I would not have a problem with you adding this exact statement to the article, as long as you tack "many" onto the beginning of it. What I did request, and what you have not provided is a quote that says "left libertarians support substantial redistribution of wealth, and therefore are statist", which is what you added to the article. Please see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

sorry bigk, that was my 1st and last attempt at sarcasm in wp. @jr, it already is in the article, just in a subsection, carol moved it there after deleting it twice and finally reading the source. it is also on the LL page as well as the statement a commitment to expansion of the welfare state how can one be anti-statist and support the state? where is the rs calling LL non-state anarchist? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait wait wait ... there's still doubt that the egalitarian agenda of left-Libertarianism entails a redistribution of wealth? How on Earth is a left-Libertarian society supposed to achieve its egalitarian goal if it doesn't redistribute the wealth? /facepalm BlueRobe (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Where in the source is left-libertarianism's statism mentioned??

Your edit not only misrepresents the source, but actually manages to completely contradict it.

Libertarianism is committed to full self-ownership. A distinction can be made, however, between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources can be owned....[certain] objections to the modern welfare state would be made both by right-libertarians and left-libertarians.....Individuals seeking economic justice could form organizations that, under certain conditions, could force individuals to give them the payment they owe for their rights over natural resources, and could then transfer the payments to the individuals who are owed payments...Such “justice-promoting” organizations engage in many of the activities of the modern states, and left-libertarianism can accept the legitimacy of such activities....There may be many organizations providing such services....Libertarianism, then, is not only critical of the modern welfare state, but of states in general.

Very clearly the source that you've quoted from says that "[Left and right] libertarianism is CRITICAL OF STATES." BigK HeX (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

unless you quote the exact source saying LL is non-state anarchist, i will remove it from the lede. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it, added in the original term that was there and cited it. BigK HeX (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Hopefully Darkstar1st will accept that and that will be the end of the conversation . Below is and "edit conflict" reply in case the response is otherwise:

I moved what appeared to me to be you valid info about some left libertarians to the Left Libertarianism section where it belonged. I don't know who removed it, or for what reason, but any valid evidence some libertarians think that or some WP:RS think all left libs think that belongs there. Even if I agreed that that material belonged in the lead, I'd do so only if information about some "libertarians" wanting to outlaw abortion, clamp down on immigration, fight foreign wars, etc. was included in the lead. But I don't think the purpose of the lead is to stress what some people who aren't as libertarian as others think.

I'm fine with whatever text may have been moved. I still think the lede is too short though. BigK HeX (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

How many times do these points have to be repeated? Not to mention other points by other editors? See WP:Disruptive editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

not disruptive just accurate. it seemed the word "state" is too broadly viewed, some made the point, growing the welfare state meant churches serving soup, others thought it meant enforceable redistribution of wealth to buy the soup. i already feel like we are becoming a team, now lets go fix the rest of this confusing article. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to quote someone allegedly saying "growing the welfare state meant churches serving soup". I only saw people saying the govt had co-opted such programs. Misunderstanding basic concepts doesn't help things. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all

the jimmy wales test for minority views

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

Adherents of Libertarian Socialism:
Adherents of Anarcho-Capitalism:
Adherents of Left-Libertarian:

please only comment on the adherents in this sub-section Darkstar1st (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

CHOMSKY, Dejacques, Bakunin, Henry George
ROTHBARD
Chomsky, Dejacques, Bakunin, Henry George, Kropotkin, Vallentyne, Otsuka, Steiner, and User:The Four Deuces noted: William Morris, Oscar Wilde, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley BigK HeX (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Another good place to look would be in the 11,000+ books that google books lists discussing either "left libertarianism" or "libertarian socialism".[1] -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

i agree many hits came up in your search, but the policy is directed more toward the how many hold the viewpoint, rather than how many have written about viewpoint; "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Example, cannibalism is not considered a minority view of tribalism and not mentioned in the article, even though countless rs has described tribes who have eaten people. The practice is practiced by very few, like libertarian transhumanism. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

IWW, CNT-FAI, Mahknovishchina, ILP, left-Labour, left-ALP, dissident Communism both within and outside the largest parties, PO/AO/Autonomia, Autonomen, Solidarity (UK), Southern Advocate for Workers' Control, UWM (Both the Miners and the Unemployed Workers Movement). I haven't even yet noted or touched on communalism or intentional communities, bottom up social assistance movements or friendly societies. Your repeated claims that parliamentary politics exhaust politics is disruptive, please stop. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that some of us could have added various WP:RS material per initial comments, but the problem is the onslaught of WP:SOAPBOX - some of which has to be replied to - is so enervating people get too disgusted to edit at all. Which is the point of such POV WP:Disruptive editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fif, would you reword your comment, i had trouble understanding what you meant by your 1st sentence, a list of what? also, i dont know what your were referencing with this passage, "parliamentary politics exhaust politics". Darkstar1st (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia

would the above adherents be considered prominent? is there any proof these views are not extremely small or vastly limited, since this is a political article, wouldn't there be at least a few elected officials somewhere? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We have articles on anarcho-syndicalism and other political movements, and there are very few elected officials who subscribe to these views. While these are more well-known, my point is that someone is going to say this exact thing, only they have a stronger opinion than I ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

good point. does anarcho-sydicalism appear in the lede of other articles as well? we are fine with the minority views having a link in the disambiguation page, or even a section here, but in the lede as if parity exist? One form of libertarianism has hundreds of thousands of voting followers, elected officials, party hq, the other forms only exist in books. the fear is the majority of people searching for the popular form, will become confused by socialist, anarchist, left, and never actually click on minarchism, which is what the majority of libertarians practice today. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st -- This has been repeated to you ad nauseum, but I'll do it again. The reason that left libertarianism is going to be included is that a wide array of high-quality scholarly sources discuss left-libertarianism as a form of libertarian thought. Per WP:NPOV we should give it due weight here, as it is clearly a significant viewpoint. You have not given any policy-based reasons why it should not be included. You keep repeating that, in the U.S., the term "libertarianism" normally refers to the right-wing ideology more commonly than the left-wing ideology. But nobody is denying that. What people are pointing out is that although a minority view in the U.S., it is a significant (as in significant per WP:NPOV) minority view, and we should discuss it here. There is already a clear consensus about this -- sources have been provided, and policy cited to explain why it should be included. Nothing other than personal opinion and WP:IDONTLIKEIT has been provided in support of not including it at all. Stop wasting everyone's time trying to get it removed from the article -- it should be clear to you that this is simply not going to happen. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To extend and amplify Jrtayloriv, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of the United States. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

true, but outside the usa, there is not a significant ratio of people who vote or identify them selves as libertarian. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that if 11,000 books exist which mention a certain topic, then it's clearly notable enough to warrant inclusion per WP:NPOV, and the only question is how much weight to give it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this one is over? Darkstar1st is in a minority of one or less and its going no where new. Continued arguments for an unsupported position is normally considered disruptive behaviour on the wikipedia --Snowded ^TALK 08:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I was about to point to the RS for the last 150 years, and that most libertarian movements have been extra-parliamentary, but Snowded makes a better point about disruption. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough! From reading all of these posts, it is clear that a couple wackjobs have hijacked this page and put in a bunch of erroneous and misleading nonsense about anarchism, minarchim, ism this and ism that. Not to mention the "left/right libertarian" nonsense. They prob don't even believe what they are spouting. Unlock the page. Lock the wackos. Enough! Grow some... people! Areastrips78 (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This current line of discussion is not productive. If you agree, please stop. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, as a non-libertarian, I just think it's funny (and ultimately sad for the sake of pursuing knowledge) that a couple people do seem to have taken over a Wikipedia page. I guess the only productive thing I can say is that maybe these couple individuals should voluntarily or involuntarily back away from the page to let others make meaningful contributions. Thank you. That's all. Areastrips78 (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any plans to tell anyone which individuals you are talking about and what exactly is wrong with their behavior (with diffs to back up your claims, of course)? Do you have any suggestions for how to improve the article? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not here to throw accusations at each other. But if someone can't answer that second question, then there's no point being on a talk page. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Only because you asked: CarolmooreDC and BigXhex present themselves here in a way that makes it look futile to make or propose constructive changes. They will watch and override attempted improvements -- so why bother? Areastrips78 (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Areastrips78 -- with his/her brand new account -- certainly does seem rather familiar with the proponents, and strikingly hostile to them, as well. BigK HeX (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd noticed that as well. Yworo (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I put sock notice on User:Areastrips78. That's all I have energy for. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You may not realize this, but it is very easy to become "familiar with the proponents" here. Sure enough, both of the names I dropped (b/c I was asked to do so), quickly responded. It helped that I discovered this link: [2], which shows that the editing of this page is being completely dominated by a small minority. Anyhow, thanks for your feedback. I'm not going to be making any more edits here -- so you can save your energy. Areastrips78 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that tool also told you that "CarolmooreDC and BigXhex ... will watch and override attempted improvements". Quite convincing.... BigK HeX (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So now you all are arguing that we should keep it there because they used it first or that it has seniority? In that case, let's just replace our new info about the Earth being a sphere and replace it with that old flat-earth stuff. Geez. Toa Nidhiki05 19:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And the cabal swoops in!

What is the focus of this article? The philosophy of libertarianism, or the beliefs of libertarians? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Tiny introduction: Hi, I'm Xavexgoem! I mediate for both the mediation committee and the mediation cabal, and have chaired both. I'll be your mediator.

The family of political philosophies known as "libertarianism" (and thanks for dropping by). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

shouldn't a family each have it's own page? are multiple opposite philosophy supposed to share the same page? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, what do you think of my question? Xavexgoem (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Socialism or Mammals -- both describe families. In addition to an article for each of the sub-topics (different types of socialism or different types of mammals), there is a main article describing the family as a whole. The same applies here, which is why it's currently structured that way. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

hehe, you got me, i was busy researching trying to come up with the "correct" answer. it is the most relevant question here. my gut response, the beliefs of libertarians. i fear my answer may undermine my case, since it is part of the philosphy section of wp, but since libertarian redirects here, i sincerely think the majority of people are looking for a description of modern libertarian beliefs. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your honest reply! Xavexgoem (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

@Jrtayloriv: Yes, but all those are closely-related ideologies or species. All socialist ideologies are fairly left-wing, and all mammals are fairly similar in most regards (except for the Platypus). The same can be said for the 'Conservatism' page; all of the ideologies listed there are fairly right-wing, and are all fairly major. This page, however, is not about Libertarian philosophies, it is about Libertarian philosophy, and the dominant form is what would be called Right-libertarianism here, but is really called Libertarianism elsewhere. If we are to have the minor ideologies of Libertarian socialism or anarcho-capitalism (which reject the basic libertarian tenants of limited government in favor of no-government, which is Anarchy), they should be in proportion in accordance with WP:DUE and WP:Primary topic; granting them coverage equal to the primary topic would violate both. Toa Nidhiki05 15:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Err... making Libertarianism an exception in this fashion seems like rather blatant Special pleading. BigK HeX (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Focus should be all the forms of "libertarianism" that sufficient WP:RS identify as libertarianism (even the ones I don't like). Though short commentary on why some forms don't think other forms are really libertarianism is permissible. Per NPOV: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. and per the RfC on this page where a good majority of editors agreed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And what the heck is that supposed to mean? I'm not violating N:POV by saying that Left-libertarianism is not a predominant or significant ideology. You are also ignoring WP:DUE, which is just as important as N:POV. Unless you can provide reliable sources proving the predominance of LL and Anarcho-capitalism inside the Libertarian movement, then it should not focus on it as much as the standard form of Libertarianism, know here in an act of incredible redundancy as 'Right-libertarianism'. It is as if you don't even read what you are posting! Here, look at it again:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

Hm... According to this, we should proportionately cover views covered by reliable sources. Seems like what us right-wing crackpots are arguing, and what you left-wingers vehemently oppose. Toa Nidhiki05 16:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

First, please don't fling what you consider insults - i.e., "left wingers" - at other editors. Especially since many of us have long rejected left-right and only use it here because many WP:RS do. Second, I don't hear any concrete suggestions of what you want out (besides everything) and what you want in. Just constant complaining and attacks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Apropos to the identity question, wasn't Emma Goldman considered a "libertarian communist"? And Communist Anarchy has a journal called Libertarian Communism. Without going into who-hijacked-who (unless you have sources), is there a point where libertarianism as we generally conceive it today solidified as this "right-libertarianism"? More to the point, is there a point in the history of libertarianism where it significantly diverged from what we generally think of it as today? Xavexgoem (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think most people point to the 1950's as the point where right-libertarianism emerged, mostly in the US. TFD seems well-versed on the history, and I'm sure he's posted it. But, I think there was a schism where Rothbard branched off from the libertarian thought of the time and put together his more capitalist viewpoint. The old thought became associated with left-libertarianism (which still seems to be a small but significant influence in continental Europe), but the emerging US variant evolved from Rothbard's vision (under a further influence of Ayn Rand, Nozick and probably Goldwater) into what is known as right-libertarianism (with it's well known, but relatively small influence on politics in the US and elsewhere). Both obviously still share a common platform of civil liberty and a goal of minimizing the State apparatus. BigK HeX (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree with the substantive points of this summary? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Mostly agree. Not sure about "branching," which has heritance implications, would like to hear from TFD. Maybe needs to note the less radical and less economic Civil Libertarianism (admittedly in the 1930s in many places organisationally developed by Communist Party members and fellow travellers) as a stream? Fifelfoo (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

i do. the differences started in 1857 when the French anarchist communist, Joseph Déjacque who said "libéral et non LIBERTAIRE" to distinguish his anarchist communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in a correspondence about the rights of women. he then moved to NYC and published the periodical "Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement social", 27 issues from June 9, 1858 to February 4, 1861, Le Libertaire was the first anarcho-communist journal published in America. Hence the term "libertaire" has been used as a synonym for left wing anarchism or libertarian socialism since the 1890s. All of the left, anarchic, and socialist forms here trace their existence to this man, all of the minarchist trace their history to the English term libertarian, coined by enlightenment age free-thinker Belshan, as an opposition to determinism. the disagreement here is not about 1 term, rather the confusion of 2 different terms, from different languages, with different meanings. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I gather that Belsham was talking about metaphysical libertarianism. That means the belief in free will; it has nothing to do with political philosophy. Belsham is of interest as part of the etymology of the word libertarianism, but I don't think you can say that he originated the political philosophy of libertarianism. Iota (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. Darkstar1st generally shows a disinclination to credit Dejacques for his influence on libertarianism ... likely it more directly admits the possibility that anarchist views of libertarianism must be granted coverage or something, I'd guess. The info about Belsham is useful, but of little relationship to political ideology. BigK HeX (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, your summary is interesting. Are you suggesting that minarchist libertarianism evolved as follows?:

(1) There was anarchism (which was also known as "libertarianism", and included both individualist and socialist strands)

(2) From individualist anarchism evolved a strand called anarcho-capitalism (advocated by Rothbard).

(3) From anarcho-capitalism (and some other influences) there evolved minarchist libertarianism.

Also, classical liberalism seems to be a big ommission from your summary. Where does it fit in?

Iota (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

lol .. by "interesting", I hope you don't mean "WTF?!" I am, by no means, a satisfactory expert on the history of libertarianism. With that said, I would say that classical liberalism originally had some influence on the "original-style" (left-libertarianism), however Rothbard and Hayek likely amplified the influence of classical liberalism within the emergent capitalistic libertarianism that eventually became right-libertarianism. I'd certainly take this with a grain of salt though. TFD can likely provide a more authoritative understanding. BigK HeX (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of WP:Soapbox person opinions about libertarianism's history, but note that there is a whole referenced section on the topic in the article and even mediation conversation should focus on strengths and weaknesses of that. Libertarianism#Philosophical_origins_and_history CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek

Regarding how to decide the proportion of prominence of the various viewpoints...how much weight should we give Adam Smith? From Public Sector Economics for Developing Countries by Michael Howard...

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

Friedrich Hayek wanted even less government...but still wanted some government. From Friedrich Hayek: a biography By Alan O. Ebenstein...

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

The pro-government definition of libertarianism is clearly widely held enough and significant enough to warrant an article dedicated to the topic. Why this article? Well, because libertarian socialism and left-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism already have their own dedicated articles. From now on, when I say "libertarian" I mean Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Ludwig Von Mises, Robert Nozick, David Boaz, etc. When I say "pseudo-libertarian" I mean any person that wants to abolish government. --Xerographica (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have a personal meaning, and one which you share intellectually with others. If we consider this article as a lead article in a broad topic, obviously the group you discuss has a relevance. Is their a self-declared name commonly known in their impact group (intellectually, in social movements) other than "Libertarian"? Is there a name for their tendency found commonly in RS outside of their own sources? What I'm trying to get at is something of a lead topic article, being Libertarianism containing a note on academic attitudes towards the bases of the intellectual history and social history of libertarianism; and then summaries of Main Articles for 19th century pro and anti-property Libertarianisms; Civil Libertarianism & Civil Liberties Movement; Propertarian Libertarianism with its minarchist and anarchist tendencies; Libertarian Socialism and Libertarianism within other socialist movements. Where would the libertarian tendencies inside Georgism or Social Credit sit? All of these topics seem WEIGHTy. All of them have a real claim to discussions of post French Revolution positions which are deeply doubtful of state authority. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue we're looking at is undue weight and where to draw the line between ideologies and articles. Undue weight is about proportion. The best way to learn about proportion is to read the short story by Voltaire called Micromegas. Drawing the line has to do with picking a single topic for an article. The topic for this article should not be pseudo-libertarianism because those ideologies already have their own dedicated articles. Rather, the topic of this article should be libertarianism, because that's the title of this article. Articles should not be so broad as to discuss ideologies with completely contradictory major tenets. Well, unless the title of this article was "pseudo-libertarianism and libertarianism"...but it's not. --Xerographica (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we would be better served having this discussion above through the MEDCAB editor above, as when you say, "The topic for this article should not be pseudo-libertarianism," I take your meaning that you're pushing a POV; and down that path lies unnecessary heat. In relation to articles which do contain radically different ideologies, see the discussion above. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There are appropriate articles for your pseudo-libertarianism. Just describe to me the tenets of your pseudo-libertarianism and I can point you in the right direction. --Xerographica (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. Of your personal views on what is or is not "pseudo-libertarianism." CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, seriously? We've already established that you're an anarchist and you've edited the libertarianism article so that pseudo-libertarianism receives just as much coverage as libertarianism. Libertarianism is a relevant political ideology. Please offer me any evidence of politically relevant pseudo-libertarian ideologies. Proportionally speaking, in terms of political relevance...pseudo-libertarianism is very insignificant. --Xerographica (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The WP:OR concocted about "pseudo-libertarianism" is probably the least relevant thing in this thread. BigK HeX (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I liked that part where you offered social conservatism and economic conservatism in the conservatism article as an example of how articles can contain conflicting views. That's like saying that covering social liberalism and economic conservatism in this article is an example of conflicting views. --Xerographica (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Smith and Hayek are better seen as influences on modern libertarian thought rather than as libertarians. Smith of course was a major influence on 19th century liberalism and both were major influences on neo-liberalism. If we decide that neo-liberalism is libertarianism as well, then there is no need for a Libertarian Party, because even socialist governments are now libertarian. TFD (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidently you didn't bother to read the passages or you might have noticed where the authors referred to Smith and Hayek as Libertarians. If you had read the passages you would also have realized that their views on government were nearly identical to the viewpoints I discussed in the Proportion of Prominence section. --Xerographica (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica, there are no references in the article or this discussion page that refer to Adam Smith as a libertarian. TFD (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

From the very first passage in this section, "Even though he was a libertarian, Smith realized..." --Xerographica (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Howard uses the term "libertarian" four times in the book and does not explain what it means. I would not base the scope of the article on that book. We also see a disagreement in literature about the use of the terms liberal and conservative. TFD (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

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. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

New section which may help (movements)

A significant omission of this article is coverage of (significantly large amounts of) people practicing or promoting Libertarianism. IMHO if we could develop such a section, it would fill that gap, an dalso help resolve some of these other issues. I'm planning to start such a section..... probably "Libertarian-leaning organizations and movements" which, per wp standards, would mean those with significant participation. I'm planning on starting such a section......it will probably be a "stub" at first. North8000 (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. These might help: List of Libertarian Political Parties and List of Libertarian Organizations. I'm not sure how accurate they are.

Curiously, there used to be a links to at least one of these two pages in the Libertarianism page, but it was removed by CarolMooreDC. Further more, someone has been trying to delete the pages with those lists. BlueRobe (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I find lists usually present a problem. They continue to grow, they always contain items that should not be there and they are never complete. Lists of a well-defined set, e.g., member parties of the Liberal International or presidents of the United States are different. TFD (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's worth checking some of those so-called Libertarian organisations. Some of them are blatantly Anarchist, (have a look at the Italian organisations). BlueRobe (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

First, if you are going to say someone removed something, please provide a diff. I don't know what you are talking about.

As I have mentioned before in these pages several times, there used to be a whole section on the libertarianian movement worldwide that should be created in shorter form. See this Jan 1 2010 version with section called "Current libertarian movements." CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, you admitted it, yourself, here. BlueRobe (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? That's a notification of deletion, not an admission of deletion. Indeed, the deletion occurred here on Feb 24, 2010 by User:MutantPlatypus, not Carol. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with the idea that the article should have a section on movements. Are there any anti-propertian movements referred to as "libertarian"? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an indiscriminate list may be needed, but if we can come up with a useful objective criteria, then this is likely a good idea. In fact -- in a similar vein -- once upon a time, the article contained a section of the style "Philosophy X in Argentina, Philosophy X in Italy, Philosophy X in the United States" that is n often-seen in these types of articles. I'm not sure why it was deleted, and I seriously considered reinstituting it, but it did make the article extremely lengthy. BigK HeX (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

First, we're talking article content, not a list. I think that a good set of criteria would be thos emeeting both of these:

A group / organization involving some non-trivial amount of people. I don't know ther that means 500 or 5,000 of 5,000, but it's definitely not 5 or 50.
Their political philosophy is is identified as Libertarian (of some type) more so than any alternative.

North8000 (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I just conflated existing items and items from January 2010 with some edits and notes that refs needed. There are more that could be added in a similar NPOV format. The sectioning of parties was WP:UNDUE and possibly POV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Organization of "Organizations and Movements" Section

Carol, I'm planning to undo your removal of the sectioning in the "organizations and movements" section, but plan to do it by editing vs. reverting so as to not take out other work that you did at the same time. Not sure what your thoughts were, but "Political Parties" is certainly a subset of "Organizations and Movements" (unless we rename it "Other Organizatiosn and Movements" and put it after parties), plus, regarding due/undue weights, many of those certainly merit their own subsection. I think that we have whole sub-sections devoted to schools of thought that may be only in the minds of a few philosophers; a group with 200,000+ registered members should merit it's own sub-section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with moving Parties under larger section, however, this section was removed for being too wordy/WP:Undue last time and sectioning does increase the problem. I'll wait and see what you do. Others thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

They are not registered members, they are registered voters. TFD (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I just tidied up the "subset" structural problem. While, for reasons previously given, I certainly don't agree with the "undue" I don't plan any more sectionalizing right now. These need more material first. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't movements come first since parties often come out of movements and not other way around? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Structural Change on "Organizations and Movements" section.

Carol, you are right. Regarding the higher level titles, you changed it back to the way that I originally put in, prior to your earlier changes. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Issue resolved. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Proportion of Prominence

In my opinion, bothering with reliable sources is not helpful because we are talking about different political ideologies. How can you tell where one political ideology ends and another begins? By looking at their tenets. Libertarians acknowledge the necessity of government while anarcho-capitalists and libertarian socialists do not. Many of us agree that this is really straightforward...so why the conflict?

You have to look on the anarchy side of things for that answer. According to David Goodway..."'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives."

Just because anarchists use 'libertarianism' as a synonym for 'anarchism' in no way indicates that the various ideologies are the same thing. Goodway offers a definition of true libertarianism..."John Stuart Mill, the great and generous theorist of liberalism, and Herbert Spencer, a major exponent of laissez-faire individualism, whose writings appealed immensely to the Spanish anarchists, can be - and have been - rightly designated as 'libertarians'."

Of course we already know that John Stuart Mill is credited with the Harm principle which is the foundation of Libertarianism...

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

Here is Herbert Spencer's view on government...

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

Which sounds very similar to Ludwig Von Mises's viewpoint...

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

Which sounds very similar to Ayn Rand's viewpoint...

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

Which sounds very similar to Milton Friedman's viewpoint...

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism

Which sounds very similar to David Boaz's viewpoint...

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

Of course, Oliver Wendell Holmes put it best when he said..."The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins."

The existence of government is essential to the definition of libertarianism. The difference between a small government and no government is HUGE. Even if we go with a uselessly broad definition...based on proportion of prominence, in terms of Micromégas, the anarchist views would only merit the very briefest of mention. Of course, the problem with allowing even a little anarchism...is that before you know it, CarolMooreDC will have added links to anarchist ideologies in the lead of this article. Not a good idea. It's better for the primary topic of this article on libertarianism to solely focus on viewpoints that recognize the essential role of government. The rest of the ideologies belong on the disambiguation page. --Xerographica (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not having read the whole post, can I take it that your proposal is to focus on those things that all libertarianisms hold in common? Xavexgoem (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems here is schematic. There are genetic relationships between libertarianisms. Some 19th Century libertarians are claimed as, or produced, some 20th Century libertarians, but only in the form A => A' and B => B' in general, A and B emerging from different 19th century roots as ideal or social movements. Even then A1 => A1' and A2 => A2' may have no genetic relationship. Producing a Schema which notes that A1 and B1, A2 and B2&3, A3-5 and B4 share similar analytical attitudes towards libertarianism, without a RS to state such, is SYNTH. Similarly, placing an ideology/basis-of-theory approach delegitimises analyses which focus on social and political origins. And why the hell isn't anyone noting Georgism, Social Credit, etc. as relevant for discussion of pro-market Libertarianisms? (The A & B divide tends to be between pro-market, and anti-capitalist, though some libertarian ideologies or movements have been both, or neither). But a good article ought to note all of the above to the extent they appear in RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears this article would benefit from a larger history of libertarianism. What say you? Xavexgoem (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, the article would benefit from a theoretical account of libertarian similarity; a historical account of ideological heritance; and, a historical account of social movement heritance. It should touch on various major schematic classifications actually existing in academic RS, and RS of major social movement outputs (ie: US Libertarian party, elements of Social Credit and Georgism; US IWW, Au IWW, CNT-FAI, Zapatismo, etc, etc, etc). For an example of the latter, consider Sorel on the General Strike. Weight should be minimally afforded to RS of all movements which: elected members to parliament, or achieved a Parliament wide vote of 5% without attaining elected members, or created a parliamentary abstention (ie FAI abstentionism) of greater than (as an example) 5% of a vote; or which produced major strike waves, or, major social investments of income; or which threatened the revolutionary overthrow of state apparatus in revolt or secured territory free from state influence by other means (Zapas, Roumanian anarchists). The problem of polemically mutually incompatible theories of knowledge held by editors (who are libertarians of one or another kind) has stopped them from achieving consenses and from including and weighting the total variety of libertarianism. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I failed to correctly complete my thought. Weight should be minimally afforded to social movement RS as: Academic RS are inherently superior; there are so many threads and twists of Libertarianism even within the major divide of pro-market and anti-capitalist that they each need full and proper treatment in Main Articles. Obviously, Academic RS which deal with social movements are superior still, but, major Spanish Language academic publications, Sub-continental publications, Japanese publications, European publications are beyond the current editors concentrating on this article. As such, language bias (and due to its role in the Anglophone world) US bias enters into the available academic RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, this article should not stray outside of the major tenets of libertarianism. An article on the entire family tree of "liberty" would be completely unwieldy. For example, conservatism and liberalism are more closely related to libertarianism than anarcho-capitalism or libertarian socialism. --Xerographica (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To what post of mine are you responding to? The history of libertarianism (within reason, of course - you can always wikilink), or the commonality between all forms of libertarianism? Xavexgoem (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Both. The history and the rest of the article should focus on the main branch of libertarianism. There's certainly sufficient material for editors to write new articles to compare side branches. --Xerographica (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Using the vernacular up above, you're position is that the article should focus on "right-libertarianism", then? Xavexgoem (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, right-libertarianism when defined as recognizing the necessity of the state. --Xerographica (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That does seem to be the common thread, though: the necessity of the state. Or are there varieties of libertarianism that, like anarchism, reject the state in its entirety? And if so, how would this variety of libertarianism be so different from a kind of anarchism that the two couldn't be merged into the same article? And if not, wouldn't this article sufficiently describe the basis of all forms of libertarianism? Xavexgoem (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to unfairly intervene in this discussion, but a significant proportion of libertarian thought simply ignores the State (an agnosticism to more anarchistic thinking's atheism). The example of the decision of the Central Workers Council of Greater Budapest in relation to the Nagy Government and the Kadar Government, or communalism. Similarly, some libertarian movements are explicitly anti-state, or, practice explicit anti-state behaviour (The Australian IWW's decision to take the Commonwealth head-to-head over the first world war for example). Perhaps to advance a SYNTH the common thread is a doubting or questioning of the role and extent of the State. This, conveniently, allows Civil Libertarianism to be noted here wrt to its Main Article. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, libertarianism is liberally social like modern liberalism and economically conservative like conservatism...but it is not a variety of either. Anarcho-capitalism supports the abolishment of the state like anarchism yet supports capitalism like classical liberalism...but it is not a variety of either. Classical liberals regard the state as a necessity and anarchists are anti-capitalists. --Xerographica (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) Three thoughts:

The above "sorting out" is so complex that I think it needs to be presented in an article rather than a disambiguation page. It's also excellent material which I would like to see in an article. On the other side of the equation, the slippery slope inherent in Wikipedia rules is that the little stuff takes over the article. Not just by undue weight, (giving multiple items with .001% predominance each 5% of the article) but also because it's hard to get "overview" / perspective / big picture type information into WP articles.
What about the idea of vetting what gets / stays in here by coverage that there were / are actually practiced by some substantial number of people? If something existed only in the heads of one or 2 philosophers, leave it out of here. If it was made up by and only existed in the minds of two philosophers, having it in their two papers does not meet RS criteria. First, they are inventing the topic, not covering it. Second, in this context they are primary sources. Third their coverage is not on actual practice of that school of thought.
Ditto for weighting coverage in the article. Base it roughly on the amount of people that are (and secondarily were) practicing the particular school of thought, as determined by RS's. I think that this article badly needs this. Coverage of the massively predominant meaning of the term as such is occluded and missing in this article. So the sources would be covering the topic rather than creating it. RS gauging has context; a source that is inventing the topic is not a RS. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

i think we are making progress on the state or non state convo. to answer the question, left-libertarian makes a case for no state, and in the same breath wishes to expand the welfare state, substantially redistribute income, and enforce the duty to pay others for the use of natural resources, presumably meaning resources you already own. this is why so many have tried to distance left-libertarian from this article, as it would have to be an authoritarian regime in practice, no matter how nicely the proponents explain it would not be. libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian, coined by free-thinking enlightenment era Belsham. the french term "libertaire" was later coined by the anarchist communist deJacques, which has a very different meaning to libertarian. after the term anarchy was outlawed, anarchist freely admit co-oping the term as an euphemism for anarchy, to avoid being jailed for using the banned term. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You make the argument that [polemical point of view] => "this is why so many have tried to distance left-libertarian from this article" This is a description of POV pushing. Please do not do this. Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If I may summarize, one thing that Darkstar1st is saying is that "Left Libertarianism" is exactly opposite to the some of the major tenants of the pervasive mainstream meaning of "Libertarianism". Darkstar, did I say that right? To others, is there agreement / disagreement on this?

yes you did, that is my opinion. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is agreement, what do we do about it? Cover / say that in this article?

I'd agree with that assertion (though "pervasive" may be a bit strong). I don't find that it changes the article at all, though. The Socialism article covers both absolutist State-run Socialism and anarchist Communal Socialism (which are obviously two pretty different ideas for a society). It doesn't seem to be a problem there on that article. The Conservatism article incorporates material on both fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, which (ironically enough) is a platform conflicting to libertarians, and then there's the Monarchy article that gives coverage to absolutist and constitutionally limited variants. So, yes, while left-libertarianism may differ in respects to right-libertarianism, plenty of reliable sources have been provided that acknowledge these differences and still consider them variations on the larger philosophy of Libertarianism. BigK HeX (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you adequately summarise the editor's core editorial argument, that "the pervasive mainstream meaning of "Libertarianism"..." I disagree with this claim of fact. It is a claim which can only be contested in relation to US English in the past 15 years. Continuing historical usage points to civil libertarianism as the most common usage between 1940 and 1980 in English generally; prior to 1940, to forms of libertarianism tied up in anti-capitalist movements (predominantly of the extreme civil libertarian variety, though also of the class struggle variety); and, international usage points towards anti-capitalist movements. BigK HeX's examples of other articles with widely varying internal differences of meaning is useful. In particular, state socialist and non state socialist socialisms have three wildly conflicting uses of socialism, with differences of opinion dating to the 1840s and 1910s. In addition other uses of "socialism" abound in popular consciousness. Modelling this articles presentation of its subject off such articles may be a way forward. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

@Xavexgoem: Regarding proportion, read this too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_16#The_Blackwell_Encyclopaedia_of_Political_Thought

(1)I am on this page just to see that Rothbard's version is mentioned prominently. (2)I have no knowledge of the history of the term, or on the worldwide usage. (3)I have no fundamental problem with the way Libertarianism is now. N6n (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To speak directly to N6n without breaking the mediated oversight. I may think the article is a bit of a mess and unbalanced, however, your point (1) is completely understandable and substantiable from RS. The influence of Rothbard intellectually and through social movements on pro-market libertarianism, particularly in the US in the last 40 years or so, is clearly of encyclopaedic interest and WEIGHTy in a lead topic article of this kind. I liked the previous discussion you noted regarding the fact that both minarchist and anarchist forms of pro-market libertarianism are of encyclopaedic interest. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to see anything that has or had some significant set of followers (= not just in the minds of two writers) included in the article. But right now the common meaning is totally occluded in the article. Maybe it's a matter of providing the right context (historical, unusual view etc.) rather than reducing coverage. North8000 (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

First, I endorse all good arguments for keeping the article broadly focused as a summary of the different types of libertarianism and how they inter-relate. Something that could have been done much better by now if we didn’t have to constantly defend the article against gutting of most forms of libertarianism. I’ve collected a lot of great sources, but with this constant deletionist drumbeat, it’s too discouraging to organize and propose using them.
The deletionists use all sorts of slippery arguments, including ignoring or poo pooing multiple WP:RS that identify libertarianism as having radical anti-state or anarchist views. So we believe there is no argument for eliminating them, whatever their views on property. The deletionists never come up with WP:RS saying libertarianism is ONLY minimal state, prop-property views of libertarianism, which is what they are pushing.
Xavexgoem asked about “things that all libertarianisms hold in common?” The lead for a while was clearer when it said various versions of: Libertarianism is a term adopted by political philosophies which advocate liberty of thought and action and the minimization or even abolition of the state.
FYI. There is a whole section in this article called Libertarianism#Philosophical_origins_and_history which is certainly relevant to the discussion, as opposed to mere personal opinions. Note that History of libertarianism redirects to Classical liberalism because the original article basically was a history of that subject. So a more complete article incorporating material from this and from other sources not explored could be written.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents

Above, Xavexgoem asked, It appears this article would benefit from a larger history of libertarianism. What say you? .

To me, the main issue is article topic and scope. This question cannot be answered unless the issue of article topic is answered first. That is, you can't talk about the "history of X" until you're clear about what X refers to.

One possibility (favored by several here) of how to interpret "libertarianism" for the purpose of identifying the topic and scope of this article is "all meanings associated with the term libertarianism in reliable sources". I object to this interpretation for the following two main reasons:

It violates WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There is no debate about the fact that the term libertarian has various uses in reliable sources; the issue is about which use, if any, is primary. If there is a primary topic, then that should be the subject of this article. If there is no primary topic, then the dab page should be at Libertarianism. Though there clearly are some reliable sources that use the term "libertarianism" to refer to the broad meaning, it is a relatively obscure usage among reliable sources. Much more common, especially in contemporary sources, is usage to refer to libertarianism as advocated by the Libertarian Party in the U.S. and the Libertarian Alliance in the UK.
It violates WP:NAD. The title of an entry in a dictionary establishes the subject of that entry. For example, the dictionary entry libertarianism is all about the word libertarianism, and all of its uses and meanings. In a dictionary, the title determines the topic.
Encyclopedia entries (or articles) are different. First there is a subject - the title simply reflects the name used to refer to that subject. That is, the topic determines the title. Therefore, you can't look at the term that happens to be title of an encyclopedia article, and then see what reliable sources say about that term to determine what the subject should be. You have to decide what the topic is first, defined with much greater clarity than simply the title, and then see what reliable sources have to say about that topic.

--Born2cycle (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your final sentence in 1) is completely wrong, please take your Country-specific bias elsewhere! Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"...more common... is usage to refer to libertarianism as advocated by the Libertarian Party in the U.S." That belongs in the article Libertarian Party (United States). TFD (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. That's just one example. "Libertarianism as advocated by the Libertarian Party in the U.S." is the same as the "libertarianism advocated by the Libertarian Alliance in the U.K." ("advocacy of complete free speech and the abolition of taxation and government intervention in economic and social life "). I edited my original comment for clarity. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I see what Born2cycle is saying. He makes a good point about dictionaries being focused on the multiple uses of the word, whereas an encyclopedia chooses a common name for a topic, and only focuses on a certain subset of possible interpretations of the word. I also agree with him that there is no debate that many reliable sources discuss left-libertarianism. The only significant dispute is which use of the term constitutes the primary topic. I would support his suggested proposal of having Libertarianism be a disambiguation page. Especially since English speakers outside the U.S. will be meaning left-libertarianism, while people from the U.S. will be searching for right-libertarianism. I think a disambiguation page is most appropriate, and then there can be a clear two clearly delineated articles about the two mostly separate ideologies. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"dictionaries being focused on the multiple uses of the word, whereas an encyclopedia chooses a common name for a topic, and only focuses on a certain subset of possible interpretations of the word". THANK YOU. That's exactly what I mean.
However, I'm not yet convinced that there is no primary topic here (just that the broad usage is not it). The Libertarian Alliance exemplifies typical usage outside of the U.S. (but still within English speaking countries - U.K. in this case) and is the same as the common usage within the U.S. (i.e., "right-libertarianism" in the obscure contexts where the comparison to so-called left-libertarianism is made). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you that the "broad" definition of the topic is clearly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But I would also argue that the right-libertarian viewpoint, while being the most widely applied interpretation of the word, it is also not the primary topic (in the sense of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). It is not overwhelmingly the most common interpretation. If we choose a single primary topic, then a very significant minority, and a majority in some areas, of readers will be looking for whichever one we choose not to make the primary topic. What would be better, in this case, where two very significant but widely differing viewpoints have the same exact name, is to have a disambiguation page. I would point you to Ubuntu as an example where this has been applied to good effect, and allowed editors on both sides of the conflict to stop arguing about the primary topic, and focus on the two seperate articles. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ubuntu is not a very good example since Libertarianism is overwhelmingly an ideology about obtaining human liberty from government control with just some ideological disagreements on what kind of private control one also wants to be free of, what is the proper method of deciding what property should be private and how much of it should be, and some strategic disagreements on how fast or slowly change can come, how much one should work within the system, how much nonviolence/violence must and should be used to security liberty, etc. (Strategic issues not even touched on in this article yet.) These are issues in all the movements calling themselves "libertarian," just different in manner of degree/focus/etc. People who are widely read in the subject and know all sorts of libertarians - and WP:RS - know this. People who have narrow ideological blinders and haven't figure out WP:What Wikipedia is not may not. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Though there clearly are some reliable sources that use the term "libertarianism" to refer to the broad meaning, it is a relatively obscure usage among reliable sources."

It'll take some actual sources to establish this "obscurity". BigK HeX (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not so. When it comes to determining the name of a WP article or the primary topic of a term, we don't look to reliable sources to tell us that explicitly. It's implicit, based on usage "as used in reliable sources on the subject." [*]. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes... very much so. If you're going to make an assertion that you believe should impact the article (especially when it such a large impact and it is contrary the the closed RfC), then you'll need to bring sources with that argument.... BigK HeX (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What blather. That's like saying you need to bring sources for the argument that Orange (colour) and Orange (fruit) should be in separate articles. You need to look to sources to see that there are multiples uses for the term orange, and that none are primary. But no source actually tells you that explicitly. Same with libertarianism. Stop trying to hold this article up to a standard no other article in WP needs to meet, or can meet. But if that's all you've got, I understand why you must resort to such nonsense.

And, yes, this argument requiring sources to explicitly indicate which use of the term in question is primary among reliable sources is also a begging the question fallacy. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

When there ARE sources that EXPLICITLY say Orange (colour) and Orange (fruit) are parts of the SAME concept, then YES, you would need sources if you choose to continue opposing that. Please drop the false analogy on "Orange". Unless you know of sources that state Orange (colour) and Orange (fruit) are parts of the SAME concept, then the analogy has zero application here. We do have plenty of sources that acknowledge left-lib and right-lib as aspects of Libertarianism, as you've already acknowledged. To sit there and argue that you DON'T need sources to oppose a WELL-SOURCED assertion ... I think that would be considered the "blather" here by most any understanding of policy. BigK HeX (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There are sources that explicitly say Orange (colour) and Orange (fruit) are parts of the SAME concept - the word itself is that concept. See Orange (word) and the references listed there. Where are your sources to oppose putting Orange (word) at Orange?

But that usage is minor among all the uses of the term orange, so we don't put Orange (word) at Orange, even though it encompasses all uses of the term, and is the broad meaning. The vast majority of references to the term "orange" in reliable sources refer to either the fruit or color, or perhaps to a place, but not to the broad meaning. In the case of orange, none of those uses is primary and that's why the dab page is at Orange.

In the case of libertarianism the jury is still out about whether there is a use that is primary, but the argument that the broad meaning (which encompasses all uses) is the primary topic is completely unfounded, so we know that topic should not be at Libertarianism in any case, and yet that's exactly what we have. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm ... no. The spelling is NOT a "concept". Trying to treat a word's spelling as a "concept" is a very poor attempt at equivocation. BigK HeX (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

How revealing that you see it that way, but you're the only one talking about spelling at all, much less about spelling as a concept.

Orange (word) is not about the spelling - it is about the word orange and all of its meanings, and how the various meanings compare and contrast, just like this article is about the word libertarianism and all of its meanings, and how they compare and contrast. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:49, 9 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)

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 1 Decide to evolve from where we're at, per the roadmap instead of considering immediate big changes

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^[1], 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)

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)

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.[3] 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)

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:

Neutral Summary Language: 980 words
Language about "Right" (pro-property): 2281 words
Language about "Left" ("anti-Property"): 656 words
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)

^ http://web.archive.org/web/20070302220612/http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/europe/Orwell-Toward+European+Unity.html {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1] ttp://web.archive.org/web/20070302220612/http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/europe/Orwell-Toward+European+Unity.html {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]