This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This edit removed a part that clarified the intended meaning of the word "Liberal", as it uses the book itself as a reference, and that's a primary source. Yes, that's correct, but this is an acceptable use of primary sources: cite in an article about a book the things the book itself says. Cambalachero (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is the editor's notes in the English translation, and not from the original authors. While I can understand that it is important to distinguish the use of "liberalism" in English from progressism with classical liberalism, calling the book "libertarian" is a stretch, and I don't believe that this is the best way to support the claim. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]