Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Libertarianism

Stuff that need citations in a list

Is there a way to get a list of articles within the project that have {{Citation needed}}, {{Cn}}, or {{Fact}} tags as well as any version of {{Refimprove}}? Abel (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Looks like this is a toolserver thing. Abel (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Query that returns all libertarianism category articles that have any kind of citation flag (Citation needed, Cn, Fact, Refimprove)

Are there templates in addition to Citation needed, Cn, Fact, and Refimprove that should be added to this query? Abel (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Libertarianism will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Libertarian history. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What Rothbard learned from Rand

Please see this Murray Rothbard article talk thread where an editor contends that Rothbard admitted he learned everything about Aristotelian logic and natural rights from Rand (based on one sentence in an effusive fan letter when he was trying to get back in her good graces). He only uses one Rand biographer's version and basically states Raimondo's bio, Doherty, Stromberg and others who write about this topic are irrelevant. He also claims anarchism was the ONLY thing worth mentioning in the split from Rand. He's put all this in the article. Anyway, I'm going to do a draft - as explained in that talk section - and take to BLP if no one else chimes in in a more NPOV fashion. But FYI... CarolMooreDC 20:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian Party (UK) article was just nominated for deletion

The Libertarian Party (UK) article was just nominated for deletion. IMHO the nomination made no sense, it listed non-existent criteria as its basis. But I thought that y'all should know. North8000 (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

May Revolution

There's a FAC open for the article May Revolution at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive4. All comments are welcomed. Cambalachero (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I made a few there. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Free Highbeam Accounts

The internet research database HighBeam Research has 1000 free accounts available. HighBeam has full versions of tens of millions of newspaper articles and journals and should be a big help in adding reliable sources--especially older and paywalled ones--into the encyclopedia. Sign-ups require a 1-year old account with 1000 edits on any Wikipedia. Here's the link to the project page: http://enwp.org/WP:HighBeam (account sign-ups are linked in the box on the right). Feel free to sign up to help improve your work on this project's articles. CarolMooreDC 15:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

WP:DRN is having a discussion that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. it is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Political activities of the Koch family --Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing socialism

Is having a discussion wherein one or more editors seeks to have it linked to a sidebar of "libertarianism" instead of "socialism" and to describe the term as a pejorative used by libertarians (pejorative propaganda term employed by some on the libertarian right ). [1] and [2] with that specific suggestion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Diamond (configured Nolan Charts) are Forever

Members are invited to look at Talk:Nolan Chart and make comment about the proper configuration of David Nolan's Chart.--S. Rich (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the important heads-up. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Project image -- Statue of Liberty -- US-Centric

Yes, she's a gift from France. But libertarians are not just in the US (or France), and those outside the US don't necessarily look to the US as the paragon/paradigm of libertarianism. A non-US centric image for the Project and templates (etc) is needed. Any suggestions? --S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

How about this: thumb|left? Close to the popular Statue of Liberty with the uplifted flame. Non-US, ancient, and available.--S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree that a change would be fine, but a picture of pieces of a broken up torch doesn't seem that great. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's much of a problem with the current image. The statue of Liberty is an universally known icon, everybody at every country automatically recognize it. The statue of liberty represents liberty, and that's it: if that actually represents the current US policy, that's a secondary issue. After all, the American Revolution was the begining of the end of the absolute monarchies in the western world, and for some time the US was the only stable Republic still standing. There are good reasons to consider that the US may not be the "land of the free" they consider themselves (reasons such as George Bush), but on a global historical level, it is still among the top 5 countries that can proud themselves of spreading liberty to the world.

As for alternative images, firs thing first: it must be an image that looks well at icon size. What about File:Liberty-CeCILL.jpg? "Liberty Leading the People" is also an universal icon of liberty. However, we would change US-Centrism for France-Centrism, the "problem" would stay. Cambalachero (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What you say is true, but our view of how the Statue of Liberty, standing there in New York harbor, only assumes that the rest of the world views her as a symbol of liberty. Yes, I considered Liberty Leading the People. Besides being French centric, there are connections with the whole aftermath of the French Revolution. One form of state-ism was substituted for another, as those in the tumbrels would attest.--S. Rich (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

How about the oldest known written form of the word freedom? Written in Classical Sumerian cuneiform, it avoids country-centrism as it is from a country that no longer exists, written in a language no longer used outside of academics. As an SVG file it is scalable so will work well at icon size.--Abel (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that 99.999% of people would look at it and say "what the heck is that?" :-) North8000 (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact the global usage list for the file is so long that it was put on its own page seems to disagree. --Abel (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've done a small experiment with the Project banner. We can add the following parameters to the right side of the template documentation and Liberty-CeCILL will show up.
|IMAGE_RIGHT=Liberty-CeCILL.jpg |IMAGE_RIGHT_LARGE = 65px |IMAGE_RIGHT_SMALL = 45px
This tweak gives us the US-centric Lady Liberty and provides an image which should be recognized by readers on the other side of the Atlantic. --S. Rich (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

May Revolution

There's a FAC open for the article May Revolution at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive5. All comments are welcomed. Cambalachero (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Foundation for Economic Education nominated for good article status

Currently, only four percent of the articles in the libertarianism project are good articles or higher. Without someone starting the review process, this will not change. Please consider starting the review process for the nominated article Foundation for Economic Education.--Abel (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I started the review. It needs a lot of work. I am trying to help, but I don't have the source info to help work on the source entanglement there. North8000 (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Greatly appreciate your starting the review. As soon as I finish my last final exam for the semester in a few days I will take care of the source coding changes that you want. Abel (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

More opportunities for editors to access free research databases!

The quest for getting Wikipedia editors the sources they need for articles related to libertarianism and other subjects is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:

• Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.

In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by the talk page of User:Ocaasi, who is overseeing these projects, if you have any questions.--JayJasper (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Dead Project

Feel like JJ98 has a point in tagging the project as dead Following the project task of "Get more libertarian-related articles to featured status," got several articles up to B status. Once one article became decent enough for good article status, I nominated the article. Noted the nomination right under "Get more libertarian-related articles to featured status" back on 11 July 2012. So far, that the nomination has gone 77 days without someone starting a review. How active can the project be if "Get more libertarian-related articles to featured status" is a stated task, yet no one seems to have any interest in starting any reviews that would "Get more libertarian-related articles to featured status?" --Abel (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't mean the project is dead. I monitor this talk page, and other members have posted here in the recent past. Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Dealing with inactive WikiProjects for some tips on how to "revive" a project with no or very little activity. It's a good thing that there's still someone working here, but many users would be better. "Get more articles to featured/good status" is a very vague proposal, so vague that it doesn't actually says much. It may be a better idea to create a page listing some really important pages and things to do about them, such as "Self-governance is tagged as unreferenced". It is also possible to search for active users editing the articles, if there is any, and invite them to the project if they are not part of it yet. Cambalachero (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If the project is indeed active, shouldn't someone be interested in helping to further the work done on the tasks listed on the project page? --Abel (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I work on various articles as I go. Probably best thing to do is put any invite box on talk pages where one edits. CarolMooreDC 04:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Abel, what article did you nominate?

Carol, can you provide a sample "invite" template please?

ALCON, Project is hardly dead. Perhaps it lapses into semi-activeness, but what should we expect from libertarians? They don't like rules and conformity!--S. Rich (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Nominated Foundation for Economic Education, but need someone to start the review process. --Abel (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the knowledge to do so, nor the experience in Wikipedia. But the article is excellent. --MeUser42 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of confidence! --Abel (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

May Revolution

The article May Revolution has been nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. Please read the article and provide reviews here Cambalachero (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 Third party Asian American infobox representatives open nomination period

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Third party Asian American infobox representative nominees. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

2012 Asian American representative approval period (Now until 18 December)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Representative approval. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Lexington Institute ??

Since when does big government corporate welfare firms like the Lexington Institute count as Libertarianism? Hcobb (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

While lacking RS, the article says it supports libertarian views. And being pro free market is libertarian, regardless of the size of the player(s). --S. Rich (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is free market about lobbying the government for handouts? If any part of their operations involved B2B or B2C in free markets I could see this, but they are entirely B2G. Their entire effort is in getting paid to bring in tax dollars. Hcobb (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I don't disagree with you. I simply think categorizing LI as a libertarian think tank (because of its free market advocacy, etc.) and including it within the scope of the WikiProject is appropriate. We're not here to discuss whether LI and its positions are good or bad, but to expand the coverage of libertarianism. Libertarians who support "minimal government", especially when it comes to national defense, have to recognize that big corporations make the planes, ships, tanks, etc.. Those who take that minimal government position are faced with fact that national defense is a big (and to often too big) effort. So LI can waive the flag, shout for free markets, and advocate for the self interests of its members and donors.

Also, are those corporations getting 'handouts' in the sense they don't supply anything in return for the money they receive? I don't think so -- they have contracted to supply goods and services? Are the goods and services too expensive? Perhaps (indeed, yes). But my iPad was expensive in the sense that Apple made a lot of money when I bought it. Did I give Apple a handout? No -- I got my iPad for what I thought was a reasonable price. I bet the government is buying iPads as well. And perhaps they are buying them at a discount compared to what I paid. Is Apple getting a handout? Or is it unfair that Apple should sell iPads to the government at a lower price than what I paid?

Consider, people who draw Social Security are getting paid with tax dollars too. (And probably much more than what they contributed in terms of tax dollars.) And the AARP is making an effort to bring in tax dollars for its members. So, its entirely possible to be pro-tax-dollar-spender when it benefits the SS recipient and defense-contractor (when self-interest justifies the stance), and to be pro-free market.

In any event, I do not think it's a good idea to narrowly limit the scope of the WikiProject to patently "libertarian" articles. (Whatever that might mean.) Indeed, I've been thinking about ways to fairly and properly include Keynesianism into the scope. --S. Rich (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Bill Maher self-identifies as a progressive , yet Maher is listed as libertarian, which seems like a clear violation of policy. Not as clear in the case of the Lexington Institute. The Lexington Institute is often supportive of big government corporate welfare firms, but you could argue that this makes the Lexington Institute more pro-market than pro-government. You could also argue the opposite, given that the firms that the Lexington Institute tends to support survive on government funding. You make a good point, but you might need a stronger case to convince enough people to get the designation changed. Abel (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

[3] talks about Maher and his self identification. Maybe he does so in the "civil liberties" sense. If is he simply for ACLU-type civil liberties, is he excluded from the "libertarian" label? Let's not get too wrapped up with either Maher or LI as "libertarian". After all, we are simply adding categories and expanding (or contracting) the scope of the WProject. Also, please specify what policy is at work here. Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your reference is ten years older than mine. Abel (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why Hcobb brought up the subject here. S/he has been editing the article and I'd think the article talkpage is the place to discuss it. It has had the libertarian categories for some time. So what? LI started off as libertarian and it still has libertarian attributes today. Categories don't define the topic, they are a guide for readers who are interested in topics. So I'd think removing libertarian categories from LI would not serve interested readers.--S. Rich (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You make a very strong case for including as many articles as possible into the libertarian category. The big tent approach. As a comparison, Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism currently includes 4,733 articles while Wikipedia:WikiProject Libertarianism currently includes 839 articles. Using the Gallup Governance Survey data we find that conservatives are 27% of the population of the United States while libertarians are 21% of the population. If the 4,733 number is somewhat representative of the 27%, then Wikipedia:WikiProject Libertarianism should have 3,712 rather than 839 articles. I do not see how the small tent approach is going to add 2,873 articles. Abel (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been adding libertarian categories & project banners for the last 2 weeks. The numbers you see are not up to date because the bot only counts every so often. (In one sense, every Conservative article could get a Libertarian tag as libertarians like the small/minimal government approach that conservative tout. What sets them apart is the willingness of conservatives to use government to pressure people on social issues.) --S. Rich (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well is lobbying for increased military spending conservative or libertarian? Hcobb (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In the United States, lobbying for increased military spending is a value shared by both the democratic and republican parties. It is not a liberal, conservative, or libertarian value. Abel (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that "value" is the right word -- "virtue" or "vice" might be better. Also, I'm not sure what issue Hcobb is seeking to raise. WP:RGW?--S. Rich (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

After checking news archives and finding it is described as libertarian or conservative by WP:RS, I fixed it per Wikipolicies thusly:

The Institute's mission statement supports "limiting the role of the federal government to those functions explicitly stated or implicitly defined by the Constitution" and "promoting America's ability to project power around the globe." It does not describe itself as "conservative" or "libertarian,", media have been known to do so. CarolMooreDC

Discussion of broadening definition of "fringe" topics/writers/bios/etc

At Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#RfC_on_the_scope_of_WP:FRINGE. About twice as many people in favor. Sounds like impending censorship to me, imposed over the holidays yet, including regarding topics/writers/bios/etc. often covered in this Wikiproject. CarolMooreDC 22:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

completely OT

Just curious how many people have a font that displays the 🗽 character? ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You probably already have one, if not several. You will need a font viewer program like gfontview to see which of your fonts have fractions as a character. Abel (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I know I do; I was polling you guys! 😁 (Fraction?) ⇔ ChristTrekker 13:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC regarding title change of Public choice theory

Interested editors are invited to look at the discussion regarding a proposed article title change for Public choice theory. The discussion is here: "Proposed title change from Public choice theory to Public choice".--S. Rich (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Help with Libertarianism template

I've been abcdizing the Libertarianism Navbar template. But I'd like to fix it up some more. Please see Template talk:Libertarianism for my suggestion. --S. Rich (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Re-write of Libertarianism?

A discussion is taking place on Talk:Libertarianism about improvements to the article. Interested editors/WikiProject members are invited to participate. – S. Rich (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Editors Invited to Laissez Faire article

There's discussion about the criticism section and a talk thread. Comments or additions to this section of the article would be welcome. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Jörg Guido Hülsmann

I believe tht is time to create an article of the professor. But first should be argued his relevance because of a deletion consulting of 2010. I'm not a native English speaker, so, for me is a little difficult to be an hard discussion here. But I post this if someone is interesting in help. --Sageo (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The decision to delete Hulsmann remains valid. Nothing has changed since the community decided to delete the Hulsmann article. If you disagree, please explain what new information you would like to present in favor of a Hulsmann article? SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. That delete come from a bad evaluation that should be reconsidered. Could be put in the list of pendants of the WikiProject. --Sageo (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with him myself but a quick look at the AfD looks like the article was not properly sourced with secondary sources showing his importance. If you can come up with 5 or 6 high quality ones and rewrite the original article, you can appeal to the person who deleted it. If you do not have and want the text of the original article, you should provide the deleting editor (or some other admin if s/he's no longer editing) with that list and ask for the original text to save you time and to make it clear you are serious. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I could search for secondary sources. --Sageo (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Jesús Huerta de Soto

WP:Articles for deletion/Jesús Huerta de Soto is of interest to the project
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It would be nice if we had an ALERTS page so that we would know about deletions, and more positive efforts regarding relevant articles. Anyone know how to do it? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Your message above constitutes Canvassing per WP policy. Please post similar notification of the Soto discussion on other relevant boards, such as Economics. SPECIFICO talk 23:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Actually posting on reasonably related project pages is not CANVASSing if the notice is worded neutrally. I would suggest that such is the case here. Collect (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC) If I put it at more projects it might be seen as canvassing! Feel free to put a neutrally worded notice there. OOops, too late for that advice - see here. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC) The guidance on canvassing is very clear that an objectively selected broad announcement is expected. Your statement to the contrary is either ill-informed or disingenuous. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC) [insert] Wikipedia:Canvassing reads pretty much like I said: The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion. As opposed to campaigning using nonneutral language. People have different perspectives on what is most relevant. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Carol has accused me of being non-neutral for soliciting people who are actually trained in economics and are from a broad host of ideologies (including but not limited to libertarianism) to comment on the de Soto deletion. lol. Steeletrap (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Article alerts page?

It would be nice if we had an ALERTS page so that we would know about deletions, and more positive efforts regarding relevant articles. Anyone know how to do it? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've C&P'd one from another project, but it needs subscription tweaking. WP:AALERTS has more info. – S. Rich (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hope it works! thanks. Also, a reason to template more articles as under Libertarianism Wikiproject since I guess that's the way you find they are up for deletion. Of course, with BLPs they have to call themselves Libertarian or be described thusly by one or more WP:RS.

Template reminder {{WPLibertarianism|class=???|importance=???}} ::CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?

There is an RfC here Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#RfC:_Should_the_section_title_for_Academic_freedom_controversy_be_changed.3F concerning the article on Hans-Hermann Hoppe. There is extensive background discussion elsewhere on the talk page there.

Note: I have revised the section heading here to reflect what the RfC title is and modified the link to create a Wikilink. – S. Rich (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)