Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Minor Edits

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

Deleted thread...?

wholly off-topic

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

Ayn Rand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Double Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: should this article have a POV tag?

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

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

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

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

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

OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR

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

The main arguments against Option Two are:

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

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

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

The main arguments against Option One are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

break 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)Ok for the sake of sanity:

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

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

Can someone please explain why my section above was archived? And why this thread started? Also exactly what sources are needed? Libertarianism has (i thought) been about freedom, small government and whatnot, like this [1] sums up what i think it is mark nutley (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

break 2

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

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

The Encyclopædia Britannica declares:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

break 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick deletion of non-cited (article) material?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BlueRobe et al, please comment on these sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New section on Ayn Rand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal for content removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off Topic to the proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is this relevant

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

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

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

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

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

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

But,

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

Mediator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BigK HeX also said this: [2] -- which is not presently support for a full section. BigK HeX (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

The draft Ayn Rand section

Ayn Rand

See: Main article: Ayn Rand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels versus Tenets

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to revert to FA version and work from there

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hidden comments, unproductive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose --

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

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

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

Murray Rothbard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)@Darkstar: Rothbard is here talking about anarchism in the socialist sense (its general meaning). For Rothbard's connection with anarchism in the broader sense, check the many references I have provided about Rothbard before. In particular, [3]. I myself have pointed out this distinction a couple of times in the past. N6n (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

how could tfd have a point about who coined the term? his objection was before "coined" was even brought up, he is referring to the quotes i posted above Darkstar1st (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

i am partially right? which part did i get wrong? Roberta Modugno Crocetta, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism in the contemporary debate. A critical defense, Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

^ Michael Oliver, 'Exclusive Interview With Murray Rothbard, originally published in "The New Banner: A Fortnightly Libertarian Journal", February 25, 1972. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

When I said "article" I thought you would be able to tell the difference between an "article" and a "book". You linked to the WIKIPEDIA article ON Sara Diamond. So no, obviously you did not read the article on Sara Diamond. And no, I wasn't Google mining for quotes...I was just reading the article that you linked us to. The wikipedia article on Sara Diamond clearly reveals that her books function as attacks on the right. Her goal was to "scare" the left into action...to establish a clear and present danger. To accomplish that she overplayed Rothbard's influence rather than Rand's influence. Why overplay his influence? Because Rothbard said that if he had the opportunity to abolish all government with the push of a button...he would blister his thumb pushing that button. If that thought doesn't scare you then you know you're an anarchist. --Xerographica (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm ... let's not cite another Wikipedia.org article as the basis for the direction of this article. BigK HeX (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Solid point from BKH. On the other hand it is reasonable to use sourced material in another article to highlight a point about the source; if its aim was as described (I have not checked, I will leave that to others) that does make it a questionable source for some areas (remember that WP:RS specifically points out that both publisher, author and content can undermine a source). When working with sources like this, particularly in social sciences, we end up in a "chicken and egg" situation. In the end we have to make some sort of editorial judgement about the reliability of sources for certain content. What I find helps is taking a specific piece of content that the source is supporting, break it down into what it is (e.g: entirely factual, factual interpretation, interpretation, opinion) and on which topic and then figure out if the source is reliable for that specific instance. For example in digital forensics (a topic I have a huge interest) there is a source that is a very POV discussion on whether police should be allowed to seize computer equipment under broad warrants, within which is actually some really good factual advice on how to sieze equipment. The source is unreliable for the first topic but very reliable (due to the author, content and publisher) for the second factual item. This is a minefield of good judgement. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to the book. But again, it does not matter why someone wrote a book so long as the book is accepted by the academic community as a reliable source. If you read her book, the right-wing that she finds dangerous is not Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand, but the Ku Klux Klan, American Nazis, skinheads, and people who shoot abortion doctors and bomb synagogues. However she writes about the entire American right wing. You will find that many writers present the Klan and other groups as dangerous, and that is no reason to reject them. Errant, the personal views of a writer have no bearing on their reliability whatsoever. One must look at the book itself: was it published by the academic press, has it been well-received by the academic community, is the writer one of the acknowledged leaders in their field, does the academic community accept that the facts in the book are presently accurately and in a fair manner. Does the writer present all the facts and make their arguments from them or do they present selective facts to support an argument. Read the book, look at its general acceptance in the literature. TFD (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

She talks about the KKK, Nazis, skinheads, religious fanatics...and she says that Rothbard...not Rand...was the major influence on libertarianism. So basically she highlighted the worst of the right...but then she was completely objective when it came to discussing the people who influenced libertarianism? --Xerographica (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately we do no have to speculate and conduct our own original research in order to determine whether she was completely objective. We rely on the reviewers at the academic publisher of the book and the opinions expressed by scholars in articles in peer-reviewed journals and academic books that have commented on her writing. We also should note that academics face severe discipline for publishing polemical work in academic publications and the publishers face a loss of reputation. That is why for example academics who wish to write polemical works do so outside the academic community and of course these are not reliable sources, just as the Cato Institute/Lew Rockwell websites are no rs even if the writers are highly regarded. TFD (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It boils down to coverage based on proportion of prominence. That Diamond even mentioned KKK, Nazis, skinheads, religious fanatics clearly indicates that she had an agenda. I certainly can't recall any of the reliable sources that I've run across having discussed those groups...and they certainly did not credit Rothbard with being a major influence on libertarianism. It's not a matter of "original research" it's simply a matter of critical thinking. --Xerographica (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Your review of the literature is irrelevant. If you certainly can't recall any of the reliable sources that discuss the far right, it is probably because you are unfamiliar with the reliable sources for this topic. TFD (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

@Xerographica: I agree with TFD above that our personal "critical thinking" here is not a simple matter, as far as WP policies are concerned. Our personal interpretations and deductions explicitly are not allowed here. See WP:OR. BigK HeX (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

TFD and BigK HeX, here are some reviews from Amazon...

• "Roads to Dominion makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of the continuing right wing attack." -- The New Yorker
• "Diamond's analysis provides good evidence to counter those who exaggerate the strength, unity and popular base of the right." --The Socialist Worker
• "... powerful, and chilling..." --Agenda
• "For all those casting wary glances at the ascendant right, Roads to Dominion is a must read.... Sara Diamond has done an excellent job of illuminating the nature of the US right. And she has laid the groundwork for more well-informed polemics against the rightist threat." --Covert Action Quarterly

It's definitely no surprise that neither of you can tell from reading her book that her obvious agenda is fear mongering. Her fear mongering tactics perfectly explain why she would credit Rothbard for being the primary influence on libertarian thought. That's exactly what I would do if I was an anti-libertarian. --Xerographica (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, puleeze! Yworo (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sara Diamond is one of the most respected academics who studies the radical right,including the Libertarian Party. People who study this party specialize in third party and extremist groups, and if you do not like that then you must present some other writer who does this. So the Socialist Workers Party admires her work, but so do the FBI and Homeland Security. TFD (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

this is not on topic, keep it ultra-polite please --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Socialist Workers Party and Homeland Security share a common interest in crushing liberty ... and you think their admiration for Sara Diamond is a positive thing? lol BlueRobe (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Please try to stick to discussing the article. Non-productive comments such as this just clutter the talk pages and prevent work from getting done. Perhaps you should take a look at WP:TPG, to get a better understanding of how to discuss things on talk pages. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Jrtayloriv, let's not kid outselves into believing that they have any intention of working towards improving the ridiculously incoherent and WP:Undue weight that has lowered the WP:Grade of the Libertarianism article to that of "laughing stock". TFD and BigK HeX have blocked every single improvement, and rejected every single offer of a compromise, without giving an inch. Let's be blunt: TFD and BigK HeX have demonstrated zero good faith in their approaches to the editing Libertarianism. Clearly, blatant sabotage is their agenda. BlueRobe (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Whether you think the article is a "laughing stock" is irrelevant. What is relevant is your bad faith accusations against TFD and BigK Hex (as usual, without any supporting evidence), who are two of editors here who have continuously based their suggestions and changes on Wikipedia policy and reliable sources. Again, try to make productive comments that suggest improvements to the article, based on reliable sources rather than attacking other editors and voicing your personal opinions. Please see WP:TPG-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Jrtayloriv, I suggest you have a look at the Article Milestones at the top of the page. If Libertarianism's WP:Grade gets any lower, we'll need shovels to find it. BlueRobe (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica -- Your opinions on Diamond, your low quality original research based on Amazon reviews, and your personal opinions about Rothbard are totally irrelevant. What matters is that Diamond's work is clearly reliable, and that reliable sources are what base articles on, rather than on personal opinions. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, it only requires a tiny bit of critical thinking to recognize that it's in the best interests of the left to portray her work as neutral and balanced. But even just the title on its own makes her agenda clear..."Roads to Dominion". Seriously? It's pretty darn funny that you guys are in the absurd position of trying to defend an obvious attack on the right in order to justify using it as a reliable source that "neutrally" covers major influences on libertarianism. Her book highlights right-wing extremism so of course she's going to want to exaggerate Rothbard's influence in order to justify giving him extra coverage. --Xerographica (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, your personal views on her work are irrelevant. Please see WP:OR and WP:DUE. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, There is obviously disagreement over the aims of the book - at this point we have to step away from our own views (because they clash) and try and source the reliability of the book. Words like "clearly" and "obviously" are exactly the ones to avoid unless you can source the assertion; does someone reliable and notable, that you can cite, support the view that this book has an agenda? Are you planning to use this source anywhere? If so for what purpose? Lets try and focus the discussion --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

@Darkstar1st: Differences in meaning of anarchism: I first said it here: [4] N6n (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Errant, on the Conservatism in the United States article her book is listed in the critical views section. These two reviews help identity the agenda of her book...

• "study and expose the agenda and tactics of the American political right wing." - Thomson, Contemporary Authors Online (from her wikipedia article)
• "Roads to Dominion makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of the continuing right wing attack." -- The New Yorker

In the beginning of the book she states..."This book sets the stage for our understanding of some of the tragic and perplexing events we now witness." The evidence supports her lack of neutrality and indicates why she would want to exaggerate the influence of the right-wing radicals. --Xerographica (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not sure that is sufficient; sure, the book is identified as critical, but to undermine it you need a non-partisan source that identifies it as unfairly critical or in some way factually inaccurate. Certainly it looks like the book will need to be attributed for material not supported by other sources, but right now it does not look to be readily questionable. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Every source we provide is challenged, and most of those challenges are ridiculous, (for instance, the bizarre challenges to the WP:RS I provided for the Ayn Rand section). Meanwhile, every source they have provided is accepted without question, and with exaggerated weighting, regardless of the degree of bias or political agenda that is blatantly implicit in those sources. BlueRobe (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think.. (and I know that I was trying to avoid this) the book is generally a reliable source, but enough concern exists that, editorially, it should be used with care. I am still unclear where the proposal to use this source is? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe -- we don't base our judgements of reliability based on editors' opinions about "bias". Every source is biased. What we base our decisions on is the quality of the publication -- it's importance, it's record for factual accuracy, the prominence of its authors in the field in question, etc. We don't say "that source is biased so we're not using it". The fact that you still think that "bias" is the issue, implies that you need to take the advice that has been given to you repeatedly, and go and read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Then start attempting to provide reliable sources, rather than attempting to provide sources you feel are "neutral", and I promise you your sources will be accepted. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for us slow people, the work being discussed is:

• Sara Diamond, Roads to dominion: right-wing movements and political power in the United States. Critical perspectives [Series]. New York, N.Y.: Guilford Press: 1995. Guilford is a credible academic press. As a result this work is a HQRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

To address Xerographica's concerns about "neutrality" in published HQRS. I've previously presented HQRS' which absolutely demolish bad "scholarly" works to a social science wikipedia article. The "best result" I could achieve was a short paragraph demonstrating the demolition. See paragraph 8 of This article section. It is pushing scatoliths up hill to refute a HQRS's statements in current policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the book peer reiviews, and if so by whom? This is the only real barrier to it being a definite HQRS. If the publisher and author are generally reliable there are cases where the material is questionable. For example, as is being suggested in this case, where they are partisan, or have an agenda. Usually this does not entirely undermine the source - but it is good practice to attribute anything beyond factual statements. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's put this in plain English - we can expect Sara Diamond's commentary on Libertarianism to be about as objective as Michael Moore's commentary on the Ford Motor Company. BlueRobe (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

tmorton, you may be unfamiliar with the non-fiction publishing process. Commercial presses send documents out to readers, who tend to read for commercial success or legal liability. Academic presses send documents out to academic readers, who read for the work being a contribution to scholarship. This second constitutes peer review, which is why HQRS monographs and chapters come from academic presses. As noted, Guilford is an academic press. Subsequent to publication, monographs are often (but not always) reviewed by major journals in the field. Journal reviews in otherwise Peer Reviewed journals are not in themselves reviewed, but are solicited from specialist academics. Hostile book reviews in a majority of the book reviews in scholarly journals would indicate that the monograph has failed academically. Unfortunately, such a judgement is beyond wikipedia's policy's capabilities as it would be SYNTH and OR; WEIGHT would apply. For example, "Smith Smithson's thesis on blue emus, that they are orange ducks, received blunt and scathing attacks in the academic journals.[footnotes]" This kind of situation usually occurs where the press is not in fact academic and is masquerading as one; or, where the issue is in dispute within the academic discipline; or, through a massive failure of the academic press editor and the external specialist readers prior to publication. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, the process of peer review is fraught with imbalance and distortion of the facts. Otherwise, all authors on any given topic would agree on the basic facts, and that is a patently absurd suggestion. BlueRobe (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies privilege it. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, we all "privilege it". But, some of us are sensible enough not to treat "peer review" like a certified stamp of Gospel awarded by the angels. We all know that bias occurs in peer reviewed literature and it would be foolhardy to pretend that authors who are infamous for their political agendas are unbiased, peer review or no peer review. Goodness knows, I've been reading peer reviewed literature for years and that standard means little to me. Indeed, more often than we'd like, the process of peer review is used by clubs of insiders to freeze-out outsiders who try to express some new and original ideas. BlueRobe (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There is general agreement on facts in peer-reviewed literature. TFD (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For the most part you are correct. Except: Hostile book reviews in a majority of the book reviews in scholarly journals would indicate that the monograph has failed academically. Unfortunately, such a judgement is beyond wikipedia's policy's capabilities as it would be SYNTH and OR; WEIGHT would apply. - does not apply because this is an editorial decision. This is exactly the sort of process we have to go through, if the book is academically panned and rejected it becomes a questionable and unreliable source. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that practice has developed here since the last time I had to deal with non-academic press book whose only academic review tore it apart! Fifelfoo (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Book reviews in peer-reviewed journals are not themselves peer-reviewed and are therefore of little relevance. Most bad reviews are that a book is unoriginal or boring, omits topics that should be included or makes dubious conclusions, not that it is factually incorrect. To determine the reception of a book one looks at its citation in academic writing. But again that normally refers to the acceptance of the opinions presented. TFD (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And as I've explained previously, citation analysis is widely accepted to be completely non-indicative in the humanistic social sciences and humanities. I have seen a few demolition reviews though. They're fairly rare. The external reader process generally works for scholarly monographs. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not mean we should look for a count of how often a source is cited but how it is cited. And errors of fact are rare in academic writing and usually can be corrected by comparing with other academic sources. Even Rummel's Statistics of democide: genocide and mass murder since 1900, which contains estimates that have been panned, is objected to for the opinions expressed rather than the data presented. His reporting of the documents found in the archives and the decline in telephone listings are probably correct. TFD (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I get what you're saying now. Not the volume of use made, but the quality of use, the characterising terms, "masterly, impoverished, failed," etc. Rummel is a more difficult moment, historians have a trade craft regarding inferences, and generally treat certain kinds of inference as having facticity; but that's a disciplinary problem off topic. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is important. We may accept Statistics, which was published in the academic press, but would rely on NPOV to determine the weight given to the conclusions, and would look to later writing to see if any of the basic facts were found to have been misstated. Death by government however could be rejected out of hand because it was published outside the academic mainstream. The relevance to this article is that we cannot pre-emptively challenge the facts in Diamond's book because she is unfavorable to the U.S, Right. TFD (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Founder and Creator

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

• [137] = Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-17944-5
• [138] = Rothbard archives, Lew Rockwell.com

We've established that Lew Rockwell.com is not a reliable source. Looking at the Blackwell reference it says that "...Rothbard is the principle founder of modern libertarianism". The thing is that Blackwell cites Rothbard's own book...The Ethics of Liberty...which states pretty much the same thing..."Rothbard became the creator of modern American libertarianism..." --Xerographica (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All facts in reliable sources ultimately derive from primary sources. We rely on secondary sources to determine the credibility of the information in primary sources, which is something we cannot do ourselves. It is similar to a legal proceding where the judge hears all the witnesses, weighs their evidence, and determines the facts of the case. Although the evidence comes from non-authoritative sources, it does not mean that the facts in the decision are not authoritative. TFD (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you may have been invoking wp:primary incorrectly for quite some time now, it actually says primary sources may be used. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, do not misrepresent what I said. I never said primary sources cannot be used and it is disruptive editing to misrepresent what other editors say. TFD (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Page 441 Hamowy's Encyclopedia of Libertarianism Rothbard article says Rothbard "was of central importance to the modern libertarian movement because of both his writing and scholarship and his personal outreach to young libertarians." This sounds like a good source. (Note: Sources pointing out he was often called "Mr. Libertarian". Probably should go in his wiki article.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)