Jump to content

Talk:Right-libertarianism/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Proposed pragmatic compromise

It doesn't look like a solution is emerging. I'm proposing this compromise to get this over with.

  • Add this to the very beginning of the lead: "Some political scientists and writers classify the strands of libertarianism into two groups; "right libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism". Under this classification system right-libertarianism " (and then continue with the current lead, starting with the third word of the current lead).
  • Decide that we're eventually going to develop a section that goes a bit more into the right/left division as a taxonomy system. As a minimum, it would be a handful of sentences. Other than fulfilling this outline, it would just be developed by whoever is interested in working on it.

I've figuring that Davide will say this goes too far and JLMadrigal will say it doesn't go far enough. Pfhorrest will probably note the imperfection of discussing right/left taxonomy in the "right" article (vs. a merged right/left one). Maybe we we can agree to do this anyway and put this issue to bed at this article. And we agree that we take a long break (at least a year) from revisiting this issue regarding this article. During that period other larger scale reorganization plans on libertarian articles could still be discussed, possibly including this article, but nothing that is focused on or driven by this article. This is just an agreement between the main participants; nothing more, nothing less. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support North8000 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support As a bare minimum, the lede paragraph will need to be modified as above, and would suffice for removal of the template, IMO. Otherwise, this WP:coatrack article is unsalvageable. Readers deserve to immediately know that the term is not widespread, and the current lede paragraph leads one to believe that it is. I'm also anxiously waiting to see Czar's revised article/format for some concrete long-term options for coherency regarding this and other articles touching on the libertarian/anarchist movement and history. JLMadrigal @ 12:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditionally Support with the modification that the beginning of the lead read: "Some political scientists and writers, mainly on the 'left,' classify the strands of libertarianism into two groups; 'right libertarianism' and 'left-libertarianism'. Under this classification system right-libertarianism ... " (and then continue with the current lead). We need to be up front and honest that this is primarily a lefty pejorative term. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Meh This is not particularly objectionable but I also don't think it's at all necessary. PhilLiberty's modified proposal above is definitely objectionable though. (As are Madrigal's comments; the term is widespread among sources discussing the varieties of libertarianism, of which this is one, and no more-widespread term for the same has been offered here in all these months). And if this is implemented, then for consistency is also needs to be implemented at Left-libertarianism, and if it is rejected there it also needs to be removed here. These articles are a part of a larger structure, not isolates just by themselves. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Also as for It doesn't look like a solution is emerging, maybe that's because there is no problem, as one process after another has repeatedly concluded for months and months on end. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 100% what Pfhorrest said. Thank you so much for your comment, I'm really tired of all this discussion. Pfhorrest and I have been more than forthcoming in improving the article and make it more clear with the new lead, the Definition section, etc; and that was a compromise already, one that was actually good. However, I find it not only unnecessary but objectionable too, for that simply isn't a good way to start this article and the lead and the Definition section abundantly make it clear. Furthermore, the article isn't about the taxonomy, so that simply shouldn't be the first thing said and I agree with Pfhorrest's argument about Refers. Finally, I think it should be clear by now that both JLMadrigal and PhilLiberty are libertarian biased and are tryig to push a POV and they seem the ones to have most problems with the article whilst their reason for it amount to not liking it or making up arguments like it being pejorative or not used at all label.--Davide King (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

If this fails, my next thought would to proceed with a well-structured methodical RFC process as described previously. The first stage would be to decide if the status quo regarding this is OK. Defining the alternative is left to a later stage, albeit the minimum change in that range would be outlined in the initial RFC. Davide, could you reconsider supporting or not opposing this proposal as a pragmatic compromise? North8000 (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

North8000, what proposal are you actually referring to? The proposal above simply isn't a good way to start a Right-libertarianism article and I think both the lead and the Definition section do a good and better job at explaining that. What's yours and JLMadrigal's compromise? Merely saying you won't push for a deletion or name change isn't really a compromise, for there was no consensus for that in the first place. Pfhorrest's and mine compromise actually involved improving the article; and that was despite some legitimate Aquillion's concerns here. And why would we need yet another request for comments? I agree with Pfhorrest's comment here that there is no problem, as one process after another has repeatedly concluded for months and months on end and Aquillion's longer comment here.--Davide King (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm referring to the "Proposed pragmatic compromise" above. And, in general, it is stronger attribution of the term to the taxonomy system. Regarding your later question/comment, the folks on one side of the issue are saying that there is a problem that requires fixing. Those on the other side say that the status quo is OK regarding that. If we don't resolve it some other way, then a well structured RFC would be the Wikipedia way to decide between those. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm confident that a properly conducted RFC would yield the correct result (that there is nothing seriously wrong with the status quo), so I'm not afraid of that as a consequence of not doing this proposal. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
To add on what Pfhorrest wrote, simply stating of being against the status quo doesn't mean much when in this case, especially that of JLMadrigal and PhilLiberty, is based on their own political biases, showing this again and again; like making the claim the term is a pejorative or one used only by the left, despite users disputing it and disagree with this view already in the page move back in August. I repeat that the above proposal simply isn't a good one or in line with Wikipedia's guidelines about the lead section, which I think is fine and clear already the way it is. The so-called taxinomy system should be discussed at Libertarianism and in the Definition sections of both Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism, not in the lead of Right-libertarianism as literally the first thing. Isn't there really anything better than the above so-called pragmatic proposal? Pfhorrest and I already did our part of compromise that improved the article and made it more clear; it's not up to us again for yet another compromise, especially one that both Pfhorrest and I already rejected when JLMadrigal first proposed it.--Davide King (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
For the discussion here (including a potential RFC), "status quo" refers to the existence, topic and naming of the article. The gist of my wording for the proposed compromise is to give much stronger / more prominent coverage to the fact that this term is from the taxonomy system, rather than the implicit claim that it is the common name. And that IS selected as the middle of the road of the alternatives that have been discussed. The particular wording is just my best effort at that. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
North8000, but I (and I guess Pfhorrest too; correct me if wrong) thought that was done and we were past that; that right-libertarianism is the most common, unambiguous name for the topic; and that the article is about a type of libertarianism, whose most common, unambiguous name is right-libertarianism, not merely a term. Conservative liberalism, Democratic socialism, Left-wing populism, Liberal conservatism, Liberal socialism, Libertarian socialism, National conservatism, National liberalism, Right-wing populism and similar two-word philosophies could all be considered as pigeoning or as being a taxonomy system, yet there is no talk of that and the lead simply states what the topic is. I don't see what's so different here and how the current lead doesn't already address it anyway in a better way.--Davide King (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Davide, hate to say it, but none of what you describe was settled or agreed to. North8000 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
North8000, surely the users who rejected a move back in August and a merge in November whilst making clear they saw nothing wrong with the article and the name does count something, especially when that was when the article actually had several issues which I believe have been resolved with the move of content to Libertarianism in the United States; a better, clearer lead; and a Definition section that addresses the issue (so even users who may have had more issues in the past may reconsider their position in light to that). As things stand, it's only you and JLMadrigal who think so. Pfhorrest and I clearly explained to both of you why your proposed lead isn't good or doesn't work. What exactly wasn't settled or agreed to? That right-libertarianism is the most common, unambiguous name for the topic; and that the article is about a type of libertarianism, that is global (not relegated to just the United States) and whose most common, unambiguous name is right-libertarianism, not merely a term? Do you really want to take us back there? Most of the proposed naming alternative are either ambiguous or even less common than right-libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Davide, would you quit it with the "it's only you two" stuff?! The last time the question was asked, 4 and a majority were opposed to the status quo. And Phil Liberty is a slam-dunk-obvious 5th. And you are claiming that "rejecting a particular move" counts as "fine with the status quo". A spirited debate is fine, but please don't try to paint those who think differently that you one this as being problematic in some way. I just though I'd try a compromise. If that fails, I think we'll need a well-structured, well-advertised RFC, structured well enough to actually move this towards a resolution either way. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The fact you even consider PhilLiberty, who is clearly not only libertarian biased but has actually engaged (and still does) in disrupting behavior for months, edit warring this and the Libertarian capitalism redirect, along with other POV-pushing position on the American Revolution, the Oath Keepers, etc, says it all. Once again, this isn't about votes but about reasoned arguments. You and JLMadrigal failed to convince many other users to think there's a problem and who would likely support the status quo (at least from their previous comments on not seeing any big problem in the first place); Czar oppose it on the basis that the main three Libertarian articles should be deleted and turned into a disambiguation page which hasn't find consensus or support yet; and Гармонический Мир's oppose doesn't really make sense, or is unrelated or not relevant (in either case, I think Гармонический Мир see as an anti-capitalist movement and is generally opposed to other of yours and JLMadrigal's arguments anyway). So there's only you and JLMadrigal left. There's also Aquillion, Pfhorrest and I who find all this discussion still going as absurd and that you should simply move on by now, for you have failed for months and months to convince us otherwhise. I also repeat that many users who rejected the move back in August also clearly stated they found nothing wrong with the article or the name, so yeah; unless they say otherwhise, they seem to be for or fine with the status quo, which has been greatly improved since then, by the way.--Davide King (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Davide, you are misstating what I said into a straw-man argument as if I said a vote counts towards a resolution. I merely said that 5 people have clearly said that the status quo is not OK, and that that is reason for you to stop with your "it's only you two" stuff.North8000 (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
That's not a strawman. I'm saying that merely opposing the status quo doesn't mean much if you don't give a valid reason (Czar is a valid one; oppositon on the status quo based on right-libertarianism being a pejorative or not used term isn't a good one); and even in Czar's case, it's said that [t]he status quo is untenable not because separate articles are wrong (you and JLMadrigal supported a merge or deletion; so there's no agreement as one may oppose the status quo for vastly different reasons and likewise results in vastly different results or outcome). It's actually three people, not five; and it's a draw. I'm not sure about Гармонический Мир's opposition to the status quo because it doesn't seem like a valid reason and because on other points seems to largely agree with Pfhorrest and I. Either way, all the users who rejected a move and merge back in August and November, respectively, stating they found no issue with the article or name, could be considered as soft or hard supporting the status quo, but I hope they can clarify on that. My issue is that you seem to ignore them just because it was about a move or merge, ignoring their comments stating they found no issue with the current name or saw right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism as related by distinct concepts worthy of their own article or otherwhise as an expansion of the main Libertarianism article. So again, I ping the users involved in the move/merge/discussion @Beyond My Ken: @Doug Weller: @Grnrchst: @Rreagan007: @The Four Deuces: @Velociraptor888: @Work permit: to leave a comment on whether they support things as they are, if they find any issue, if the neutrality tag template is warranted, etc.--Davide King (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It easy to be "against" the status quo, but if there is no clear consensus on what the alternative should be then the status quo should stand. While I am personally "against" the status quo, I see no alternative backed by wp:rs that has garnered any such consensus. I also don't find the neutrality tag warranted. While I wish there were a better name to phrase the article, I certainly don't find it so repugnant as to tag it as such. -- Work permit (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Work permit:, do you believe the following lede is a reasonable compromise?
JLMadrigal @ 03:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
First of all, thanks Work permit for your comment. North8000, this was exactly what I was talking about and referring to. JLMadrigal, I think the issue is whether the article should be about the term or a type of libertarianism. Until we won't discuss this, there will not be any progress. So what should be really proposed or discussed about is whether the article should be about the term, or a type of libertarianism as it is now.--Davide King (talk) 05:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Some political scientists and writers classify libertarianism into two groups, namely left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital along socialist–capitalist lines. Under this classification, right-libertarianism is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that strongly supports "capitalist" property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property. Like most forms of libertarianism, it tends to support civil liberties, but also natural law, negative rights and a major reversal of the modern welfare state. Right-libertarianism is distinguished from left-libertarianism, a traditional type of libertarianism that takes an egalitarian approach to natural resources. In contrast to socialist libertarianism, it tends to support ownership of natural resources and the means of production. Unlike left-libertarians, these libertarians make no distinction between capitalism and free markets, and view any attempt to dictate the market process as counterproductive. Right-libertarians are typically referred to simply as "libertarians".

JLMadrigal @ 13:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

[Right-libertarianism] is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that strongly supports capitalist property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property. Like most forms of libertarianism, it tends to support civil liberties, but also natural law, negative rights and a major reversal of the modern welfare state should definitely come first and without capitalist in scare quotes. Also, what Right-libertarianism is contrasted with left-libertarianism, a type of libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources.[13] In contrast to socialist libertarianism,[4] it tends to support free-market capitalism.[1] Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians".[2][3][7] This is done to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines.[14] doesn't already say anyway? Do you want it to state Right-libertarianism is contrasted by some political scientists and wrters with left-libertarianism? I don't think that's really necessary; we don't literally state that reliable sources say, we simply say what they say. I also have problems with wording such as these [left-]libertarians make no distinction between capitalism and free markets which is factually wrong, biased and actually the reverse is true, i.e. left-libertarians do distinguish between capitalism and free markets, arguing that captalism cannot exist without the state and so free-market capitalism is an oxymoron. Whether you agree with that or not, you shouldn't push your own interpretation of it. Nevermind, it was actually correctly discussing right-libertarians, but that Unlike left-libertarians confused me and made me think it was talking about them. Either way, my first two critiques remain.--Davide King (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Why are you so dead set against using
as the first sentence? Is there any way you could rearrange it to suit your "standard" (without moving the sentence)? JLMadrigal @ 02:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
How about
JLMadrigal @ 12:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I think that your idea for the beginning is better than mine. It goes immediately to the topic. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the changes. The refs will still need to be cleaned up a bit. I'd like Davide's blessing before removing the tag. ;-) JLMadrigal @ 14:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Why are you so dead set against using [...] as the first sentence?, it's actually very simple why, JLMadrigal. The article is titled Right-libertarianism, not Right libertarianism (taxonomy system), or Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, so the first thing we should tell is what right-libertarianism actually is; and it's not just a term! See my comment above. Is there any way you could rearrange it to suit your "standard" (without moving the sentence)? I told you, it would be like this, do you want it to state Right-libertarianism is contrasted by some political scientists and wrters with left-libertarianism? As I said in that comment, I don't think that's really necessary; we don't literally state that reliable sources say, we simply say what they say. I repeat the current lead already addresses the issue well. Also, what do you mean by refs will still need to be cleaned up a bit? Do you even have actual reliable sources?
North8000, do you mean this as your lead proposal? What would be the differences between yours and JLMadrigal?
JLMadrigal, just because I didn't reply back yet, it doesn't mean you've got a consensus to do this, so I approve of Pfhorrest's revert. I think all of this discussion is really unnecessary, for it's always you two having problems, with the newly worded lead and Definition additions still not being enough for you; to you, it doesn't matter all the other users who didn't find any problem with the article. This is becoming like users wanting to add a neutrality template or continuing discussing on whether the Nazis were really socialists or left-wing. This has been going on for almost a year now, maybe it's time for you both to simply move on, for you're never happy unless you get your own compromises. You continue to not show an understanding of the article, which isn't about a term or a taxonomy system. The so-called libertarian taxonomy system should be discussed in a section of Libertarianism, Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism as it's already pretty much done anyway in all three articles; it certainly isn't lead worthy, especially when the issue is already addressed in better or simpler terms.
Some political scientists and writers classify the strands of libertarianism into two groups; "right libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism". Under this classification system right-libertarianism simply isn't going to be the first thing to appear in the lead section. That's a good start for the lead of a Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, or Libertarian political taxonomy, but that simply isn't the way to start the Right-libertarianism article which is about right-libertarianism; and there wasn't, and there isn't, no consensus for a merge, so please don't try to propose that or going in circles again.--Davide King (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Davide, I know that you (and apparently also Pfhorrest) are averse to numbers - particularly "numerical" ones, but at some point you will need to confront them. As North8000 has documented, the term (and yes a word is the same as a "term") "right-libertarianism" is rarely used to describe this ideology. And as Czar has documented, left-libertarianism is only a tiny part of the libertarian movement. It naturally follows that the term "right-libertarianism" is rarely used to describe the libertarian movement, which is, for all intents and purposes, the topic of this article. The existing documentation in the article demonstrates that the purpose of the term "right-libertarianism" is to differentiate it from traditional libertarianism (which my reverted edit explained). It also demonstrates that the 'hijacked' term "libertarian" now is synonymous with the libertarian movement that the few who use the term "right-libertarianism" describe. JLMadrigal @ 04:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
JLMadrigal, time and time again you have shown no understanding of the topic. Right-libertarianism isn't about what you're thinking of; it's not all libertarianism in the United States or even the libertarian movement; and it isn't even only related to the United States as it has a global perspective, although it's a big part of it, hence why it's a separate article from Libertarianism in the United States, which is about libertarianism only in the United States and which also include left-libertarianism and other libertarian types/movements/philosophies/whatever you want to call them. You also misunderstood Czar. Yes, right-libertarianism isn't used to describe the libertarian movement, but that's because the libertarian movement you're referring to and talking about is Libertarianism in the United States, where libertarianism is much closer in meaning to right-libertarianism rather than anarchism or libertarian socialism as elsewhere; but they aren't the same thing and Right-libertarianism is about a global movement and right-libertarianism is the most common name used to differenciate from the other libertarian global movement, left-libertarianism, who also call itself libertarianism but you don't say that because it ruins your arguments. All of this is literally explained right in the second paragraph. In short, the following articles are about the following:
Libertarianism, the political philosophy that has several core tenets and even some heritage in common between all types of libertarianism; just like with all other articles about ideologies such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, etc.
Libertarianism in the United States, the history, origin and development of libertarianism in the United States.
Left-libertarianism, the type of libertarianism supporting social equality and rejecting the private ownership of land and natural resources.
Right-libertarianism, the type of libertarianism supporting the private ownership of land and natural resources as well as capitalist hierarchies.
All populists are populists, but some are charcterized as left-wing and others as right-wing; the same is done for libertarians, whether they personally agree or disagree with that. Just like Nazis were fascists and far-right, whether right-wingers disagree with that. It's already been noted and said that right-libertarianism, as defined above, is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States, but Right-libertarianism is about the philosophy globally and elsewhere it isn't such the dominant form, hence why it isn't been seen as an issue by many other users and it seems to be still only you two, who again seems to act like it's only Pfhorrest and I opposing your proposal; many other users have spoken and found no issue with it or at least not such a big issue as you make it sound or turn out like to be. I hope and think Pfhorrest can give you a better and clearer answer because I'm not so satisfied with mine as you probably still didn't get my point.--Davide King (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Quote one libertarian, labeled "right-libertarian", saying that he is in support of these "capitalist hierarchies". JLMadrigal @ 13:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
[T]he 'rightist' libertarian is not opposed to inequality, straight from the horse's mouth in For a New Liberty (1978), p. 57. They're fine with inequality as long as it's done without “coercion”, “force” or “fraud”. I probably shouldn't have written “capitalist” hierarchies as we've different views on that, but my pont doesn't change; left-libertartian oppose inequality while right-libertarians aren't opposed to even large sum of inequality as long as it was caused without “coercion”, “force” or “fraud”.--Davide King (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
hierarchy - "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority." - Oxford
"Inequality" is another animal. Hierarchy is vertical dominance over another (state control). Inequality is a comparison of two separate and independent entities.
A quote in the existing article states, "Herbert Kitschelt and Anthony J. McGann contrast right-libertarianism—"a strategy that combines pro-market positions with opposition to hierarchical authority..."
You see, Davide, libertarians of the variety described in this article subscribe to the view that a level playing field results in a reduction in monopolies, that is, a movement away from artificial inequalities. They tend to view sovereign individuals (including employers and employees, landlords and tenants, &c) as parties in a unanimous trade. They dislike hierarchies.
JLMadrigal @ 02:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It could be because I'm tired of all this, but I'm not satisfied of my replies and I feel like Pfhorrest can get to my point in simpler and clearer ways, so I hope Pfhorrest can reply you too and also leave a comment on our latest discussion and development here to both you and North8000. Either way, I think that's still part of the problem or something that you don't get or understand. Other libertarians clearly reject the view of employers and employees, landlords and tenants [...] as parties in a unanimous trade and see that relationship as a hierarchy, which is an inequality as there's a difference in balance of power that reduces the freedom of all other individuals who don't own capital or land and so in pratice are forced by the situation to work for somebody else. If you see that relationship as full voluntary, of course right-libertarians don't support hirerachies. However, that's not the POV of many other libertarians. I think this goes to show your lack of knowledge about other types of libertarianism other than your own. You seem to take it as given that the relationship isn't a hierarchy, but I digress.
Either way, let me change to Right-libertarianism, the type of libertarianism supporting the private ownership of land and natural resources. This still doesn't change the fact this article should exist as you merely seem to disagree with its definition; and whether you personally disagree with that, right libertarianism is the term used to describe the thing in broad terms, rather than just American terms. It seems to be that both you and North8000 consider this article to be only through American lens (in that case, I understand your arguments; and neither me nor Pfhorrest denied that in the United States this type is simply called libertarianism) when in reality the article is through global/broader lens; and Pfhorrest and I have seen it through this way the whole time, not through European leans, but through global/broader lens, hence why the article discusses this issue in the second paragraph of the lead section and in the Definition section. Libertarianism in the United States is the one through American lens which is closer to your arguments, but which is also broader than right-libertarianism.
Since the 1950s, libertarianism in the United States has been associated almost exclusively with right-libertarianism, which combines an antistatist commitment to individual freedom with strong support for private property rights and free markets; or in other words, right-libertarianism is the global term used to refer to this type of libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been around much lately, I'm just really busy with real life and also really tired of this too. We just keep coming back around to the same arguments that have already been refuted countless times, countless attempts to educate users like Madrigal about the broader world and history of libertarianism, and it's just really wearing me down. (I want to reference some Wikipedia essay about how the last man still arguing is not the de facto consensus on Wikipedia, but I can't be bothered to find it right now). As usual I agree with pretty much everything Davide has said here and I'm grateful that he's still here holding down the fort. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


That is precisely the lens to which we have been referring, which makes this a WP:coatrack article (an article that seeks to define one [ideology] through the lens of another). The onus is on you to cite your claim that "right-libertarians" actually advocate hierarchies, and that such a POV is not a view through a lens, but a reality. JLMadrigal @ 13:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

That really isn't. I was merely describing the POV of other libertarians. As I said, ignore my capitalist hirerachies wording; the current hatnote makes no mention of it anyway. The thing is that, tacitly or not, they accept capitalist hirerachies caused by the private ownership of capital and land; and they aren't opposed to inequality, provided it occured without “coercion”, “force”, “fraud” or “theft”. See Historically, libertarians including Herbert Spencer and Max Stirner supported the protection of an individual's freedom from powers of government and private ownership. In contrast, modern American libertarians support freedoms on the basis of their agreement with private property rights. The abolishment of public amenities is a common theme in modern American libertarian writings (Francis 1983, pp. 462–463). This isn't coatracking but is what reliable sources define the ideology to be like; and either way, there's no mention or discussion of that in the article, nowhere it's said that they support hierarchies and so I don't even understand the point of this discussion. We simply have different POVs on this. I was just disputing you writing "right-libertarianism" is rarely used to describe this ideology, which may well be true in the United States but not elsewhere or globally, hence the article isn't titled Right-libertarianism in the United States.--Davide King (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Velociraptor888, thanks for your comments! The problems with proposed change such as Some political scientists and writers classify the strands of libertarianism into two groups; "right libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism". Under this classification system right-libertarianism is a political philosophy [...] is that it's either unnecessary (it's already explained in the lead and in the Definition section) or simply isn't the way to start a Right-libertarianism article; that would be a good start for an article titled Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism or a section at Libertarianism that describes both, their distinction and all (which it already does). I have seen no other political article starting this way. [Right-libertarianism] is a term used by some political scientists and writers to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital along socialist–capitalist lines. Under this classification, right-libertarianism is a political philosophy [...] also have problems related to Refers and the fact that the topic of the article isn't about the term but rather a type of libertarianism, whose most common used name (outside of libertarianism) is right-libertarianism (same thing for Left-libertarianism). To simplify, Right-libertarianism is about American-style libertarianism while Left-libertarianism is about European-style libertarianism. So why are they both titled as they are? Because that's the term used to refer to the actual topic and because while American and European in character, respectively, both aren't exclusively or necessarely American or European. Right-libertarianism has expanded outside the United States; likewise, left-libertarianism is also present in the United States and many other countries.
  • The problem JLMadrigal and North8000 seems to have is that, as Americans, the concept of right-libertarianism in the United States is simply called libertarianism (then again, the same apply to left-libertarianism, where outside of the United States is also simply called libertarianism, but both North and especially JLMadrigal have shown concern about that, nor have they replied to Pfhorrest's proposal here to keep it consistent with Left-libertarianism). I could understand their concerns if we didn't already have an article specifically dedicated to the type of libertarianism they're actually referring to (Libertarianism in the United States). However, not all libertarianism in the United States is right-libertarianism and vice versa, hence why they're separate articles. Another reason is that Libertarianism in the United States is exclusvely about what the title says (just like many other Ideology in the country's name article) while both Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism are written in broad/global terms. I have proposed many times to merge Libertarianism in South Africa and Libertarianism in the United Kingdom (since both are mainly about this type of libertarianism) here to make it even more clear that the topic is global and so the name isn't really a problem because it seems to be a problem only in the United States, where right-libertarianism is the dominant type of libertarianism, or at least more dominant than left-libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It isn't just two people (again, pleas quit that) and it isn't just A problem, it's several people seeing several problems with the status quo. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
See my comment here. It isn't five people either as you wrongly claimed there. As I wrote above, merely opposing the status quo doesn't mean much when the arguments are based on POV-pushing like in the case of PhilLiberty. Only Czar made a good case for it. Both you and JLMadrigal opposition to the status quo is based on something that isn't even true, namely that right-libertarianism isn't really used, isn't the common name, or even is a pejorative, etc., when this was already discussed to death and many users gave you good reponses for why your argument isn't really true or fails; not only that, but even your proposed compromise is either unnecessary (as it's already discussed in the lead and Definition sections) or violates Refers. Either way, you and JLMadrigal seem to be doing policiy shopping to keep this discussion going on and on (if this attempt fails, find another way to try to force the same change), with you already trying to get yet another request for comments. I still think and believe that Aquillion made the strongest case for the status quo.
We have Conservative liberalism and Social liberalism, Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism, etc. to discuss various types or forms of Liberalism, Populism, etc., I don't understand why the same shouldn't apply to Libertarianism too. Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism are the most common names chosen to describe these two types of libertarianism; only the term and article's name are based on the taxonomy system (not the topic itself and the topic of the articles aren't about the terms, but the type of libertarianism) to disambiguate between the two and this is already discussed at length. As I wrote in my above comment, we may as well call them American-style libertarianism or Libertarianism (United States) or European-style libertarianism or Libertarianism (Europe), but these are made-up terms and aren't fully accurate because both have expanded beyond the United States and Europe. Hence, left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are the best and most common, unambiguous global names for the two articles as also pointed out by Pfhorrest many times.
Finally, what do you and JLMadrigal even want or propose now? Your so-called pragmatic compromise violates Refers and perhaps other guidelines about the lead section, so what now? Will you go back to propose a deletion, a merge, a name change? Yet another request for comments where the same things will be said and discussed about?--Davide King (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
My suggestion is to see if the proposed pragmatic compromise might fly despite your objections. Basically, as I framed it, but with Madigral's first sentence instead of mine. Maybe I should recap that. Some minor changes which would put this to bed. And IMO, it represents major sacrifices on the non-status-quo side and minor sacrifices by the status quo side. So it might appeal to the latter on that basis. After that a well-structured well-advertised well-explained RFC to deal with the first step of the process, which will be to decide whether or not the status quo is OK regarding this. North8000 (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Recap of modified proposed pragmatic compromise

I'm proposing this pragmatic compromise to get this over with. Compared to my original, this substitutes Madigral's beginning in lieu of mine

  • Begin the lead substantially like this, with minor tweaks as needed:
Right-libertarianism is a term used by some political scientists and writers to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital along socialist–capitalist lines. Under this classification, right-libertarianism is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that strongly supports property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property. Like most forms of libertarianism, it tends to support civil liberties, but also natural law, negative rights and a major reversal of the modern welfare state. Right-libertarianism is distinguished from left-libertarianism, a traditional socialist type of libertarianism that takes an egalitarian approach to natural resources, because it tends to support ownership of natural resources and the means of production. Unlike left-libertarians, these libertarians make no distinction between capitalism and free markets, and view any attempt to dictate the market process as counterproductive. Right-libertarians are typically referred to simply as "libertarians".
  • Decide that we're eventually going to develop a section that goes a bit more into the right/left division as a taxonomy system. As a minimum, it would be a handful of sentences. Other than fulfilling this outline, it would just be developed by whoever is interested in working on it.
  • And we agree that we take a long break (at least two years) from revisiting this issue regarding this article. During that period other larger scale reorganization plans on libertarian articles could still be discussed, possibly including this article, but nothing that is focused on or driven by this article.

Like most compromises, it's assumed that nobody will be totally happy with this. Maybe we we can agree to do this anyway and put this issue to bed at this article. IMO it represent big compromises by the "anti-status quo" side and small compromises by the "status quo" side and IMO the results of the multi-stage methodical RFC process are likely to be more substantial changes. @Pfhorrest: and @Davide King: if we can get one of you two (and preferably both of you) to go with this, I think that would be enough to go with this and put this to bed. Then we could work together and have a lot of fun elsewhere in libertarianism articles, which, seeing the people involved here and the limited nature of the issue, I feel confident would actually happen. What do you two think? Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This still doesn't solve the Refers issue and the fact that the article is about a topic (type of libertarianism) and not about a term. Besides, the Definition section already states right at the start People described as being "left-libertarian" or "right-libertarian" generally tend to call themselves simply "libertarians" and refer to their philosophy as "libertarianism". As a result, some political scientists and writers classify the forms of libertarianism into two groups, namely left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital. Also, the lead already reads This is done to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines. The first thing that should be written is what the topic is, exactly as it is now; the taxonomy system is already discussed both shortly in the lead and more in detail in the Definition section (like it's already done on Libertarianism and Left-libertarianism). Finally, with all due respect, I'm not sure that can really be considered a big compromise on your part, for you and JLMadrigal have repeatedly tried to either delete or rename this article, but failed each time to get a consensus for any of that (hence why this ongoing and endless discussion to me resembles of both policy shopping and snowball clause.--Davide King (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
You mis-stated my own history here. Also, please quit the crap of trying to mis-characterize those disagreeing with you as exhibiting wiki-problematic behavior. You are just going to piss people off and create drama. I am happy for your presence in libertarian articles, look forward to working with you, but would like to get that one type of thing out of the conversations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The topic of this article, "right-libertarianism", is a term that is used in limited cases, so the article needs to treat it as such, and clarify the background of its use (the taxonomy) from the very beginning. The terms "right" and "capitalism" are often used as scare words by opponents to label a philosophy as something that it isn't (and in this case diametrically opposes). The WP:refers issue is relevant for the opposite reason as that stated above. As explained under that topic, the sentence, "Computer architecture refers to the theory behind the design of a computer." is a linguistic redundancy because computer architecture is the theory behind the design of a computer, and "IS" is cleaner than "refers to". In the case of "right-libertarianism", however, the term is used by some taxonomists to distinguish it from something. The citations in the article already document this, but you have to click on the hyperlinks. While from the POV of a few taxonomists "right-libertarianism" describes the philosophy, such is not the case for both the target group AND the vast majority of those who describe the target group - including WP:reliable sources as cited above by several editors. Numbers talk. JLMadrigal @ 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:REFERS isn't about whether or not some name is the correct name for something, it's about whether the article is about a thing or about a name for the thing. This article is not about a name, it's about the thing that that is a name of. It's use-mention distinction. An article about "cats", the word, would discuss things like how it has four letters; but an article about cats, the animals, would discuss things like how they have four legs. This article isn't predominantly talking about the words "right-libertarianism", it's talking about a kind of libertarianism, that is referred to by those words. It's also referred to by other words, sure, and there could be (and obviously has been) an argument about which words are the best ones to refer to it by in Wikipedia, but that has nothing to do with whether the article is about the words, or about the thing they refer to, which is what WP:REFERS is all about. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
But @Pfhorrest:,without even considering that maybe it should be an article about the term, there is an in-between possibility. From wp: not a dictionary: "In other cases, a word or phrase is still at first blush about a topic other than the word or phrase itself/ but the word or phrase is a "lens" or concept through which the topic or closely related set of topics are grouped or seen. When this occurs, the article often focuses on the "lens" and may not be the main coverage of the topics which are viewed through it. World music, Political correctness, Homosexual agenda, Lake Michigan-Huron...illustrate this." IMO, this article is such a case. Everything in this article is covered in other libertarian articles except for the right-left taxonomy system itself. So the lens must, as a minimum, be strongly acknowledged. Which is all that this proposed compromise does. North8000 (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
North8000, this comment of yours wasn't really generous and Work permit, despite being personally against the status quo, gave you a perfectly reasonable reply here that both Pfhorrest and I can agree with, especially on the neutrality template not being warranted. I think the real issue and what should really be discussed about is whether the article should merely be about a term or a type of libertarianism (I agree with Pfhorrest's comment that if this is implemented, then for consistency is also needs to be implemented at Left-libertarianism, and if it is rejected there it also needs to be removed here. These articles are a part of a larger structure, not isolates just by themselves). I think there's no reason for why it should merely be about a term, especially considering that there would be no article covering the topic of American-style libertarianism (Libertarianism in the United States is about that big, vague libertarianism you kept referring too and i broader than this). So are you really going to remove the artice that discusses your own type of libertarianism (certainly that of JLMadrigal) for merely petty name reasons? Your same arguments can just as easily be applied to Left-libertarianism too. However, it seems to be mainly (right-)libertarians who are opposed to it. Either way, your proposed lead is never going to fly until we reach a consensus in the first place on whether the article is about the term or a type of libertarianism (as it is now); because those like Pfhorrest and I, who think it should be about a type of libertarianism, are going to reject the article starting Right-libertarianism is a term and those like you and JLMadrigal, who think it should be about a term, are going to reject the current lead unless they simply drop the stick as argued by Aquillion or come to the realisation, as argued by Pfhorrest, that there [really] is no problem, as one process after another has repeatedly concluded for months and months on end, hence why I had the impression of this situation as being some form of policy shopping and snowball clasue, but I could be wrong, so there was no reason for you (North8000) to write please quit the crap of trying to mis-characterize those disagreeing with you as exhibiting wiki-problematic behavior (again, I redirect you to read Workpermit's comment here).--Davide King (talk) 05:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Didn't we already do an AfD or something asking if this article should be reduced to one about the term and that was resoundingly rejected? --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
There are multiple problems with the current lede:
1) Of course the described libertarians refer to themselves as "libertarians", but so does practically everyone else.
2) They don't refer to themselves as libertarians to distinguish themselves from other libertarians. The distinction is done by those who term them "right-libertarians", and who attempt to separate "personal" property from all other forms of property, "natural" resources from all other resources, and "capital" from all other items of value.
3) The POV described in 2 is that of a specific school of political thought that is foreign to most people - particularly modern libertarians. The political term "right" (as used everywhere else) describes conservatism and hierarchies - to which this group of libertarians is diametrically opposed.
Just move that last sentence to the front (see recap), and we're done. JLMadrigal @ 13:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
If what Pfhorrest wrote above is true, then I think we're done here and you should just drop the stick. JLMadrigal, Aquillion actually expressed some doubts here, but I kept that wording as a compromise.--Davide King (talk) 19:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the Aquillion quote to which you refer;
...but slapping it on the end as above doesn't make any sense and is incoherent. Just put it at the beginning where it belongs (as discussed) so the article and title makes sense. There's already too much confusion allowing the political right (social conservatives) to hijack the label "libertarian". Putting the "right" label on mainstream libertarianism only exacerbates the problem. The context needs to be made abundantly clear from the outset. JLMadrigal @ 13:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I think "clear form the outset" is very important. My main objections to the status quo is that the article is confusing and misleading. And for me "clear from the outset" would be enough for a pragmatic compromise. North8000 (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
JLMadrigal, I was mainly referring to Aquillion's comment that I'm not sure the sources for Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians" say so explicitly. I think something of that nature might be worth saying, but we should probably [...] find sources that explicitly say "right-libertarians call themselves X" more specifically so we can use their wording, in response to you writing Of course the described libertarians refer to themselves as "libertarians", but so does practically everyone else. Either way, the same should be discussed for Left-libertarianism, but you only seem to care about Right-libertarianism being called as such. Both Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism are mainly about a type of libertarianism that is called as such rather than merely about the terms, although that's discussed in Definition, that's why the lead should clearly discusses first the type of libertarianism and then the term. It's also not like it's slapp[ed] on the end as you claimed; it's literally right in the first paragraph.
I think Aquillion would also dispute your claim that [p]utting the "right" label on mainstream libertarianism [from your POV] only exacerbates the problem, for an important point in all of those sources is that right-libertarianism is relatively new as a movement and simply not wanting the political right (social conservatives) to hijack the label "libertarian" (which is ironic since (right-)libertarians did just that decades ago) isn't a good reason or argument for change. North8000, is the article really confusing and misleading? Do other users, other than JLMadrigal, actually agree with this?--Davide King (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The article has lots of problems, I was just telling you my main overall issue with the result of them is that it is confusing and misleading. BTW. I think that an article about the term is the best choice. It wouldn't change much, just enough to fix the problem. This also covers the in-between reality....that it is a view, organization and naming of real-world stuff created by the lens of the term. Similar to the Political correctness, Homosexual agenda, World music and Lake Michigan-Huron examples given in the guideline. But maybe the main topic should be the "clear from the outset" concept which might be just enough to put this to bed. North8000 (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
[T]hat it is a view, organization and naming of real-world stuff created by the lens of the term, how is this different from Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism? Right-libertarianism still refers to a real thing, i.e. a type of libertarianism. How wouldn't turning the article about the term avoid the given deletion of Philosophy and Schools of thought sections? The lead should be a summary of the article and those two sections are more prominent and longer than Definition. Furthermore, World music actually starts writing [World music] is a category, so how's that different from starting this article by writing [Right-libertarianism] is a type of libertarianism as it is now? World music also truly discusses about the term in the lead only in its third and final paragraph, so I don't think it's a good example to support your view. While the other linked articles are only about the term, World music is actually closer to Right-libertarianism as it isn't only about the term. --Davide King (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Davide, You left an important word out, it's "World music is a western music category" thus immediately informing the readers about the lens that creates this view. It's an excellent / near-perfect analogy because it's a western music term that organizes and discusses non-western music. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with
JLMadrigal @ 14:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

North8000, I still don't see the difference with a type of libertarianism which already makes it clear is through these lens, that it's about the libertarian spectrum, not necessarily the political spectrum too. Or how is this different from Left-wing populism and/or Right-wing populism.--Davide King (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't make it clear from the outset, instead it implies the opposite. North8000 (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
What? So... you want something that implies that right-libertarianism is not a type of libertarianism? --Pfhorrest (talk)
Indeed, old school libertarians seem to think that it is not true libertarianism and thus feel compelled to add the prefix - much like old school anarchists do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be true anarchism. The categorization is a result of the conflict, and the specific spectrum (socialism vs capitalism) used for differentiation is itself a distinct lens. At a minimum, the fact that right-libertarianism is a purposeful categorization needs to be acknowledged. JLMadrigal @ 03:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, North8000, how does it imply the opposite? JLMadrigal, how a type of libertarianism and the first paragraph doesn't already do or say that anyway? You both make it more complicated than it really is.--Davide King (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Without an understanding of the socialism vs. capitalism lens, the reader will automatically associate left/right with its default meaning - liberalism/conservatism, Davide. Immediately clarifying its special use among certain libertarians as a unique categorization solves the problem. JLMadrigal @ 15:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Socialism vs capitalism is an extremely common use of "left vs right", quite possibly its "default meaning" globally these days. You are, once again, just wanting the article to present things in a way that treats your "lens" as "lensless", by only calling attention to disagreement with it. It would be like putting spellings of words from different dialects of English in scare quotes so as to indicate that they're not the "default" or "correct" spelling. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, Pfhorrest nailed it again. I've been thinking of ways to reword the lead and I think I've found the way here. This is also consistent with Left-libertarianism's lead. So can we finally put this to rest now?--Davide King (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I approve of those edits and hope that they satisfy the other editors here too. --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Just one tiny tweak:
JLMadrigal @ 12:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd be OK with making either Davide's propoposal or JLMadrigal's tweaked version of it the first sentence of the article and to consider that a compromise settlement. Between those two, I prefer JLMadrigal's because it more complete, covering the other terms.North8000 (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
"Locution" is the perfect descriptor. JLMadrigal @ 13:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

JLMadrigal @ 13:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

C'mon now, first categorization, then locution, which is just another way to say term and we already discussed that with Refers. What's so wrong with type of libertarianism? That's what we usually say on political ideology articles (type or variant). Excuse me, what does covering the other terms even mean? And how is it more complete? The lead seems to be clear to anyone but you and I also moved the term issue even earlier. I reiterate Pfhorrest's comment that [y]ou are, once again, just wanting the article to present things in a way that treats your "lens" as "lensless", by only calling attention to disagreement with it or accusing Pfhorrest and I of seeing this through our own lens. There should be consistency with Left-libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
"Type of libertarianism" implies universality. The reader deserves to know that the use of "right-libertarianism" is limited. "Locution" almost clarifies this, but it doesn't specify which party uses the term "right-libertarianism". Can you come up with a better term? "Categorization" is, as Pfhorrest would say, "meh", - but almost good. JLMadrigal @ 14:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
BTW, left-libertarianism is a separate article and philosophy - now heterodox. I'd be fine with them using a similar lede there, but that mindset is out of my territory and expertise. It seems that "left-libertarians" are more comfortable with being labeled as such anyway. JLMadrigal @ 14:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Both years ago and now I identified left-libertarianism as an article with the same problems. But both then and now I consider now I considered it to be less pressing because the term seems to have slight more usage in sources, is less of a pejorative to it's adherents. IMO it's not valid to say that this article should match another problematic article. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
By "covering the other terms" I meant libertarian capitalism and right-wing libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I see Davide is still the self-appointed editor-in-chief. He seems to be the only one authorized to do edits here, and reverts all edits not to his liking. JLMadrigal @ 14:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Now you're just going back in circle... yet again! Right-libertarianism isn't a pejorative (either way, the same could be argued about left-libertarianism, that for left-libertarians is a pejorative and is even more damning considering libertarianism was exclusevely associated to the left and socialism until recent decades) and this has been stated many times, by many other users, so please stop playing that card. As for JLMadrigal's accusations and attacks, I'm simply following the guidelines and there's no consensus yet for your proposal (on the other hand, there seems to be for my As a term edit, it gives it more weight now and I'm fine by that too, so I kept it), so in this case we follow BRD. I reverted your edit because it still violated Refers and our discussion isn't done yet; you couldn't even wait for Pfhorrest's input...--Davide King (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I definitely don’t approve of Madrigal’s modifications or North’s suggestion to move Davide’s new sentence to the first sentence, for the same reasons Davide already stated. This article is about a topic, not a term. —Pfhorrest (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
There's plenty of precedent for using "is a term used by" in the topic sentence:
...and that's just the tip of the iceburg! I have no objection to also doing the same for other articles dealing with anarchism and other forms of libertarianism where appropriate. It's definitely appropriate here. JLMadrigal @ 13:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

Yet, not a single political or political ideology example. I find all of this absurd, you don't want an article about one of the most common type of libertarianism for merely petty name reasons. What you fail you realise is that if we make this about a term, there would be no article that has the topic of this American-style libertarianism that has expanded in other countries too, hence why Libertarianism in the United States would be inappropriate and broader than this. Libertarianism is in broad terms and it's not mine or anyone else's fault that for over 100 and plus years it was about the left and socialism. Hence why we have Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism. We have no right to call each simply libertarianism or decide which is true libertarianism, other than writing that libertarianism has been related to the left and socialism for 150 and plus years, that this is still true in many countries around the world and that in countries such as the United States libertarianism has a different meaning which is dominant.--Davide King (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact that there is a conflict regarding the name makes it particularly important that the reader know this at the outset. JLMadrigal @ 23:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
A name change was already rejected back in August and I see no better or more common proposed name. Even Work permit, who is "personally "against" the status quo", found the neutrality tag unwarrented. I think It [is] easy to be "against" the status quo, but if there is no clear consensus on what the alternative should be then the status quo should stand. [...] I see no alternative backed by wp:rs that has garnered any such consensus. I also don't find the neutrality tag warranted nailed it. While I wish there were a better name to phrase the article, I certainly don't find it so repugnant as to tag it as such, so Right-libertarianism still remains the best and most common name, pretty much like that Churchill's democracy quote. I added As a term, "right-libertarianism" is used to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital right after the first phrase and gave it more weight in the lead; and in Philosophy that those libertarians define capitalism as the free market in opposition to state capitalism and interventionism, so I think that's fine now and I'm sorry, but I'm not the the self-appointed editor-in-chief, it's just that your proposed solutions or compromises haven't been really good and we've already put some better wording to the lead a while back and have a Definition section that improved it anyway.--Davide King (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Our compromise is merely to keep the article mostly intact AND keep the current title - as long as the article makes it very clear that the term is not universal. It remains an article about a THING that some people call "right-libertarianism". I too wish that there were a better title, and the fact that many people see it as defective is reason enough to clarify its usage from the topic sentence. I believe that our above compromise is very fair. JLMadrigal @ 04:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Then I think it's fine the way it is. We already have a section to discuss all that in detail (Definition). The lead section is supposed to be a summary and I think it's clear As a term, "right-libertarianism" is used to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital. [...] Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians", yeah I think that's very clear. I also wouldn't be so sure about many people see[ing] it as defective, for just as many, if not many users, think the opposite and wrote so already when during the August move proposal. Users like Beyond My Ken literally wrote that it was the common name, so I don't know what you're talking about. You also need some reliable, independent sources that say the term isn't universal. Are there academic sources that say so against the consensus? Are there sources that rejects the left–right dichotomy, other than a few libertarians themselves? We already writes Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians", although Aquillion had some issues about that. The sources North8000 provided before were referring to what we have at Libertarianism in the United States and they didn't discuss the libertarian political spectrum, not even to dismiss it. Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is mainly talking about the American tradition of libertarianism (it doesn't mention socialism), uses it; and we already told you many times that right-libertarianism doesn't necessarely mean it's right-wing, just that it's right on a continuum from right-libertarianism to left-libertarianism, so please don't use that argument again. Just because you don't hear it much in real life, it doesn't mean that it's just some people call[ing] [it] "right-libertarianism", especially if by some people you mean reliable and academic sources that have the actual weight on it.--Davide King (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Davide, the search that I did was to see what WP:reliable sources call the subject of this article. And ZERO of (by memory) of over 1,000 instances used the term "right libertarian ism". And the comments that you made to not refute or take away from that. Second, your logic is in reverse saying that someone has to come up with sources that reject the seldom-used term. By that rationale, somebody could say that the title should be "giraffes" unless you can find a reliable source that specifically rejects "giraffes" for the name of this type of libertarianism.  :-) People are offering to make big moves to compromise,, and it seems to me you are rejecting making even the tiniest move towards a compromise. In essence, taking a clarification that you made and putting/ making the clarification at the outset. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Please, stop acting like that debunked anything. They were mostly libertarian sources, about a specific type of libertarianism and they didn't mention left-libertarianism either, which you wrote has slight more usage in sources, is less of a pejorative to it's adherents; and whether you realise it or not, there're reliable and academic sources that actually discuss all this, so I don't think my logic was like you made it out to be. Please, stop acting like I'm rejecting even the tiniest move towards a compromise when Pfhorrest rejected it as well. Just like you seem to forget the many users who found no issue with the article or name, or that didn't reach a consensus for your proposals in all these months, you also forgot how I removed content fork, created the Definition section and along with Pfhorrest rewrote the lead to address some concerns. More recently, I even put the phrasing about the term earlier to give it more weight. I don't understand what's your issue in starting the article by saying it's a type of libertarianism. I reiterate what Pfhorrest asked you earlier, do you actually deny that it's a type of libertarianism? Finally, I think Aquillion (here) and Work permit (here) made the best case for why the status quo should stand. You have repeatedly failed to get consensus for your proposals, I think there's a time when this discussion will have to end.--Davide King (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
As a sidebar, I do mean my criticisms/ complaints, but my stating them bluntly is meant to be like talking to a friend rather than trying to be rough. When we past this I'm anticipating have some fun years working together here. My efforts to float a pragmatic compromise are meant as a last attempt before starting an RFC (actually potentially a two RFC sequenced) that is well structured and well advertised and neutral enough to finally decisively resolve this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I know and I don't take it personal, it's the same to me. I'm just really tired of all this and I can't wait for us to move on, but... Honestly, how many more requests for comment do we need? Until you finally get what you want? When you aren't going to get consensus yet again, are you going to say it wasn't well structured, advertised and neutral enough and request another one? Because that's exactly what you did with the last one. Now, could you please answer mine and Pfhorrest's question on whether you even think it's a type of libertarianism? Because the main topic is this (a type of libertarianism, whose name is the most common one to disambiguate from Left-libertarianism and vice versa, but the term is secondary; what it actually means—i.e the type of libertarianism that strongly supports capitalist property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property—is primary), hence why that's the first thing we say, then right after that there's the term. I don't think by some political scientists and writers is really necessary since the topic already is about politics and political science.--Davide King (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Some of us think it's necessary. Are you implying that "Right-libertarianism is a term used by some political scientists and writers to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital along socialist–capitalist lines." is false? JLMadrigal @ 00:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
How about
JLMadrigal @ 02:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
That suggestion is moving in the right direction (relative to your earlier suggestions), but it's still putting terminological details before establishing the topic of the article. Right-libertarianism is a type of libertarianism... but which type? The type that strongly supports capitalist property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property. It is named as such... to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital between that type and left-libertarianism. I wouldn't object to mentioning left-libertarianism as the thing it is distinguished from in that second sentence, even though we already name it two sentences later. I actually think it would flow better anyway to move that in-between sentence to after the one that mentions left-libertarianism, and splice those two now-abutting sentences together, which I think you will find a step in the direction you favor, so I'll be bold and do that right now. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with and support Pfhorrest's edit.--Davide King (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Surely with four excellent editors we can fix that topic sentence to disambiguate the specialized use of the "right" prefix. Can we each come up with a neutral topic sentence and discuss the candidates here? In this article, the taxonomy is at least as important as the definition.
JLMadrigal @ 12:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
IMO that doesn't have the clarification that we've been talking about. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
JLMadrigal, what part didn't you get when Pfhorrest clearly wrote that it's still putting terminological details before establishing the topic of the article. Right-libertarianism is a type of libertarianism... but which type? [...] It is named as such... [...]? Whatever your clarification you want, it has to respect Wikipedia's guidelines and so far your wording doesn't while Pfhorrest's latest edit further clarified. It seems to be never enough unless you get your own wording.--Davide King (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Davide King. I have a couple of uncertainties still with the phrasing as it is that maybe you can suggest some ways to clean up. Firstly, the sentence about "socialist libertarianism" is kind of floating in there now, because I didn't know where to put it relative to the new order, and I'm also not clear if that's supposed to mean libertarian socialism, or left-libertarianism, or both, or what. Also, the phrase supports civil liberties, but also natural law, negative rights and a major reversal of the modern welfare state seems to suggest that other forms of libertarianism do not support natural law and negative rights, where to my knowledge they do, and it is only (among those things listed) the major reversal of the modern welfare state that differentiates right- from left-libertarianism (and even then, left-libertarians as I understand them would ideally not have the modern welfare state either, but would rather it be made unnecessary through more a more equitable distribution of ownership, since the modern welfare state depends on a state, and many left-libertarians, being anarchists, don't want there to be a state at all). But since you wrote that current phrase, and seem to know the subject and RS better than me, I don't want to change it without checking in with you first. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems the only people who "know" what "right-libertarianism" "is" are Marxist-Leninists like David King https://www.quora.com/profile/David-King-1080?q=david%20king JLMadrigal @ 09:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to you Pfhorrest! It's supposed to mean libertarian socialism and I followed the source which used right-libertarianism, left-libertarianism and socialist libertarianism. I didn't think it would give that impression, but maybe we can change that to especially? Because while it's true what you said—i.e that while many socialist libertarians emphasise positive rights (see Liberty#Socialism), left and socialist libertarianism also emphasise the liberty of the poor not to be interfered with in taking from the surplus possessions of the rich; left and socialist libertarians like Spooner supporting natural law; and left-libertarians who don't want to have a state at all—I think sources say that is what is emphasised the most in right-libertarianism, which emphasises more natural law and negative rights (although they're by no means the only ones as just argued above and as you also correctly pointed out); and many left and socialist libertarians, while critical of the welfare state and wanting the state abolished, would rather have corporate welfare abolished first, or abolishing welfare only if it also means abolishing both capitalism and the state.
JLMadrigal, that's not even me! My name is Davide, which Pfhorrest correctly uses, while you and North call me David and I don't now why (yeah, Davide is the Italian name for David). Not only that, but this could be well considered, if not a privacy violation (the fact you even searched my name, albeit wrongly, to find some dirty on me), not only a personal attack but certainly a bad faith attempt at discrediting me. One's personal views shouldn't matter as long as one is capable of arguing reasonably and neutrally, which you really don't seem capable to do so. Apparently, you only want libertarians (your own type of libertarians, of course!) to discuss this because you have repeatedly failed to get a consensus for your views and proposals. I knew you were biased and couldn't be neutral about this, but I didn't expect for sure you went to this low to defame, slander, smear, vilify me; and what's worse is that isn't even me! And you can clearly see from my userboxes (I had no fear in putting them, even if I knew they could be used against me in talks; I prefer to come out open, not hiding any bias I, like everyone else, may have), although I didn't update them in a while, that I'm no Marxist–Leninist. I certainly am anti-anti communist, but does that make me a Marxist–Leninist or an apologist for state-capitalist “red” states (which kept commodities, hierarchies, property based on nationalisation rather than socialisation and wage labour whilst keeping the law of value like all other capitalist states)? I think this really showed your true colours and this being a discussion to push your POV, not a neutrally one in good-faith. If you wanted to find some dirty on me, I think it clearly backfired; and it just showed your true intentions.--Davide King (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 3

Yeah Madrigal that is really inappropriate. To quote WP:PRIVACY do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts and The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and are prohibited. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone (other than David King) of being a Marxist-Leninist, Davide, but the editing parallels are striking. In fact, I stumbled across this joker quite by accident, and was struck by the similarities, on which I editorially capitalized to make a point. This editor, bless his heart, has also been banned from social media, and all of the recent edits to this page have been highly apologetic to "leftist" viewpoints that are entirely foreign to this topic. Even Pfhorrest is having great difficulty understanding where this supposed line of separation between left and right libertarianism lays. I have written a book on the brand of libertarianism discussed here and understand it thoroughly - but I can't even get simple edits past this 'editorial committee'. The whole idea of pigeonholing the vast majority of modern libertarians, and associating them with the political "right" based on a ideologically specific interpretation of "capitalism" (to which they don't even subscribe) is divisiveness at its worst - and typical of said dialectic strategy. JLMadrigal @ 01:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Whose off-site opinions? JLMadrigal @ 01:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
With all due respect (something you don't seem to have for me), JLMadrigal, what the hell are you even talking about? That David King on Quora ain't me! You can't even write or search my name properly. What are you even referring to with editing parallels are striking? David King on Wikipedia doesn't seem to have nothing to do with the one on Quora and I don't understand what you find striking when, for what's worth it, I'm an anti-Stalinist; I've been insulted by an actual Stalinist here. I haven't been banned from social media; and if you're referring to that David King for Quora, that ain't me and I don't understand what it does have to do with me. You clearly violated the quoted parts of WP:PRIVACY (thanks Pfhorrest). I think it's crystal clear now. Despite many improvements and change in wording, this isn't enough to you and this discussion won't be over until you get exactly what you want, exactly your own wording and everything; but since you couldn't get consensus for any of that in months, now you're smearing me in an attempt to take me out of this discussion so you can push your view. Now I'd be really curious to know about this book you've written. Is it published by a reliable publisher, or is it self-published? If you can make it notable and get all these academic sources to agree to your POV, then we will follow through with your edits. It's funny you smear me when your last phrase shows all your bias. Again, go talk to all these political scientists who use the left−right political spectrum, associate socialism with the left and capitalism to the right (Pfhorrest told you many times, but you don't seem to listen, just like you don't even realise the Privacy thing you violated as quoted by Pfhorrest) and reliable sources that associates it to the New Right or radical right; go tell them they're wrong and get your position as consensus. As I wrote earlier, we will follow through. You also seem to have a fringe view of capitalism, not surprisingly in your own libertarian terms; and you really do not listen, do you? It isn't associated with the political right (your whole reason behind this discussion seem to be you don't want your libertarianism to be associated to the political right), although several reliable sources actually discuss that (especially its relationship with right-wing populism). It just means that it's to the right of other types of libertarianism, whether you agree with it or not; and whether you like it or not, capitalism is associated with the right, hence why we have sources writing that [they] see strong private property rights as the basis for freedom and thus are—to quote the title of Brian Doherty's text on libertarianism in the United States—"radicals for capitalism".--Davide King (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Alternate lede

Here is a nice lede, extracted from a prior discussion of the topic on the Libertarianism page, that is perhaps an improvement on mine:

  1. ^ Ellen Frankel Paul; Fred Miller, Jr; Jeffrey Paul (12 February 2007). Liberalism: Old and New: Volume 24. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70305-5. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
  2. ^ Taylor C. Boas and Jordan Gans-Morse, Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan, Studies in Comparative International Development (SCID), Volume 44, Number 2, doi:10.1007/s12116-009-9040-5, p. 151–152
  3. ^ John, David C. (21 November 2003). "The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement". heritage.org. Retrieved 2010-05-13.
  4. ^ Andrew Knapp and Vincent Wright (2006). The Government and Politics of France. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-35732-6.

The topic sentence - unlike the current one - doesn't treat "right-libertarianism" as a universally accepted descriptor. JLMadrigal @ 15:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Still fails WP:REFERS, which is the main problem with all of your proposals. This article is about a kind of libertarianism, not about a term for it, and "right-libertarianism" is the most common unambiguous name for that kind of libertarianism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Pfhorrest and I think the lead is fine. Now it gives more weight to the term and it explains the differences. However, I can incorporate some of this wording in the Definition or/and Philosophy sections and elsewhere in the main body; but as I said, I think the lead is fine and a good summary at that. Furthermore, right-libertarianism is economic liberal, but not all economic liberals are right-libertarians or even libertarians; after all, Pinochet was an economically liberal but not a political one; and right-libertarianism isn't just economics. We have the last paragraph in the lead that discusses exactly that. Finally, I don't think it's really treated as a universally accepted descriptor when we even write that they call themselves libertarians (let me remind you, Aquillion raised issue about that, but I kept that as a compromise), we're merely reporting what reliable sources say about it. This is for all ideologies. Liberal conservatives may call themselves simply conservatives, but social conservatives may as well also simply call themselves conservatives. I don't understand what's so unique about this when we have similar two-words ideologies. We don't always write or even have to write Some writers [...] Some reliable sources [...], etc., we simply report it and write what they say; and those are reliable sources, academic ones too. They aren't self-published or non-reliable sources that may be used only with attribution and care (see Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Verifiability).--Davide King (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

As I recall, under this taxonomy system Eduen is a "left libertarian" and did a lot of brilliant work and had a lot of excellent insights back when we were having problems that dwarfed the current one here. North8000 (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Just because the user in question is a left libertarian and seems to agree with you doesn't make it right. We go by reliable sources and they refer to it as a type of libertarianism; the article is about what right-libertarianism actually means and refers to. I wouldn't have any problem to incorporate all that in an Usage as a term section or in the main body, I just think the lead is fine. I don't know whether it was you, JLMadrigal or both, but one of your issue was that This is done to distinguish these views on the nature of property and capital was at the end of the paragraph; well, now it's right at the start and we give it more weight. What you and JLMadrigal seem to fail to realise is that right-libertarianism is a type of libertarianism and the term itself refer to this type of libertarianism; and this is what we're actually covering, we writes about what the term actually means and refers too and we already write about the history of the term, why it's used, etc. What's so hard to understand?--Davide King (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"is a term used by"

As I demonstrated above, "is a term used by" is very common in WP topic sentences, and is particularly useful in this case for immediate clarification. It is a stretch to claim that all of these cited articles fail WP:REFERS, and a bold-faced lie to say that it makes the context of the term "right-libertarianism" LESS clear. As North8000 noted, Eduen self-identifies as "left-libertarian" and even he uses "is a term used by" to define "right-libertarianism". The term does, however, fail WP:COMMONNAME, as cited above by several editors, which requires a rename - unless at least some form of disambiguation is worked into the topic sentence. JLMadrigal @ 10:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You really didn't demonstrate anything. Even Work permit wrote that as things stands, the status quo should stand, too; not only that, but the tag isn't warranted either. Apparently to you, only your own POV and those who seems to agree with you matter; all the others who found no issue to begin with, who actually wrote right-libertarianism is the common name (unlike your lie of writing The term does, however, fail WP:COMMONNAME, as cited above by several editors), etc. don't mean anything. It's always you two arguing the same thing and going around in circle, it isn't being helpful and is becoming really disruptive. That is not even considering all your bad faith attacks on me that should have disqualified you from now on. So are we really going back to the name, you're really going to propose a name change?--Davide King (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
P.S. How doesn't As a term, "right-libertarianism" is used to distinguish these views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism, a type of libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resource do exactly that form of disambiguaton you wrote about? You also seem to base most of this on your opinion, which you take as fact and reality, as given, rather than what reliable sources actually say.--Davide King (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I never noticed that you put that in on March 7th, and close to the beginning of the lead. IMO that moves it closer to the minimum compromise offerred/presented. North8000 (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, North8000. Would you be fine with that? Or do you have any more proposals or/and comments about it?--Davide King (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
To further add, not me nor Pfhorrest ever argued or wrote that all of these cited articles fail WP:REFERS (so please stop misunderstand us or outright lying), we merely wrote that your proposals for this article fail Refers. You also fail to realise that in most of those cases you linked, it's fine because they are really about the term, but this article is about the type of libertarianism, what right-libertarianism actually means and refers to, not right-libertarianism as a term itself.--Davide King (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Comparing
with
...I don't see any characteristic of the former topic sentence that makes it dissimilar enough from the latter topic sentences to render it unusable. JLMadrigal @ 02:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Do you deny that right-libertarianism refers to a type of libertarianism? You continue in failing to realise that it's still putting terminological details before establishing the topic of the article. Right-libertarianism is a type of libertarianism... but which type? [...] It is named as such... [...] As a term, "right-libertarianism" is used [...] and you also fail to realise the main topic is about a type of libertarianism (while the main topic of the ones you linked is the term), which is called right-libertarianism exactly to distinguish it from left-libertarianism because both call themselves simply libertarianism or libertarian (this is acknowledged right in the next sentence); and right–left libertarianism is the most common usage in reliable and academic sources to distinguish several types of libertarianism. So we have Libertarianism about the broad libertarian ideologies that include both and other types which have a set of common characteristics; Libertarianism in the United States about the origin, history and development of libertarianism in the United States; and Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism about the two most common types of libertarianism. Since they both can't be called Libertarianism or similar terms that make it look like it's the true libertarianism and since it's possible to avoid further disambiguation with parentheses, we name them Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism, the most common unambiguous names used in reliable and academic sources. Do you understand now? I could understand if we had just Left-libertarianism or just Right-libertarianism, so one could moan about a POV in favor of a certain type of libertarianism, but we have both to make it neutral and consistent. I think this was already a fine compromise and I wish we could have spent all these months in improving the article (which we actually did, but I think we could have done more if we didn't just look at the term) rather than going around in circles.--Davide King (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Those examples are a mix of articles that are actually about terms, and articles that look like they are also violating WP:REFERS. Notable, a lot of the latter are also political articles. This "is a term" phrasing is often a kind of MOS:SCAREQUOTES used especially in political articles where one political faction denies that the thing being named in the article is actually a thing. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:REFERS isn't a policy, and it isn't even a guideline. And it certainly should not dominate all other considerations, policies and guidelines. For example, applying the term is a particular lens/ viewpoint. Applying it in the voice of Wikipedia without attribution violates wp:NPOV. The minimal compromise proposed merely gives attribution prominently and early. North8000 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Either way, that's still putting terminological details before establishing the topic of the article, i.e. a type of libertarianism, just like World music starts with writing it's a Western musical category. Now we have As a term right after that, which you wrote that moves it closer to the minimum compromise offerred/presented; and just like World music says Western, here it says a type of libertarianism, i.e. through those lens.--Davide King (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
You have failed to specify any distinction between the above topic sentences other than some arbitrary interpretation of the word "term". The article is about what the people who use "right-libertarianism" mean when they classify it as such - and why they do so. Since "right-libertarianism" is not the common name, this disambiguation is the most important part of the topic. JLMadrigal @ 02:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I think that's the issue. You write that [t]he article is about what the people who use "right-libertarianism" mean when they classify it as such - and why they do so, but the article is about the type of libertarianism that is referred to as right-libertarianism to disambiguate it because both call itself libertarianism; it's about the type of libertarianism, not merely what the terms mean to some people when they classify it. There actually isn't an article about the American-style libertarianism that expanded outside the United States and that is referred to as right-libertarianism, other than libertarianism for short and simpler terms. Left-libertarianism isn't just about the tiny minority in the United States, it also includes the classical European tradition. Likewise, Right-libertarianism is no longer relegated just to the United States and so Libertarianism in the United States includes the history, origins and development of libertarianism (which isn't exclusively right-libertarian) hence why they're distinct and separated. In other words, Right-libertarianism is its global version or variant and right-libertarinism is the most common term used to disambiguate it, but only the term itself is disambiguated, not the type of libertarianism too.--Davide King (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The 30,000 ft. view is that it isn't the normal case of an inherently distinct topic listed by it's common name. It is a grouping and a name created by a small group of people (those creating taxonomies). The topic is created by that lens, the lens is a fundamental part of the topic and so, as a minimum compromise, it is quite fitting to attribute it to that lens in the first sentence. Also, unlike the wp:refers which has been quoted (which is not even a guideline), this possibility is described in a POLICY, and in the World music, Political correctness, Homosexual agenda, examples given, the lens is identified in the very first sentence, as is that it is a term or category. North8000 (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
But again, both Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism aren't merely about a term. This is the difference from all those examples. Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are about philosophy too, a type, form or variant of libertarianism, whatever you want to call it. There needs to be an article about the libertarianism that, tacitly or not, endorse (free-market) capitalism; and this is the one. The most common name used to refer to this type of libertarianism, other than simply libertarianism itself, is right-libertarianism. Just like World music, we should first say that it's a type of libertarianism. Besides, right after that we write that [a]s a term, "right-libertarianism" is used to distinguish these views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism [...] and we also write that [p]eople described as being "left-libertarian" or "right-libertarian" generally tend to call themselves simply "libertarians" and refer to their philosophy as "libertarianism". As a result, some political scientists and writers classify the forms of libertarianism into two groups, namely left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital in Definition. We don't have to repeat every time who use the term. Since this article is about right-libertarianism, the phrasing that also talks about left-libertarianism should be in the Definition section that discusses both. The lead should be a summary and I think that [a]s a term, "right-libertarianism" is used to distinguish these views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism [...] is a perfectly summary of that.--Davide King (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you (or Pfhorrest) can come up with a topic sentence that covers all of the bases, Davide. We can remove duplication after we resolve the currently incomplete topic sentence. JLMadrigal @ 23:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Again, what's wrong with the current lead that first establishes the topic (i.e. what right-libertarianism actually means) and then writes As a term, "right-libertarianism" is used to distinguish these views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism? Right-libertarianism isn't just about a term, it's a type of libertarianism. And honestly, now that I think about it, where or how does it even imply this universality you continue to decry? We literally writes right in the lead Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians" and that's, quite frankly, the reverse of “universality”, isn't it?--Davide King (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Now take the essential elements of these two sentences, and combine them into one topic sentence, reserving expansion for the rest of the lede paragraph. For example:
JLMadrigal @ 13:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
There're still several issues. First all, you removed also known as libertarian capitalism and right-wing libertarianism (which both redirect here). Second of all, in cases where there're redirect names notable enough we put them in the lead and we start like Name of the article, also known as Important redirect and so on. Finally, you changed the meaning of the final sentence to reflect your POV. That's not what the given sources says. It says that they defend the market distribution of natural resources, land, etc. even if it yields unequal results.--Davide King (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, Madrigal, you're still not getting the essential point of contention. Right-libertarianism isn't a term, it's a type of libertarianism. "Right-libertarianism" is a term used to refer to that type of libertarianism, as I just did. Just like cats have four paws and not letters, while "cats" has four letters and no paws. There is a difference between a word and the thing that it refers to. Right-libertarianism is the thing that "right-libertarianism" refers to. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
None of the articles cited above place the term in quotation marks. You're grasping for straws to make a distinction between "word" and "term", Pfhorrest. Davide, I'm open to seeing a better topic sentence written by you that solves the above problem as you describe it. BTW the POV is not mine but that of the ideology described in the article. JLMadrigal @ 01:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I hope Pfhorrest can reply you back about that, but I think it's because they're mainly about the term whereas this is about what the term actually means and refers to (as Pfhorrest wrote, Right-libertarianism is the thing that "right-libertarianism" refers to), i.e. a political philosophy and type of libertarianism. I'm thinking about that, but I think we've made enough improvements already and I think it's fine. I've moved the phrasing about the term the earlier I could put it and I also incorporated the wording you liked from Eduen. I think the lead already say that the term is used to distinguish these views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism, that they refer themselves to as libertarians, that it's the dominant type of libertarianism in the United States, etc. Anyway, could you please explain more about the POV? What's the POV of the ideology described in the article? I also added that by capitalism they mean the free market, that they oppose state capitalism and interventionism, etc. So what or where is the POV? Thank you.--Davide King (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The article is neither of the two extremes, a topic in the normal sense, nor merely a term. It's a group of topics grouped and named by a small minority of people (taxonomists creating this particular meta-group of strands of libertarianism.) The implicit placing of these topics into that group and under that name is the POV of that small group of people yet throughout the article it is implicitly put forward as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. That is a main article structural problem, it is a big problem that confuses readers, and it is a big POV problem. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's so called small minority of people include reliable and academic sources, so I don't consider that small or useless. Furthermore, you can't argue anymore that it somehow imply universality when we literally write that those libertarians call themselves libertarianism and refer to it simply as libertarianism; and the Definition and Terminology sections discuss all this more in detail and actually say about the people who use it, etc. If you're referring to the Schools of thoughts section, those are all philosophy that have been described by reliable sources as being right-libertarian; and perhaps, many more users don't see any of that POV you're talking about. Again, Work permit is on point in describing the situation we're in: It easy to be "against" the status quo, but if there is no clear consensus on what the alternative should be then the status quo should stand. While I am personally "against" the status quo, I see no alternative backed by wp:rs that has garnered any such consensus. I also don't find the neutrality tag warranted. While I wish there were a better name to phrase the article, I certainly don't find it so repugnant as to tag it as such.--Davide King (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Some is this is just going in circles, but one note, wp:reliable sources can mean two different things. One is those meeting the basic RS criteria which includes that group in my search who used "right libertarian" 0 out of 1,000-2,000 times that the subject was referred to. This group would also refer to the sources that you are referring to. The second meaning which I think is what you are implying is sources that can knowledgeably reflect on the question at hand. IMO in that context they are not sources / coverers, they are creators of the grouping and namimg. North8000 (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
What you don't seem to realise is that those sources you posted are actually talking in broader libertarian terms, they're referring to what we have at Libertarianism in the United States; and they don't mention left-libertarianism either, yet you claimed the [left-libertarian] term seems to have slight more usage in sources, is less of a pejorative to it's adherents, so what now? This is a specific type of libertarianism and the most common unambiguosly name used to refer to it is right-libertarianism. I'm tired to repeat the same thing, so please read again the second comment I left here.--Davide King (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The main response would be circular stuff, so I'll avoid that. I disagree with "This is a specific type of libertarianism and the most common unambiguously name used to refer to IT". (caps added by me) IMO it is a bundling and naming of what in the real world is several different strands of libertarianism. The bundle and the name for it is something created and used by a small group of taxonomists making meta-bundles along those particular lines. So out in the real world people to not refer to "IT" because "IT" is a synthetic bundle created and used by those specific taxonomists. North8000 (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Exactly! The topic of this article is essentially every type of libertarianism EXCEPT anticapitalist libertarianism (a small minority). The term is misleading because it implies an even split (from "left-libertarianism), it implies conservatism (the most common meaning for "right"), it implies that it is the common name for the ideology, it implies a clear line of separation, &c. The disambiguation must begin in the topic sentence. If there were a better name for the article, this wouldn't be an issue. But it clearly is. JLMadrigal @ 22:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
North, the exact same argument could be used for Left-libertarianism, but I didn't see you nor JLMadrigal batting an eye about that. In the real world, Nazis refer to it as National Socialism, but we call them Nazis and Nazism; and it's not like the article actually say they call themselves right-libertarians. What you fail to realise is that we can't have two articles titled Libertarianism and both are distinct, with a different history, etc. that they warrant their own article; and the left–right libertarianism compromise is the best solution, for no other proposed name is either real, neutral, common or unambiguous (i.e. avoiding using parentheses) enough when compared to these two. You seem to see libertarianism only through American lens, but left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism refers to two different, albeit related, approaches, theories, philosophies, etc. to libertarianism as a whole, not just to that in the United States. I think writing the way the terms are used, that they both simply call or refer to themselves as libertarians, etc. is fine and good enough.
JLMadrigal, that's simply not true. The left-libertarianism of the Steiner–Vallentyne school isn't anti-capitalist. Either way, what matters is what reliable sources say; and if according to sources it's done along socialist–capitalist lines globally, then so be it. In the United States, it's different because in the United States libertarianism leans right whereas elsewhere it leans anarchist or/and socialist (which is generally considered to be to the left of it, whether you agree with it or not), so left-libertarianism like the Steiner–Vallentyne school isn't anti-capitalist yet it's still separated from right-libertarianism due to the issue on natural resources and inequality. So it doesn't matter what any of us or you may personally think of it, when Pfhorrest and repeatedly told you it doesn't necessarily imply conservatism and I just literally added sections that discuss this, how many of them don't see themselves as conservatives, how Rothbard himself saw libertarianism as being left-wing, etc., so please stop repeating that line; it just isn't true.--Davide King (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
You only addressed one of the five points raised, and the one that you did address - the claim that the Steiner–Vallentyne school isn't anti-capitalist - is borderline. Again,
  • The topic of this article is essentially every type of libertarianism EXCEPT anticapitalist (or, shall we say, socialist) libertarianism (a small minority).
  • The term is misleading because it implies an even split (from "left-libertarianism).
  • The term implies conservatism (social hierarchy) (the most common meaning for "right").
  • The term implies that it is the common name for the ideology.
  • The term implies a clear line of separation.
While the topic sentence doesn't need to specify these problems with the term in depth, it must at least inform the reader that the term is used for disambiguation. Since you have not yet provided an alternative topic sentence, Here is another that does not eliminate ANYTHING from the lede. It simply reorganizes it for clarity of the topic sentence:


While I'm not happy with splashing "capitalist" in front of "property rights", I can deal with that for now. We can talk about it. If you agree to the above edit, I'll consent to the removal of the template. Am I missing anything vital, North8000? Work with me please, Davide.
JLMadrigal @ 13:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
It's a lot closer to the status quo than what I considered to be "minimum change required" pragmatic compromise but I'd give a bit more ground and consider it enough to put this to rest with (personally) no plans to reopen the core issue. If even this minimal change (or something like it) were to not go in / stay in that I think we're at an impasse and a the larger scale RFC would be the next step. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
You write such things, but they seem to merely reflect your POV and several of them are outright wrong:
  • The topic of this article is essentially every type of libertarianism EXCEPT anticapitalist (or, shall we say, socialist) libertarianism (a small minority). But that's what reliable sources that describe the topic and that we use say so. Anti-capitalist libertarianism is only a small minorty in countries such as the United States. Again, Georgism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school are by no means anti-captalist, yet they're classified as left-libertarian because they support egalitarianism and the socialisation of land.
Since the anticapitalist/socialist school is a small minority, every other type of libertarianism needn't fit its naming conventions. But since the name ("term") is used by some writers in this way, we are willing to keep the article, provided that the use of the name is explained in the topic sentence. JLMadrigal @ 09:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The term is misleading because it implies an even split (from "left-libertarianism). That's your personal opinion, not what reliable sources we use say. Does that mean classical and social liberalism are split too rather than simply representing two different approaches to liberalism? Both are still types of libertarianism, but that's the point; they're two related yet different approaches and both have a set of common points that actually doesn't split them. See There exist three major camps in libertarian thought: right-libertarianism, socialist libertariaism, and left-lbertarianism; the extent to which these represent distinct ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme is contrasted by scholars. Regardless, these factions differ most pronouncedly with respect to private property.
The "libertarian group diagram" from the left-libertarianism article implies otherwise:
A libertarian group diagram
JLMadrigal @ 09:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The term implies conservatism (social hierarchy) (the most common meaning for "right"). Again, your personal opinion. Reliable sources who discuss the topic doesn't say so and neither do we in the article. However, some of those libertarians do, but they aren't the majority. I'm also planning of adding that [w]hile associated with capitalism, right-libertarianism isn't opposed in principle to voluntary egalitarianism and socialism; they simply believe that their advocated economic system would prove superior and so many people won't choose socialism; and that for Nozick it doesn't imply support of capitalism, merely that capitalism is compatible with libertarianism, something which is rejected by anti-capitalist libertarians, something of this nature.
When the average person hears the term "right", he immediately thinks of nationalism, religion, racism, religionism, and the like (the Republican Platform). That's a fact, not an opinion. JLMadrigal @ 09:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The term implies that it is the common name for the ideology. That's because it's the name used in reliable sources; and remember that the same argument can be used for Left-libertarianism, but do you realise that we can't have both articles titled Libertarianism? Either way, reliable sources already made the disambiguation for us by using left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism as the most common names used when discussing the topic.
Only when discussing the topic as it relates to traditional anticapitalist/socialist view. JLMadrigal @ 09:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Again, looking at the above diagram, not only is there a clear line of separation with no overlap, but the sizes of the schools (as represented with circles) are also out of proportion. The skewed illustration perfectly illustrates the skewed perception of the distinction between right and left libertarianism. JLMadrigal @ 09:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't look good to have commas and then even parenthesis too; it makes the phrasing unnecessary sloppy. What's wrong with As a term, "right-libertarianism" is used to distinguish these views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism? Would adding As a term, "right-libertarianism" is a categorization [or classification, whichever you prefer] used to distinguish these views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism do the same trick?
So we're back to the original wording of the lede paragraph:
...which is the clearest, and, as noted by North8000, gets straight to the point. This supposed distinction between "term" and "word" is senseless. The cited articles above use the specialized term to describe the topic. Using "is a term used by" to open this article is even more necessary since the term "right-libertarianism" is used for disambiguation. The article goes on to describe the view described as such. JLMadrigal @ 09:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
North, it's not nice of you to imply that if I don't accept this, then we will have yet another request for comments when we can't even agree on whether it's really necessary (Aquillion, Pfhorrest and I) or that the problem, whatever it may be (if there's one at all), necessitates yet another one. If you repeatedly fail to get consensus, then it's time to drop the stick. Either way, I hope the compromise to add categorization or classification the way I put it results in the same result and we can finally move on.--Davide King (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Addressing the first part, what you said makes no sense. The disagreement is between those who feel the status quo is a problem and those who don't. And if there is an impasse the proper way to resolve it is an RFC. And one done really well to truly resolve it one way or the other. You are basically saying that we should only have an RFC if the one side (those who feel that the status quo is OK) reverses their views and agrees that the status quo is not OK, which would mean that the dispute no longer exists. Or in shorthand, if there is a dispute between View A and View B, you can't go to a resolution process unless the people with View A flip to View B! Or, in even shorter shorthand, you can't go to a dispute resolution process if there is an open dispute  ! ! I've got to read and analyze more before I respoond the the later part of your post. North8000 (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Again, merely being against the status quo doesn't mean much if there isn't a valid reason or it's based on a POV like with JLMadrigal's as shown above. I think yours is valid, but I also believe it has been more than addressed. I agree with Aquillion that you both have tried for months and months, but you didn't get any consensus; and yet, we were able to make some important changes and compromises, but that still doesn't seem to be enough and you even reduce them to almost nothing, like I didn't do anything or I'm not willing to compromise. I don't want to repeat myself, so please check this discussion and Work permit's comment that [i]t [is] easy to be "against" the status quo, but if there is no clear consensus on what the alternative should be then the status quo should stand; either way, I added categorization without the sloppy phrasing proposal, I don't know what more I can do.--Davide King (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
"I don't know what more I can do." Maybe you can, as you say, drop the stick? Since you admit that you are not the editor-in-chief, we will also continue to edit the article, Davide. JLMadrigal @ 09:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
That isn't how it works. You're the one proposing the change; the burden of proof is on you, not me. Contrary to the view that I'm not willing to compromise, I've done my part and many edits to accomodate you, but it seems to be never enough to you... unless you get exactly what you want, the exact same wording you want. This showed you have no understanding of libertarianism nor you're able to argue neutrally. They're all just your opnions which you believe to be true and act like they're facts. You show a complete disregard for consensus and all other users who disagree with you and either found no big issue or no issue at all. You write that the anticapitalist/socialist school is a small minority, but that may be true only in countries such as the United States and either way that doesn't automatically delete the 160 years and counting history of the anti-capitalist/socialist school. The term isn't used just by some writers, it's used by reliable and academic sources and that's all that matters. The libertarian diagram group is merely an example of libertarian schools and you fail to realise that both are still within the "Libertarianism" bubble! Just like classical liberalism and social liberalism are separated in the sense they have different yet related approaches but both are still liberalism!
You write that [w]hen the average person hears the term "right", he immediately thinks of nationalism, religion, racism, religionism, and the like (the Republican Platform). That's a fact, not an opinion but that's exactly the opposite of a fact and is merely your opinion. Either way, that shouldn't change anything, for [t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true; and we shouldn't stop using the term just because people get offended; if reliable sources use, we use it and discuss it. Only when discussing the topic as it relates to traditional anticapitalist/socialist view. All of this is based on objectively false premises, for Georgism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school are by no means anti-capitalist and yet they're considered left-libertarian, so stop writing objectively false information and repeat it when it's been debunked. Again, if the problem is the diagram (both are still within "Libertarianism", as you can see), that can be changed and we can add a line to show the overlap between the two. So we're back to the same issue Pfhorrest and I told you many times, i.e. that the type of libertarianism is the primary topic, not just the term; that's why we should first tell what right-libertarianism actually means and refers to. I think the lead is perfectly clear and it seems to be only you two who have problems with it; and in your case, it's based on objectively false premises.
With this and your above comments and attacks again me, now you've been and become really disruptive (thanks Pfhorrest for reverting it, I was about to do just that too as I was writing this and explain that this discussion isn't over and there's no consensus for that edit). Not only that, but it should be reported, for you have shown no neutrality, repeatedly showing disdain for left-libertarianism or any other form of libertarianism other than your own, really; but you used my previous block, which was based on good faith and misunderstanding, not on vandalism, personal attacks or worse, to argue I should be blocked again for edit warring when that's objectively false as I was merely reverting the version to the status quo when there was no consensus yet (exact the same reason why Pfhorrest reverted you now, again) and you were the one edit warring and being disrupting for not respecting discussion and consensus guidelines; and to top it all, you went to search my (wrongly typed) name to find dirt on me to use it against me and take me out. I think you've really exceed the limit.--Davide King (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm honestly really tired of all this, but what really annoys me is that all other users who rejected a move, name change, or merge whilst stating that they found no big issue, or no issue at all, are completely ignored and non-existent, like it's just Pfhorrest and I; or in some cases just me, because Pfhorrest is probably just tired as me to discuss all this, which with all due respect amount to not liking the name and a rejection of reliable, academic sources that discuss the topic and concept which makes it notable enough to have the article and this name. I'm sorry to write this because I really appreciate the effort of North and despite all the disagreement, it's good and respectful; unfortunately, I can't say the same thing at all about JLMadrigal. While I can tell and see North's legitimate concerns despite disagreeing with, I can't tell the same about JLMadrigal (I think North has valid reasons and concerns, but not you), who still doesn't seem to understand that right-libertarianism doesn't mean right-wing, but merely to the right of other types of libertarianism. I think the lead is perfectly fine, I even added As a term, [...] is a classification; and that's fine, the lead is supposed to be a summary and we already write and discuss in more detail who use that in the Definition and Terminology sections. Finally, just because all the users who found no big issue, or no issue at all, with the article in the past (let me remind you that back then there were several issues which I believe have been improved, if not fixed) aren't responding or in the case of Aquillion and Pfhorrest are tired to respond and discuss, it doesn't mean it's only me defending the status quo or that we should have yet another request for comment; and maybe then have another one because the wording wasn't clear. If no other user come forward to find issues with article, issues that don't amount to merely not liking the name or personal opinions that aren't backed by reliable sources, then the status quo should stand per arguments by Aquillion (personally for the status quo) and Work permit (personally against the status quo). For the exact same reason, I think it's about time we also remove the tag (again, Work permit, who's personally against the status quo, doesn't find the tag warranted).--Davide King (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Proof of what? That Right-libertarianism,[1][2][3] also libertarian capitalism[4] is a term used by some political scientists and writers to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital along socialist-capitalist lines? JLMadrigal @ 15:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I assume you have really no response to my debunking of your points; just admit your oppisition is based on your POV and falsehood rather than reliable sorces. No, it's what Pfhorrest and I told you many times; that it isn't just a term but a type of libertarianism; and that As a term, "right-libertarianism" is a classification used to distinguish these views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism basically says the exact same thing as your proposal! Again, the first phrase should establish what right-libertarianism actually is and what it refers to (i.e. to a political philosophy and type of libertarianism) and right after that we talk about the term, how is used, etc. You haven't really read anything of what I wrote? You're being really disruptive and now edit warring too.--Davide King (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Falsehoods

From here, Right-libertarianism is distinguished from left-libertarianism, a traditional socialist type of libertarianism that takes an egalitarian approach to natural resources, because it tends to support ownership of natural resources and the means of production is a falsehood not only because Georgism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school are neither specifically or exceptionally socialist nor anti-capitalist (yet they're considered within left-libertarianism because they support egalitarianism and some form socialisation of land and natural resources, unlike those other libertarians) but because that's not even what the source says (the source is specifically referring to left-libertarianism as Georgism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school), so all JLMadrigal and PhilLiberty's biased and POV-pushing arguments fall apart; and this just prove that neither of you have an understanding of sources and you take as given and fact what you may personally think, like this isn't a real thing, it's not a common name, etc. North, that version fails as that's still putting terminological details before establishing the topic of the article, i.e. a type of libertarianism; and that As a term, "right-libertarianism" is a classification used to distinguish these views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism basically says the exact same thing as your proposal! I even added classification but it never seems to be enough for you, nor is it enough all the work I did on the terminology and everything else.--Davide King (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

To further clarify, if/when many reliable sources actually use right-libertarianism as the given sources we use, then there's no need to attribute it, at least not in the lead which is supposed to be a short summary. For good measure, I actually attribute it to who use it in both Definition and Terminology.--Davide King (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Where we're at

It's pretty clear that the attempts at a "pragmatic compromise" have failed & we're at an impasse. I'm going to put together an RFC that is structured to move this towards a conclusion. Besides structure, it will need to be unbiased, advertised well enough to get outside participation and, because to to-date stuff is too gigantic for a new arrival to read, and the topic is more confusing than a typical RFC, the RFC and the arguments from the active participants will need to be more informative to get new arrivals up to speed. The current reality of the split and the structure needed to move it forward I think are one and the same. The core question relates to the core aspects of:

  1. Having a distinct topic
  2. A topic that should have an article
  3. An article with this name
  4. And (for the current name) whether or not the grouping of libertarian threads and naming of the group is to be treated as a widely used grouping and naming vs. that it is merely a creation of some taxonomists engaged in such grouping and naming in which case, as a minimum, the grouping and naming should be strongly identified as merely such.

One group feels the above is so problematic that some significant change needs to be made. At the "least change" end of "significant change" would be a significant change in the first sentence of the article which does the identification described under #4 more strongly (for example, the just-reverted change). The other group feels that the status quo regarding the above aspects is fine to the extent that no significant changes regarding it are needed. I think that the first stage of the RFC needs to decide between these two viewpoints. If the latter is decided, that that would be the end of it. If the former is decided, then the next step would be to decided what the "significant change" should be. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

We had this request for comments, what were it's actual results? I think it's probably more appropriate to first have a request for comments on the lead (current version vs. yours and other proposals). If there's consensus for the current lead, then there would be no need for yet another request for comments. If there's no consensus or someone raise the four point you pointed out, then we will start discussing them too. Otherwise I agree with what you wrote.--Davide King (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Regarding that linked item, I didn't claim that it was a full RFC and there was no close. But the results were a plurality (but probably not a consensus) against the status quo, and none of the proposed fixes flew. That one recently proposed change was sort of the ultimate compromise to avoid an RFC. If we're going to go through the work of a real RFC IMO we should allow for ultimately including more ideas & possibilities. North8000 (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Wasn't that a request for comments? What's the difference with a full RFC? I also don't see plurality for that (again, mere numbers doesn't mean much if you don't give a valid reason backed by reliable sources). I only see Czar who gave a valid reason. Arguing that the concept of "left-" and "right-wing" politics is not scientific isn't a valid reason either nor is it backed by reliable sources. I think it's clear now that JLMadrigal has no clear understanding of what we're talking about, falsely claiming that right- implies right-wing politics or that [t]he topic of this article is essentially every type of libertarianism EXCEPT anticapitalist when Georgism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school are by no means anti-captalist, yet they're classified as left-libertarian because they support egalitarianism and the socialisation of land, something which JLMadrigal doesn't seem to gasp, nor does JLMadrigal seem to understand the crux of the matter for why we have left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism in the first place. Finally, I think that if you actually consider all the users who opposed both the move and merge in August and November, respectively, all while stating that they found no big issue with the article or name, claiming that right-libertarianism is indeed the common name, then we actually have a plurality in support of the status quo and we should only concentrate on wording, which I believe it's good now that we gave more weight to the term in the lead (it's right after the first phrase rather than at the end of the first paragraph) and that I also added further clarifications about the terminology in the main body.--Davide King (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  1. Having a distinct topic? The concept of "right-libertarianism" is dependent on an understanding of "left-libertarianism", so it is not distinct.
  2. A topic that should have an article? Most of these editors said that they would prefer that the concept of "right-libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism" be treated together in one article.
  3. An article with this name? (see #2 above)
  4. And (for the current name) whether or not the grouping of libertarian threads and naming of the group is to be treated as a widely used grouping and naming vs. that it is merely a creation of some taxonomists engaged in such grouping and naming in which case, as a minimum, the grouping and naming should be strongly identified as merely such? Right-libertarianism is not a widely used grouping, and is a taxonomy created for disambiguation. This is documented above and is true of the citations in the article as well.

JLMadrigal @ 03:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We already had a merge proposal back in November which was either rejected or had no consensus in the first place, so I'm not sure about [m]ost of these editors [who?] said that they would prefer that the concept of "right-libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism" be treated together in one article and how or from where you reached this conclusion. The issue is whether the lead should be like it is now or whether it should start saying is a term; and I would agree with the latter, if the article was only about the term, but it isn't and that's still putting terminological details before establishing the topic of the article, what right-libertarianism refers to, i.e. a type of libertarianism. Your compromise was to keep the article; mine is to give more weight to the term in the lead. So, really, the issue is whether the first two phrases should stay as they are or if they should be inverted like this. I see no reason to change that, for As a term, "right-libertarianism" is a classification used to distinguish these views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism says exactly the same thing but in a better and more concise way. I've added more information on the terminology and everything in the main body to address your issues as compromise, so now your compromise would be to accept this so we can finally move on.--Davide King (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Of course it says "exactly the same thing", so your calling it "POV pushing" is a bit nuts. The topic is the "term", "word", "classification", or whatever you want to call it, "right-libertarianism" - just like the many existing articles having "is a term used by" in their topic sentence are about the topic described therein. Since right-libertarianism is used almost exclusively for disambiguation, the "terminology" or "taxonomy" is the principle subject. The articles are not "only about the term" whatever that's supposed to mean.
BTW, the ones who preferred having "right-libertarianism" combined with "left-libertarianism" in the same article included Pfhorrest, who even put merge templates on the articles. Remember?
JLMadrigal @ 05:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Look at the body of the article. (Now back at me. Now back at the body of the article. Now back at me. Sadly, the body of this article was not written by me. But if you left the lede alone, it would sound like a lead for an article approved by me. Look down. Back up. Where are you? You're on a talk page with the man this article could sound like it was approved by. What's that talk page about? Back at me. It's a Wikipedia article about that political philosophy you love. Look again. The article is now a Featured Candidate. Anything is possible when your article has a lede that's actually summarizing the body of the article and not garbage. I'm on a horse.)
Sorry, got off on a tangent there. My point was: look at the body of the article. Do you see an article about the term "right-libertarianism", or do you see an article about a political philosophy that's called "right-libertarianism"? The lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article, so whatever the body of the article is going on about, that's what this article is about, and what the lede should open by defining. Now look around the rest of Wikipedia. Do you see any other article that's about that kind of political philosophy, the one that you like? Do you want there to be no article about that political philosophy, and only an article about the term used to distinguish it from other political philosophies that share the same common name?
Also, yes, I was the one who proposed a merger of Left-libertarianism and this article, and I'd still be okay with that, but it's not necessary, that was always just a compromise proposal to make this constant fighting over the lede here stop, and even I recognize that the consensus was against that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
To add to what Pfhorrest wrote, you really don't seem to get or understand how consensus works; and there was no such consensus for a merge, if not outright rejection. If now you see the main body more about the term, with even a Terminology section, is because I wrote all that just to make you happy (thanks for appreciate it all the work I did to try work this out). This still doesn't change exactly what Pfhorrest wrote, i.e. that it's an article about a political philosophy that's called as such. My main issue or problem isn't even by starting the article with is a term used (it's used this way in many articles that are actually mainly, if not only, about the term and I've no problem with them; in that case, it's correct); if this article was really only about the term, there would be no issue at all, but the fact is that it isn't.
Furthermore, the same thing could be said about Left-libertarianism, but you raised no issue or concern for that, all you showed was contempt and ignorance of that. Again, your examples also aren't pertinent, for they're mainly about the term which isn't the case here (and I don't think it should be, more on this later). Why don't you talk about Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism? That's exactly the same thing, isn't it? Yet we write about their ideology and where is more relevant, like in this case, about the term and why it's called as such, etc.
As I wrote earlier, I don't think this article should be merely about the term, not only because it's wrong (the term is used to refer to a specific type of libertarian philosophy); but because, as correctly pointed out by Pfhorrest, there actually wouldn't be an article about this libertarian philosophy if it were only about the term (again, the term itself is used to refer to this specific libertarian philosophy, besides distinguish it from other libertarian philosophies of the same name).
  1. Libertarianism is pretty much like all other main ideologies articles (Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, etc.) in that it's written in broad and general terms, including both left-, right- and other types of libertarianism.
  2. Libertarianism in the United States is the same thing (i.e. written in broad and general terms, including both left-, right- and other types of libertarianism), just limited to its origins, history and development in the United States (as in similar related articles).
  3. Right-libertarianism is basically about the dominant tendency compared to left-libertarianism (I'd say the dominant one is closer to classical liberalism) of libertarianism in the United States that has expanded to many other countries since the 1970s (most libertarian parties follow this tendency).
  4. Left-libertarianism is basically about the dominant tendency in Europe and many other countries.
I think this was already a perfectly fine compromise (there would be a problem if there was only Left-libertarianism or Right-libertarianism; so one could moan why the other doesn't have the article and while the one who has it isn't called libertarianism as it should be). Do you realise that if we make this merely about a term, we will miss out this libertarian philosophy and related libertarian parties that greatly expanded globally since the 1970s? So to me it seems you simply don't want it to be associated with right-libertarianism. Not only that but I think you're probably opposed to Libertarianism being in general terms rather than your type of libertarianism (you basically want this to be called Libertarianism because) and want to exclude the whole anti-capitalist history.--Davide King (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

To recap my core thought, the situation is neither the extreme of being only about a term, nor the other extreme which is the normal Wikipedia article situation, something that is identified out in the real world as a distinct topic, named by the commonly used term in the real world. The middle place where this dwells is that it is a grouping of real-world strands of libertarianism created by a small group of people and given the name created by that same small group of people. The minimal compromise offered was to clarify / provide this context in the first sentence, and thus also avoiding falsely implying otherwise in the first sentence. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Very well said, North8000. Clear, concise, and to the point. These are the facts. Now if we can get Davide King and Pfhorrest to admit that and work with us to fix the topic sentence, we'll be off to a nice start. JLMadrigal @ 12:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Then the current lead is already a perfect compromise or middle place as it first says what right-libertarianism actually is and refers to and right after that how the term is used, why, etc. The issue is which phrasing should be first and as things stand, as argued by Pfhorrest, the lead is perfectly fine as it is. Also please stop spreading falsehoods as you did here. It's especially in the United States where both terms are used. Vallentyne et all are Americans and it's especially relevant to the United States, for in most other countries libertarianism means left-libertarianism (to be more precise, anti-state, libertarian socialists). This whole thing originated in the United States because libertarians couldn't agree on several issues, so it's very relevant there and it's a falsehood to state what you wrote.--Davide King (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Davide, please read North8000's recap more carefully, and help us fix the topic sentence. At least stop blocking us from making the required clarification in the topic sentence. JLMadrigal @ 14:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The main topic is the type of libertarianism, that's why the current topic sentence is perfectly fine as it first establishes what it actually is and then the term.
These are the topics:
  1. Libertarianism is pretty much like all other main ideologies articles (Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, etc.) in that it's written in broad and general terms, including both left-, right- and other types of libertarianism.
  2. Libertarianism in the United States is the same thing (i.e. written in broad and general terms, including both left-, right- and other types of libertarianism), just limited to its origins, history and development in the United States (as in similar related articles).
  3. Right-libertarianism is basically about the dominant tendency compared to left-libertarianism (I'd say the dominant one is closer to classical liberalism) of libertarianism in the United States that has expanded to many other countries since the 1970s (most libertarian parties follow this tendency).
  4. Left-libertarianism is basically about the dominant tendency in Europe and many other countries.
Do you disagree with any of that?--Davide King (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Libertarianism in the United States

North8000, this really isn't controversial. In that case, since it's actually talking and discussing about both, I even wrote Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism is a categorization used by some political analysts, academics and media sources in the United States to contrast related yet distinct approaches to libertarian philosophy, so what's the problem? It's especially relevant in the United States (all mentioned people are Americans). Can you please stop acting like it's not a real thing? Even prominent American libertarians acknowledge this and discuss it, so please stop acting like this is just some irrelevant minority. I say there're enough reliable sources that, per Aquillion, establish it as a legitimate academic concept so it's superfluous to add your proposal to the lead which already makes it clear for anyone who doesn't have a bias in favor of this type of libertarianism. You have shown no knowledge nor understanding about the topic (for example, falsely claiming here that the terms aren't used in the United States); and in the case of JLMadrigal, a clear bias and disruption (personal attacks at me and privacy violation aside, the continual of spreading falsehood such as right-libertarianism not being neutral because it implies right-wing politics when it doesn't; or showing no knowledge nor understanding of socialist libertarianism, Georgism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school, conflating the latter two with anti-capitalism and in general showing a bias against anti-capitalist or left-libertarianism. Hence why we're still here.--Davide King (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Davide, from a process view alone, we're have a debate/dispute here which includes concerns that the term is very problematic, you trying to spread the term to other articles in the middle of the debate/dispute is really not good, to put it mildly. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The issue is I'm not sure there really is one, there's no consensus that we even have a issue, although some may believe there is and others may not, but they may disagree on the specific issue (which may not even be the term itself). That still doesn't mean we should block edits to other pages, especially when here we're still going in circle and you're clearly wrong about the terms not being used in the United States as you wrote in that edit summary.--Davide King (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right-libertarianism/Archive_7&oldid=1137158329"