Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Peter H Marshall Demanding the impossible : a history of anarchism. HarperCollins 1992, Fontana 1993; republished PM Press 2010

Wotcher,

I was trying to figure out if George Woodcock would make a useful one line addition to the thinkers section, and came across Peter H Marshall Demanding the impossible: a history of anarchism. HarperCollins 1992, Fontana 1993; republished by PM Press 2010. The PM Press edition is available in Google Scholar here. HarperCollins is commercial non-fiction. Fontana was the paperback imprint of Collins. Marshall appears to have had other works published in scholarly presses (Yale UP).

In particular the section 639-642 may be useful to the article:

{quote}The word 'libertarian' has long been associated with anarchism, and has been used repeatedly throughout this work. The term originally denoted a person quo upheld the doctorine of freedom of the will;… It came however to be applied to anyone who approved of liberty in general. … [anarchist uses] … For a long time, libertarian was interchangeable in France with anarchist but in recent years, its meaning has become more ambivalent. Some anarchists like Daniel Guérin will call themselves 'libertarian socialists' partly to avoid the negative overtones still associated with anarchism, and partly to stress the place of anarchism within the socialist tradition. Even Marxists of the New Left like E. P. Thompson call themselves 'libertarian' to distinguish themselves from those authoritarian socialists and communists… Left libertarianism can therefore range from the decentralist who wishes to limit and devolve State power, to the syndicalist who wants to abolish it altogether. It can even encompass the Fabians and the social democrats who wish to socialize the economy but who still see a limited role for the State. [341]

{quote}The problem with the term 'libertarian' is that it is now also used by the Right. Extreme liberals inspired by J. S. Mill who are concerned with civil liberties like to call themselves libertarians. They tend to be individualists who trust in a society formed on the basis of voluntary agencies. They reject a strong centralized State and blieve that social order, in the sense of the security of persons and property, can best be achieved through private firms competing freely in the market-place. In its moderate form, right libertarianism embraces laissez-faire liberals like Robert Nozick who call for a minimal State, and in its extreme form, anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman who entirely repudiate the role of the State and look to the market as a means of ensuring social order. [341-2]

{quote}While undoubtedly related to liberalism and socialism, true anarchism goes beyond both political tendencies. … Anarchism leaves Left and Right libertarianism behind since it finds no role for State and government, however minimal. Its roots may entwine and its concerns overlap, but ultimately anarchism forms a separate ideology and doctrine, with its own recognizable tradition.

Thanks. The editorial direction I would draw from this is that it strongly reinforces the other RS, including HQRS, that indicate that libertarianism is left-wing and not left-wing, libertarianism is right-wing and not right-wing, that libertarianism is anarchist and not anarchist. Though it is especially useful for its claim regarding Fabians and social democrats. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The usefulness of that information is limited to the etymology of the term "Libertarianism". BlueRobe (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Useful to etymology, but not exclusively so, as he clearly states two definitions regarding what libertarianism is on the left ("Left libertarianism can therefore range...") and on the right ("In its moderate form, right libertarianism...). Additionally, for the Section Libertarian Socialism he clearly marks Fabianism and the actually-socialist social democrats as libertarian, which provides a source for currently unsourced statements (which I'm about to add the ref to). Fifelfoo (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fabianism? As if the Libertarianism page isn't already overrun by inappropriate Anarchist content, now you want to dump a load of content about Socialism (the antithesis of Libertarianism) in there. BlueRobe (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is what the RS say. The current, and appropriate weight, for Fabians and Social Democracy is one sentence with wiki-links, to contrast non-revolutionary and revolutionary libertarian socialism. Consult for example, David Goodway Anarchist seeds beneath the snow: left-libertarian thought and British writers from William Morris to Colin Ward Liverpool University Press 2006 at 73passim where it discusses the relationship between the Fabians and Wilde; or, Ruth Livesey "Morris, Carpenter, Wilde, and the POlitical Aesthetics of Labor" Victorian Literature and Culture(2004), 601–616. 1060-1503. Cheers. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

About the only ideology you haven't embraced for the Libertarianism article is mainstream Libertarianism. Are you guys filming this dialogue for some Candid Camera TV show? BlueRobe (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, while you're throwing critical thinking out the window don't forget to add conservatism as well...

• However, most observers treat libertarianism as a strain of current conservative thought. - Leviathan on the Right: how big-government conservatism brought down the ... By Michael Tanner
• Libertarianism is a form of Conservatism often considered separate from the more mainstream conservative ideologies, partially because it is a bit more extreme, and partially because Libertarians often separate themselves from other forms of more mainstream Conservatism. - American conservatism: history, theory and practice By Brian R. Farmer
• Libertarianism, sometimes considered a type of conservatism, believes in the autonomy of the individual and a minimal role for the government. - The conservative tradition in America By Charles W. Dunn, J. David Woodard

Or, rather than just cutting and pasting every time you see the word "libertarianism"...you could just refer to this relevant source checklist --Xerographica (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Dunn and Woodward were writing about conservatism in the United States. Their views on that subject btw are based on the theories of Russell Kirk and have gained virtually no acceptance. The biggest problem of course if that most scholars do not consider what is called "conservatism" in the U.S. to be real conservatism, it is normally considered to be a type of liberalism. So their view that U.S. libertarianism is part of U.S. conservatism is true, the view that libertarianism is part of liberalism may be true, but the theory that libertarianism is part of an ideology that supports monarchy, hereditary privilege and a strong state is absurd. TFD (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD...therefore...we should include a section on American conservatism...and liberalism? --Xerographica (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you come to that conclusion based on what I just wrote? TFD (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What you just wrote did not address my point. According to those reliable sources...libertarianism is a form/strain/type of American conservatism...so should we include a section on American conservatism? --Xerographica (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I still do not follow you. Libertarianism is an ideology, yet we do not have a section on ideology. TFD (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You acknowledged a relationship between liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism. But you don't believe that conservatism or liberalism are intimately related to libertarianism? --Xerographica (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

request for the exact text supporting "anarchism continues to be a major strand within libertarianism" neither of the links supply the verbiage.

Major and minority strands are tantamount to the current discussion about undo weight. having the exact ext would be helpful to verify the source has been interpreted correctly. other sources like sep, jave classified left-libertarian as the minor. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, the claim that "anarchism continues to be a major strand within libertarianism" is so patently absurd that I don't know why we're even discussing it. Indeed, there would be an odd mix of outrage, laughter and raised eye-brows if we threw that claim around in the company of Anarchists. At the rate the lefties are poisoning the Libertarianism article with these oddball quotes, we'll have Papa-Smurf listed as one of the Influential Libertarian Philosophers within 3 months. BlueRobe (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't anarchism the most extreme variant of mainstream Libertarianism, rather than an opposite form as y'all are implying? North8000 (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As the sources in the scope of government section indicated...there is a very important distinction between anarchism and libertarianism. Here's another reference pointing out the distinction...

Libertarians accept the need for a limited state - if only to provide basic levels of safety and security. Their focus is keeping the state limited to a disciplined - and small - number of activities. Anarchists still want to smash the mechanisms of state. As I've noted, anarchy is an emotional system. - Liberty in troubled times: a libertarian guide to laws, politics and society ... By James Walsh

The key distinction is the existence of the state as a mechanism for providing "safety and security". --Xerographica (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Noam Chomsky, Carlos Peregrín Otero. Language and Politics. AK Press, 2004, p. 739. reads,

  {quote}Many ardent drug reformers are self-identified "libertarians." As an anarchist (I assume it is fair to call you that) what is your take on libertarianism?

  {quote}The term "libertarian" as used in the U.S. means something quite different from what it meant historically and still means in the rest of the world. Historically, the libertarian movement has been the anti-statist wing of the socialist movement. Socialist anarchism was libertarian socialism.

  {quote}In the U.S., which is a society much more dominated by business, the term has a different meaning. It means eliminating or reducing state controls, mainly controls over private tyrannies. Libertarians in the U.S. don't say, Let's get rid of corporations. It is a sort of ultra-rightism.

• AK Press is a commercial non-fiction press with a political bent, much like Cato. The work was first published in 1989 in Montreal by Black Rose books, another commercial non-fiction press with a political bent. Chomsky is like Doherty and expert without having a degree in the area (Chomsky's higher degree is linguistics, not politics). Treat as Policy Report by Cato is treated. In my opinion this isn't RS, but WP:RS/N is still deliberating on Doherty via Cato's Policy Reports. And their argument is leading towards yes for Doherty in Policy Reports. (I'm giving RS/N until their archive date, they're archiving on a 4 day basis at the moment). Fifelfoo (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

thank you fifelfoo! since Noam did not address the major or minor issue, we can exclude his source, now lets find the words from the other source. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Noam's claim is a bit more than anarchism being part of libertarianism, it is that for all but the US, libertarianism is anti-statist socialism—no mention of anarchism as such. I don't want to consider the implications Noam in AK until RS/N have a chance to finalise their discussion of Doherty in Cato. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

fife, this section is just about anarchy being considered the "major" strand of libertarian, i do not wish to minimize Noams comments as it relates to the rest of the article, simple point out it does not support the claims made by the editor in this single passage. do you have the other source? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't anarchism mean non-statist? And despite the claims of a writer or two, is it not obvious that there are non-statists in nearly every "sect" of Libertarianism.? North8000 (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-statist libertarians are the same thing as statist anarchists. --Xerographica (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm using Google Scholar / Google Books on a non-academic connection outside of the Sainted Home of Better Copyright Access. Other editors could ref-check themselves. It would help if when people want to discuss references that they give full citations. Really it would help. So very much. It isn't hard everyone, "Author/s "Title of contained work (article / Chapter)" Title of containing work (book / journal) [any editors] [Optional Place] Publisher: year: pages. Author (Year) Title Place Publisher: pages is also acceptable. The second source given was:

• Perlin, Terry M. (1979). Contemporary Anarchism. Transaction Publishers. p. 40.

  I loathe and detest Transaction Publishers. You cannot expect me to fairly discuss the reliability of this source; if you have concerns, take it to WP:RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

  The source reads:

  {quote}[40]The Cybernetic mathematician John B. McEwan, writing on the relevance of anarchism to cybernetics explains that: "Libertarian socialists, [synonym for non-individualist anarchism] espeicaly Kropotkin and Landauer, …"[fn8]

  {quote}[Two paragraphs on Kropotkin and Spainish anarchism's cybernetic insight omitted]

  {quote}A balance must be achieved between the suffocating tyranny of unbridled authority and the kind of "autonomy" that leads to petty local patriotism, separatism of little grouplets and the fragmentation of society. Libertarian organization must reflect the complexity of social relationships and promote solidarity on the widest possible scale. It can be defined as federalism: coordination through free agreement, locally, regionally, nationally and internationally. A vast coordinated …

  {quote}[41]The increasing complexity of society is making anarchism more and not less relevant to modern life. …

thank you for supply the text for the source, i will delete the text unsupported by the sources and disputed by the sep. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I would not use any book originally published by Transaction Publishers. TFD (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Transaction Publishers

The phrase "[Libertarian socialism…]as a synonym for socialist anarchism" has as one of three footnotes ^ Ross, Dr. Jeffery Ian. Controlling State Crime, Transaction Publishers (200) p. 400 The phrase "Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy”" has as one of two footnotes ^ Edward Stringham, Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice, Transaction Publishers, 2007, p. 268, ISBN , As Transaction is a bad press, and these phrases are footnoted by other sources, I propose we delete these two footnotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

""libertarian socialism" is equivalent to "socialist anarchism"" supported by one other footnote: ^ Perlin, Terry M. (1979). Contemporary Anarchism. Transaction Publishers. p. 40.Fifelfoo (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That is an argument for the claim that Libertarian Socialism is an Anarchist ideology, it is not an argument for the claim that Libertarianism=Anarchism. Stop gerrymandering the definitions. BlueRobe (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My concern here is to remove any Transaction published works regardless of what they say, because of the poor quality of Transaction publishers. All of the points which use Transaction works in a footnote, use other works as well. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Major strand

I have changed "minor strand" back to "major strand" with The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought reference. However, the sentence now looks like WP:SYNTH.

Today anarchism continues to be a major strand within libertarianism; including philosophies such as libertarian socialism, which is anti-capitalist, and anarcho-capitalism, which favours the free market. <ref--Blackwell> <ref--AK press>

The Blackwell reference only talks of Anarchism in the individualistic sense. N6n (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism if right is the better known, how can anarchist be the major stand? Blackwell is a stronger reference, but sep is more widely used/known? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember SEP being challenged as a source in some of the Ayn Rand debates - as I remember it is a collection of essays, and some of them are POV --Snowded ^TALK 17:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

would you support removing sep from this article? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

We missed the largest definition

The largest Libertarian organization in the world (the US Libertarian Party) defines Libertarianism as:

Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

And says that if the above is you, you are one.

How could we have missed this definition? North8000 (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian Party is not a "reliable source". "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (WP:RS)N6n (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello N6n

What do you think of these thoughts?:

This is a case (an organization stating what it's definition is) where a primary source is appropriate and definitive.

Your criteria would knock out the majority of sources on the more unusual forms of Libertarianism in the article. Most of those are a philosopher / writer essentially creating their definition of a particular type of Libertarianism as they write it.

Sourcing questions aside, what do you think of it?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

N6n is right; that source is fine for their own definition of libertarianism when attributed to them. Beyond that using it is problematic under primary source guidelines --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and that is what I think that I said. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, it's time to face the truth - no matter what sources we provide, or strong they are, they're going to criticise them. There is nothing wrong with my Ayn Rand sources, but they're even attacking those. BlueRobe (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that there are 2 or 3 people for whom the "battle" eclipses all else, even any issues. This is unusual, because in most warfare articles, the issues (and stances on them) drive the battle. But I think that that is just 2 or 3 people. And so I think that there is hope. North8000 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but those 2 or 3 people make up half the traffic on this page. And their arguments are absurd - source is too close to Rand/Libertarianism so must be too primary; source isn't close enough to Rand/Libertarianism so must be unreliable; source isn't on the internet so can't be verified; source is on the internet so must be unreliable... blah blah blah. NOTHING will satisfy them. My Rand section is better sourced than almost every other section in the Libertarianism article, but they don't give a damn. BlueRobe (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if people faced the truth. You've been told that some of your sources are weak. THAT is the truth. Binswanger is a pretty questionable source to cite for views on Rand which are to be relayed as fact. A random webpage off of the Cato site is also a bad idea for RS purposes. Moreover, the bias of Cato would force us to have to introduce a balancing viewpoint, which would only expand the section, when it's supposed to be fairly brief. BigK HeX (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(added later) I guess this should be in the Rand section, but responding here: Sourcing issues temporarily aside, do you think that there is anything wrong with the material in the Rand section? North8000 (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If we ignore the sourcing issues, then the issue that I see is that we need a more reliably neutral comment than one from Cato ... or we need an additional comment to balance the one from Cato, which can likely be considered to have a bias. The opening sentence is problematic, as it's relayed as fact, but is from a source which is certainly not uninvolved from the subject matter (I was going to say "certainly not objective" ... lol). Anyways, a tertiary source might be a good idea, since I suspect that there's going to be a fair amount of variance in opinions among secondary sources. BigK HeX (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Cato source is fine for Cato`s opinion so long as attributed. So long as it is pointed out through attribution that it is Cato`s opinion there is no need for a balancing viewpoint mark nutley (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

@North8000: (i)We don't care for how the Democratic Party defines 'democracy' or how the Republican Party defines 'republic'. There must be many more of these "democrats" than the scholars who care for them. Why then we don't ask for their definitions? (ii)How do you know that all the people voting for LP believe their definition to be correct? Perhaps they are just choosing the best among the options available, with no weightage given to how correct they think the definition of l. is.

I think that the two "sides" of this debate differ on the importance of scholarly sources v. the "generally understood meaning". This is what you call "battle for the sake of battle". For me, the "g. u. m." has no significance at all (I have come to this conclusion only recently!). I think an encyclopaedia's business is to just proportion things according to what "reliable sources" say, and as far as I see, WP policies agree. The "g. u. m." may have a section of its own though (I have no problem with this), but you need "reliable sources" to back up this claim too!

Your definition: If you add "(at most)" after "limited" in the definition, I would have no problem with it. You should check Rothbard's arguments on why "limited governmentstate(edited 2010-09-20)" is an absurdity though. (Those were pretty convincing for me.)N6n (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello N6n: I don't think that the analogy is applicable because "democracy" and "republic" are not the ideologies of those two parties. My main point being that the summary prepared by the largest Libertarian organization says a lot about a g.u.m. of the term. Next, I raise the question, when you say "according to what reliable sources say", the question is "say about what"? I would argue that an important topic is what RS's say the g.u.m. of Libertarianism is. And finally, by WP standards, if a source is presenting their own personal invention of a sect or term of Libertarianism, then I would argue that their material not an RS, and a primary source in a scenario where a primary sources is very unsuitable, as it is only reflecting on one person's invention. I think that this article is full of such non-RS "RS's" and to some extent has mistakenly been built around them. (I'll be mostly off line for a day after this) North8000 (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We could just as well go to the Conservative Party of Canada (the world's second largest conservative party) website and use their definitions of belief in "loyalty to a sovereign" and a belief that people "should have reasonable access to quality health care regardless of their ability to pay".[1] TFD (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello TFD. I don't think that you have made it clear what the point of your post is. I think that you are implying that the situation that you describe is analogous to the point I was making. If so, I submit that the situation is substantially different. Most importantly, in the case that you point out, I don't think that you are saying that this is them defining conservatism. There are several other ways that it is not analogous. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello North8000, I agree that 'libertarianism' is more relevant to the political parties having it in their name, than in the corresponding case for 'democracy'. But the case is no way clear-cut. The summary may have been prepared by "the largest Libertarian organization", but the said organization has very little motivation to conform to what scholars think about the term--the party will be judged by the voters, who just care about the issues, not the labels. If the Republican Party were to say that they support libertarianism, would we care about what they think of l.? I have some problem with head-counting to define a term (or guide the definition) too. "If one million people...still wrong." To follow the numbers is a dictionary's business, not an encyclopaedia's.

I think everyone here agrees with what you said about "primary sources". I had proposed a definition of libertarianism by Karl Hess with which most editors probably agree, but it was shot down as being a "primary source". (this thread: [2]) N6n (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into that. But It will take me at least a day. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried but the link is dead. Left a note on your talk page. Sincerely.North8000 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(per discussion on N6n talk page)Thanks. That sort of describes the common philosophical core common to most forms of Libertarianism. IMHO, not perfect due to being a bit ethereal, but much better than the current lead. BTW I think that the way that your idea was quickly dismissed was wrong on two levels. The norm in productive talk pages is to discuss the idea, and then to use sourcing in the discussion when needed, and then source it to put it into the article. There is no requirement nor is it the norm to have to have sourcing to put forth an idea in a talk page. This whole idea of denigrating talk page ideas SOLELY on not fulfilling this non-existent talk page requirement is way out of line. Second, it was certainly inconsistent, because many of the supposedly secondary sources used by this article are actually primary sources. They are basically an author or philosopher CREATING their own personal definition of "xxxxxx Libertarianism." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

STOP sniping --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BigK HeX, the sheer ignorance of that remarks speaks volumes for your approach to this discussion. Here is an on-line version of the Binswanger WP:RS. It shows - bloody clearly - that the Binswanger WP:RS is primarily an edited compilation of excepts from Rand's own works! WP:RS on Rand's own views don't get better than the Binswanger text. Have you no shame? BlueRobe (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC) The fact that you seem to believe your assertion somehow strengthens your defense of the source makes your use of the phrase "sheer ignorance" quite ironic. In any case, your claims about "Rand's views" are patently irrelevant to your contentiously written characterizations of Rand and her influence [the opening sentence]. BigK HeX (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC) BigK HeX, just click on the bloody link and type in the keywords yourself. You can do that much, can't you? BlueRobe (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC) I could, but it seems like deleting your contentiously worded/sourced opening sentence may be an even better idea. Alternatively, we could just have a more reasonable discussion, where you take the advisement of other editors into account. BigK HeX (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC) BigK HeX, of course, you have to come out with yet another taunt about your own bloody-minded determination to obstruct all good faith attempts to fix the Libertarianism page. As if you get some sort of thrill out of frustrating the well-meaning editors to the Libertarianism page. So much for your good faith. BlueRobe (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Posting crap like, "You can do that much, can't you?" doesn't indicate that you're interested in a reasoned discussion. My two choices with you (and any editor) on a topic in dispute are to try to work with you if you're showing interest in reasoned discussion, or to work around you if you're not. Perhaps one day you'll realize that my "bloody-minded determination" only exists when YOU make it clear that it's more productive at the moment to work around you. You being receptive to outside input eliminates the need for that. BigK HeX (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• This search shows the sentences don't even come from lp.org. Not clear where they originated.
• And while the LP is a reliable source on its own definition, it cannot be denied that The LP Platform's Section 3.7 reads: Self-Determination: Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty. Notice it doesn't say "statist" government but "governance" which includes non-state alternatives. You don't understand that many libertarians like myself defend non-state alternatives because we think they need to be experimented with, not because of any big ideological commitment to them being the best and only way to proceed. That's why it was put in there by one of the more "right wing" members of the party, as he admitted to me recently. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(added later) Carol, that came from the "are you a Libertarian" type section on their web site. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. For many reasons, I think that the non-statist should definitely be repr3esented..... not only represented, but significantly represented, because it represents a substantial view amongst Libertarians, although not including myself. Although I think that Xerographica might have you on the terminology (I think that any organization with the power to govern could be called a government) I do not agree with them disparaging your / the non-statist viewpoint. North8000 (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Again with your tribalism "soapbox". Might want to "correct" the Wikipedia article on governance because it currently says...

"governance" is what a "government" does

It's completely irrelevant though because democracies ensure that the majority will never have sufficient incentive to revolt. --Xerographica (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Only fools believe Democracy is really designed to produce representative government. The primary purpose of Democracy is to ensure that the political elite are less able to stray so far from acceptable parameters (in the eyes of the popular electorate) that the citizens revolt. All the other rationales behind Democracy are little more that PR spin-doctoring. BlueRobe (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:North8000: You still have provided an actual online a link for the quote that this whole section is based on from an LP.ORG source. And I still can't find one. So once again we have a section that probably should be collapsed for not discussing something properly.

User:Xerographica: Wikipedia Governance defines the word as something a statist government does and also says "In the case of a business or of a non-profit organisation, governance relates to consistent management, cohesive policies, processes and decision-rights for a given area of responsibility. For example, managing at a corporate level might involve evolving policies on privacy, on internal investment, and on the use of data." Considering that some people want to govern themselves via a business or nonprofit organization instead of a state (which some call anarchism, some call agorism, some call libertarianism, etc.) it obviously is a description of state and non-state methods of organization. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Carol, I went through the "quiz" on the LP site to get there, here's a link with my personal "red dot" http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz_result?e=80&i=100_80.gif&p=100. On your second sentence, you keep making up talk page rules that don't exist. In this case it would be to squelch a very useful & germane discussion. Sound's like warfare to me, but sorry if I misread that. Let's move on and have some fun here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The LP linking to a non-LP website cannot be considered a reference for what the LP thinks under WP:RS in wikipedia. It only reflects what http://www.theadvocates.org thinks. (For example, maybe http://www.theadvocates.org has changed their text since the last time an LP staffer checked a few years back.) I don't know which second sentence you are referring to, but if we are to have productive discussions here we have to cite real WP:RS for discussion or it's just more soapbox and I thought we had started collapsing that sort of thing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

One can find sources that meet the wp:"RS" criteria that say anything. The only talk pages that go anywhere have discussions on the topics (often guided by sources) and then find sourcing for what was decided. (And you are calling any discussion without citations "soapboxing"...I would not agree with that characterization.) Witness this discussion which has gone NOWHERE (or downhill) in 5 years. I agree that that is not an RS for putting that into the article, but I would consider it to be a very strong indicator. A third of the top 1/3 of the LP home page links to it. As an aside, I also conside such summaries to be a stronger indicator that a platform. To remain in such a high profile position, particularly if it is informal would typicaly need like a 90% or 99% consensus, whereas to be in the platform just needs 51%. Within organizations that are (supposedly) organized around a viewpoint, you would expect nearly 100% support of that viewpoint. I don't consider 51% to be an indicator of a viewpoitn of such an organization. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The only talk pages that go anywhere have discussions on the topics (often guided by sources) and then find sourcing for what was decided.; that is 110% the thing to avoid on this page. As you say it is possible to creatively source many things, and making a pre-formed decision is not a good way to approach sourcing material. Instead it is better to address actual content (say a sentence or inclusion) and then fi9gure out what the RS's are saying --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that we're both right sometimes, and that we're 70% saying the same thing. On the other 30%, I think that your way is the best on a very specific question, but submit that that doesn't work well on large scale / complex/ strategic issues such as this article has. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

New lede compromise proposal

I am proposing a new lede idea that can (hopefully) satisfy us. Suggestions and improvement ideas are welcome, of course:

Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action. Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power [either "total or merely substantial"] from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.

In the English-speaking world, the most commonly known form of libertarianism is a free-market capitalist position sometimes referred to as Right-libertarianism. Anarchist varieties of libertarianism also exist, but are a minority of libertarians; they still play a role in politics, particularly those outside of the United States; numerous anarchist forms of libertarianism exist, including libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism.

Numerous libertarian parties exist, including the United States Libertarian Party, a right-libertarian party which has over 225,000 members and has had hundreds of candidates elected to public office.

Toa Nidhiki05 18:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No it does not have 225,000 members. TFD (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

yes, it does. please start looking up the references, ^ "2008 Registration Totals". Ballot-access.org. Retrieved 2010-07-19. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is pretty good. Might have to bite the bullet and use the oxymoron term "right Libertarian" as you did. Although it is logical to do so (the largest Libertarian organizaiton, with #2 being like 10 times smaller?) on the face of it it sound's a little heavey on the US Libertarian party. Maybe shorten that part?

Folks PLEASE review and discuss this on its merits! Let's not apply the lens of past battles and "sides". North8000 (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Registered voters are not party members. TFD (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Just like for the GOP and Dems, some of the registered voters are party members, some aren't. But 225,000 registered voters and hundreds of elected offices is significant. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It needs to make the right claim, and its not significant for the lede, main body yes. Article needs to summarise subject overall not promote one strand or organisation --Snowded ^TALK 19:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There are 72 million registered Democrats and 55 million registered Republicans. Compare that with the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom which had fallen to 250,000 members by 2008. TFD (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that the Libertarian Party is a minority party in the U.S. What's relevant here is not that, but the English usage of the term libertarianism, and in particular how often it's used to refer to a philosophy that includes left-libertarianism as compared to when it's not. The 250,000 registered LP voters is evidence of usage of the term not including left-libertarianism, since the LP obviously excludes it. Is there any counter evidence? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was any particular dispute that right wing libertarianism exists and seeks to exclude left-wng libertarianism. So what? --Snowded ^TALK 19:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

1. You'll have to quote what it is in Hamowy that refs "right libertarianism" since it's 3 whole pages, not easily found among the several pages listed, hard to read with some web browsers - assuming all readers even can get all pages, which they can't always get.

Snowded, no one is saying there is a dispute about the existence of RL. Not sure what you mean by RL seeking to exclude LL (RL is not a sentient entity that seeks anything).

The issue is about normal English usage of the term, and how much of it refers to RL, how much of it refers to LL, and how much of it refers to a meaning that is inclusive of LL as well as RL. By the way, even though WP:BALANCE calls for presenting "viewpoints in proportion to their prominence", this isn't even a WP:BALANCE issue. It's about scope. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Problems with proposal

1. You don't understand that various WP:RS consider anarcho-capitalism to be "right wing" so you are falsely excluding them. See this books google search.
2. I'd still like to see better defs than Long before Long. (But by time I finish reading miles of talk page I'm usually too tapped out and annoyed to bother.)
3. Neither source supports “minority” language.
4. You can say “registered voters” but does emphasis on one organization define a philosopy? And don’t forget the party still is rife with Rothbardian anarchists and thus supports the right to alter or abolish government in it’s platform, which should be mentioned. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Factually incorrect and US centric "In the English-speaking world". Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Please stop using the word 'compromise'. This is not a political negotiation, we are trying to do what is right.
2. Libertarian Party deserves no space in the lead. This is an article concerning political theory, not politics. Did you ever see an encyclopedia article on libertarianism starting with the talk of the Libertarian Party?
3. The number of people supporting the anarchist varieties may be in a "minority", but that has no relevance to the meaning of the term.
4. Roderick T. Long should not be named in the lead, just "A definition says ..." is fine.

So no. N6n (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

---

References

Scope subpage

I've created the framework for a subpage entitled Talk:Libertarianism/scope the purpose of which is to present arguments in favor and opposing the inclusion of libertarian socialism in the Libertarianism article. The basic framework is to have two main sections, one for the support argument and one for the opposition argument, and a rebuttal for each. Each section has a place for contributors to identify themselves. The intent is to edit only those arguments you favor (either the support or the oppose, and presumably the rebuttal to the other one).

There is also a section for collecting term usage information from google. Lot of work to be done in that area.

Hopefully this will be a more constructive use of our efforts. I would want to give us at least 30 days to complete it, and then maybe have an RFC about it, if we don't develop consensus somehow in the process. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about this page moved to the Discussion section on that page: /scope#Discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

looks like a really promising idea :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A sub page like that is a great structural idea for situations like this. Ideally it should have an "editable" section with succinct points and summaries and another typical talk page section. But I think that you might have narrowed the subject too much. My suggestion would be "Libertarianism article strategic planning and issues". North8000 (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC) The scope would be larger issues which are too big / complex to solve via just editing the article and where the format main article talk page is too transient and voluminous to serve the purpose. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Scope of Government Survey

WP:OR, very much the sort of approach to avoid, especially in this context --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 00:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
moved to User talk:Xerographica

Drawing Lines - Exclusion vs Inclusion

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

---

Today I shared a bell curve diagram representing the scope of government issue but the usual suspects moved it to my talk page. As far as I can tell, the content was not in violation of the Talk Page Guidelines..."The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission." But on the off-chance that I'm misinterpreting the specific exceptions I'll leave it off...but I would appreciate hearing exactly which guideline it sufficiently violated to warrant removal.

Drawing lines is necessary because the greater the inclusiveness the greater the difficulty ensuring that the various viewpoints are covered in proportion to their prominence. If all the reliable sources said pretty much the same thing then this would be simple. Editors could copy and paste and that's it. But in our case the reliable sources say very contradictory things...so blindly copying and pasting every reference to the word "libertarianism" is not acceptable.

The Wikipedia article on political ideologies notes that ideologies have two dimensions...goals and methods. Capitalism is a very distinguishable method of achieving a goal yet we have both capitalist and anti-capitalist views expressed in this article. Abolishing government is also a very distinguishable method of achieving a goal yet we have both minimal government and anarchist views expressed in this article. In order to help us quantity our different viewpoints I created the bell curve diagram...but our differences are so great that opposing editors removed it without discussion. Such behavior only supports the possibility that writing an article with so many fundamentally opposing ideologies will never work. --Xerographica (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't overly constructive. It presents no solutions, is unsourced and contains your interpretation of things. My issue is that this is not the first time you've added such content; there are at least two examples above. It's not helpful and I urge you to spend time looking for reliable sources to make your argument. I cannot think of any other way than closing this to make the point that this must be discussed with sourcing. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 00:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Requested move (Forms of)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Libertarianism → Forms of Libertarianism — User:Toa Nidhiki05 in the comment directly below explains his rationale for what is substantially a page move. Though this suggestion is older (by a few minutes), please note the next talk page section also contains a page-move request which received more response (because it was given the Page-Move Template quite a while ago). BigK HeX (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Anyway, my idea is this; move the current page to Forms of Libertarianism, removing the history section but keeping most of the content in the current 'Forms of Libertarianism' page. Of course, all forms would be added, and given equal weight. This includes all ideologies listed on the 'Part of a series on Libertarianism' infobox; anarchist, minarchist and minmal-state. I'm thinking a left-right division on the page would also help. Ideologies not currently covered, such as Civil libertarianism and Fusionism, could also be covered. The Libertarian redirect page that would remain after the move could be either deleted or moved to a disambiguation page linking to both Right and Left libertarianism, as well as anarcho-capitalism and minarchism. I think this compromise would be suitable to both sides; the right-wing side (myself included) would not complain, since there would be no base 'Libertarianism' page, and the left-wing side would get equal coverage, albeit on a separate page. Toa Nidhiki05 20:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the zillionth time. BigK HeX (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please give some discussion on this? I am trying to make a good-faith effort to reach an agreeable compromise, as opposed to both sides wanting nothing but unconditional acceptance of their terms. Toa Nidhiki05 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See the the ALREADY-CLOSED RfC for discussion. Usually, arguing the same point over and over, when the matter has been settled is not considered an act of good faith. BigK HeX (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of bad-faith editing, then? I'm trying to stop this pointless debate. Toa Nidhiki05 20:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You want to stop the pointless debate? See the closed RfC, then see WP:IDHT. BigK HeX (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hex. Stop being disruptive. You know what you're doing. It's called stonewalling, and it is a fundamental attribute to every attempt at editing you have made on this page.68.59.4.188 (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I created the official Requested Move request below simultaneously. Those who support the move of this article may specify a preference for this target instead of Libertarianism (word) in the comments, as I did. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would conditionally support this. In principle this sounds like a great idea but I think we need to make a little more headway on defining Libertarianism in order from readers to properly understand what unites the differing forms of Libertarianism. I think this would involve taking a page from the Political Compass and talk about Libertarianism as a characteristic of a political position rather than a philosophy in and of itself. Anatoly-Rex (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be acceptable for me; I just want this debate over with. Toa Nidhiki05 20:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Such an important and fundamental concept as Libertarianism deserves a page of its own. Making it a disambiguation page is a cop-out, and a very poor substitute for correcting whatever ills exist with the current article. Powers ^T 12:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose:

1. The word libertarianism shouldn't be capitalised in the proposed title.
2. I don't think forms of libertarianism is a good way to disambiguate an article or that it has a clear meaning. A more logical and descriptive title would be something like libertarianism (broad definition).
3. If libertarianism is to be a disambiguation page then it would be best for it to include some explanation of the meaning and etymology of the term, and short summaries of each of the main varieties. You would then end up back with something a lot like what we have now.
4. The currently article follows roughly the same approach as liberalism and conservatism, each of which is about broad political families with many (sometimes contradictory) strands. We don't have articles called forms of liberalism or forms of conservatism.
5. Not really happy at being asked to vote a fourth time within just a few weeks. Iota (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support The various ideologies maybe have enough in common to be included in the same book...but certainly not in the same chapter. --Xerographica (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For the uninitiated, apparently, Xerographica's comment here is merely a euphemism for censoring certain reliably sourced understandings from the Libertarianism wiki article [his "chapter"], with the justification that these other understandings still have their own stand-alone Wiki articles somewhere in the encyclopedia [his "book"]. BigK HeX (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This recommendation is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarianism and none of the editors supporting the move have provided any sources to support their views just pages of arguments based on their personal opinions. I would advise them to read WP:OR and WP:V and read about libertarianism in sources provided in the articles about them. TFD (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, goes massively against wiki convention. This article should (and appears) to give a broad introduction to libertarianism, it's history and introduce the forms. This should be as broad and inclusive as possible. At which point it then should link out to the various forms. This is what normal readers will expect and thus what you should be aiming for. It looks like the article mostly does this... --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose These editors' attempts to gut the main Libertarianism article of everything except one narrow definition has failed in:

• This August 27 RfC on making it just about Right wing libertarianism,
• This September 3 RfC for removing a tag saying that the article lacked a “single coherent topic” (because it did not have the desired single POV,
• and [[Talk:Libertarianism#Requested_move|this September 9 Requested move to Libertarianism (word).

In all three cases wikipedia editors who read the relevant noticeboards took a look and agreed with those editors who want the article to have a broader scope. If this similar Request for Move isn’t Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_.get_the_point, I don’t know what is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose There should be a page called 'Libertarianism'. History + Forms + Movements (if any) of Libertarianism = Libertarianism N6n (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose high quality reliable sources indicate that the content being covered by the article is the object libertarianism. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Process issue

I've relocated this Requested Move section to the bottom of this page. This precise request (libertarianism -> forms of libertarianism) was added to Wikipedia:Requested moves today (15 September). As I understand the rules this means that the effective date of the commencement of this particular voting period is 15 September.

I think people should be aware that they should cast a clear vote on this specific move request to avoid any potential confusion or controversy in the counting of votes.Iota (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Due to existing comments in the thread, it think it might be less confusing to keep the thread in place. I've added a notification ot the bottom of the talk page. BigK HeX (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Iota (talk)

It's not fine. When I commented above, this was not an official specific move request. This is a mess. I already closed what was then the only official open discussion because clearly it was not finding consensus, and now both are open? How does any of this help achieve consensus? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If you don't think this move proposal needs to be addressed, then please refer your issues to the proposer, User:Toa Nidhiki05. He indicates today that he intends to follow up on this move request, despite the very clear results of your move proposal below. BigK HeX (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, there was a pretty clear consensus on your move proposal. People opposed it. BigK HeX (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I closed it. Technicalities aside, I don't understand why you reopened it. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for reopening this thread

"If it stays untouched for a while, I'll go ahead and move it." User:Toa Nidhiki05 on September 15th. [3] N6n (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mainstream libertarianism

Above, the term "mainstream libertarianism" was used in a context that clearly referred to the political philosophy based on individual liberty and property rights, excluding anarcho-capitalism, libertarian socialism and left-libertarianism. Someone else declared, "There is no such thing as "mainstream Libertarianism", please take your US bias and lock it in a suitcase under your bed. ". I have heard this before, but I don't understand it. Consider these non-U.S. references to libertarianism that are uses of libertarianism in this sense:

• Libertarian Alliance (Great Britain) "promote free-market economics and civil liberties."
• Australian Libertarian Society "supports free-markets, individual liberty and the promotion of peaceful, voluntary interaction between people."

Both of these organization are clearly not left-libertarian, not anarchist nor libertarian socialist, yet they refer to themselves as "libertarian" and are not in the U.S.

Now, maybe there is usage of the term libertarianism in the English world that refers to a philosophy that includes libertarian socialism and left-libertarianism, but I have not seen any secondary source references for that. Does anyone else?

In any case, there is nothing U.S. specific about referring to libertarianism that excludes left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism as being "mainstream libertarianism". Maybe it's English-language-specific, but that is acceptable bias in the English language Wikipedia.

--Born2cycle (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Roderick T. Long, "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class," Social Philosophy and Policy 15:2 1998, 303-349: 304. Given, repeatedly, above. Didn't you simply did not hear that?
2. Newspapers in Australia 1830-1954 especially 1930s, for example, REBEL ADVANCE IN SANTANDER, More Moors And Arabs Join Franco. The Advertiser (Adelaide) 28 June 1937.

The LDP is a better Australian example, by the way, for your point that the politics of the USLP have an interest overseas. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add the predominant use of the term "Libertarian" in New Zealand's politics. While the Libertarianz Party is small, (even by the standards New Zealand's small population of 4 million), the principles of the Libertarianz Party are representative of the mainstream Libertarianism that is common within the United States:

"INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

Each individual is the owner of his own life and has the right to live it as he sees fit, as long as he respects that same right in others.

PRIVATE PROPERTY

Each person has the right to create or lawfully acquire property - real, and intellectual - and to control its use.

VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION

All interaction among adult human beings, in all spheres of life, should be voluntary. Voluntary societies are civil societies, coercive societies are not.

NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE

Physical coercion must be removed from human affairs. The only acts that may properly be banned in a free society are those that involve the initiation of physical force or fraud by one party against another.

COMMON LAW

In a free society, laws protect people and property from the initiation of physical force or fraud, and uphold voluntary contractual agreements.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT

The only legitimate function of government is to uphold these principles.

CAPITALISM

The only economic system consistent with these principles is the free market."

Fifelfoo, are you seriously citing media reports from the 1930s as a WP:RS for the use of the term "Libertarian" in contemporary philosophical and political discourse? BlueRobe (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes I am. Libertarianism as social movements and as ideologies goes back to the 19th century. You would do well to look into US populism and the Paris Commune. Your approach dehistoricises this article entirely. Perhaps if you were Just Another Friendly Aucklander you'd be more aware of NZ's other libertarian movement. One of the problems in your arguments about the article is that you turn to parliamentary parties as if there is something special about getting fifty signatures and going to the electoral office. If we open the article up to manifestos and platforms, then we may as well just cite libcom.org and institute Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia. There's a blindness to WEIGHTing in your constant turn to parliamentary politics, a blindness which means you're not engaging with the USLP as a social movement as well as a parliamentary party, which leaves the article weaker for that lack. It also means that you're not historicising pro-market libertarianism by investigating Single Tax Movements, Georgists, etc. The other missing element is the intertwining of minarchism and anarchism in US pro-market libertarianism in the twentieth century: your approach of turning to the largest parliamentary party with Libertarian in its name in the US at the moment 'de historicises the article. Your arguments are relatively apt for the article Parliamentary Libertarianism in the United States after 1990. Have you thought of taking them there? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, please refrain from using argumentum ad hominem when addressing the posts of other editors in the talk pages.

Btw, from memory, I have referred to Libertarian political party on 2 occasions. Despite your assertion to the contrary, that is not "constant turn[ing] to parliamentary politics".

Regardless, sources from the 1930s Spanish Civil War, a country where English is not even one of the official languages, is clearly not a WP:RS for our purposes. Try to find WP:RS that aren't so ridiculously obscure. BlueRobe (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You asked about English language useage. I have given you fifty years of twentieth century usage in Australian newspapers. They refer to civil libertarianism, libertarian socialism, and pro-market beliefs about freedom under the term "Libertarian." Fifelfoo (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, a search of Australian newspapers for the period 1830-1954 may well be relevant to an etymological note regarding the history of the word "Libertarian". But, beyond that, it has little relevance to our discussion regarding the contemporary concept of Libertarianism.

Further more, I'm a civil Libertarian. I view support for Civil Libertarianism as being a naturally implied consequence of being a (mainstream) Libertarian, (although, most of my self-declared Libertarian friends would passionately dispute this). But, Civil Libertarianism is not an ideology. Essentially, Civil Libertarianism is the advocacy of a collection of conveniently-labelled Negative Liberties that share similar characteristics vis-à-vis restrictions on the power of the coercive State over individuals:

Civil liberties are rights and freedoms that protect an individual from the state. Civil liberties set limits on the government so that its agents cannot abuse their power and interfere unduly with the lives of private citizens.

Common civil liberties include the rights of people, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and additionally, the right to due process, to a trial, to own property, and to privacy.

Thus, Civil Libertarianism is no more an ideology (let alone a version of Libertarianism) than Political Correctness is a distinct ideology or version of Paranoid Totalitarianism. BlueRobe (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the SOAPBOX and for demonstrating your unwillingness to comprehend historical analysis. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What is with this habit of editors shouting "soapbox!" every time someone dares to think for himself? I provided links to the relevant sources, including the WP source for the quote regarding Civil Libertarianism. Am I not allowed to string the relevant sources together to make a coherent point?

I dare to suggest that WP:Soapbox does not require us to leave our brains at the door. Indeed, I respectfully suggest that a few editors on the Libertarianism talk page should have another look at WP:Soapbox - it doesn't say what some of you seem to think it says. BlueRobe (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Although BlueRobe is not always this polite, (nor do I agree with him on total exclusion of the other forms from the article) I find BlueRobe's comments here to be very intelligent, informative and polite, and Fifelfoo's denigration of them here to be rude. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, personally, I would like to see a separate section, within the Libertarianism article, for each of left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism. Indeed, I would elect to retain a section on Anarcho-Capitalism, even if no other editors wanted it, because of it's obvious relevance to the Libertarian ideology. I have no problem with including a few paragraphs for each of those ideologies, especially for the purpose of noting the features that distinguish them from mainstream Libertarianism.

This compromise has been offered numerous times, by various editors, and has been rejected out-of-hand by the usual suspects every single time, (when they bothered to respond at all).

It is the equal prominence that has been afforded to left-Libertarianism (etc.) in the lede, and the Libertarianism article as a whole, that I object to. BlueRobe (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "I would like to see a separate section, within the Libertarianism article, for each of left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism..... I have no problem with including a few paragraphs for each of those ideologies..... It is the equal prominence...that I object to."

Let's contrast that with:

• this: "I have consistently been one of the most passionate advocates of having the fringe oxymoronic ideology of left-Libertarianism (aka. Libertarian Socialism) removed from the Libertarianism page entirely."

Ummm... yeah. BigK HeX (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case ... now that you have had an apparent change-of-heart, exactly what is it that leads you to believe that right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism are given "equal prominence"? BigK HeX (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I originally opposed the inclusion of left-Libertarianism in the Libertarianism article. I subsequently offered a compromise, where left-Libertarianism would have a small section with a few paragraphs in the Libertarianism article, for the purpose of building consensus among the editors of the Libertarianism page. What don't you understand about this? BlueRobe (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"What is with this habit of editors shouting "soapbox!" every time someone dares to think for himself?" It is because we are restricted by Wikipedia policy and what is found in reliable sources. By all means think for yourself, but do not provide your original research. Stick to policy and RS. TFD (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, nope, I can't find WP:BraindeadCopy&PasteDrones anywhere... BlueRobe (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

When a lawyer pleads a case they rely on laws and evidence. They cannot use common sense instead of the law and they cannot introduce their own observations as evidence. The process here is similar and it does not mean one is brain-dead. But nor does it mean one should argue one's own novel interpretations. There are blogs for that. TFD (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, there is nothing in the Wikipaedia guidelines that forbids drawing sound conclusions from the reliable sources. And frankly, at this point, I have no idea what you're wiki-lawyering about as you don't even have enough courtesy to point to any examples. BlueRobe (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"drawing sound conclusions from the reliable sources". Perhaps you missed WP:NOR. Forbidden on WP, is "any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." Your efforts may be appreciated elsewhere, but drawing your own personal "sound conclusions" is not permitted here. BigK HeX (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, it is difficult (nigh impossible) to have any idea what you and TFD are talking about as you have failed to point to any examples of my alleged inappropriate comments. Regardless, the day that "drawing sound conclusions" from reliable sources are no longer permitted in Wikipaedia's talk pages is the day that Wikipaedia should be dumped onto a funeral pyre. BlueRobe (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianz Party is not relevant on this page, as it is not a scholarly source. In general, "popular perception" and "popular movements" are almost irrelevant as to what is 'libertarianism', their place is a separate section labeled "Popular perception"/"Popular movements". They will decide what is when even the scholarly sources say that that is libertarianism. (which is not the case now.)N6n (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

N6n, I included the Libertarianz reference as an example of popular usage of the term "Libertarian" in a section that addresses the issue of mainstream Libertarianism vis-à-vis popular perceptions of Libertarianism. I'm not at all sure how much weight should be allocated to such sources (and there is no hard-and-fast WP rule prohibiting such sources), but that is the topic of this section. BlueRobe (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, below are some examples of your use of original research. You are using your own personal observations rather than what reliable sources say about the subject. Listing the declared principles of a NZ party is original research about the meaning of libertarianism. You must be able to back up your views with reliable sources. But it appears you reject those sources and would rather write the article based on your personal understanding of the subject.

As soon as an ideology issues a caveat that the entire jurisdiction of government authority is voluntary, or that there is no coercive State whatsoever, it no longer resembles a Libertarian ideology and becomes an Anarchist ideology.

The principles of left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism differ markedly from mainstream Libertarianism with regard to....

I'd like to add the predominant use of the term "Libertarian" in New Zealand's politics....

TFD (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, first things first. Basic formatting etiquette is designed to make it easy for editors (and casual observers) to follow the discussions at hand. Despite being asked repeatedly to stop making a mess of the threads, you have continued to do so. If you continue to blatantly ignore basic formatting etiquette in these talk pages, the offending posts will probably be ignored. After weeks of such recidivism, you will receive no more warnings on this point.

Second, your example is not from this - Mainstream libertarianism - section of the Libertarianism talk page, and has no relevance to the issues at hand. And frankly, dredging up a long-forgotten unrelated post from 36+hours/50+posts ago is disingenuous, at best, and detracting from the issues currently being discussed, at worst. Please try to keep your future commentary on point with the discussion at hand.

Third, as I have noted above, I included the Libertarianz reference as an example of popular usage of the term "Libertarian" in a section that addresses the issue of mainstream Libertarianism vis-à-vis popular perceptions of Libertarianism. I have no idea how you interpret that as WP:Soapboxing. BlueRobe (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(I will ignore your gratuitous comments on formatting.) You are again showing a fundamental misunderstanding of policy. See: WP:OR: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Your use of a primary source, a party website, which would only be considered a reliable source for the article about that party, to claim what the "predominant use of the term "Libertarian" in New Zealand's politics" is, is original research. I will take it to the OR noticeboard so that other editors may explain this policy to you. TFD (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course you will. Because running off to noticeboards and RFCs to have a whinge is what you and BigK HeX do. For God's sake, grow up. BlueRobe (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you would follow WP policies there would be no need to go to noticeboards. But since you are unable or unwilling to do so, it is necessary to do so. If you believe that your interpretation of policy is correct, you should welcome this. On the other hand if you disagree with policy then you should go to the policy talk pages and lobby to change them. The posting to the NOR noticeboard may be found here. TFD (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Blatant predictable trolling is ignored.

Well done, TFD, you have successfully wiki-lawyered this thread to death with your irrelevant posturing and pedantry. BlueRobe (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Take it easy, guys. Please. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream libertarianism - Checkpoint 1

So, my main point has not yet been addressed (that the meaning of "mainstream libertarianism" is not exclusive to the U.S. as has been claimed, except that it was pointed out it extends to New Zealand as well as the UK and Australia), much less refuted.

Further, only two sources have been provided in answer to my request for English secondary sources which use the term "libertarianism" to refer to the philosophy more commonly known as libertarian socialism or left-libertarianism (to show that they are part of "mainstream libertarianism"). The Long "work" is not even at Google Books or Amazon, but available only as an unpublished/ unsearchable PDF on the web. Hardly a reliable source, much less a secondary source as I requested (if you're not sure what a secondary source is, please click on that link). The second source establishes usage of the term in Australian newspapers prior to 1955 ("especially the 1930s"). That hardly establishes what "mainstream libertarianism" means today, which is relevant to this article.

Can anyone do better? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The British Columbia Libertarian Party of Canada. The homepage for that party states:

The British Columbia Libertarian Party (BCLP) is based on the libertarian non-aggression principle: that no individual or group shall initiate the use of force or fraud against any other, or as a means of achieving political or social goals.

The BCLP advocates civil liberties, and private property rights, including drug legalization, ending government controls on economic activity, and ending coercive taxation.

And the Libertarian Party of Canada, which lists a platform of:

Adoption of laissez-faire principles which would reduce the state's role in the economy. These would include, but are not limited to, the elimination of the federal income tax and government sales tax.

Supports property rights of all Canadians

Reducing government bureaucracy.

Support for civil liberties, such as free association and free speech.

Ending the war on drugs.

A non-interventionist foreign policy.

Abolishing the Bank of Canada

Abolishing the CRTC

Repealing the Canada Health Act

The Ontario Libertarian Party, which has an extensive list of policies that reflect mainstream Libertrtianism, including:

1. Each individual has the right to his or her own life, and this right is the source of all other rights.

2. Property rights are essential to the maintenance of those rights.

3. In order that these rights be respected, it is essential that no individual or group initiate the use of force or fraud against any other.

4. In order to bar the use of force or fraud from social relationships and to place the use of retaliatory force under objective control, human society requires an institution charged with the task of protecting individual rights under an objective code of rules. This is the basic task, and the only moral justification for, government.

5. The only proper functions of government, whose powers must be constitutionally limited are:

• settling, according to objective laws, disputes among individuals, where private, voluntary arbitration has failed
• providing protection from criminals
• providing protection from foreign invaders

6. As a consequence of all the above, every individual -- as long as he or she respects the rights of others -- has the right to live as he or she alone sees fit, as a free trader on a free market

Libertarian Party of Alabama [4]

Libertarian Party of Alaska [5]

Libertarian Party of Arizona [6]

Libertarian Party of Arkansas [7]

Libertarian Party of California [8]

Libertarian Party of Colorado [9]

Libertarian Party of Connecticut [10]

Libertarian Party of Delaware [11]

Libertarian Party of Florida [12]

Libertarian Party of Georgia [13]

Libertarian Party of Hawaii [14]

Libertarian Party of Illinois [15]

Libertarian Party of Iowa [16]

Libertarian Party of Indiana [17]

Libertarian Party of Idaho [18]

Libertarian Party of Kansas [19]

Libertarian Party of Kentucky [20]

Libertarian Party of Louisiana [21]

Libertarian Party of Maine [22]

Libertarian Party of Massachusetts [23]

Libertarian Party of Minnesota [24]

Libertarian Party of Michigan [25]

Libertarian Party of Maryland [26]

Libertarian Party of Mississippi [27]

Libertarian Party of Missouri [28]

Libertarian Party of Montana [29]

Libertarian Party of New York [30]

Libertarian Party of New Jersey [31]

Libertarian Party of New Hampshire [32]

Libertarian Party of New Mexico [33]

Libertarian Party of Nevada [34]

Libertarian Party of North Carolina [35]

Oklahoma Libertarian Party [36]

Libertarian Party of Oregon [37]

Libertarian Party of Ohio [38]

Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania [39]

Libertarian Party of Rhode Island

Libertarian Party of South Dakota [40]

Libertarian Party of South Carolina [41]

Libertarian Party of Tennessee [42]

Libertarian Party of Texas [43]

Libertarian Party of Utah [44]

Libertarian Party of Washington State [45]

Libertarian Party of Wisconsin [46]

Libertarian Party of West Virginia [47]

Libertarian Party of Wyoming [48]

Libertarian Party of Vermont [49]

I hope this helps. BlueRobe (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The definitions you oppose are clearly explained in mainstream sources such as The encyclopedia of libertarianism.[50] If you do not like these sources, you should challenge them at the RSN noticeboard. However you also must provide reliable sources supporting the content you wish to see and cannot provide original research. You may wish to comment on using the NZ website at the NOR noticeboard. TFD (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, please see secondary source. The encyclopedia of libertarianism is not a secondary source.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.

...

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source...

...

Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias

--Born2cycle (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, it does help, BlueRobe. Thanks. It has now been established that the political philosophy commonly referred to today as "libertarianism" excludes libertarian socialism and left-libertarianism in the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, as well as the U.S. That makes it fair to say then that this is "mainstream libertarianism" within the English speaking world that is relevant to this project.

Since the political philosophies known as Libertarian socialism and/or Left-libertarianism are not commonly referred to as "libertarianism" (shown by the dearth of relatively recent -- last 25 years or so -- secondary sources that demonstrate use of the term "libertarianism" to refer to them) is basis to remove references to these philosophies not only from the lead, but from the entire Libertarianism article entirely. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I read some significant posts by User:N6n (an occasional regular on this talk page) regarding the etymology of the word "Libertarianism". He had some interesting WP:RSs for the claim that the word "Libertarianism" was used as a synonym for "Anarchism" in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century, but fell out of favour with the Anarchist movements when mainstream Libertarianism gained a firm hold on the political landscape after the Second World War.

Political movements, and their names, tend to move with the times. But, academic labels are not nearly so flexible and it may well be the case the labels such as "left-Libertarianism" and "Libertarian Socialism" are merely versions of Anarchism that retain the archaic Anarchist use of the word "Libertarian". Goodness knows, the definitions of those ideologies certainly read like Anarchism. That is something worth looking in to. BlueRobe (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to avoid novel interpretations.... Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." So the source is fine but in fact represents the views of countless secondary sources, many of which have been supplied to you. But that does not justify conducting original research from primary sources.

BlueRobe, non-violent anarchists did use the term "libertarian" and the term is retained by their current successors, including right-libertarians, who developed out of 19th century libertarianism.

TFD (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A few relatively obscure tertiary sources that are supported by hardly any (if any) secondary sources does not qualify as a tertiary source that "can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." Those many primary and secondary sources that refer to libertarian socialism as libertarianism do not exist... that's the problem with relying entirely on relatively obscure tertiary sources that use libertarianism in that manner here to justify including libertarian socialism content in this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah they have been presented to you ad naseum. BTW is it not illogical to refer to the views of fringe parties as mainstream? Anyway make your point at the OR noticeboard. TFD (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake, TFD, your insistence on disregarding all so-called primary sources, because of possible misinterpretation, constitutes an over-zealous adherence to an unreasonably narrow construction of a Wikipaedia guideline in the face of common sense. Every editor in here is intelligent enough, and knowledgeable enough, to immediately recognise whether the principles of mainstream Libertarianism are reflected in the so-called primary sources provided for the examples of international Libertarian political parties. There's no room for ambivalence in any of them on such a black & white question, (indeed, none of the sources provided as examples of mainstream Libertarianism in this section have been challenged in any way). BlueRobe (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ad naseum? No secondary sources showing relatively recent English language usage of the term libertarianism to refer to the political philosophy of libertarian socialism have been presented. None. Zero. Zilch. None in the article. None in the talk pages. If I was wrong that could have been easily refuted at the start of this section. If you can refute it please do so here to preclude an unnecessary visit to the OR noticeboard. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Righting Great Wrongs: "...You might think that [Wikipedia] it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case.... So, if you want to... [s]pread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief... that has been unfairly neglected and suppressed by the scholarly community...you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. "Wikipedia is behind the ball - that is we don't lead, we follow - let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed."" TFD (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

More OR?

So .... we've got yet another whole thread of WP:OR with editors making up their own analyses (individually concocted definitions for "mainstream Libertarianism" and a ton of personal classifications for political parties)? BigK HeX (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

not actually OR at all each of the state parties listed are valid examples of how the term is understood by the most people today, which is the sole guideline for what the article should state. the number of RS explaining the different forms of libertarianism, is secondary, or even immaterial, to the understanding the most people understand. tiny minorities are not to be discussed at all, minorities are to be discussed sparingly. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement, "each of the state parties listed are valid examples of how the term is understood by the most people today" is OR. TFD (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how listing the ideologies of the various self-identifying Libertarian parties in North America and other English-speaking countries, and then using it to logically deduce that Libertarianism is widely considered to be synonymous (in the scope of the English Wikipedia project) to be what is called Right-Liberarianism here, is 'Original Research'; please explain why instead of just claiming that it is.

Also, your links from the 1930-1940s have pretty much zero relevance today; it would be like arguing to include the Flat Earth Theory in equal standing with the scientifically-proven Spherical Earth theory based on mid ninth or tenth-century, disproved scientific research, or using old, disproved scientific papers to justify noting Spontaneous generation as fact. Point is, words change, politics changes, and the meaning of political terms changes; conservatives 300 years ago would support a monarchy, and Classical liberals would be a considered radically left-wing; today, conservatives support a republic, and classical liberalism is considered center-center right. Libertarianism might well have meant 'Anarchism' or 'Socialism' 120 years ago in Spain, but it does not today, and we report more on today's meanings of words/political ideologies than 20th or 19th century meanings. Toa Nidhiki05 19:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"I fail to see how listing the ideologies...and then using it to logically deduce...is 'Original Research'" Your own description is basically a declaration that you're engaging in textbook WP:OR. BigK HeX (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)BigK, the only OR of significance going on here is the inclusion of the subject of libertarian socialism in an article about the topic of Libertarianism since there are no secondary sources showing relatively recent English language usage of the term libertarianism to refer to libertarian socialism. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if that were true, we don't go by your made-up criteria. We go by WP:NPOV. We've already beaten to death that there are zillions of reliable sources that argue for inclusion. BigK HeX (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Original_research#Using_sources:Using sources: Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic.

According to this, we have to use sources in context, and within the evidence of our research; our sources fulfill both. In the context that these are all parties espousing a Libertarian (aka. Right-Libertarian) doctrine, it is not hard to assume, in context, that the vast majority of Libertarian parties in English-speaking countries (the most reasonable to use, since this is an English-wiki) are Right-Libertarian; this then confirms our point, that Right-Libertarianism is Libertarianism, and should be treated as the Primary topic of this article, in accordance with policy on Due and undue weight. Other, minor ideologies, such as Left-Libertarianism and Anarchism, should only be given minor coverage, and should not distract from the primary topic of this article. Toa Nidhiki05 19:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's go through your post and highlight all the blatant indications of WP:OR ...

According to this, we have to use sources in context, and within the evidence of our research; our sources fulfill both. In the context that these are all parties espousing a Libertarian (aka. Right-Libertarian) doctrine, it is not hard to assume, in context, that the vast majority of Libertarian parties in English-speaking countries (the most reasonable to use, since this is an English-wiki) are Right-Libertarian; this then confirms our point, that Right-Libertarianism is Libertarianism, and should be treated as the Primary topic of this article, in accordance with policy on Due and undue weight.

Are we seriously now down to arguing that all these ADMITTED assumptions aren't WP:OR. Pretty tedious.... BigK HeX (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)BigK, the only sources (and it's far from zillions) provided that argue for inclusion of "libertarian socialism" as libertarianism are a small number of relatively obscure tertiary sources. No secondary sources supporting inclusion have been cited. None. Zero. Zilch. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if that assertion were true [it's not], did you decide you could ban tertiary sources from the article or something? If you've got some substantial issue, you're more than welcome to visit the RSN. Unless and until you do so, we'll go with the presumption that even the tertiary sources provided are perfectly acceptable, and I'll ask you to either follow-up on your concerns or to discontinue disparaging the sourcing. BigK HeX (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you love to throw N:POV around, BigK HeX let me show you some things from it you might find interesting, but you will probably ignore (it might stop you from using it as a defense for your views):

• Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth theory.

• In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief.

• Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

• Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

• The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims.

Seems conclusive to me. Toa Nidhiki05 20:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, we have this bit from the N:POV page:

• When writing any of a long series of articles on some general subject, there can be cases where we must make some potentially controversial assumptions. For example, in writing about evolution, it's not helpful to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every page. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc.

Toa Nidhiki05 20:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! It is conclusive. Which is precisely why the overwhelming majority of the RfC comments indicated that it IS NPOV to include the viewpoints under contention and why other proposals based on arguments similar to your WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claims have been repeatedly rejected. But, by all means, continue the WP:IDHT. BigK HeX (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of responding to any of these important rules, you simply ignore them, and try to sell your company line? Classic straw man fallacy. Toa Nidhiki05 20:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My simple response for the two-zillionth time ... See The Closed RfC in which you participated. We thoroughly reviewed the "Inclusion is NPOV" vs "PrimaryTopic" issue. BigK HeX (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That short-lived RfC was presented in a biased manner, closed way too prematurely, and didn't cover any of these issues. For example, the whole point here about secondary vs. tertiary sources wasn't even raised there. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

To say that people didn't consider the sourcing is presumptuous. Moreover, much of the sourcing very clearly was linked in the RfC and discussed, so to suggest that sourcing issues weren't considered and discussed as being reliable doesn't seem to be a credible claim. As for the tertiary sources, again ... you're welcome to raise those issues at the RSN, otherwise, I must assume your objections to them are not serious, and not worthy of continued repetition here. BigK HeX (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, exactly what issue(s) do you think the RfC did cover? For reference, here's a sampling of the arguments considered:

Notable people have self-identified as left-libertarian, and have been identified as such by reliable sources.

All concepts that have been described as 'libertarian' by reliable sources should be represented on this page.

According to WP:NPV, all significant (as shown by reliable sources) viewpoints should also be represented on the page, more common viewpoints should be given more weight, but significant-minority viewpoints should also be included.

Other pages on contentious multifaceted ideas include discussion of all concepts encompassed by the term. e.g. Liberalism, Christianity, Conservatism. This page should be no different.

BigK HeX (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think the RfC covered the general issue of whether minority viewpoints about a given topic expressed in reliable sources should be covered in an article about that topic (of course, yes, but that's not the issue here, which is the bias conveyed in that RfC I referred to above).

Search for the word "tertiary" in that RfC; you won't find it. Using tertiary sources is fine when "many" primary and secondary sources are available ("Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." [51]. The availability of "many primary and secondary sources." is questioned in this case, especially since the tertiary sources being used are not mainstream encyclopedias (mainstream encyclopedias are reliable tertiary sources mainly because they have good reputations for basing their content on reliable secondary and primary sources). We should not rely on tertiary sources in situations that do not involve "many primary and secondary sources." I contend that is the case here, as this section is getting longer and longer and still nobody is providing even one secondary (or primary for that matter) source showing relatively recent (last 25 years) English usage of the term libertarianism to refer to libertarian socialism. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. " [52] --Born2cycle (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's clear that you're making up your own tertiary source policy, but as I've advised, if you have a serious objection to any of the tertiary sources, feel free to raise them at the RSN. If they're not serious enough to discuss there, I'm not inclined to give the objections much credence here. Whether the word tertiary was mentioned or not in the RfC is pretty irrelevant to whether people did take into consideration the sources and our policies. For you to reject people's conclusion on the reliability of sources, by suggesting their conclusions would be different if required to explicitly address the tertiary nature of some of the sources seems presumptuous and rather dubious.

Anyways, this thread is filled with rather blatant WP:OR, and I don't find the proposals to reject any of the sources based solely on the fact that a source is tertiary to have merit, and any PRIMARYTOPIC claims have been addressed pretty decisively, so I'll exit this particular discussion for now. BigK HeX (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Making up my own tertiary source policy? Please read WP:PRIMARY. I can't speak for others, but my argument in this section is based on direct quotes from that, and I contend is devoid of OR.

I'm not rejecting any sources solely because they are tertiary - I'm rejecting them because I question them as being reliable tertiary sources per the criteria at WP:PRIMARY (see, here comes one of those direct quotes again): "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." That is, I question the existence of the "many primary and secondary sources" that the tertiary sources being used here are supposed to summarize to be helpful to us. And I repeat, this section is getting longer and longer and still nobody is providing even one secondary (or primary for that matter) source showing relatively recent (last 25 years) English usage of the term libertarianism to refer to libertarian socialism.

In simple terms, the problem is this: While there are tertiary sources in which people are writing about libertarianism and defining it so broadly that they also write about libertarian socialism and left-libertarianism, there is no evidence of the existence of relatively recent English secondary sources that use the term libertarianism so broadly, and secondary sources (again, per WP:PRIMARY, not my opinion) is what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be primarily based on. The usage of libertarianism to mean libertarian socialism is simply not supported in the reliably published secondary sources we're supposed to be based on (newspapers, magazine articles, references in sources that are not tertiary, etc.). So by including libertarian socialism in our libertarianism article, we are presenting libertarianism with a meaning that is skewed as compared to what libertarianism means today in the English speaking world. That's a disservice to our readers. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Even disregarding your continuous erroneous claim that secondary sources haven't been presented [see again the RS list presented many, many times], I guess I should clear up your fallacy before I exit. Taking "tertiary sources are helpful to explain many secondary sources" to mean "tertiary sources should be banned without many secondary sources presented" is clearly fallacious (of the form "if many secondary sources presented, then tertiary good" => "not many secondary sources presented, therefore not tertiary good"). You are creating your own policy on tertiary sources. Moreover, you've even taken to creating artificial restrictions on what merits inclusion ... and your artificial restrictions even encourage a WP:Systemic bias by demanding that we use as our baseline "what libertarianism means today in the English speaking world". BigK HeX (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You're either misunderstanding or understanding but misrepresenting what I'm saying; I presume the former.

As you know, not every statement in Wikipedia article content needs to be sourced; but any questioned statement does need to be sourced (preferably sooner rather than later - whether a questioned statement should be deleted or temporarily tagged depends on the situation). Similarly, not every statement based on a tertiary summary needs to be shown to be based on "many primary and secondary sources" [53], but any questioned statement or questioned tertiary source needs to be shown to be so. Remember, we're talking about tertiary sources in which the reliability of the tertiary source is being questioned - just because it's published does not mean it's a reliable summary based on "many primary and secondary sources". This should never be a problem since reliable tertiary sources should themselves be properly sourced to verifiable primary and secondary sources.

As to "the RS list presented many, many times", apparently nothing on that list meets the criteria in question here, because not one such source has been presented yet. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it below, compare and contrast, for sake of argument Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL(or whatever you choose to compare)
CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream libertarianism - Checkpoint 2

So, someone is yet to provide a single English secondary source for the use of libertarian/libertarianism to include left-libertarianism and/or libertarian socialism (Long is a primary source for that), much less to show that such usage is normal. My contention that the usage of libertarian/libertarianism in English to primarily mean the political philosophy of individual liberty based on property rights (i.e., "Right-libertarianism") is not exclusive to the U.S., stands. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Scope of Government

Errant, here are some sources that I've provided in the past. Libertarianism is an ideology of limited government. Limiting is not the same thing as abolishing. For example, narrowing the scope of this article is not the same thing as deleting this article. Those are two very different things. That's why any ideology that advocates abolishing government is not libertarianism or even closely related to libertarianism.

So what do the reliable sources say? First we'll establish a strong connection between classical liberalism and libertarianism. Next we'll identify who the most prominent libertarians are. Lastly we'll look at their viewpoints on the scope of government.

Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism

• The word liberal has an odd history. It comes from the same root as liberty, and originally it simply meant ""free."" In that broad sense, the United States as a whole is a liberal country, and all popular American ideologies are variants of liberalism. In a more restricted definition, a liberal was a person who believed in limited government and who opposed religion in politics. A hundred years ago, liberalism referred to a philosophy that in some ways resembeled modern-day libertarianism. For that reason, many libertarians today refer to themselves as classical liberals. - American Government and Politics Today 2008: The Essentials

• The classical liberal movements of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are, of course, the forebears of contemporary libertarian thought. - Total freedom: toward a dialectical libertarianism

• Contemporary libertarians believe, with some legitimacy, that the greatest threat to liberty is an expanding government with a monopoly on state power. Their answer: limit government, protect a basic skein of fundamental rights, and the rest will work itself out. In this respect, libertarians are true heirs of the classical liberal tradition. - The Political Centrist

• Libertarianism has been more an intellectual than popular movement since its ancestor, classical liberalism, was first articulated by John Locke. William Maddox and Stuart Lillie identified six tenets of classical liberalism to which American libertarians subscribe in a modified form today: individualism, an instrumental view of the state, limited government, individual rights, legal equality, and representative government. These six tenets cluster around two domestic policy questions - the proper role of government and the prescriptions for apparent social inequalities. - Hostile takeover: the House Republican Party, 1980-1995

• Scalet and Schmidtz quite correctly identify the classical liberal contribution to political theory as its focus on limited government, rather than (as classical liberals are often accused of preferring) "weak" government. The size of government is not the primary concern of classical liberals; its limits are. Limited governments tend to be small relative to unlimited governments. They also note that "classical liberals have been champions of democracy." The two issues - limited government and democracy - have traditionally been linked together in classical liberal thought by the theory of constitutionalism, which limits the powers of majorities no less than of minorities. - Realizing freedom: libertarian theory, history, and practice

Most Prominent/Influential Libertarians

This source establishes the prominence of Jefferson, Tocqueville, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek and Ayn Rand...

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

This source establishes the prominence of John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer...

John Stuart Mill, the great and generous theorist of liberalism, and Herbert Spencer, a major exponent of laissez-faire individualism, whose writings appealed immensely to the Spanish anarchists, can be - and have been - rightly designated as 'libertarians' - Anarchist seeds beneath the snow

This source establishes the prominence of John Stuart Mill...

In contemporary times, libertarians have positioned themselves as the heirs to J. S. Mill and his defense of individual liberty. Their ideas have grown increasingly influential. Contemporary libertarians embrace Mill's On Liberty because it "sounds important libertarian themes: that individuals should be free to live as they choose so long as they don't harm others and that the power of government should be strictly limited." - Putting ideas to work: a practical introduction to political thought

This source establishes the prominence of Robert Nozick...

With thirty years' distance on its publication, one can safely assert that Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) has achieved the status of a classic. It is not only the central text for all contemporary academic discussions of libertarianism; together with John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971), it arguably framed the landscape of academic political philosophy in the last decades of the twentieth century. - Natural rights liberalism from Locke to Nozick, Part 1

This source establishes the prominence of John Stuart Mill, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand...

This political philosophy has a long pedigree. It has roots in the classical liberalism of eighteenth- and nineteenth- century British thinkers such as John Stuart Mill, and, more recently, in the Austrian school of economics represented more powerfully in the United States by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. On a more popular level, the novelists Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein proved effective propagators of a radical anti-statist, individualist ethos, and according to historian Brian Doherty, more than half of the earliest Libertarians cited one of those two authors as their primary ideological influence. - Encyclopedia of American political history

Libertarians on the Scope of Government

John Stuart Mill's viewpoint on the scope of government...

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

Ayn Rand's viewpoint on the scope of government...

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

Herbert Spencer viewpoint on the scope of government (shorter)...

The challenge facing Americans today in defending constitutionally limited government was succinctly stated by the English libertarian Herbert Spencer in 1884: "The function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the powers of kings. The function of true Liberalism in the future will be that of putting a limit to the powers of Parliaments - Realizing freedom: libertarian theory, history, and practice

Herbert Spencer's viewpoint on the scope of government (longer)...

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

Robert Nozick viewpoint on the scope of government...

Our main conclusions about the state are that a minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified; that any more extensive state will violate persons' rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified; and that the minimal state is inspiring as well as right. Two noteworthy implications are that the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection. - The Political Theory of Robert Nozick

Adam Smith's viewpoint on the scope of government...

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

Ludwig von Mises's viewpoint on the scope of government...

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

Friedrich Hayek's viewpoint on the scope of government...

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

Milton Friedman's viewpoint on the scope of government...

First, the scope of government must be limited. Its major functions must be to protect our freedom both from the enemies outside our gates and from our fellow-citizens: to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets. Beyond this major function, government may enable us at times to accomplish jointly what we would find it more difficult or expensive to accomplish severally. However, any such use of government is fraught with danger. We should not and cannot avoid using government this way. But there should be a clear and large balance of advantages before we do. By relying primarily on voluntary co-operation and private enterprise, in both economic and other activities, we can insure that the private sector is a check on the powers of the governmental sector and an effective protection of freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought. - Capitalism and freedom

Dick Armey's viewpoint on the scope of government...

While one can reject this notion of a stripped-down state, libertarianism is a principled and coherent worldview. It provides an answer to every question. Police departments and the army - yes. Just about everything else - no. Ask most politicians, from Gingrich to Clinton, what the role of the federal government is, and you'll get a stream of mush. Poke a libertarian and you'll get a response like the one Dick Armey gave shortly after becoming majority leader: "Defend our shores, build a system of justice, and construct some infrastructure. Gee, I'm running out of other suggestions." - New York Magazine Mar 4, 1996

David Boaz's viewpoint on the scope of government...

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

James Walsh's viewpoint on the scope of government...

Libertarians accept the need for a limited state - if only to provide basic levels of safety and security. Their focus is keeping the state limited to a disciplined - and small - number of activities. Anarchists still want to smash the mechanisms of state. As I've noted, anarchy is an emotional system. - Liberty in Troubled Times: A Libertarian Guide to Laws, Politics and Society in a Terrorized World

Richard A. Epstein's viewpoint on the scope of government...

This basic insight - law must control the most lawless - lies behind the strong insistence on the basic rules of ordinary society. It also explains the libertarian's constant theoretical emphasis that the function of government is to control the use of force and fraud against the person and property of others. - Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws

While I'm at it...this is for TFD to chew on since he has trouble recognizing that libertarians are socially liberal and economically conservative...

It's fairly common for Americans to be economically conservative, but socially moderate or liberal. Sixteen percent of Americans fall into this category of responses. - The Gallup poll: public opinion 2004 By Alec M. Gallup, Frank Newport

Here's a simple yet effective definition of libertarianism...

A political ideology that is opposed to all government action except as necessary to protect life and property - The Challenge of Democracy: Government in America

My favorite definition...

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins. - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr

Government, like this article, should be limited in scope. These sources indicate what the scope of government should be and also indicate which ideologies fall outside the scope of this article. Given that libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism both advocate abolishing government it's clear that they fall outside the scope of this article. --Xerographica (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(later edit) added another source Xerographica (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

sec break

Your sources indicate that the article can also cover the viewpoints of the sources listed (if not already in the article). Your sources DO NOT "cancel out" other viewpoints (or "limit the article's scope"). BigK HeX (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We can't limit the scope of this article AND delete it. We can't limit the scope of government AND abolish it. Those are two mutually exclusive goals. Meaning...they are completely different ideologies. When people refer to ideologies that advocate abolishing government they say "anarcho-capitalism" or "libertarian socialism" or "anarchism". However, all the sources I offered used the word "libertarianism" to refer to limited government. Even if a source says "minarchism" or "right-libertarianism" it won't slow me down one bit. You know why? Because tenets trump labels. --Xerographica (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. There are conflicting beliefs within many ideologies. These are presented in articles by stating that this subgroup believes X, and this other subgroup believes Y. X and Y need not be consistent with each other. Yworo (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether the government should produce infrastructure or not is a conflicting belief within libertarianism. Whether or not government should be abolished is a conflicting belief between very different ideologies. --Xerographica (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's simply your opinion, and it's contradicted by the sources provided by BigK HeX and others. Yworo (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly Yworo ... just like every other article, we treat ALL significant viewpoints in the same Wiki article regardless of whether they may have certain conflicts, and regardless of whether they line up with any Wikipedia editor's rigid POV. BigK HeX (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica. I agree with you. But between the practical WP realities, and also to provide a service to help the readers, my thought / idea / suggestion is to let the Libertarian article become a "disambiguation article". If the warriors would only let some perspective and organization come to the article, it could probably to both that and evolve from the worthless confusing incoherent mess that it is now. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK although wrapped in the usual trojan horse of continuously mis-invoking WP policies (and doing battle by doing so), I believe that that you and Carol are the two who are most fully warrioring here, and the two who most place all else as being secondary. This is going nowhere. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And yet ... when put to the question, outside opinions tend to view the issues in the same way as Carol, and in the same way as myself. Funny that, huh? BigK HeX (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to sidestep that to avoid a lengthy answer. What led me to my statement was that the other folks are more focused on debating the issues, whereas you and Carol or more focused on denigrating them or their statements via wiki-lawyering. If you said "I think that you're wrong, please provide your sources" I would have more respect for it rather than than to simply try to falsely imply that talk page statements are illegitimate due to not being cited. Citing is neither a requirement nor the norm for talk pages. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, your answer evades the issue and falls back on ad hominems about other editors. Sources are required on the talk page if there is a dispute about the scope or content of the article. It's the norm in content dispute to provide sources on the talk page so that positions espoused by the sources can be evaluated and integrated. If the scope of the article is in question, and one side presents inclusive sources, the onus is on the other party to provide sources which explicitly exclude viewpoints from the definition under consideration. I don't see that happening. It's not sufficient to provide sources supporting one of the points of view. It's necessary to provide sources that analyze, provide definitions, and explicitly exclude certain viewpoints from the definition. Yworo (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but I think that you may have missed my point. When someone attempts to denigrate or have have excluded another person's TALK PAGE comments via Wiki lawyering without even challenging them or their statements directly, I tend to think of it as bogus. Second, when they spend all of their time focusing on or trying to denigrate their opponents or their statements rather than engaging in an real debate on the topic, I tend to think that their job one is warrioring rather than a good article. North8000 (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your repeated use of the term Wikilawyering to denigrate another editor's viewpoint to be exactly what you describe. I suggest you read WP:POT. As to BigK HeX's response, he rightly points out that the outside opinions, gathered via RfC, agree with his and Carol's position. I've read the RfC and it was properly done and summarized. The conclusion is valid and for valid reasons. I see four editors who refuse to accept that. And who seem to believe that an argument's weight is measured by its verboseness, as if a sheer number of words could change the outcome. It's a waste of time. The thing to be doing is discussing how to present and balance the content, which it has already been decided will be inclusive, and providing sources to help do that. Yworo (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Xerographica says, "this article...should be limited in scope

See the closing statement of the RfC we had on that matter. Then see WP:IDHT. BigK HeX (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK Hex, I believe you meant to link to here. Indeed, it seems to be a waste of time to continue this debate. There are no new supporters of the narrow version of the article. There are still the same four, while newcomers seem to favor the broad view. I myself favor the broad view. So let's just drop that and get on with discussion balancing content which includes all viewpoints. Those who wish to claim that some viewpoint should receive less coverage need to come up with demographics to support that view. Yworo (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh.. thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, you say you support the broad scope yet you stated that this article has devolved. YOUR proposal was to revert to the 2005 version...but that version is obviously narrower in scope than the current version. The first source states..."In that broad sense, the United States as a whole is a liberal country, and all popular American ideologies are variants of liberalism." Well...if you support the broad scope...defined as "supporting liberty"...then logically you must agree that this article should have sections on liberalism and conservatism...with coverage in proportion to prominence. --Xerographica (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion was not based on the narrower scope of the older version of the article, only that it had been FA. The strawman exaggeration is not appreciated. The RfC about scope was quite explicit about the two options. The (quite specific) broad option won the day. I won't further respond to suggestions that that be overturned. Such suggestions are counterproductive soapboxing and out of line. Yworo (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica, could you please look at these sources before presenting them to us. American Government and Politics Today 2008: The Essentials ("it gives you tools to become a good citizen")[54] is a community college textbook and not rs. Total freedom: toward a dialectical libertarianism[55] sees anarchism as an influence on libertarianism. The Political Centrist[56] does not equate libertarianism with classical liberalism and mentions left libertarianism. TFD (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that community college textbooks are not reliable sources? Can you quote exactly which passages you are referring to in the other two sources? For example...according to "Total Freedom"... "The classical liberal movements of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are, of course, the forebears of contemporary libertarian thought." And according to the Political Centrist..."Like progressive liberals, libertarians want government to stay out of the bedroom. And with classical liberals, they want government to stay out of the boardroom." That idea is summarized as being socially liberal and economically conservative...which was mentioned in the reference I included just for you. --Xerographica (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all very nice. But what we need is various sentences for insertion and/or a paragraph or two summarizing these views with actual real life references that others can find. Otherwise this whole section is just more deletionist WP:SOAPBOX which should be collapsed per WP:collapse talk page sections (Feel free to fill in the wikilink to appropriate formatting page which I couldn't find.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please give full citations here for these? It makes life much easier when reading your claims. Author, title, place, publisher, year. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how it makes it easier to read my "claims". But if you're having trouble looking up the quotes then here's a tip to make your life easier. First, download Chrome...Google's browser (because it's the fastest). Next, highlight a portion of the quoted text. Then right-click on the highlighted text and click on "Search Google for...". Lastly click on the "More" tab and click on "Books".

Generally I make a judgement of the position of a source in the literature, and its reliability, based strongly on the Author and the Press / Journal. Giving a full textual citation, Author "Article" Journal vol year pages / Author Title Press Year, helps me greatly in participating in the discussion. It allows me to rapidly give credence to the HQRS, check journals for Peer Review against Ulrich's, and search for the press directly. It cuts out an intervening search step. It ensures that I don't get two items confused which have similar names. Cutting out one intermediate search helps greatly. It helps more so, for example, if I directly see something was published by Transaction after the mid 1990s, or by libcom.org, or if it was published in the Blue Emu Agricultural Newsletter. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

not helping --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Quit the sniping. It is reasonable to ask for links to sources where it is unclear - indeed it is probably a good policy for this page to use high quality links for every source, even if it has been reffed before. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sharing a time saving and super useful feature is "sniping"? "Search Google for..." is more efficient and effective because, unlike linking to the source, it takes you to the actual page of the Google book that contains the quote. --Xerographica (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Insisting that other editors download and run a different browser rather than simply supplying links to your sources is unreasonable. Yworo (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, clearly I did not insist that he follow my suggestion. Besides, I'm pretty sure it works with all the major browsers...with a few minor differences. I just mentioned Chrome because it was relevant to the topic of Fifelfoo wanting my help in making his life easier. Oh Fifelfoo, just thought of another one. In Chrome, and probably some other browsers as well, you can use the address bar exactly like a search text box. Doing so increases efficiency by 50%. It's amazing how many people type "google.com" into the address bar when they could just type in their search term instead. --Xerographica (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, let's end the endless generalized debate. What is it you want to use these sources for? Just either propose here or put into the article sentences, paragraphs you think article needs. If people think they are problematic policy wise they will either revert them or discuss them, depending on how problematic they are. My 5th or 6th request to editors with your POV. Thank you. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica, telling someone that he should Google for searches is, in my book, sniping and non-constructive. I appreciate that you went to some effort to get these sources but it is reasonable to request clarity on where they originate, Googling is not infallible and it is better ot have explicit sources. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Workers Solidarity Movement

From my neck of the woods are an anarchist group not libertarian, why are they in this article? mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

They're one of the most notable English language libertarian socialist organisations in existence today. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No, they are an anarchist group, were do you get the idea they are libertarian? mark nutley (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark, what do you mean by the adjective "Mick"? Iota (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a racial slur for Irish and I am removing it. TFD (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No it`s not TFD, i` m a mick. Do not assume to speak for my people, thanks. Stick to the fact that they are an anarchist group and don`t belong here mark nutley (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I'm sure you didn't intend any offence but please think again about using that word on talkpages. A random reader of this page would just see the ethnic slur, and would have no idea that you're Irish, until you were challenged and pointed it out. Iota (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

By no stretch of the imagination is the Workers Solidarity Movement a Libertarian group. It is CLEARLY an Anarchist organisation. Is this how far you are prepared to stretch the definition of "Libertarian"? The debates are becoming more and more ridiculous every day. BlueRobe (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As for marknutley's use of the term "mick", I am certain that he was using local colloquialism and intended no slur (especially given that, by his own admission, he is a "mick"). Let's not be too precious about our language in here. We already have enough things to argue about. BlueRobe (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So, let's settle this; is there a third party RS that calls this group Libertarian? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, in any country people have "local colloquialism"s about certain minority groups and although you may believe that saying "intended no slur" that is disingenuous. If mark nutley continues to use these pages to promote slurs against minorities, I will report it to ANI. I am redacting this ethnic slur which someone has reinstated. In any case it has no relevance to the subject of the article. TFD (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we call this point made. Mark may have not meant harm, but here on the internet with no way of verifying any claims about oneself it is best to shy away from controversial terms. Lets focus back on the sourcing issue. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, your passionate disdain for marknutley is impossible to miss in every single post where you address him. Regardless, as marknutley is, by his own admission, a "mick" (personally, I had to look that word up), I hardly see how he was "promot[ing] slurs against minorities". Cease your endless petty vitriol against marknutley, as per WP:HARASSMENT. BlueRobe (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Laurence Cox, "News from nowhere: the movement of movements in Ireland" Social movements in Ireland Eds. Linda Connolly, Niamh Hourigan. Manchester University Press, 2006: 220,222.
   • {q}Libertarian, in this context, means strategies that are not geared towards taking state power, whether by electoral or revolutionary means; movements organised on a bottom-up or non-hierarchical basis; and a preference for direct action over tactics (such as petitions and demonstrations to the Dáil) geared towards lobby-ing the powerful. [220]
   • {q}Understanding the movement of movements: the goals of the movement What are these global actors, in Ireland or elsewhere, seeking to achieve? One primary focus is opposition to capitalism’s tendency to commodification, to turn the resources and activities needed to meet human needs into sources of profit (Offe 1984); and to its tendency to externalisation, to turn the costs of production (unemployment as factories are moved, pollution and waste production) into costs for states or individuals rather than for producers. On a micro scale, this opposition can be seen in challenges to the privatisa- tion of water in Cochabamba in Colombia (Notes from Nowhere 2003), or the introduction of bin charges in Dublin and elsewhere in Ireland (Workers’ Solidarity Movement 2005); [222]
2. As of 2005, Nico Bever of http://www.broadleft.org/ hosted by Marxist Internet Archive classified the WSM as part of the then International Libertarian Solidarity (Solidaridad Internacional Libertaria, ILS/SIL) [57]
3. Anarkismo, the inheritor organisation of the ILS/SIL issued this statement in 2010 Libertarian statement of solidarity with the comrades in Oaxaca, Mexico
4. And of course, WSM "Our Perspectives" Online: WSM, 2008, §§2.2, 4.5ii, 4.6, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12ia,b,c,iic

• I think that ought to clarify your information requirements. If your concerns relate to a personal definition of libertarianism at odds with Cox, Long, etc. please discuss at Talk:Libertarianism/scope Fifelfoo (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The best source for what they are would be themselves The Workers Solidarity Movement was founded in Dublin, Ireland in 1984 following discussions by a number of local anarchist groups on the need for a national anarchist organisation. They also (unsurprisingly) are socialists mark nutley (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're also socialists and anarchists, this isn't particularly surprising for a Platformist group. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, they are only socialists and anarchists. They certainly do not describe themselves as Libertarian at all mark nutley (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

mark, please stop with this WP:IDHT: given immediately above: WSM "Our Perspectives" Online: WSM, 2008, §§2.2, 4.5ii, 4.6, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12ia,b,c,iic (forgot to sign) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The WSM is obviously wrong, if they do not describe thenselves as Libertarian and say they are anarchists then we really ought to take their word for it mark nutley (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

mark, please stop with this WP:IDHT: given immediately above: WSM "Our Perspectives" Online: WSM, 2008, §§2.2, 4.5ii, 4.6, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12ia,b,c,iic Fifelfoo (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

FFS Fifelfoo, they describe themselves as "Anarchists". Their policies are Anarchist policies. Everything on their homepage tells us they're an Anarchist organisation. Their Wiki page is part of the Anarchism Portal. Everything about them and their agenda spells "Anarchist". The Workers Solidarity Movement is part of the International Libertarian Solidarity, a blatantly Anarchist orgnisation (whose Wiki page is also a part of the Anarchism Portal). Your insistence that the WSM is a Libertarian organisation is bordering on WP:Patent Nonsense. And people wonder why I stop taking discussions in this talk page seriously... *sigh* BlueRobe (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not the most solid sourcing in the world, I'm not convinced it portrays the groups significance as a Libertarian group. BTW the groups own classification of themselves is only marginally relevant (for example if they overtly rejected a libertarian label that would be of significance) - we need third party discussion/classification.

1. The quoted source not strike me as particularly explicit in naming them as libertarian (it strikes me as Synth to take such a conclusion).
2. Classification in International Libertarian Solidarity is of note; is it significant? i.e. is it considered a reliable source for libertarianism and libertarian groups?
3. I'm not sure I see the relevance of #3 citation.
4. WSM clearly identify in that document as libertarian, but they are unreliable as to their own significance as a group within libertarian philosophy

My best guess conclusion from this is that at this stage we have two reasonably good source that identifies them as libertarian but we don't have any source that identifies them as significant in the scope of libertarianism. Anyone got anything else? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Errant, a very large part of the reason that so many Anarchists use the term Libertarian is because the term "Libertarian" was used in an Anarchist sense in the late 19th century. This archaic use has fallen into disfavour since World War Two, partly in deference to use of the term "Libertarian" by mainstream Libertarianism, as the term "Anarchism" gained popular recognition for their Anarchist movements. See the Etymology of Libertarianism. Some Anarchist groups continue to use the term "Libertarian" in the old archaic Anarchist sense.

Let's be clear: when the Anarchists call themselves "Libertarians", they mean the Anarchist sense of Libertarians, not the contemporary concept of Libertarianism. The two uses of the term "Libertarian" are as different as apples and oranges (both are fruits with a sweet taste, but they're still different fruits)- they're both political ideologies with a focus on liberty, but they're not the same ideology.

We've been watching Fifelfoo and TFD and BigK HeX misuse references to the Anarchist sense of the term "Libertarian" with dismay. This bizarre notion that the WSM is a Libertarian organisation is a clear example of such misuse of the term "Libertarian". It needs to stop. BlueRobe (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

tmorton, thanks for inquiring into the sources. BlueRobe, your personal opinions about what Libertarianism is and is not belong off wikipedia. Have you considered publishing in a peer reviewed journal or on a blog?

1. I disagree about the reading of WSM(I)'s status in Cox (2006), but such a difference of reading seems reasonable disagreement to me. The connection is that Cox describes a libertarian sequence of social movements, and that the WSM's organised bin tax resistance was a worthwhile example of direct action for a RS to note.
2. Nico Biver's website is hosted by Marxists.org, a major political science archive maintained by volunteers. Biver's site is indexed by intute.ac.uk a university funded library indexing consortium run by information professionals, who review Biver's site here as "This is a useful directory of links to the Internet sites of left wing political parties worldwide. … Minimal annotations on content." indicating that WSM(I) was a member of ISL-SLI. This indicates that secondary sources, in this case an index, recognised the ISL-SLI membership as significant enough to note. Maintaining indices of party or group membership in Internationals involves fact checking. intute.ac.uk seems to indicate that academic librarians believed Biver's site to be reliable for the purposes of identifying left-wing groups.
3. The third citation indicates that WSM(I) is a member of the inheritor organisation of ISL-SLI, an organisation which describes its statement of solidarity as a "Libertarian" one. Arranging agreement amongst members of an International to the wording of a statement, or gaining consent to word a statement in such a way, is no basic feat. The signature of the WSM(I) on the anarkismo statement indicates that WSM(I) self identifies as libertarian, and is in turn identified as libertarian by the following political groups with Libertarian in their names: Estrategia Libertaria (Chile), Unión Socialista Libertaria (Peru), Red Libertaria Popular Mateo Kramer (Colombia), Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (Switzerland), Alternative Libertaire (France)
4. I'm aware of SELF, but felt it relevant to note in the context of other sources, that this is a self-identified label.

I don't believe that a RS is required to establish them as relevant within libertarianism. I believe that RS need to establish two separate points: 1) that they are libertarian. 2) that they are politically relevant. This is because their role in the article is to indicate an example of a contemporary English language libertarian socialist group (in this, they are probably the most relevant due to their political success in a Tax Strike).

I believe 2) is established by Reilly, J., "Far left pulling the strings on bin charge campaign", The Sunday Independent, Sunday October 19, 2003. and other documentation in relation to the bins campaign, and generally, by the fact that they've stuck around since 1986 (a relatively long life for a non-parliamentary movement group without a rigid party structure). A variety of other news material is available to establish WSM(I)'s political relevance in Ireland, and I don't think people would protest this point.

I feel that I've established 1). One of the problems in establishing this is the speed at which extra-parliamentary political movements enter the academic literature, and the manner in which they do. As Cox demonstrates, they often enter as examples of strategy mentioned in demonstration of theoretical points.

The core material I would put ends up being stuff like this Advertisement for 2008 speaking tour by Andrew Flood "A decade ago the active anarchist movement in Ireland consisted of little more than a dozen people in two small organizations. Today hundreds of people are active and one banned libertarian demonstration in 2004 saw 5,000 people take part. Anarchists are increasingly replacing Irish republicans as the bogeyman of the mainstream media." Andrew is described here as a NEFAC member and former WSM(I) member "His publishing record includes well over one hundred articles, translated into over nine languages, chapters published in three books, and articles in seven English language anti-authoritarian magazines and newspapers." Fifelfoo (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I have no idea what you were trying to say to me. Regardless, I was merely summarising the points made in Etymology of Libertarianism. Btw, who is going to read that wall of text (aka rant) you provided? (I did read it, against my better judgement, and it just screams WSM=Anarchist mvement. How the HELL do you get Libertarianism out of all that?) Please read WP:Patent Nonsense. BlueRobe (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur with a lot of your rationale. Regarding #3 think that is OR; saying WSM is member of this organisation who issues a libertarian statement seems OR. With regards to your point 2) - I kinda disagree, I see the perspective you are coming from. But in the context of an article about libertarianism I'd argue that examples should at least be significant within libertarianism. Or, to put it simply, it would be really nice to have a source that makes the connection you make between 1) and 2) (i.e. they are libertarian, they are politically significant & sync that together) :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo regarding your linkys to the WSM, the first four or five paragraphs there talk of and describe the WSM as anarchist, they are and always have been anarchists. mark nutley (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately they directly and explicitly identify as libertarian too; so they may be significant in this article. If we trust it for one self-definition we have to trust it for the other :) Lets stick to the sources as much as possible --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Errant, it is unfortunate that you are ignoring the etymology of the term "Libertarianism".

Including Anarchist ideologies into the Libertarianism article, because some Anarchists occasionally use the archaic meaning of the term "Libertarian", is like using including the US Supreme Court in a Wikipaedia article about Trees, because of WP:RSs that refer to the Judiciary as a branch of government. BlueRobe (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well that example is singularly bad :P but I take your (pretty strong) point. Do we have any way of confirming which variant they are using (beyond our own beliefs)? What about their inclusion into Libertarian societies etc? This is why we really need a 3rd party RS to say these things because it clears up such matters. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem. While some of these uses of the term "Libertarian" are clearly in the Anarchist sense, as shown by a brief examination of the sources (i.e. the WSM example), other uses will need a fairly extensive examination of the sources themselves (and 3rd party WP:RSs). Otherwise, we get more examples of Fifelfoo's style of slight-of-hand where his use of the term "Libertarian" has strayed into the bloody ridiculous (as per WP:Patent Nonsense) - seriously, why are you still entertaining that nonsense? You're just feeding his ideological acid trip. BlueRobe (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Bloody" is not decent enough for an article's talk page. N6n (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Bloody is perfectly fine. Even the Conservative Prime Minster of Australia (Howard) thought that word was fine, and he's as boring and small-minded as they get. Chill out. BlueRobe (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To continue discussing the quality of available sources; similarly stuff such as MaRK, Class Against Class (NEFAC-Boston) "Platformism Without Illusions: Ireland" Northeastern Anarchist 6 (Winter/Spring 2003) (NEFAC) http://nefac.SPAMFILTER.net/node/365 "More recently we decided to join International Libertarian Solidarity. This however is a network intended to facilitate solidarity between different libertarian groups rather than an international of national sections." Which is an article in a non-peer reviewed magazine published for commercial and political purposes, but by an organisation other than WSM(I). This is in many ways, a natural sourcing problem for extra-parliamentary social movements.

I think the significance of their actions in a libertarian sense is given by Cox's definition of libertarianism (which matches a number of previously given), which is why Cox makes use of them as an example. WSM's significance to libertarianism is their series of successful direct actions, such as the bin strike. Their significant role in anti-war / anti-globalisation / etc actions in Ireland is easily provided from the Irish mainstream press (as well as some foreign presses, Green Left Weekly in Australia, a published for sale press of a non-libertarian socialist political party; but this function in the article could just as easily be provided by examples from the Italian autonomia. A great number of months back when I added WSM as an example, I did so because WSM are contemporary, long lived and stable (1986-2010), English speaking, and politically successful. They're also an example from an English speaking country other than UK-US. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

tmorton, I see what you're saying. http://anarkismo.net/about_us indicates that WSM are actually members of anarkismo. But this goes straight back to SELF. I can see your concerns with the tenuousness of the connection both within Cox, and supporting documents. If you could give me your opinion on MaRK (pseud) 2003 given just above, I think this conversation could wrap up shortly afterwards. One way or the other. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Anarchists often accept Marx's two-class theory. For example, this is what the Workers Solidarity Movement says The first in a series of radio shows, produced by the anarchist organisation, Workers Solidarity Movement, based in Ireland Encyclopedia of political anarchy Directory of British political organisations 1994 mark nutley (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

FFS, Fifelfoo, EVERYTHING you are saying just screams Anarchism! BlueRobe (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, please refactor your comment (WP:NPA).

Gay and Gay, Encyclopedia of political anarchy, ABC-CLIO 1999 mentions the WSM in the same breath as "The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists," as a platformist (ie: Libertarian) group, p61; at p62 in the footnote it mentions WSM published the first Irish edition of the Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists. Thanks mark!

Paul Mercer, Directory of British political organisations 1994 Longman 1994 mentions WSM but not libertarianism

Tom Wetzel's paper on parecon mentions that WSM uses historical materialism, I don't see the relevance of this. It has been established that HQRS define libertarianism in particular ways. Historical materialist methodology, for or against, is not part of any HQRS definitions I've seen.

Sadly I didn't have time to listen to a radio programme. Perhaps you can extract quotes with timestamps of when they occur?

Many thanks mark for Gay and Gay, 1999! Can you provide the full article from pages 61/2? My Google only offers snippet view. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So, now your delusional concept of Libertarianism is sweeping Communism into its embrace. At this rate, you'll have a Fascist version of Libertarianism in the main article by Friday. Kids - don't do drugs. BlueRobe (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, mind your language. N6n (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have warned you on your talk page regarding your behaviour in personally attacking me BlueRobe. Please refactor your comments. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, given the WSM describe themselves as anarchist, and the sources presented above describe the mas anarchists please explain why you reverted them back into this article? mark nutley (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Because, Mark, the RS sources we have for definitions of libertarianism do not exclude anarchists; and as the sources available also describe them as libertarian, including the WSM's own perspectives document. The Gay and Gay ABC-CLIO source you cited indicates that they are also libertarian in direct relation to platformism at 61-2, and I'm waiting on wikipedia's source exchange community for the very source you referenced in relation to them. A better reason for removal would be the current standing of RS here. Which (pending your next comment here that I hope will address the SELF issues) I'll accept while we wait on other editors to provide us with a fuller copy of Gay and Gay pp61-2. You could provide such a copy too! I hope you'll join me in pruning SELF and unreliable sources from the article soon! Fifelfoo (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a look in my library and no joy, sorry. That was one I thought I might have had but nada (which is odd - I "inherited" a lot of anarchist related books from a friend a few years ago - it may be in a box in the loft somewhere but no chance in finding it this side of Xmas :D) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Users keep declaring that the WSM are an anarchist group, as if that settled the matter. For example in his latest edit, deleting material about the WSM, Mark Nutley states "they are an anarchist group per the sources presented". With respect, that seems to me besides the point. No-one here disputes that WSM are anarchists.

This article currently assumes a broad definition of libertarianism. There are reliable sources describing libertarianism as a synonym for anarchism. There are also reliable sources, such as RT Long, that extend the definition of libertarianism to include not just anarchism but also minarchism. This is reflected in the wording of the lead which states "anarchism continues to be a major strand within libertarianism".

So if that is our working definition of libertarianism, is it really necessary, in the case of each individual anarchist group, to provide cast-iron sources describing it as libertarian, even if the group describes itself as libertarian? I'm certainly not an expert on Wikipedia policy in relation to sourcing and original research, but that would seem strange to me.

To make a comparison, Marxism is understood to be a subcategory of socialism. So if a group is described in reliable sources as Marxist, would it really be necessary to provide sources in order to refer to them as socialists?

Or is this actually just another thread disputing the validity of the broad definition of libertarianism? Iota (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the argument can be made that any organization that is exclusively anarchist (as the WSB appears to be) is not libertarian because libertarianism does not exclude minarchism. Also, I suspectlibertarian has a different (anarchist) connotation in Ireland/Irish than it does in English.

Anyway, what we need is an English (not Irish) RS (preferably a secondary one, that refers to WSB as being libertarian. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle wrote: "libertarian has a different (anarchist) connotation in Ireland/Irish than it does in English ...what we need is an English (not Irish) RS".

I assume by "Irish" you mean the English language as-spoken-in-Ireland? If so, sorry to be pedantic but I think I ought to clarify a few things: The sources from Ireland are written in English, not Irish or any other language. Irish is a Gaelic language spoken in Ireland (so you'll agree it's not relevant!). English-as-spoken-in-Ireland is sometimes called "Hiberno-English" by academics, but it is basically identical to British English (except it includes a few loan words and things taken from the Irish language).

On to my main point: It would be extraordinary to start raising the bar so that sources written in English by Irish people are not accepted on an English Wikipedia article. I think you would need some solid evidence that Irish people have a special, idiosyncratic meaning of the word libertarianism. I'm quite sure you won't find that evidence because it is simply not the case. Iota (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's just say it's similar to Quebecian English which has a French influence which manifests itself in ways that include changing connotation of the meaning of identically spelled words. I'm not suggesting we ignore any of it, just be wary of it. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of the sources currently listed for this information, ABC-CLIO publish in US Academic English, Cox published in UK Academic English, the Irish media publishes in English-as-used-in-Ireland, and the WSM publish in a combination of English-as-used-in-Ireland and the Platformist technical jargon of International English with obvious English-as-used-in-Ireland inflections. I don't believe the linguistic analysis is relevant in this topic, the WSM's primary use of "libertarian" is Platformist: ie, an International English which is shared across the Anglophone world by a technical group. Cox; and Gay and Gay (ABC-CLIO) are using academic uses of Libertarian. I think the matter pretty clearly comes down to the editorial issue of whether Cox clearly sees the WSM as libertarian (I believe Cox does, other editors in good faith readings believes she does not, my belief is then Cox shouldn't be used). Which means the matter comes to rest on what Gay and Gay say. I do think that any examples for the article anarchists who are also libertarians should be ones clearly labelled or considered in RS as libertarians: clear RS'd examples are best. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Right libertarian/libertarian conservative" Libertarian Party is WP:OR

At this diff, Darkstar1st has reverted deletion of unsourced claims about Libertarian Party, now writing The US Libertarian Party supports a right-libertarian platform; a form of right-libertarianism aligned with libertarian conservatism is dominant among the schools of libertarianism in the US. His "reference" is the LP platform that doesn't use either phrase. If there are any real WP:RS for his claim, put them in. Someone else feel free to delete before I do tomorrow. Darkstar1st, please read policy. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

i read it, primary sources are allowed. please tell us which part of the platform is not right-libertarian? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Be careful. The issue does not appear to be about primary sourcing; but that you've originally researched a piece of text. I'm actually in agreement with Carol on this, I can't see how your source directly supports the content - to be clear, the source needs to explicitly make the same point that it supports in the text. Primary sources, by the way, can be used: but only if RS and they must never be interpreted (which I think might be the problem here). Primary sources can support direct fact or significant attributed opinion but that is it (this is a very strong policy btw) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, inclusion of content describing the Workers Solidarity Movement as a Libertarian movement is endorsed. No, there's nothing broken about Wikipaedia ... nothing at all. /facepalm

Remember the days when Libertarianism was so well-written that it was a Wikipaedia featured article? *sigh* BlueRobe (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it was removed (WSM) - I'll prompt an end to the discussion above --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's OR, there should be a RS that says this. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The primary source objection I mentioned in summary was really more to mis-using a primary source as a WP:RS for something not in the primary source. However, any use of the LP Platform would have to reflect the whole content in a balanced fashion, including the right to alter or abolish govt which is a whole section unto itself, as opposed to some points which are just one of several in a section. So obviously of great importance. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

We do not need "reliable sources" to say that something is "original research". Neither we need reliable sources to say that something has attracted no attention in reliable sources. Bascially things that are unknown are unknown. TFD (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

When people start actually disagreeing with the correctness, accuracy, appropriateness etc. of an insertion along with / instead of just trying to use wiki-lawyering to knock it out (without even disputing it) I'll believe that they are being sincere vs. just disingenuous and warring. North8000 (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's worth nothing that WP:PRIMARY is not a blanket ban on all primary sources. It urges caution, with several sensible guidelines (including the use of "common sense") depending on the nature of the primary source and what it is being used for. BlueRobe (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Insisting on WP:RS and contesting WP:OR is not wikilawyering. It's following clear policy.
• Yes, I contest the idea that the Libertarian Party platform is "libertarian conservative." (It's right libertarian, just like anarcho-capitalism is, but do we need to emphasize that in the article unless WP:RS do?) The "Self-determination" section replaces the old "Secession" section. However, throughout the party has had the "Omissions" section which reads "Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval." So the party is rife with radical anti-statists. Get used to it.

(inserted later, within Carol's post) Carol, finally, thoughts, ideas and opinions. Cool! North8000 (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Mick. It's an insult in Britain, less so in Australia. Depends on how its said and by who in US. But if your name isn't obviously recognized as Irish, use of term can be misconstrued. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

FFS, Carolmooredc, get over it already. BlueRobe (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To North8000:when people stop so egregiously violating policy (especially WP:Soapbox and WP:POV pushing) that you have to keep reminding them what it is, I'll be able to deal with the "correctness, accuracy, appropriateness etc. of an insertion." Since the extreme anti-statism of the LP platform is of interest to me, I bothered to correct Darkstar1stsWP:OR delusion that it is some constitutionalist minarchist document. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system.
• We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States.
• a free market health care system.
• parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government.
• We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment.
• We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest.
• We call for the repeal of the income tax.

not anarchist since they want an army, not left at all Darkstar1st (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

TO North8000: Not to mention its fruitless to try to discuss issues with people when they don't read or refuse to recognize plain English, like lp.org/platform which reads:

• Section 3.7 Self-Determination: Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.
• Section 4.0 Omissions: Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

These - together or separately - obviously easily could lead to an end to the US military, Congress, President, Supreme Court, etc. No wonder people say the LP is a bunch of danged anarchists. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

carol, they copied "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive" from the declaration of independence. agree to new governance means forming a new government, nor anarchy. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, that is just original research. TFD (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, Darkstar1st was using his intellect to indicate a notable feature. BlueRobe (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

ok, points made; OR should be avoided. Lets not get sidetracked. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If it's not explicitly stated in the source, it's original research. That's the way an encyclopedia works, and the sooner you understand and accept that, the easier it will be to engage in discussion that actually leads to improvement of the article. Yworo (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC) I will always be suspicious of editors who insist we leave our brains at the door. BlueRobe (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Then you may as well leave Wikipedia, because sourcing without interpretation is built into the rules. Yworo (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll give Darkstar1st til tomorrow PM to find some actual sources that say what he claims is true. If he continues to revert I'll report it to WP:No Original Research Noticeboard, hoping others will explain his error. Maybe that will end the Refusal to get the point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

i gave my sources? the lp site and the declaration of independence. maybe you have a source for your claim the lp is part anarchist? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Actual sources" mean ones that comply with WP:Reliable sources? Have you ever read the policy? Do you believe that you as a wikipedia editor have to comply with it? Do you need someone NOT editing here to explain it to you? That is the prupopse of going to WP:No Original Research Noticeboard. Though if some neutral editor decided to look at the history of your edits and see a pattern of blatantly disregarding policy, they might take some action. Meanwhile, hopefully a skillful mediator will step in willing to do so. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that you (or someone/not clear in diffs) have taken out the offending language. (Though you/someone missed the omissions section which should be included.) Without the ""Right libertarian/libertarian conservative" language, this is supported by your LP.org/platform reference.

FYI, here's what I wrote before see that, just so we don't need a long debate next time there is such a problem: "Actual sources" mean ones that comply with WP:Reliable sources? Have you ever read the policy? Do you believe that you as a wikipedia editor have to comply with it? Do you need someone NOT editing here to explain it to you? That is the purpose of going to WP:No Original Research Noticeboard. Though if some neutral editor decided to look at the history of your edits and see a pattern of blatantly disregarding policy, they might take some action. Meanwhile, hopefully a skillful mediator will step in willing to do so. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR back in spades

It is unbelievable to me that this "Right libertarian/libertarian conservative" nonsense is back in the article. (After at least one other person deleted it.) I took it out again.

Also, on primary sources, they only should be used if NO secondary source available OR to back up secondary sources. Obviously we'll need one for the description of the LP's views. And the LP's comments about itself probably best, like ones I'm inserting. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism and Anarchism

The real issue here is that the word "libertarianism" has entirely different meanings in the US and outside it, particularly it seems among European anarchist. The current form of the article doesn't capture that, suggesting the two different meanings are intertwined far more than they really are. I'm not sure of the best way to attack this problem; it is tempting to create differing articles and disambiguate. At the very least, it should be made much more clear the differences in the two philosophies. Fell Gleaming^talk 13:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of intertwinings though, from the international uptake of USLP style libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, to the origins of USLP style libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism in early cold war discussion groups influenced by the European libertarianisms. Earlier interminglings are also present in individualism, or Georgism. I agree that disintwining would help the article, yet at the same time, both meanings are present in English and the scholarly sources. The disintwining wouldn't be helped by disambiguation pages, so much as better writing here. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism began in the 19th century with a commitment to liberty and mistrust of authority. In the 1950s some libertartians began to believe that liberty could only be achieved through the protection of private property. The original libertarianism is frequently called "left" and the modern version "right". Similar divisions have occurred in other ideologies, e.g., social liberalism vs. classical liberalism. When this occurs we end up with three articles. TFD (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Your statement sounds like the beginnings of a much better lede than what we currently have. Why don't you take a stab at it? Fell Gleaming^talk 13:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As per the usual with this article, the talk page is very informative and the article isn't. There are a lot of experts contributing here. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the claim that U.S. usage is different, please see #Mainstream_libertarianism, and the just-updated summary of that section at #Mainstream_libertarianism_-_Checkpoint_2.

Let's not conflate usage of libertarian/libertarianism among (French, German, Italian, Dutch, etc., speaking) European anarchists with dominant usage of libertarian/libertarianism among English speakers in Europe (primarily in the U.K.). This is one of the issues I hope we nail down on the /scope subpage. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also let's not forget the fact that "right" is used more by non-libertarians to describe free market viewpoints than many/most free market libertarians themselves should not be overlooked. Given that libertarians share more "left" views on civil liberties and foreign policy than right (and especially neocon) views, those libertarians who argue that IF left/right must be used, those who argue it is a left wing position (with market economics) should be mentioned. Lots of WP:RS exist on this. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that a US-branded libertarian is much further politically from your average anarcho-socialist than are Republicans and Democrats. The article lede in present form does not make clear the distinction. It seems to almost intentionally obscure the issue. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the term "right" is used here to show that they are to the right of left-libertarians, rather than to claim they are right-wing. TFD (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but right vs. left on an axis measuring what, exactly? The traditional single right/left axis is widely understood to be grossly inadequate for comparing libertarianism to other political ideologies. See this quiz, for example. I suggest it's meaningless to compare supposed variations of "libertarianism" on the left/right scale as well.

Therefore, I think the right/left designators are essentially arbitrary and intrinsically meaningless distinguishing terms, providing no more information than labeling one "variety A" and the other "variety B" would provide (provided that one presumes that "left libertarianism" is a variety of "libertarianism" in the sense that the term "libertarianism" is generally used in the English speaking world, which I do not). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Rapidosity (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If this refers to an agreement with the opening statement in this section, as the indenting implies, please substantiate the claim that "the word "libertarianism" has entirely different meanings in the US and outside it". I had hoped to have cleared that up at #Mainstream_libertarianism and #Mainstream_libertarianism_-_Checkpoint_2, where usage of the term "libertarianism" in the UK, Australia and New Zealand has been shown to be the same as it is in the U.S., and so I am dismayed to see this claim repeated (and lauded). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I just took the test and scored "centrist".[58] Since "left" and "right" are other possibilities, it seems the left-right scale is accepted. Even in the libertarian grid there is a left-right dimension, ranging from 50% economic freedom on the left to 100% economic freedom on the right. TFD (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, but that is a specific "economic freedom" left/right scale, not an undefined left/right scale. Is the distinction of L/R libertarianism intended to be on the economic freedom scale? So left libertarians are opposed to economic individual liberty and favor more government intervention/regulation? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You are the expert on the chart, not I. But it really does not matter whether we accept ideological spectra, or even if the terms applied by political scientists to libertarianism are meaningful, they use the descriptions "left" and "right". TFD (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"They use the terms 'left' and 'right' ...". Not really; certainly not much.

There is some use of the term left-libertarian in primary sources, but usage relative to "libertarianism" is obscure -- less than .1% as compared to "libertarian"; see /scope#Relevant_google_hit_counts -- and that's including primary sources as well as secondary ones. Usage among secondary sources is bound to be significantly less. The concept of left-libertarianism is fringe/obscure even in the already relatively obscure libertarian political world. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2, I fear you're reading far too much into a simple statement. No one is trying to draw a hermetic shield around the US, and claim that at every other single point on the globe, libertarianism is wholly different than that found in Skokie, Il. The statement simply means there's a radical different between the libertarianism found at some points including the US, and that found at other points which don't include the US. Is that more clear? Fell Gleaming^talk 18:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's clear, though it's not clear that that was intended with the original statement in question.

Anyway, I still must question this modified claim, especially if it is meant to apply only to the part of the world where English is the primary language. I understand that there are English speakers in France, Holland, Italy, Spain, Norway, etc., and they are likely to be prone to use libertarian in English with a meaning that is the same as it is in their native language, but that should not count much (if at all) in terms of how the term is used in English in the world. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is the main issue being addressed in the /scope subpage, and any assistance in that effort would be appreciated. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2Cycle, you appear to be confusing the terms primary and secondary sources. "Primary sources are very close to an event,... Secondary sources are second-hand accounts...."[59] Google.com searches return primary sources and are original research. TFD (talk)

"Google.com searches return primary sources and are original research" Huh? Did you mean to type that? Google can return a source of any type, and I don't know where you get such sources are OR. Fell Gleaming^talk 03:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming, I think you're witnessing the selective and revisionist approach of some of the editors to this page, first hand. Welcome to the land of double-speak. BlueRobe (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to Carol et al. to disambiguate Cosmopolitan (read: European) Libertarianism from American Libertarianism?

So this is a reasonable request. When it comes to mediation, its all about non-positional bargaining and creative solution-making. My request for myself and the rest of Right (read: property-owning) members of wikipedia is that we explicitly and plainly differentiate "cosmopolitan libertarianism" from "American libertarianism" on the main page, in plain sight. My realization has come after reading Chomsky's chapter on 'Libertarianism vs. Anarchism' in his book 'Understanding Power : The Indispensable Chomsky'. Could we, as "American Libertarians", please have our own page which is plainly differentiated and presented on/near the header on the main Wikipedia page? I have with great angst been worrying about this issue (read: unsexed capitalist), and just want to make sure the interests of the dominant parties with opinions on Libertarians are explicated in the open. All I, all "we" (read: American pro-freedom pro-commerce advocates) want is a fair share of the view. Socialism is just fine and dandy, but we (American Libertarians) want a bit of distance from extremist (per American Libertarian political propaganda) groups purporting to believe what we believe. The truth is is that there are deep, deep schisms within the Libertarian intellectual community, a fact which is easy to see after some experience on this page. All I request is that we, American Libertarians, receive the right of having our own page which is in plain sight near the header of the introduction to the main (read: Cosmopolitan/European) page of Libertarianism. I would nod DarkStar as the editor-in-chief for this page, but that's just me.68.59.4.188 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Dear IP. The current section "Overview" disambiguates concepts, though not particularly well. It is not clear from the current text that Minarchism is the scholarly term often used to refer to the politics associated with and surrounding USLP style positions. Scholarly terms I have seen referring to this tendency have been "Right-libertarianism" as term describing a general position in favour of markets, and within this classification "Minarchism" to draw the distinction between small-state and anti-state positions. In terms of article weight and tone, the article speaks as if minarchist and anarcho-capitalist positions are default positions being addressed, and clearly distinguishes positions and groups which are libertarian socialist when they are brought up in the body of the text. Volume of coverage here is also predisposed towards covering "Right-libertarian" positions, and within this "Minarchist" positions. Separate pages already exist for the various tendencies described in the article.
• I'm not disturbed by this, as the volume of text needed to cover other positions using the term Libertarian can be small and yet still achieve appropriate coverage through wikilinking. However, the writing at the moment isn't very good (despite a number of non-partisan editors trying to better word the lede, good job those editors). The writing is unlikely to improve until the core group of editors solve a number of ongoing discussions which would ground the writing.
• You may also wish to reconsider using terms like "extremist groups" on a talk page, which may be seen as offensive, and which some governments use as a justification for political persecution. The word "radical" may cover your meaning?
• I've not seen your term "Cosmopolitan libertarianism" in any scholarly works, do you have a reference we could follow up?
• I strongly agree with your concern for adequate breadth of coverage, failing to cover minarchism or anarcho-capitalism here would be a major editorial failure; similarly, it is my belief as an editor that failing to cover Libertarian Socialism here would be a major editorial failure. This issue is one of the number of issues currently requiring resolution amongst editors before we can improve the writing, including clearer differentiation of which libertarians hold and do what, and what commonalities have been identified in reliable sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

IP edit is by banned User:Karmaisking. Please don't reply in this thread. N6n (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Besides Fifefoo, what editors are opposed to disambiguating and/or removing the A-C information from this article? I see quite a few editors in favor. A small minority should not be used to prevent moving forward on improving the content. Fell Gleaming^talk 03:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(I do not think the IP is banned editor, but another IP who contributes.) IP, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libertarianism article. Please do not discuss off-topic subjects here. TFD (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

For goodness sake, N6n, not EVERY anonymous IP is a banned User. Stop labelling every newbie as a bogeyman just because they say something you don't agree with. BlueRobe (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please learn to differentiate these two strings "Fifelfoo 02:25, 23 September 2010" and "N6n 03:41, 23 September 2010"; and amend your comment above accordingly. Thank you. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, done, with my apologies. BlueRobe (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Several times I have seen posts to go right to the core of the issues with this article and its 5 year failure, and try to resolve them. And some POV warrior tries to squelch the discussion by claiming it's "off topic" yada yada. Let's stop that. North8000 (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If one polled every person and organization in the world in the world who clearly calls themselves (with respect to politics) primarily a Libertarian, I'll bet that 90% or 98% would both agree with the following, and also agree these are common tenets of 99% of Libertarian people and organizations:

"Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties." (from LP party "are you a Libertarian" site page)

This mess of an article gives absolutely no indication of that. I think that 68.59....'s proposal is one of many possible ways way to start rectifying this. Maybe the only way to get started is to say it's "American Libertarian" who, in the DEFINITIONS material, by WP:UNDUE standards, get 1/100th of the proper weight, where by wp:undue standards, some unusual sects that exist only in the minds of a few philosophers/writers are getting 100 x times the proper weight. IMHO in reality, these tenets are common to 90% or 99% of worldwide Libertarians, even if their philosophies diverge in other areas. North8000 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And finally, if you disagree with the above, please SAY SO instead of the usual maneuvers. North8000 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, I agree 100%. The Libertarianism is a diabolical shambles - it is incoherent, it is full of Anarchism, it barely notices important Libertarian philosophers (Rand and Nozick), it has a wealth of references to Chomsky (an Anarcho-Syndicalist FFS), etc etc etc.

Alas, I am also 100% sure that any response they make to your post will be the usual round of threats and warnings and any other wiki-lawyering they can conjure vis-a-vis WP:OR WP:RS etc. BlueRobe (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems as if some want to equate Libertarianism with the American Libertarian Party. They are not the same. This article construes the term broadly. If you want to edit an article that constrains itself to the American party line, perhaps you should focus on the Libertarian Party (United States) article. Yworo (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"They are not the same." You just admitted we have content for two different meanings in the same article. That's the problem we're discussing. The traditional way to solve that is by disambiguation. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, there are already articles on the various Libertarian parties, and a disambiguation page, which can be found here. This article is an overview article on the range of positions within all branches of Libertarianism. There can also be (and are, I believe) subarticles on those different branches. Nowhere did I say there were multiple meanings, though. You don't disambiguate an overview article. Yworo (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Though I take issue with characterizing the conventional meaning as that of the U.S. Libertarian Party. The conventional meaning, which definitely excludes left-libertarianism but arguably includes anarcho-capitalism, is intended the vast majority of the time when it is used in reliable sources, not just in reference to the U.S. Libertarian Party (though there too). The evidence for this has started to collect at /scope.

Anyway, this situation is normally dealt with by identifying a primary topic for the term in question, or by creating a dab page. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. There are no separate topics here. There is one broad topic, akin to Christianity. The way such a topic is normally handled is via an overview article with short sections on each of the branches, with a {{main}} template at the top of each section leading to the branch article. Yworo (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

When you say "they are not the same", you are saying "they are different". When you say "different" in relationship to a word, you're saying the word has different meanings. QED. This article is about Libertarianism, i.e. the protoypical usage of same. I'm still not convinced that Left-Libertarianism is similar enough to be included in the same article. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but you need to advance an actual argument. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't try to put words in my mouth saying what I mean. A single political party's platform is of course "different" from a broad political philosophy. This is not a case of different meanings, but of different domains of discourse. You do know what that means. don't you? Yworo (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I also know that differing domains are best served by differing articles. Which is why Wikipedia consists of several million different entries, rather than one single large one, entitled "All About Everything!". Fell Gleaming^talk 19:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What part of "there are already separate articles for the various Libertarian parties" did you fail to understand? Yworo (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

To Yworo on your comment of (me) equating Libertarianism with the LP. FYI, I've been an avid Libertarian for decades and I don't think that the LP should be a Party. I even once told Harry Browne that personally across a dinner table, that it should convert from a party to an organization. And so I certainly know the difference. And I am the one who posted their definition / description of tenets as a good indicator of common tenets of Libertarianism. I did that because a quarter million person organization is a much more reliable indicator than one philosopher/writer creating his /her own definitions. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"There is one broad topic, akin to Christianity." Akin to Christianity? I don't think so. Here's the difference. If you look at how the terms are used, including by googling Christian or Christianity, you will find that the vast majority of uses mean Christianity in the general sense, belief in God and Jesus Christ being His son. But if you look at the uses of libertarian, you will find that the vast majority means what we refer to here as Right-libertarianism, and definitely does not include left-libertarianism. For example, if you look at the first 20 hits from google for the search "libertarianism -wikipedia", you will find that it is used to refer to right-libertarianism, in which the right to private property is a key principle, in 16 of the 20 cases, 3 are indeterminate, and only once is there a use which is inclusive of left-libertarianism, in which the right to private property is shunned.

You will not find Christianity, or any other term about which we have a general article, used to refer to separate concepts that are fundamentally disparate from each other like that. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's similar. Protestant Christians at one time equated the Pope with the devil. Some still do. Can't get much more "fundamentally disparate" than that. Beliefs within Christianity are at least as diverse as those under the label of Libertarianism, if not more so. They've even fought wars over the differences in beliefs and Catholics subjected Protestants to the Inquisition. AFAIK, the great Libertarian wars have yet to be fought. Yworo (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Of course there are disparate views within Christianity just as there are within libertarianism (moreso within Christianity, I would say). But that's not what we're talking about.

If the predominate use of the term Christianity was to refer to Protestantism in a manner that clearly excluded Catholicism (or vice versa), then it would be akin, since the predominate use of term libertarianism is to refer to RL in a manner that clearly excludes LL.

This is why I think that Anarcho-capitalism should remain in the article, because predominate use of libertarianism does not exclude A-C.

When someone says "I'm a Christian" he may or may not be Catholic, and would almost certainly agree that being or not being Catholic does not determine whether he is a Christian. However, if someone says "I'm a libertarian", he almost certainly believes in property rights (if he doesn't, then he's highly unlikely to even say "I'm a libertarian" but would be likely to say "I'm a left-libertarian" or "I'm libertarian socialist"), and would almost certainly agree that anyone who does not believe in property rights is not a libertarian.

The term Christian is often used to refer to both Protestants and Catholics; the term libertarian is used almost exclusively to refer to property rights upholding defenders of individual liberty, and practically never to left-libertarians. That's very different; not "akin" at all. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Thread #332332 where the vocal minority argues for a narrow scope and engages in fallacious arguments -- color me surprised! The use of "QED" in such a blatantly fallacious argument adds a new element, though. "Tedious" doesn't even begin to cover this.

In any case, as Yworo has been kind enough to repeat for the Nth time, YES this article is NOT the same as Libertarian Party (United States), but it IS about the same political ideology of libertarianism, as described in a zillion reliable sources. You guys can start a dozen more threads about how your personal POV's don't line up with those reliable sources, but it's not going to change a single thing. BigK HeX (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal POV? Nice dodge, BigK (about how libertarianism is or is not akin to Christianity). And there is no mention of anyone person's POV here, explicit or implicit, except in your comment.

Anyway, no one is disputing that there are a (very) few reliable sources which use the term in the way in which it is currently described in this article. The issue is about what is meant by the term in the vast majority of uses in reliable sources, and how that meaning, which clearly excludes left-libertarianism, is fundamentally different (on the critical point about property rights) from the so-called broad meaning which is the current topic of this article, and which is inclusive of left-libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

See, that's where we all disagree. There are plenty of inclusive sources and they've been cited. But those who argue for a narrow view don't seem to be able to find sources which explicitly exclude the views that they want to exclude from the definition of Libertarianism. Instead, they argue (read: engage in original research) about what the lack of mention in a source might be construed to mean, or argue (read again: engage in original research) from a predominance of cherry-picked sources about what might not have been included or mentioned. And they have so little sourcing that they are falling back on word counts in Google searches!!! And they continue to argue about these personal opinions because they can't find sources that explicitly state what they want. What I don't understand is whether the lack of understanding is real or feigned. Can they really not get it or do they just think we and the various neutral editors who join in are stupid and will be fooled by it all? (P.S. You'll want to note that I have no irons in this fire; I don't edit the article and am only judging the quality of the arguments by both side: the broad side wins hand down, the narrow side hasn't presented any reliable sources that directly support their view. Just sayin'). Yworo (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of google testing is to avoid cherry picking, Yworo. It is the sources that are inclusive of LL that have been cherry picked. By looking at the top 20 (or whatever) hits at google, it's google doing the picking, based on popularity of usage and reference, not the editor and his POV.

If you don't cherry-pick, but instead use google (in general, just in .uk, just in .edu, just at scholar, just at books, etc.) to look for definitions of libertarianism in English sources, you will find the vast majority define it in a way that is based on the primacy of property rights, and thus implicitly exludes left-libertarianism. See the section below for further explication from a different angle. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word "implicitly" denotes original research. You must have explicit sources. No amount of arguing based on Google-searches will get you anywhere on Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? Have you ever been involved in discussions about primary topic? I'm not asking for sources to back up your assertion that this is a broad topic akin to Christianity, because source for assertions like that are not required. But if you applied the standards to which you're trying to hold us, it would be. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious who else besides Fifefoo and Yworo believe the LL usage should remain integral to this article? Fell Gleaming^talk 23:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK of course, Carol, and others. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There was an RfC on the matter which can be found here. Pretty much everyone who comes by not involved in that RfC agrees with it. Yworo (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I came by uninvolved and it seems clear this article is being hijacked by WP:FRINGE interests. Fell Gleaming^talk 00:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you have it 99% right. The folks fighting to keep this article overwhelmed in fringe stuff aren't fringe people, they are feuding people locked so deep in warrior mentality that they fight for more fringe even though they aren't fringe. They don't know any other path. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I was a drop-in the and commented but didn't vote. If we could evolve this into an article that puts these things in perspective, my idea would be to use this as a "disambiguation article" and include those. But it's hard to imagine it working in this environment. North8000 (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has become disgusting. @North8000: Can you stop using numbers like "99%" without reference? @FellGleaming: We are not going to reopen the RfC for you. N6n (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't red most of this, but to answer the main question: Libertarianism in the United States exists, though it's a very poor article. Much of the material in Libertarianism#Philosophical_origins_and_history could be inserted in there. However, libertarian socialism and left libertarianism do exist in the US and also belong in that article. 03:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Christianity/Mormonism vs Libertarianism/Libertarian Socialism

To continue the topic started above... Please note that if you define Christianity as broadly as we currently define libertarianism in this article, it would include The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or Mormonism). But note how much coverage Mormonism gets within that article... Not a mention in the intro, not even in the body of the article, except in a footnote to this statement:

The three primary divisions of Christianity are Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox church, and Protestantism. There are other Christian groups that do not fit neatly into one of these primary categories.

I assure you, if Left-libertarianism received approximately as vanishingly little coverage in this article as Mormonism gets in Christianity, there would be much fewer issues. It should be noted that the reason Mormonism is excluded even though technically it is a form of Christianity (defined broadly) according to many more reliable sources than there are about left-libertarianism being a form of libertarianism, is because when people normally use the term Christian or Christianity the meaning they have in mind does not include (usually but not always) Mormons or Mormonism. It's a matter of language usage, and it's not a POV issue. Similarly, when people use the terms libertarian or libertarianism the meaning they have in mind normally does not include left-libertarians or left-libertarianism. This is abundantly obvious when you look at how the respective terms are used and to what they refer in various contexts. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source that uses that analogy with respect to Libertarianism? Otherwise, you are just soapboxing. We already know your opinion, now, can you back it up with sources? Yworo (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, it's getting difficult to take you seriously. You were the one who claimed that the situation here is "akin to Christianity", without explanation, much less any sources. I suppose I could have just fanned out my feathers, and declared (equally persuasively), NO IT'S NOT, but instead I carefully explained why I respectfully disagree. And you discount that as soapboxing? Like I said, it's difficult to take you seriously if you respond like that.

Let me know if you want to have a serious discussion, otherwise I'm done. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

So ..... you have sources indicating that Left-lib should receive "vanishing little" coverage? BigK HeX (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You're a little confused on WP:V guidelines. No formal source is required for making editorial decisions about content exclusion. The only rule is that what we do decide to include must be properly cited. Fell Gleaming^talk 00:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Any confusion does not lie with me. WP:V is hardly the only policy requiring sourcing. Review the talk page archives since roughly Archive 17 or so. The RfC in Archive 19, sums up much of the policy discussion. BigK HeX (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo is allergic to intelligent thought. Born2cycle's analogy makes perfect sense. The relevance of the analogy is obvious to all of us. But, instead of responding to Born2cycle's clear point, Yworo kicks-off with an absurd request for sources linking "that analogy with respect to Libertarianism"? Does Yworo simply not understand what an analogy is or is this yet another troll from one of this page's serial trolls? BlueRobe (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...I agree that Christianity provides a good template. Well...back then I was more open to compromise. That was before it became apparent that if you give anarcho-capitalists even an inch...then they'll try and take a mile. The only long-term solution is for this page to exclude any ideologies that advocate abolishing government. Simple, effective and supported by more than enough reliable sources. --Xerographica (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica, you're not the only one. I have tried reasoning with them and I have offered compromise after compromise. In return, they haven't given an inch of compromise in return, and all attempts to reason with them are met with threats and Wikilawyering. They test WP:AGF like no one I have ever encountered before - in Wikipaedia or in the real world. BlueRobe (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's never crossed you mind that the reason for this is that your position in insupportable? Yworo (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Because inclusion of content about the Zapatista Army of National Liberation and the Workers Solidarity Movement in the Libertarianism article makes so much sense? BlueRobe (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, including the EZLN makes sense. I've explained to you Wikipedia sourcing policies over a dozen times now, but I understand that they are difficult to wrap your head around. But let's try again ... Here's why it's going to be included, regardless of how many people scream "I don't like it":

High-quality reliable sources label the EZLN as libertarian socialists. High-quality reliable sources claim that libertarian socialism is a member of the class of "libertarian" political theories. We cover prominent libertarian organizations in the article, including left-libertarian organizations. This is easily one of the most prominent contemporary left libertarian organizations, thus by WP:NPOV we should include it.

Does that make more sense? I'm really sorry that you're struggling so much to comprehend WP:V and WP:NPOV, but if you would like to discuss anything you're having trouble with, I'd be glad to explain things to you (and I'm sure several of the other experienced editors here wouldn't mind either). I know that it's all very complicated, but I'll always have time to help you ;). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You'd think you'd realise by now that I stop reading your posts as soon as you start with the patronising remarks... BlueRobe (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What was patronizing? Anyhow, if you ever decide to start reading the posts, my offer still stands: I'll always be willing to help you figure out Wikipedia policy, whenever you start to take an interest in it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources for including LL?

Sorry but I can't find it in the article or in the discussions. Where are the sources for claiming that left-libertarianism (or libertarian socialism) is a form of libertarianism with respect to what libertarianism is generally understood to mean in the English world? I'd like the source and the exact relevant quote(s). Apologies if this has already been provided, but I can't find it. I promise this will be the last time since I'll put it here: scope#Sources_for_including LL. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I already have Long, Widerquist and the Sapon references, but I don't see how any of these support the inclusion of LL in this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow ... this thread stretches AGF, possibly beyond credulity. You, personally, started a thread and posted an entire list of "left-lib" sources already. BigK HeX (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS (provided over and over and over again) make it clear that Left Libertarianism is a form of Anarchism. It's inclusion in the Libertarianism article brings it into disrepute, but, left Libertarianism having equal weight (more weight?) with mainstream Libertarianism makes the article a farcical sham. If this issue was decided by a powers-that-be who had a clue what she was talking about, left Libertarianism would have, at most, a few sentences to distinguish it from mainstream Libertarianism. Instead, we have a hopeless incoherent ill-informed misrepresentative shambles that is doggedly protected by a handful of ideological zealots who will use all manner of threats and Wikilawyering and "I not allowed to use my brain" to suppress the ideas embodied by mainstream Libertarianism. It's censorship, by Wikipaedia's back door. BlueRobe (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please focus on the content and refrain from repeated personal attacks. Yworo (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no PA in the post above, focus on content and not accusations which lead to hostility mark nutley (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Born2cycle, definitions flow from HQRS. Where these are in conflict (and they are!) WEIGHT applies based on their standing in the literature. The literatures appears to have three clear definitions, RL only (Including subsets of Min only and AC only), LS only, and Broad. Our job as editors is to observe and note these scholarly differences, and then author a WEIGHTed article. It is not to base weight off original research about use in the hoi polloi; nor to base the article off HQRS's opinion about use in the hoi polloi. (I cited an HQRS article above which explicitly and in a scholarly way states the current (as of 2010) research on what the hoi polloi mean when the use the word. Widerquist 2010). Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You are confused about what constitutes a high quality RS. Scholarly articles are primary sources, and are less preferred in the context of an article such as this than secondary sources. Primary sources require interpretation by editors, and such interpretation is risky, and fraught with error. Fell Gleaming^talk 00:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Scholarly articles are primary sources"

That assertion seems to evidence a fair amount of confusion..... BigK HeX (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK, I, personally, started a thread and posted an entire list of "left-lib" sources already.? It's possible my memory is that bad... where is that thread? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it: /Archive_17#Citation_for_broad_usage That was over a month ago, and I forgot about it. I'll put those at scope#Sources_for_including LL. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Meet Ayn Rand, philosopher

Stanford is a thoroughly RS:

Ayn Rand (1905–1982) was a philosopher and a novelist who outlined a comprehensive philosophy, including an epistemology and a theory of art, in her novels and essays.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/ --Yopienso (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

She despised Libertarianism:

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974]

AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

(The Ayn Rand Institute is a RS on Rand's views.) --Yopienso (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso, Ayn Rand's antagonism towards the label "Libertarian" is addressed here (from above). BlueRobe (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but it's not right here. I didn't want to leave the impression I was saying she was a Libertarian philosopher; just wanted to clear up the dispute about whether or not she was a philosopher. --Yopienso (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

that is quite enough of that, thank you --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 08:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yopienso, sorry. I misunderstood. There was one editor who claimed that Rand wasn't a philosopher, let alone a notable or influential philosopher, but we've all pretty much stopped taking his trolls seriously. BlueRobe (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC) OK, my bad I guess, jumping in a bit blindly. Feel free to put a hat on this. --Yopienso (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Please refrain from personal attacks BlueRobe, its tiresome as well as agains policy and there is far too much of it in your posts. I made the point early that the editors of all the major philosophical directories and encyclopedia do not include here in any way. The essay from the online Stanford referenced proved enough to allow "philosopher" to stay on the Ayn Rand article itself as negative evidence (not been mentioned) is problematic. It is however more than enough to clearly establish that in no way was she a "prominent". These are content issues. If you carry on name calling then you are going to end up being blocked.--Snowded TALK 05:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Snowded, you're talking rot. We all know you're talking rot. Like her or not, Ayn Rand was a prominent and influential philosopher of the twentieth Century. BlueRobe (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC) BlueRobe -- Please try to avoid incivil remarks like "You're talking rot.". You might want to take a look at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC) And, if you really want to continue this side thread, address the point made about the simple fact that she is features in hardly any philosophy courses around the world and does not appear in directories/encyclopedia's etc. You are going to have to learn to handle content issues if you intend to continue editing here. --Snowded TALK 05:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Snowded, I have seen no WP:RS to establish your absurd claims. BlueRobe (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Fairly polite by your standards. The point (and with six degrees to your name I am sure you understand it), is that she is absent from WS:RS that deal with Philosophy. --Snowded TALK 06:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC) And yet, the absence of references to "left Libertarianism" and "Libertarian Socialism" from WP:RSs that deal with Libertarianism doesn't phase you one bit, so long as a few Anarchist texts throw in the "Libertarian" label once in a while. BlueRobe (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC) You may be starting to understand how things work around here. Ayn Rand is labeled as a philosopher because there are a few references which so name her, even though many don't. In the case you reference there are several references that establish that Libertarianism is not the sole preserve of the right. --Snowded TALK 07:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Snowded, "You may be starting to understand how things work around here." Aka. do as you say, not as you do. BlueRobe (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK Folks, hang on, here goes

Maybe I have established myself as near the "middle of the road" of the war here. My "agenda"" is to have what the tenets that 98% of Libertarians hold in common have much prominence in the article, along the lines of:

"Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties"

Many strands of Libertarianism would agree with the change from the status quo defined by the above but would want more beyond that (e.g. total elimination of government). and thus disagree with the implicit limitations of the above statement. I respect that. Other strands would have unusual tenet in areas not covered by the above. I respect that, and would like the article to cover their views of their strands.

(added later) And so to have this be a sort of "disambiguation article" with respect to these. North8000 (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And my agenda is to put all of the above in perspective. It it's a view hel0d by 20,000 or 200,00 or 2,00,000 people, we should say so. If it's a view which only exists because 1 or 2 philosopher/ writers said it, we should say so.

People have wasted 5 years of their lives on this total failure of an article. And they are on track to waste another 5 years getting nowhere. I'm thinking about 5 weeks rather than 5 years before I leave this as a hopeless war. The good news is that, unlike other Wikipedia warfare articles, the one does not appear to be driven by "Outside WP" differences.

Finally, I must say that I have had the privilege of learning from experts on both sides of this war. There is only one person who I have mentally written off as a hopeless POV warrior.

So, now that you know my "agenda", I plan to wp:BeBold with edits towards that end. Since I am surrounded by experts here, I ask you (if you agree) to try to fix my shortcomings rather than using them as a reason to blockade this. If you disagree and say so (and edit what I wrote) I will have a lot of respect for you. If you don't state a disagreement and just wiki-lawyer me, I will have no respect for you.

Whether this is leadership out of this 5 year hell-hole,. vs. stupidity on my part will be determined by you.

So here goes.....

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate the sentiments of an editor who posted at almost the same time ... North8000 can you stop throwing around your 98%/99% claims without reference. By now, if nothing else is clear, it should be pretty well-established that editors on this page will reject WP:OR out-of-hand. If there was some more important point in your somewhat lengthy post, IMO, you tainted its credibility by prefacing it with blatant original research... BigK HeX (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I, for one, am not impressed, (albeit, not the least bit surprised), by your immediate denunciation of North8000's good faith attempt to fix the Libertarianism article by consensus through compromise. And labelling North8000's offer of a compromise as WP:OR is disingenuous, at best. BlueRobe (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing how declaring that one is going to unilaterally make edits that are not based on WP:RS and go against consensus, hardly fits the definition of an "offer of a compromise". Could you explain to me why you have classified it as such? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's because it an "include every stance" to appease one "side" and "let's ut it in perspective" stance to appease the other.

I can understand the desire to be bold; can I suggest that you keep each conceptually distinct editorial change to a single edit to avoid baby-bathwater problems, (and of course, use HQRS :)? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

this edit needs a HQRS cite for "largest Libertarian organization" and probably an illustrative number and description of the number. You also need to cite from RS for their beliefs (as it is their opinion, their policy document would be RS it). It looks like a useful edit. The USLP article cites "Membership Report prepared 04/12/2004 for cutoff of 03/31/2004, circulated by the LNC. Retrieved May 14, 2007" as 115,401 reported members. It would need verification as to its truth, and a bit more detail for reliability. I've taken the liberty of adding these changes. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, you're seriously claiming that you honestly believe there is ANY doubt for the claim that the US Libertarian Party is the largest libertarian organisation in the world? Are you that stupid, that ignorant or that dishonest? BlueRobe (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am claiming that a claim such as that requires a citation, lo, even I supplied one. Please refactor your comment, as it appears to be both abusive, and based on a sad misreading of what I actually said. I'd like to remind you that your last warning for personal attacks was at level 4. I would like to see you refactor the comment today. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a Friday. It wouldn't be a Friday if I didn't receive at least 3 threats from Libertarianism's resident Wikilawyers. BlueRobe (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please try to stay on topic, and make productive comments. Avoid personal attacks, and try to assume good faith on the part of other editors. Try to stick to discussing suggested changes to the article, based on reliable sources. Thanks, and I hope that you have a superfantastic Friday. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, do you have a WP:RS showing that the word "superfantastic" is not the sarcastic taunt that it so clearly appears to be? BlueRobe (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not sarcastic, nor a taunt. You sounded like you were a bit upset, and that your Friday was going poorly. I was trying to cheer you up. Perhaps "I hope you have a supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Friday" would have been better? :) ... but anyhow, that's not the important part of my post above. Please take a look at those policies I mentioned. Understanding them and adhering to them will likely help you prevent yourself from getting permanently blocked for incivility and personal attacks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Bluerobe et al. Let's try to have some fun here. North8000 (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, all the edits till now look fine to me. N6n (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

this edit was good disambig; I added clarification tags where needed (who and which), and two standard citation needed-s for "[some] consider them to have only the word in common" and "[organisations often] defining themselves by common tenets and objectives" which like normal factual require verification. Overview now seems to be much better raising the disambiguation issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As the most likely candidate to have "been written off as a hopeless POV warrior" [AKA, the least likely to treat this page as a forum or to coddle the editors repeatedly throwing around WP:OR], I may as well make clear MY agenda. My agenda will to WP:BeBold in ruthlessly reverting any edits that defy any points of consensus established on this talk page, whether any members of the vocal minority respect that consensus or not. As a "warrioring" bonus, I'll close with this WikiLawyer Disclaimer: Any POV pushing in defiance of established consensus will be noted for intervention against possible disruption. BigK HeX (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any "POV" unless you call what I said above a POV.North8000 (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, yet more Wikilawyering threats from you? I'm not the least bit surprised. And nor is anyone else. BlueRobe (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And... you think the object of my post is to "surprise" someone??? Obviously, surprise is the opposite of what I'm going for when I go to the bother of issuing a warning. Obviously. BigK HeX (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Y'all are probably some of the smartest people in the world on the topic. If I write something that is wrong, take it out or change it. If it's right, please help get it sourced, and of course, tag it if you think it needs it. I'm just the sacrificial lamb trying to help and get this moving. North8000 (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, BigK HeX et al are going to censor anything you put into the article regardless of how true and/or well-referenced it is if they don't like the political direction it steers the Libertarianism article. There was absolutely NOTHING wrong with the Ayn Rand section I tried to add to the article, and look where that went? After being a regular in this talk page for a few weeks now, that much should be obvious to you - their primary concerns are sabotage and censorship. BlueRobe (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BigkHex. you appear to have wp:own issues and are promoting a wp:battleground mentality, please stop. Consensus changes, you can`t threaten people wit henforcement for editing an article in a way which does not suit you, the fact that you also say you will revert anything you don`t like is troubling to say the least mark nutley (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark, there's a problem with Kris Axhoj, John P. Walker (2010) Resurrection of a Nation: Solving the Energy, Financial, & Political Crisis AuthorHouse, as it is SELF published see Meanjin on AuthorHouse. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your right and i self reverted, bloody amazon does not say if a book is self published Doh mark nutley (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, my senses only twigged because I'd never seen the publisher before! That point should certainly be sourceable though. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ya i just used their own conference manifesto as a source, their good for their own views i reckon mark nutley (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite the disdain that some editors have shown for ALL primary sources, I believe that WP:PRIMARY are perfectly acceptable when you're citing the core express policies of a person or organisation. Indeed, far from being prohibited, I believe they are superior to WP:SECONDARY for such information. BlueRobe (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

With an extra focus on "in practice", in the orgs and movements section, for publications and think tanks, can someone identify a few of the prominent ones from those lists? Then I'll create subsections for those. Or, if you prefer / better yet, be bold and create the subsections yourself. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It occurred to me that the solution may be easier than we think. If we make the distinction between covering the practicing of Libertarianism, (parties, organizations, movements, publications, think tanks, etc.) and the definitions / philosophies etc. of Libertarianism, and expand the "practicing" material, maybe the battle will just go away. Maybe the underlying conflict is that the folks on one side are basically saying that the article as it was a few hours or weeks ago was just talking about the various philosophies of Libertarianism, and that such was drowning out any coverage of the mainstream practices of Libertarianism. And they were/are trying to solve it by removing, downplaying or up-playing certain philosophies. In reality, the mainstream practices aren't much organized by philosophies, they are pragmatic compromises and shared tenets from diverse people with diverse (but no too diverse) philosophies. For example, the US LP probably has a significant number of anarchists in it, but probably few (or none) that would call themselves some genre of Socialist. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've maintained the verify source on the USLP party number stats from 2004, the citation doesn't indicate the published work adequately, or a link to an online published item. Also, I copied the source from the USLP party page on wikipedia. 100,000+ party members is a good enough reason to claim the significance of the quote following. And I believe them. But the current citation needs to be improved in presentation (so people can find the object), and actually be sighted by an editor here so we can trust it. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can find sources at the WP LP article. North8000 (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorted now mark nutley (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Marknutley says, "BigkHex. you appear to have wp:own issues and are promoting a wp:battleground mentality, please stop. Consensus changes, you can`t threaten people wit henforcement for editing an article in a way which does not suit you, the fact that you also say you will revert anything you don`t like is troubling to say the least"

A) Consensus changes, BUT IT IS UP TO THE EDITORS TO SHOW THAT IT HAS CHANGED. Every proposal they've made on the scope of the article been rejected. Just saying that "consensus changes" justifies nothing.

B) Do not twist my words. I said I would be enforcing the view approved by consensus, and said NOTHING about "reverting anything I don't like."

C) As someone who came here, ostensibly as a mediator, your efforts to demonize my intention to support consensus would be what's truly troubling, I'd say. You may be proving TFD's lack of faith to be warranted. BigK HeX (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, as has been pointed out time and time again, you have consistently misrepresented the truth of your claim to "consensus". With regard to the RfC on the NPOV tag, you have repeatedly claimed you had "overwhelming" consensus for removing the tag after a vote of 8 to 6! I used to take you claims seriously, but now I even double-check the way you spell your name. BlueRobe (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please remain civil and desist from personal attacks. You are pretty much calling BigK Hex a liar here, and you got your final (4th level) NPA warning yesterday (and not from me). Yworo (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If you conclude from the facts that BigK HeX is a liar, who am I to argue? BlueRobe (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A member of a political party advocating free will libertarian principles

According to merriman's dictionary, the 1st source used, when capitalized, as it is here, it is referring to the members of a political party. Perhaps we can determine weight, by weighting the member ship of those parties. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Three strong literatures defining libertarianism in scholarly literature accept non-parliamentary movements as relevant. Firstly, the right-libertarianism-only literature than accepts anarcho-capitalists. Secondly the libertarian-soclialist-only literatures (Cox). Thirdly the Broad definitions (Long). That's three literatures that emphasise the role of think tanks, policy groups, social movements, cadre organisations, affinity networks. Membership numbers are great for demonstrating the influence of political parties, compared to other political parties with similar membership structures; or, within a culture. If considering the Tea Party (a protest movement) as libertarian, as one editor must (and hopefully as HQRS do soon), the mobilisation numbers are more significant than the membership numbers. And how does one WEIGHT a mobilisation based organisation's impact against a membership based organisation's members against a cadre based organisation's activists? Fifelfoo (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

parliamentary and party mean two very different things, merriam's is a trusted source. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll find a few sources regarding the Tea Party Movement here. BlueRobe (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following exactly, but I don't think that there is much support for narrowing the definition to meaning only members of a party. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian is not the only word that has a different meaning capitalized, com·mu·nism   noun: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common...

( initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of the Communist party. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The following sentence-fragment is being repeatedly re-added to the lead: "A member of a political party advocating the doctrine of free will". There must be some confusion here. The citation is Merriam-Webster:

(1) an advocate of the doctrine of free will.

(2a) a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action.

(2b) capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles

You can't just synthesise (1) and (2b) to get "member of a party advocating free will". There's no such party and there couldn't be one because "free will" isn't a political policy. The law can't repeal determinism! Belief in free will is metaphysical libertarianism, a philosophy totally unrelated to the subject of this article.Iota (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Darkstar. Would you consider / what do you think of working your thought in somewhere farther down as A meaning rather than THE meaning? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

well, all the other terms say the same thing, it is such a basic rule of grammar, i am concerned we are confusing readers:

• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism
• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republicanism
• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism Darkstar1st (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

But the word is Libertarianism not Libertarian. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A libertarian need not be a member of a political party. We are dealing with definition (1) in this article which may include (but is not restricted to) people conforming to definitions (2a) and (2b). Yworo (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

the definitions of several terms by the same source make it clear which definition is to be used. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You are so desperately grasping at straws now that I can smell your desperation from here. Enjoy your block. Yworo (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, yeah, the WP:AGF policy makes so much sense in the face of such blatantly antagonistic threats like that. Seriously, where the hell do you get "Darkstar1st will be blocked" out of a perfectly sensible suggestion for an amendment to the lede? Give the bloody threats a rest. BlueRobe (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Because he broke 3RR and was indeed blocked for it. Just waking up? Yworo (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, your lack of intellectual integrity DISGUSTS me. BlueRobe (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that does it. I guess your RfC/U and one week block didn't teach you anything about civility. Yworo (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A Question

This article is all over the shop, should`nt it focus on the mainstream aspects of Libertarianism and not all these a little bit libertarian but actually anarchists? It seems like undue weight is being given to the aspects of socialist and anarchist definitions over the mainstream. Is it a history or the current meaning which should be the focus here? For instance, this book [60] describes what this article ought to be about, what libertarianism is now, not what it was, which ought to be in the History of libertarianism article. Thoughts? mark nutley (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

We already have Neoliberalism. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark, that's a big topic, and at the root of the battles here. My changes have been trying to move the article a bit that way, but by adding, explaining and relabeling material rather than deletion or reduction of the coverage of the more unusual philosophies. I also think that mainstream Libertarianism is a set of widely held tenets rather than a particular philosophy. North8000 (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, I could not agree more. The fact that the minor Anarchist ideologies have equal prominence with (clearly) mainstream Libertarianism ideology in the Libertarianism article, along with the TOTAL refusal to compromise in any way and a TOTAL intolerance of any amendments to remedy this clear case of WP:Undue, is the cause of most of the antagonism in this page. As you point out, the Libertarianism article is an incoherent imbalanced shambles. But, a handful of editors are determined to keep it that way and will use all their time and energy to Wikilawyer any editor who tries to fix the article into oblivion. Personally, I think the sad state of the Libertarianism page, and the appalling behaviour of a few recidivist Wikilawyers in this talk page, is the clearest sign I know that Wikipaedia is fundamentally broken. BlueRobe (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly reliable sources of the highest quality define Libertiarianism in a variety of ways. Some of these ways may contradict personal views we hold, some may reinforce them. Sadly we don't get to cherry pick in the scholarly literatures as wikipedia editors. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Secondary resources are preferred over primary sources, whether the primary sources are scholarly or not. See WP:RS#Scholarship. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Who's proposing the use of a primary source? What's the supposed primary source? BigK HeX (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that many of the sources for the more unusual forms are are actually the writer creating their definition of that particular form, and, in some cases, even creating the term. If the writing was creating rather than writing about or trying to analyze the existence of something elsewhere, it would be primary. North8000 (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferable, which is why I prefer Cox to the WOMBLES, Long to press released from the USLP, Sapon and Robino to Joe Hill, Drieu Godefidi to non-scholarly CATO publications, and Karl Widerquist to random interviews with Chomsky. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Intro definition should be NPOV from widely cited source, not a cherry-picked obscure POV one

Currently, the following definition is used in the intro:

Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power [either "total or merely substantial"] from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.

I suggest this definition is not widely accepted as is made evident by the paltry number of reliable sources that refer to it, and was cherry picked to reflect a certain POV. Long's "Toward a libertarian theory of class" has:

• google.com: About 1,400 results
• Google Books: 10 results
• Google Scholar: Results 1 - 10 of about 13.
• google.co.uk: About 1,270 results

This is obviously not a source that is widely used or referenced. I suggest we use the source which has the broadest base of use and reference per google hit results, David Boaz's "Libertarianism: A Primer". That definition is:

Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property--rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force--actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud. [61]

The google results for "Libertarianism: A Primer" are much more impressive (3 to 30 times as many hits in each category):

• google.com: About 38,100 results
• Google Books: About 182 results
• Google Scholar: Results 1 - 10 of about 187
• google.co.uk: About 3,500 results

Any objections? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a big improvement for the reasons which you described. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

'Most commonly associated with capitalism' NOT 'with A capitalism'. Just when we get some semblance of balance in the intro, someone puts in an ungrammatical phrase. Great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.12.115 (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)  Done --Born2cycle (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Boaz's definition is spot on really mark nutley (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So ... the "solution" to a definition that encompasses the contents of the article is to use a POV definition that does not encompass the breadth of the article? BigK HeX (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(added later) Hello Bigk. One thought and one question. With this article being so full of vastly different philosophies, I can't imagine a lead being able to summarize them. The question is: In what way would you say the proposed wording is POV? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you are going by Google counts, then why not use Fox & Kloppenberg A Companion to American Thought?

"...libertarianism defies tidy analysis. The leading dictionary definition of "libertarianism" refers to a belief in FREEDOM of the will; the secondary, political meaning is not distinguished from liberalism generally. No encyclopedia of the social sciences gives libertarianism a distinct entry. It remains in fact obscure where the boundaries lie that distinguish libertarian thought from its near competitors. Among contemporary libertarians we find both "anarcho-capitalists" and libertarian socialists, ardent secularists and Christian fundamentalists, and this is not new. Benjamin Tucker was an individualist, property-right based anarchist, but Emma Goldman, an anarchist of a socialist, antiproperty stamp, called herself a "libertarian" as well."

If Google books works for you, you can read more here.

As for Google counts:

Google.com: about 50,600 results

Google books: about 1,320 results

Google Scholar: Results 1 - 10 of about 185

Google.co.uk: About 50,500 results.

So, by Google counts, this is even more impressive than Boaz. Yworo (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not anywhere near as impressive because those numbers are skewed by a majority of uses and references that have nothing to do with libertarianism. Note what happens to the hit counts when you include "libertarianism" in the search:

• Google.com: About 432 results
• Google books: 3 results
• Google scholar: Results 1 - 8 of 8
• google.co.uk About 383 results

So that's not a very good reference for libertarianism either, with respect to how much it's used and referenced in regard to the topic of this article, especially relative to the Boaz source. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You did that wrong, you should use "libertarian" not "libertarianism". The former will include both. Yworo (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The results are about the same when I use "libertarian" instead of "libertarianism". My point stands.

• Google.com: About 524 results
• Google books: 3 results
• Google scholar: Results Results 1 - 10 of 11
• google.co.uk About 489 results

--Born2cycle (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK wrote, "... use a POV definition that does not encompass the breath of the article?".

To the contrary, I'm suggesting we look to reliable sources, particularly sources that are clearly widely used and referenced for this topic, to determine what the subject and article breadth should be, as opposed to determining the breadth based on whatever POV you may have, and then cherry-picking for sources that support that POV.

Do you object to this approach? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Fox and Kloppenberg is the more widely cited source. You said nothing up front about the source having to be more widely cited about libertarianism, only adding that after the more widely cited source conflicted with your view of what the article should cover. Libertarianism: A Primer is published by Free Press, a small press founded in 2002. It self-defines as an advocacy press, which means it may not be neutral. A Companion to American Thought is published by Wiley-Blackwell, a major publisher of reference texts. In terms of breadth and reliability, A Companion to American Thought wins hands down. Yworo (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I presumed it was clear that what matters here is how widely referenced/used is a given meaning of libertarianism in reliable sources. Clearly a reference to a source that has a definition of libertarianism is not referring to that definition if it's not a hit when you include "libertarian" in the search.

Whether a given source is or is not "neutral" with respect to the meaning of a given term is irrelevant to looking at how widely accepted, used and referenced that meaning is.

By the way, for the second day in a row you seem to be engaged in silly debate games like moving the goalposts rather than having serious discourse. Yesterday, first you claimed that the situation here is "akin to Christianity", without explanation, much less any sources, and then, when I used your same analogy to refute your position, with explanation, you accused me of "soapboxing" because I (like you) did not "provide a source that uses that analogy with respect to Libertarianism". Today, first you suggest that the right thing to do is to add "libertarian" to the search, and now, when you find that doesn't help your case, you decide adding "libertarian" to the search is irrelevant. It makes it difficult to take you seriously when you seem more interested in rationalizing your position than working towards consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? Then why did you include both NPOV and POV in the heading ("Intro definition should be NPOV from widely cited source, not a cherry-picked obscure POV one") criticising Long? Free Press is not a reliable publisher of neutral reference material and that rules it out as the basis for the definition in this article. Unless you have a POV complaint about Wiley-Blackwell? Yworo (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The POV and NPOV references in this section heading, like the WP:NPOV policy, refers to the viewpoint of Wikipedia article editors, not to the sources, nor the viewpoints of the sources' authors or publishers. For example, a "cherry-picked obscure POV [source]" means a source chosen by an editor without a neutral viewpoint per WP:NPOV, and a definition that is NPOV means one that is chosen by editors using a process that is in accordance with WP:NPOV. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's simply your opinion. I personally believe that the editors wishing to preserve the broad view of the article are the unbiased ones, therefore by your definition the sources they chose were NPOV to begin with. Yworo (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

David Boaz has no academic credentials and his book was published outside the academic mainstream and therefore is unacceptable. Definitions should be obtained from peer-reviewed articles and books from the academic press. Please stop providing unacceptable sources. TFD (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please provide policy basis for the claim that the author of a source must have academic credentials and that the book's publisher must be "from the academic press" to be used.

By the way, the Google Scholar search results above show that Boaz's work is widely referenced in academia. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship, peer-reviewed academic material is always preferred when available. Yworo (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of scholars, my favorite scholar is Quincy Adams Wagstaff, the president of Huxley College, who said (well, sang, really):[62]

I don't care what you have to say
It makes no difference anyway;
Whatever it is, I'm against it!

Yworo (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2Cycle, from what I can see most of the Google scholar hits are for articles by David Boaz published by the Cato Institute, because every article he writes mentions that he wrote the book. The extremely few references in academic writing use him as a primary source for what his party believes. Can you provide any academic source that provide any support of his definition of libertarianism? TFD (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Academic is not a WP source requirement, and in this particular case I think it might be a minus. North8000 (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Academic source is clearly preferred where available. And Boaz is clearly not a reliable source as he is writing from a party perspective rather than a general academic perspectice. As I've pointed out, we already have an article on the Libertarian Party (United States). We don't need two of them. Yworo (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, are you sure that was Quincy Adams Wagstaff? That sounds a LOT like BigK HeX ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Does he smoke a cigar? Yworo (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, yes, we already have "an article on the Libertarian Party (United States)". Indeed, that was the same rationale you used to block the addition of an obviously relevant section on Ayn Rand and Objectivism. However, I see you do not apply that same logic to conclude that Left Libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho Capitalism should not have sections in the Libertarianism article, despite them also have their own extensive Wikipaedia articles. Why the double standard? BlueRobe (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You've clearly got me confused with someone else, I made no comment on Ayn Rand. Yworo (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, excellent! You are now counted as a vote for removal of the sections on Left Libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho Capitalism from the Libertarianism article, because they already have their own Articles. BlueRobe (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I believe I've made it clear that I believe that this should be an overview article written in summary style that includes all branches of Libertarianism. These are different branches, not different things with the same name. OTOH, for Libertarian Party, a disambiguation article is correct, as they are a number of different things using the same proper name. Yworo (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)TFD, if you add "-cato.org" to the search, you still get almost 100 hits at Scholar, about 8 times more than the Long piece from which the current text is cited.

Yworo, I don't see anything at WP:RS#Scholarship that precludes us from using Boaz as a source. Again, what we should be presenting is a definition that is widely recognized and used in reliable sources (whether it itself is a scholarly reliable source is beside the point); clearly the Boaz definition fits that requirement, whether we're looking at Scholar hits, references in books, general web usage, or web usage per the UK google, it is clearly widely used in reliable sources as a reference to the definition and meaning of the topic of this article.

Yworo, on what basis do you say that Boaz is "not a reliable source as he is writing from a party perspective rather than a general academic perspective"? That is, why do you say he's writing from a party perspective? He's the executive vice president of the Cato Institute (which is universally recognized to be libertarian - the topic of this article), not of the Libertarian Party. And even if he was, how does that make him not a reliable source if his writing happens to provide a definition that is widely used and referenced in reliable sources as a definition for libertarianism (which it is)?

Besides, Boaz has been used as a WP:RS in this article for a long time. You guys are suddenly raising the bar way higher than it was ever held for the existing quote, or any other sources in this article, apparently because this quote conflicts with your POV. If so, doing that is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. I'm sure you don't want to do that. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be talking to yourself. You're not really responding to anything I said. I've been comparing the quality of the sources. As you brought up, we should clearly give precedence to the best source. Yworo (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I've quoted your words and made specific statements about them, and asked specific questions about them. If you meant something other than what your words said, then please make your corrections accordingly.

Anyway, yes, we should use the best source. We agree on that! Please note that even WP:RS#Scholarship notes, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." That's the first thing it says. There are countless instances of secondary sources using Boaz's definition. I suppose we should probably use one of those rather than Boaz as a primary source, but the quote is the same. At any rate, can we also agree that any definition that comes via secondary sources should be preferred to any definition that is available only from a primary source? Are there any secondary sources for the Fox & Kloppenberg definition? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, that's the point of all the google hit counting - it gives us an indication of how well a given definition is covered in secondary sources, which should be our primary (no pun intended) concern. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, why are you bothering to spend time and energy trying to reason with someone who is so clearly incapable of being reasonable? BlueRobe (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mein Kampf gets lots of hits too and it was written by a major party leader, but generally we use third parties to describe Nazi ideology. TFD (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, and that includes secondary sources that quote Hitler's writing from Mein Kampf. Anyway Boaz is not a Libertarian Party (United States) leader, he's a libertarian thinktank leader. Big difference, especially with regard to relevance to the two articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A David Boaz quote that is used by other high quality reliable sources (AKA HQRS as I finally figured out) is fine for one of a couple of definitions in the lead. (I know I ran across at least one in my travels.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Further to my: "Academic is not a WP source requirement, and in this particular case I think it might be a minus." comment. We're trying to come up with a definition that covers as many Libertarians as is possible. I think that getting it from someone with his credentials, including being VP of the most recognized Libertarian think tank is as good as it gets, for this purpose 10 times better than a typical academic source. And it is a much more general description, and does not include unusual / off-beat stuff like the current one. This, plus the fact that in these zillion words the opponents have never really discussed or debated or made any specific complaints about the proposed content (the closest was a vague "POV" claim, and I received no answer when I asked them why they thought so) involved in the proposed changes leads me to believe that this is just more warrioring for the sake of warrioring. North8000 (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It would help to just name some sources that quote Boaz or any other definitions suggested. (Had bad toothache and then particularly nasty root canal in last 10 days and not ready to jump into that fray myself right now.) While Long's is a good overall summary that makes the article seem more coherent, it is still a bit obscure. It would help contrasting it with a better known one or ones, including even a third one that was more specifically left wing. Long gives the false impression there is one libertarian definition when in fact there are many. I know I had one rejected source on conflicting definitions; can't remember if had more. Will think about next week. But just to throw that into the mix. CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

David Boaz is a fine source and has scholarly cred. However, advocacy writing can't be taken as dispositive. It's probably more useful to summarize multiple sources -- briefly! -- rather than to quote from several in the lede, though. I think the strength of the Long quote is the emphasis on voluntary rather than coercive practices as a mode of social organization, while the strength of Boaz is emphasizing the role that individual rights play in many conceptions of libertarianism. We should draw on both of these. --FOo (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as this is the more widely used, and, as such, more mainstream definition of Libertarianism, I support removing Long's and adding Boaz's. Toa Nidhiki05 21:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that David Boaz is the credited writer of the entry on libertarianism at Encyclopedia Brittanica. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to ad a note, I don't think Boaz quote needs to be that long or in a box or even block quoted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Left libertarianism

is there any reason why the left-libertartian section has been removed by BlueRobe? TFD (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And libertarian socialism. Cox; Long; Woodcock. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Cox; Long; Woodcock"? Are you serious? ROTFLOL! --Born2cycle (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're the names of three academics who have been repeatedly cited here. The ordering appears to be fortuitous. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Quit snickering. I assure you the reliable sources are neither too long nor too hard for readers to appreciate if they make the effort. --FOo (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User conduct

Interested editors are invited to comment: here

BigK HeX (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Movement

The sources being used to bung these guys into this article are not actually about the Tea Party Movement. So i removed the lot, please do not reinsert until an actual source is found to support the assertion mark nutley (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading the removed material I agree - the content the sources supported was more than a little synthy. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Synty would be the polite way to phrase it i suppose, personally i think it was just carelessness and not deliberate mark nutley (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Philosophies, theories, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun

As political parties are often named after philosophies, a capital letter is used to differentiate between a supporter of the philosophy, and a supporter of the party, for instance Liberal, a supporter of any Liberal Party, and liberal, a supporter of the philosophy of liberalism. In Australia and Canada, adherents of liberalism are sometimes said to be "small-l liberals" to differentiate. Similar examples are conservative/Conservative, democrat/Democrat, libertarian/Libertarian, republican/Republican, socialist/Socialist, and a supporter of labour/Labour. Capitalised words are often used to differentiate a philosophical concept from how the concept is refereed to in everyday life, or to demonstrate respect for an entity or institution. the term Libertarianism is capitalized and therefore refers specifically to the party, also the term Libertarian is capitalized, which redirects here. WP manual of style is clear, and should be followed here. lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to a specific Republican Party (each party name being a proper noun) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents Darkstar1st (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a completely moot point, as article titles cannot start with a lowercase letter. Yworo (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems completely logical to me; thank you for pointing this out, Darkstar. Toa Nidhiki05 21:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

perhaps a quick fix would be have a big L and a little l in the disamb page? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You will note that lower-case 'l' is used throughout the article except at the beginning of the title and the beginning of sentences. These are normal writing conventions. The subject of the article is 'libertarianism' with a lower-case 'l'. The Wikipedia search function does not distinguish between upper and lower case subjects. It a moot point and simply being used for more soapboxing. Yworo (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If this is an actual concern, the only useful remedy that I can see would be to create a redirect from small-l libertarian.[nevermind .. it already exists] Otherwise, the style convention of capitalizing the article title and first word of sentences overrides the style guidelines on uncapitalized political ideologies. Libertarianism (with a capital-L is fine in the disambig page) ... although I guess if someone wanted to toss "libertarian" (with a small-l) and possibly "Small-l libertarian" onto the disambig page, that might be fine... BigK HeX (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Badly written lead

The lead of this article is obviously very badly written. I find it difficult to see why anyone could want to include a sentence such as "Various distinctions are discussed regarding libertarianism" - that's terrible. I reverted the edits that added that text, but was reverted in turn. Could someone please explain the reason for that? UserVOBO (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is undergoing ongoing improvement. Reverting sets that back. If parts are badly worded, reword them: don't revert. Yworo (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see that changes are being made, and I don't doubt that the changes are meant to be improvements, but the prose that has been added to the lead recently is sub-standard. I'd suggest that people edit more carefully than that, or obviously reversion will look like an appropriate option. UserVOBO (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

please undo if i have included your words in the hide box in error Darkstar1st (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Try to be constructive and find a way other than reverting to proceed. That's called finesse. Yworo (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC) The reason is simple. The solution to poor wording to correct the wording. BigK HeX (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC) We would if we were allowed to. By the way, you missed an 'is' in your illiterate sentence above. How Ironic. - IlliterateSocialistZealot (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia and to Talk:Libertarianism IlliterateSocialistZealot. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Request we go to formal mediation

Given the problems that have been identified not only in the short term, but in the long term, with different views of libertarianism, I request of other editors we request formal mediation, with the request to be made on September 1st if, despite a cooperative editing environment, we cannot resolve differences. If there is continued soapboxing with no attempt to discuss sources, and various hostile behaviors, then we will request it sooner. Any thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

agree, i suggest the request be moved up to the earliest possible date. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Sooner is even better. BigK HeX (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Good. One of you can request it if you want it right now. Just remember to use NPOV language in describing the issues. Sometimes it does take a few weeks. Meanwhile WP:RS editing should continue. I'm doing some right now on a related article which I will then integrate here. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

bigK hex, it is up to you, my monitor cracked after seeing the 3 of us agree on something. 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty .... I'll try to put something together by Friday night. I've never entered into mediation, so I'll have to do a bit of research. BigK HeX (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Informal mediation is the first step... Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal. As you can see, I requested informal mediation over a week ago. I had no idea that it would take so long for somebody to take up our case...otherwise I would have mentioned it before now. That's interesting though that the rest of you eventually came to the same conclusion. --Xerographica (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, please add my name to the list of those involved. I guess the next step is to wait until it's accepted by a mediator? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Informal mediation is best first step since it can take longer to get formal mediation. Best to wait to see what proceeds. However, as I know from experience on wikipedia, not all mediators are very skilled at dealing with either behavioral or content problems, which can be frustrating. But at least we are giving it a shot, which is a good sign. And we might get lucky with a good mediator. 207.172.88.133 (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC) [later signed] CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: A very biased (and rather dull sounding) requestion was put in here. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-02/Libertarianism. I gave my view on the talk page of the request being biased and disruption of editing being a major problem. I'm not sure how to change requests so for now will leave my commenting at that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I just edited the request to give both sides of the story, since the request was biased to support idea of breaking up the article and/or making it reflect one variety of libertarianism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added myself to the list of participants. I was in the discussion of Libertarian Socialism but decided to drop out until the ball got rolling on mediation. I'd also like to say I don't agree with the logic of searching for Libertarianism/Libertarian on NPR/CNN. If we were to repeat such a such with Liberalism/Liberal we'd overwhelmingly find reference to Social Liberalism or American Liberalism. This would hardly be a justification for focusing the Liberalism article solely on those modern developments and in turn ignoring the far most historically significant accomplishments and origins of the term. Anatoly-Rex (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

<Backdent>Update: One month since mediation requested and no result. FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an admin that stated that s/he would be available to take up the case (although I think that was supposed to begin yesterday). But, there is a small bit of action. BigK HeX (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have picked up this case. Please allow me 2 to 3 days to read over this talk page and its archives. If somebody wishes to point me in a certain direction, please provide a link and I'd be most grateful. Thanks! Xavexgoem (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thx! Darkstar1st (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck and thanks. I've been here three weeks and I still don't see what the dispute is, or even an underlying difference of POV's. Just a messed up article (or trio of articles) and a lot of what seems to be arguing for the sake of arguing. Just be careful not do do something random. Sincerely & thanks . North8000 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up. Note that the current problems started in January with one set of editors with same POV as another set that later came on board. In the past there had been less interest and more back and forth between editors of different POVs. The effort looks more concerted this time, and has brought forth concerted push back.

You will have to be very firm in dealing with behavioral issues. I think most of the behavioral issues are apparent from a reading or from notes about complaints to various noticeboards. A new example (besides one week block on BlueRobe for personal attacks) is this complaint by DarkStar1st on Conflict of Interest in which he continues to assert his point after multiple editors have told him he was being rediculous and even threatened him with a WP:ANI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

[snipped odd soapboxing by 68.59.4.188 ... showed no intention of improving the article] BigK HeX (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, except that there's clear indication that a variety of libertarians are methodological historical materialists (such as Irish Workers Solidarity Movement, or the defunct Solidarity (UK)). None of which is connected to the issue of editing an encyclopaedic project which relies, methodologically, on close reading and literary hermeneutics. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fyi there is now a Sept 14 request from User:BigK HeX for status update on informal mediation by mediator User:Xavexgoem, followed by my 9/18 request for an answer so we can request formal mediation if s/he is too busy (s/he notes in another section s/he is very busy). CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Another try at mediation

FYI, User:Xavexgoem confirmed s/he's too busy and has relisted this at Mediation Cabal. Meanwhile Mark Nutley is serving as informal mediator? Please confirm here to keep all this info together, and for those who don't want to wade through Ayn Rand section :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark is now involved in content so I'm not sure if he could act as mediator. I am, though, trying to get a handle on the talk page focus... an informal mediation on the content (which I am trying to avoid) would be useful. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend formal mediation, if we're going to deal with content. The acerbic disputes over deciding content (or perhaps more accurately, over getting editors to accept decisions over content) will be difficult to rein in using an informal approach. BigK HeX (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, hadn't gotten down to Talk:Libertarianism#Mediator where there's a discussion of Mark. I'd give informal til Weds or Tues in case someone good applies. Also I just posted something at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-02/Libertarianism#Updated_discussion_for_potential_new_mediator. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a busy beaver, but be sure to include the most recent request to differentiate 'cosmopolitan/european libertarianism' from 'american libertarianism'. I see any formal mediators jumping on this like a rabid beast looking for a creative solution. It is a creative solution, and all we as the "American Libertarians" request is that our page be plainly differentiated in the disambiguation page for the wikipedia search query: "Libertarianism". This is a real, concerted, wikipedia-changing request, however, it is a move which will bring this silly conflict to an end. So long as the link is plainly displayed in the disambiguation page, we will not complain anymore. Well, I won't complain anymore. I'll give the dissidents a hard time if this is put into place.68.59.4.188 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Currently while we're waiting for informal mediation and seeing if anyone wants to take initiative to request formal mediation, the article has become fully protected. Go to this {{editprotected}} link to learn how to use the tag to propose any non-controversial or consensus-based changes to the article, and an admin will come along and make the edit. CarolMooreDC (talk)