Talk:Libertarianism

Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching Template:V0.5 Template:FixBunching

Libertarianism = Social Freedom or Individual Freedom?

A simple question. Not a soapbox. A Socratic prompt. What kind of freedom are we discussing here? There MUST be come consensus as to what we are discussing. Resist the temptation to be "personal". If you have the capacity, remain objective, and contribute, otherwise, keep your peace.68.59.4.188 (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have recently been accused of "vandalizing" this page. This is of course categorically false. I am in good faith, and I encourage the rest of you to do the same. If you disagree, reason, do not censor. Please, humanity and civility is all we have left. Kafka-esque censoring is not the road to truth. If you think the concept of "truth" is laughable, that is fine, but do not censor the rest of us who strive for it.68.59.4.188 (talk) 03:27, 13 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)

Undo weight in the lede

undo weight in the lede most of the lede is spent on an identity crisis over left/right, minarchist/anarchist, terms most libertarians have never heard. no one denies they exist, but rather if the majority of people searching libertarian on wp are looking for a form of socialism, anarchy, or a limited government and lower taxes. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think at least one sentence on each topic belongs in the lead, perhaps more. I've repeatedly asked you to just put up a draft of how you think it should look, but don't remember you having done so/ Nor doing I remember your making any such substantive edits. Refresh my memory if you have. I just remember constant unrelenting soapboxing about how neither anarchism nor left libertarianism belong in the article at all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

carol, for the record, we have all heard you on soapboxing, in an effort to save time, i will consider all of your future comments to imply this when speaking to me. my initial draft would simply be to remove the last 3 sentences. the lede appears to be arguing with itself over the very definition. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

First, to address another issue you wonder if if the majority of people searching libertarian on wp are looking for a form of socialism, anarchy, or a limited government and lower taxes. Wikipedia is not here to confirm people's pre-judgements, but to teach them about a subject. That's my interest.

Second, soapboxing is just opining. Providing a draft means proposing language with references. I just don't remember seeing any of that, unless it got lost in the soapboxing. Feel free to provide a link. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

1st, actually, wp is here to provide the mainstream view most people expect when they search a term, wp is not here to teach people to think differently about the term they searched. 2nd, my draft uses the exist source, Websters. again, we heard you on soapboxing the 1st 437 times you used the term since 2008. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

1. WP may teach people to think differently if they are thinking from one narrow viewpoint because they are ignorant of other existing views. 2. Where is your draft?? Article diff or talk page?? I have no idea. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

wp is not here to cure ignorance of terms related to libertarian, rather provide the definition the most people are trying to find when searching the term. my draft: "Libertarianism is advocacy of individual liberty[1]; libertarians generally share a distinct regard for individual freedom of thought and action, as well as a strong opposition to coercive authority, such as that of the state." Darkstar1st (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the lede, only one sentence addresses Libertarianism, and the remaining 3 sentences harp on about alleged divisions within Libertarianism. Meanwhile, the lede makes no mention of the sanctity of private property rights, the Harm Principle or Negative liberty - the three main features that define Libertarianism. How is that representative of Libertarianism? This is simply ridiculous. BlueRobe (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(added later) I agree 100% North8000 (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Darkstar1st and the lead, I think it's appropriate to note that it was initially Darkstar1st's idea to gut the lead. If anyone has a problem with the lead being so short, well .... BigK HeX (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

After all of above (which really is concrete editing stuff so I gave it own section) I'll agree that There are also broad areas of disagreement among libertarians. can be eliminated as being unnecessarily editorial and somewhat redundant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, in that case, I'll draft a new lede, and ask for feedback, sometime in the next few days. Although, to be quite frank, I'll be stunned if you don't object to a lede that isn't rife with Anarchism and left-Libertarianism. BlueRobe (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with removing one sentence from yesterday's lead, not anything you might write in the future. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely, even you lefties can't be happy with such an impoverished lede...? As it stands, it would barely rate a passing grade for the essay of a 14 year old student. BlueRobe (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there is undue weight in the lead where in mentions anarchism. There is no place for this in the lead. It's not appropriate. Areastrips78 (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that your account began editing today, you may have missed many of the discussions on this talk page. The question of whether some versions are "anarchist" is a reflection of reliable sources. BigK HeX (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Holding an M.A. in poli sci, this does sound a bit crazy to me, but I will definitely check out the sources. Areastrips78 (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, why not just define libertarianism as some combination of how the following people/entities define it: Cato Institute, Milton Friedman, etc. Areastrips78 (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia doesn't limit itself to Cato and Friedman. Per policy, we write about any and ALL understandings that are prominent in reliable sources. The view that certain anarchistic versions exist as variants of libertarianism is one view found prominently throughout a number of reliable sources. BigK HeX (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This libertarian-anarchy connection just sounds totally crazy to me. Never heard of this during my MA program. And a great deal of my research and courses touched upon libertarianism. I guess I don't really care either way though, as I associate with a completely different political leaning. Have fun with this page ;) Areastrips78 (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

anarcho-capitalism, normally known as individual anarchism, by definition unable to protect authentic libertarian principles

why was this removed? the existing source was already accepted by those who removed the new material, yet the old material was left on the page? how can one page of a source be valid, and not the next? Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice By Edward Stringham page 504, line 21. 517, line 20. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

For a useful experiment, quote the EXACT text from the book, and then quote your exact edit. BigK HeX (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

page 504 line 20, "the term individual anarchist will therefore be used to refer to those who oppose government entirely and advocate the market as the primary..." my words: anarcho-capitalism, normally known as individual anarchism Darkstar1st (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So, you got "normally" from ... where? BigK HeX (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

page 504 line 20, i left it out to prove you do not ever read the sources you revert. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

lol ... you "proved" that I "do not ever read the sources" when I'm clearly asking YOU to quote the source. And you also "proved" that I just go straight into a "revert" when we're discussing an edit that I never touched. Amazing proofs, I guess. BigK HeX (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

How this Darkstar1st's edit misrepresents the source

But now .. let's do the ACTUAL experiment. BigK HeX (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The source opens by explaining that,

There are two distinct strains of libertarian thought: minarchism and anarchism... While this study focuses on the anarchist branch of libertarianism, the sole, although crucial, difference between the two factions resides in their views regarding government provision of police and proper function of court services...Because the anarchists propose that a definite economic institution, the market, replace the political institution of government, they have been referred to as "free market anarchists", "anarcho-capitalists", and "individual anarchists". Since libertarianism is compatible with any voluntary non-coercive institutional arrangement, of which the market is only one...of such arrangements, terms such as "free market anarchism" or "anarcho-capitalism" are overly restrictive. The term "individual anarchists" will therefore be the term normally used to refer to those who oppose government entirely and advocate the market as the primary...

And from this author's opening where he is describing only how he will employ terminology for this one paper, you get the following edit:

...anarcho-capitalism, normally known as individual anarchism...

As usual, I find your edit problematic. BigK HeX (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

would it be ok if i said, "anarcho-capitalism is overly restrictive, and not compatible with libertarian" Darkstar1st (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's even worse. I'm not sure how you don't see that such an edit would wholly misrepresent the source.... Out of curiosity (and you do NOT have to answer), is English your first language? BigK HeX (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

ok, is there any words i could use from that passage that would be ok referring to anarcho-capitalist, if so, which? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of "words" you could use ... unfortunately, the problem is with how you are putting those words together. If you're soliciting my advice, I'm not sure if you should do anything with this source. Even with there no doubt about whether you reading the thing, it seems you're not understanding it yet. I might hold off, if I were you. BigK HeX (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

but i ask you which, as you have denied every noun on the passage, so which word may i use? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't give you permission to use any of the words -- you already have the permission to try. But note -- due to this being a common problem that I encounter with your edits -- that I will scrutinize and immediately revert any of your edits that misrepresent the source (or appear to be borne of unfounded speculation). You have my apologies in advance for this. BigK HeX (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

no, i am trying to paraphrase a rs to add material about a term which directly contradicts the claims made in the lede, either deny the source, or provide your version of how to add it. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why was what removed? New editors who want to review archives will be very confused if even those of us who have been paying some attention are, a few days later. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

very funny carol, why was anarcho-capitalism, normally known as individual anarchism, by definition unable to protect authentic libertarian principle removed, relevant, as you were the editor who deleted this wp:rs, which contradicts your claim anarcho-capitalism is libertarian. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Had CarolMoore not removed it, I would have done so, as it is WP:OR that misrepresents the source. Why are you still worrying over this edit, when you've already been shown above how it's not an acceptable edit? BigK HeX (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

misrepresents the source how? page 504 and 517 clearly say such. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing or removing that, though it sounds pretty fishy. But if Darkstar provided a diff I could look at it. Since he hasn't and I don't know context or if I really removed it, I really can't respond. Why does Darkstar keep harassing us about old issues he doesn't even bother to identify? See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

you cant remember deleting this from the lede 2 days ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&action=historysubmit&diff=382527222&oldid=382520187 Darkstar1st (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"misrepresents the source how?" ... It misrepresents the source in exactly the way I explained in the top half of this thread. BigK HeX (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The diff having been provided, I'd forgotten the earlier version with some absurd WP:OR content. It was so bad it didn't even warrant a discussion section, just an edit summary reading rem pov wp;or; please put in individualist anarchist or libertarianism section if want in lead; spelling; put back questionable sentence allegedly ref'd by Frenchman when get actual language So why are you suddenly now deciding it's such a great edit. Please read WP:Original research if you don't get it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

carol the fact that you cant remember speaks volumes. bigk no, you simply reposted my edit and the source. i have ask you before, what you thought was misrepresented, and how you would add text from that paragraph, you answered neither. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I very clearly lay out what was misrepresented and described precisely how, and then even put a section header on it so that there was no doubt where you could find my comments. I can do no more for you on this issue, and won't waste my time trying. BigK HeX (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

no, all you did was repost my work, and say you didn't like it. now mention of how, or what specifically was word misrepresented. you did highlight the part where the source explains the correct term is individual anarchist, not anarcho-capitalist. you seem to be making my case, then at the end, saying, "see OR" Darkstar1st (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Exploring "Left Libertarian" Term

(Continuation of a discussion that started in "RFC Revisited")

I understood Carol's answer but not TFD's. Carol and all, does that not then mean that "Left Libertarian" is not a real term? And that the material in the "Left Libertarian" article is just "Libertarian" material? North8000 (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that goes even more so for right Libertarian, but one thing at a time.North8000 (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by a "real term"? Numerous RS's have been supplied that touch on the breakdown of libertarianism into left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism. If you want comprehensive coverage of contemporary left-lib, then there's a book by Otsuka that might help you. (You may hear a rumor that Otsuka is "wrong", but let's assume that the cited RS is more credible than a random Wikipedian.) BigK HeX (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That question could be complicated, but probably a quick test would be: Is there a reasonably sized group of people who would identify themselves as practicing "left Libertarianism". This requires that they believe "left Libertarian" identifies a distinct school of thought. (not just lefties with some Libertarian tendencies or vica versa). North8000 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If we're looking at authors, (e.g. Otsuka) did they make up the term for writing clarity purposes, or are did they say that it in actual use?

I'm not really understanding what difference an answer to this chicken/egg question would make. The term is in use. I believe you've asked previously if people self-identify as "left-libertarian" and the answer is "yes". I'm not sure if it is the "first" term to come to mind for these people, just as most US citizens might not be prone to offer the self-label of "Earthling" before just calling themselves "American", even though both are accurate and both terms are well-known among Americans. BigK HeX (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant with respect to their political beliefs. North8000 (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism broke into two strands in the 1950s, creating a problem because both claimed to be libertarian. For convenience the older form of libertarianism is called left-libertarianism, while the newer version is called right-libertarianism. Liberalism also split into two groups creating naming problems, which in the U. S. was resolved by calling the older group "conservatives". In fact most ideologies have similar splits and similar naming problems. Albert Jay Nock is an example of a transitional figure between left and right libertarianism, a follower of Henry George who became an important influence on Murray Rothbard, Frank Chodorov, Leonard Read and William F. Buckley, Jr.. TFD (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that everything is there / clear, but I think I learned more on this topic from your one paragraph than from reading all three articles.

Just a quick "gut feel" answer, what comes to mind as 1 or 2 things where these right and left libertarian philosophies would disagree? North8000 (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The main thing they disagree on is ownership of property. But left libertarians differ among themselves about what types of property should be excluded from private owership. To the Georgists, land could not be transferred to private ownership and so they advocated taxing only land, removing the tax burden from businesses and individuals that created wealth. Other left libertarians considered businesses to be property, and opposed their private ownership. I cannot think of any other defining difference. TFD (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. North8000 (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Exploring a term usually means at least one example from a WP:RS . Fyi. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Did you find some new rules that talk page insertions need to be referenced? And what is your motive for sniping at a a germane talk page discussion? North8000 (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is this tag appropriate?

.

Is this tag appropriate: "This article may lack a single coherent topic"? The template links to "Stay on topic": "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information".[1] The posting editor justifies the tag, ""I've added the {{incoherent-topic}} maintenance tag to this article to bring attention to the root problem - the attempt to cover all (some widely disparate) topics referred to by the term "libertarianism", rather than just one, leading to the incoherent topic problem." TFD (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Inappropriate. Given that the tag originally was added by an editor who does not like the article including discussion of "left-libertarianism" and anarcho-capitalism, and given that a very recent RfC settled that those topics ARE appropriate, the tag is no longer warranted, even despite any lingering concerns of the editor. Moreover, the continuing push for this tag, in the face of the previous RfC can be viewed as tendentious. That we're forced to need a 2nd RfC on the heels of the last one -- when the last one already concluded that inclusion of the topics IS appropriate -- is pretty disruptive, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What definition of the word "settled" are you using to claim that any of the significant disputes have been settled? If anything, the irrational and dishonest conclusion to the recent rfc demonstrated the extent to which the parties on one side (the left) of the divide will use any means to defeat their ideological adversaries, without so much as a hint of compromise. Nothing has been settled and the parties are as entrenched and intractable as ever. BlueRobe (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Appropriate and needed at the moment I don't like top level tags. I've only been involved on this article for a about a couple of weeks. This article (actually trio of articles) is a confusing mess. The last RFC was misworded, making for an even more confusing mess. But the closer's comments and findings were good, but everybody is looking to "spin" and misinterpret them rather than following them. Even the battles here seem incoherent. I really don't see underlying differences, or POV differences at the root of the disputes, or see underlying differences being discussed, it seems like the editors have caught themselves in a trap of arguing for the sake of arguing. There are many VERY intelligent, active editors here on both sides of the issue who I have had the privilege of learning things from. They just need to get their heads conked together and say "get together, work it out, and make a really good article (or trio of articles) and have some fun doing it". And, speaking directly to the topic of a "single coherent topic" there certainly isn't one, or even real discussion on what it is. And more decisions by briefly involved persons in an RFC are likely to make the problem worse. And so. despite my dislike for top level tags, I think that this article needs them (and that these are appropriate) and an impetus for getting this worked out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So .... to make sure there's not any "misinterpreting" of the RfC closing, I ask you if the RfC concludes that the article should be written with Libertarianism construed broadly? (Yes/no?) BigK HeX (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, your question is worded so as to spin the closer's comments rather than follow them. But, my interpreatation of their comments in the context of this article is (please excuse my oversimplification-for-the-sake-of-clarity):

- For the viewpoints / terminology which are minority but still significant /significantly held, keep them, but keep their coverage in proportion, which means reduce them (or give them wording that identifies them as such)

- For the viewpoints / terminology where RS does not indicate they are significant or significantly held, remove them.

And I agree with the closer.

If I had to pick literally amongst the badly worded choices in the RFC, I guess I'm in the "broadly" category, but such would do more harm than good in this environment, so I do not officially pick that.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So, concluding that the closing comment which explicitly says, ""Libertarianism" should be broadly construed to include all significant viewpoints from reliable sources" is somehow "spinning" the comment that the article be written with a broad understanding? Calling that some kind of "spin" is not even a plausible interpretation, IMO. Worse, I'd have to respectfully conclude that refusing to acknowledge that the closing was concluded as support for a broad writing borders on WP:IDHT. BigK HeX (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No, what I said is that the closing is as it it worded, not something that you are trying to take out of context from it. North8000 (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Appropriate. The claim above that this tag was added "by an editor who does not like the article including discussion of 'left-libertarianism' and anarcho-capitalism" is false and would be irrelevant if true anyway (I added the tag and those are not my views). It doesn't matter who adds any tag or what their views are. All that matters is whether there is justification for the tag.

  There are several people who find the article content to be incoherent since it attempts to describe multiple uses of the word libertarianism. The above RFC was active so briefly I (and who knows how many others?) didn't even get a chance to participate. My primary objections to the current content -- incoherency, violation of primary topic, violation of WP:NAD, years of evidence in the article and talk page history of people objecting to the topic of this article being the relatively obscure (certainly not primary) use of the term referred to exclusively in Wikipedia (as far as I know, and thus verging on violation WP:NOR as well) as "Libertarianism construed broadly" -- were not even mentioned, much less raised, discussed and evaluated. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there are a few determined editors who refuse to respect the community's input on the matter is irrelevant. BigK HeX (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Appropriate. The phrase "nor only loosely relevant" is key. In terms of ideological similarities...modern liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism share two very important features. They recognize the necessity of the state and they support private ownership of the means of production. Anarcho-capitalism advocates abolishing the state and left-libertarianism advocates public ownership of the means of production. Any topic that is broad enough to include both left-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism would also have to include modern liberalism and conservatism in order to maintain coherency. --Xerographica (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Appropriate. Given the clear divisions between the editors on this talk page, and the on-going ideological war that is being fought on the Libertarianism page itself, I don't see how anyone with even an ounce of integrity could deem the tag inappropriate. Even the lede reflects the polemic nature of the Libertarianism page's incoherent content that has resulted from the inconsistency of its editorial contributions (read: blatant sabotage by certain unscrupulous editors). BlueRobe (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Inappropriate looks like an attempt to impose a particular position on the article --Snowded ^TALK 04:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No. You look like a puppet who has been conscripted in to make up the numbers. BlueRobe (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Inappropriate This article has been attacked for months by people who claim the article is "incoherent" because they refuse to recognize WP:NPOV's policy: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. They also have poo poo'd the result of the recent RfC where twice as many editors opined that the article should have this broad viewpoint. And don't get me started on the behavioral misdeeds that have disrupted editing so that any attempt to deal with any legitimate issues could be resolved in the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Appropriate Left and right, pro property and anti-property, statist and anti-statist. what is coherent about the article? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That they're all LIBERTARIANISM (as described in a multitude of RS)? BigK HeX (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Inappropriate -- It seems WP defines coherence as containing "no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information". (link in the initial post) It is not the usual definition of the term, but it makes sense. A tag's "reason for being" is to lead to improvement of the article. In this case, does this article mention "irrelevant or loosely relevant information", which can be removed? No. N6n (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I hope the editors will keep the dictionary meaning of 'coherence' an a (perhaps unreachable) goal! N6n (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

N6n, the references to left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Noam Chomsky are all only "loosely relevant", at best. BlueRobe (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's inappropriate -- I'm reluctant to cast a vote because this is in effect a repeat of the RfC that was only concluded two days ago. (I don't think that outcome should be ignored and everyone forced to vote a second time in the hope of a different result.) The argument that the article is incoherent seems to be based on the claim that there is "one true libertarianism"; that has already been rejected by a rough consensus.

I know that some on here don't agree that that "rough consensus" is valid, but can I make a suggestion?: There appears to be broad agreement, from both sides, that the different forms of libertarianism should be represented in accordance with their relative importance. We might actually make some progress if we build on that agreement. It would be constructive to move to a civil discussion of how much weight should be given to each subtopic. That discussion should be based on keeping an open mind, seeking to persuade others, and being open to persuasion, rather than trying to insult to other side and "win" the argument (which both sides have been guilty of).

No-one here is infallible. Perhaps the right-libertarian advocates have truth and justice on their side. But the reality is that the current campaign to remove certain subtopics entirely from the article is unlikely to be successful, no matter how many votes are held and how many pages of this talkpage are filled with angry posts. In the meantime that campaign is causing a lot of acrimony and is harmful to the article. Iota (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Inappropriate The article follows a definition found in external sources. TFD (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Inappropriate. (Resp. to RfC). Broad subject, broad article. Figureofnine (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A four-word explanation on a rfc vote by a user who has never been seen before = prima facie case of meat-puppetry. BlueRobe (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You SERIOUSLY need to review WP:AGF. Your baseless accusations are tiring... BigK HeX (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet more hypocrisy from the red corner. You and carol have been endlessly hounding people (especially darkstar) with allegations of puppetry. BlueRobe (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And, between the two of us, only one of us has a clear basis. There is ZERO "hypocrisy" in pointing out your baseless claims. BigK HeX (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No. My claim is not baseless. Random people come in to post votes, void of any real commentary (or simply post a random-revisionist-source-backs-me-up claim), for the causes of the left-wingers in the RFCs. And they're never heard from again. Yet, miraculously, this doesn't happen in any of the other threads/sections of the talk page. This begs suspicion of meat-puppetry. BlueRobe (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Inappropriate per BigK HeX. This was just discussed in the RFC. My impression on dispute resolution is that in case less formal attempts at dispute resolution (e.g. RFC) fail, the correct avenue to pursue is more formal dispute resolution, not this kind of labeling. I'm not saying that the RFC would have failed, by the way. --Dailycare (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Appropriate - As no consensus exists, this would aid discussion and advance the goal of consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 22:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

These are the results if you google for "Libertarianism construed broadly": No results found for "Libertarianism construed broadly". We can't just make up topics and write articles about them.

And, no, I'm not saying there are no sources that use the term broadly; I'm saying that the sources that use the term in that (broad) sense are a relative minority among all sources that use the term.... which means that broad sense is not the primary topic. By having an article on that (broad) topic at Libertarianism, we are incorrectly implying that the primary topic of the term Libertarianism is this broad usage. That's way off. I'm pretty sure that there is NO topic that has a legitimate claim for being the primary use of the term. Of course, there is no need to reinvent the wheel here. We already have a clear directive for what to do: If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page . --Born2cycle (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As I have mentioned earlier, Google shows 3.4 million hits for "Libertarianism". But, for all the popular recognition of Libertarianism, Google shows only 32,700 hits for "left-Libertarianism", (that's less than 1%!). When they argue for the "broad" concept of Libertarianism, they're arguing for equal weight to be accorded to ridiculously fringe ideologies. BlueRobe (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I still think the more compelling argument is that use of the term "libertarianism" to refer to "left-libertarianism" is a fundamentally different use of the term and should not be covered in the same article for basically the same reason that Orange (fruit) and Orange (colour) are separate. The topic of this article, like the topic of any Wikipedia article, should be a single use of the relevant term. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We have repeatedly pointed out that about the only thing that Libertarian Socialism and left-Libertarianism (often used as synonyms) have in common with Libertarianism is the word "Libertarian" in their labels. Indeed, Libertarian Socialism and left-Libertarianism are defined in terms that directly conflict with Libertarianism, despite their "Libertarian" labels. Left-Libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism are versions of Anarchism, not Libertarianism. They've turned deaf ears to that discussion. BlueRobe (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, you have tendentiously repeatedly harped on this topic even disregarding the community input we've received. BigK HeX (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a three day weekend in the USA, so the full volume of responses from various editors looking at RfC lists probably won't be coming in til Wednesday. FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, we can all see through your special rhetorical misuse of terms like "community" (anyone who agrees with you, to hell with the rest), "consensus" (contrived by ignoring the numbers and commentary of everyone who disagrees with you) and "settled" (you claiming victory by ignoring the people and arguments that challenge your position). BlueRobe (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV argument is begging the question

I also want to add the whole WP:NPOV argument is based on the logical fallacy of begging the question. That is, it presupposes that the topic is "Libertarianism construed broadly" (whether that should be the topic is the question at issue), and then says any legitimate views about that broad topic should not be excluded per WP:DUE. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As an example of what I'm talking about, in the RFC above that was closed so quickly I was not able to participate, the following statement was made as part of a conclusion: "The arguments for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC have been rejected as editors have failed to show why the understandings of reliable sources on the topic of Libertarianism should be dismissed in the article on Libertarianism, and certainly no actual evidence has been presented to support the contention that only minarchist right-libertarianism is the topic that "is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box."

See how the usage of "Libertarianism" in this statement presupposes the broad interpretation? When Big writes, "the understandings of reliable sources on the topic of Libertarianism", he means, "the understandings of reliable sources on the BROAD topic of Libertarianism"!

Look, there are many uses of the term among reliable sources. This article, like all article, should be about only one of those uses. It doesn't make sense to put an article about a relatively minor use of the term ("Libertarianism construed broadly") at Libertarianism itself.

Even if minarchist right-libertarianism has not been shown to be the primary topic, that's no reason to put an even more obscure use at this article! That's an argument to put the dab page here. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There is NO begging the question here. Reliable sources were examined and THEN we concluded that they are relevant to the article. The argument of this thread is erroneous. BigK HeX (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, L2colon. BlueRobe (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK, of course sources for the use of X are going to suggest X is relevant! That's begging the question! Unless you were looking at preponderance of use for each meaning of the term among reliable sources, including the preponderance of the use of the "libertarianism construed broadly" meaning, that tells us nothing about which topic should be at this title. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WE DID NOT FIND A "DIFFERENT" MEANING. We examined the sources and determined that THEY DISCUSS THE SAME meaning. We are NOT presuming anything, so to try to cite begging the question is quite dubious. BigK HeX (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is it doesn't matter if the varieties are somewhat different, as long as lots of WP:RS describe them as libertarian. If "Anti-immigration anti-abortion libertarianism" became it's own philosophy with lots of WP:RS for that exact phrase, guess what, we'd have to put that horrific malformation of libertarianism in the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK, are you seriously suggesting that every use of "libertarianism" in reliable sources refers to the same meaning? Do you really not see different meanings in even the various uses cited in the article? How about, (1) "Libertarians are committed to the belief ... that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty" IEP, and (2) any use of the term which includes opposition to property rights.

Carol, do you not understand what "begging the question" means? When you say "varieties [of libertarianism]" and "malformation of libertarianism", you are presupposing the "libertarianism construed broadly" meaning of "libertarianism" in your statements. That's begging the question, since the question at issue is whether this article should be about that meaning. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It is like other terms for ideology - conservatism, liberalism and socialism. Each has different varieties and terminology to describe the different varieties may differ. However each merits its own article as they share certain core beliefs and history. Of course socialism as practiced by Tony Blair and Pol Pot may differ even more than left and right libertarians may differ. TFD (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

But that's a totally different argument (follow precedent set by other articles about political philosophy), and a much better one in my view, from the NPOV/DUE argument being discussed here. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

While you are correct that other articles need not be our guide, we may have articles about subjects that are recognized in academic literature. Some conservatives are strong supporters of the welfare state while others oppose it. Same with liberals and socialists. But we do not arbitrarily exclude huge sections of these topics based on our decision on who are the true believers. TFD (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, I think you may have placed this vote in the wrong place. You might prefer to post this vote further up the page. BlueRobe (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "BigK, are you seriously suggesting that every use of "libertarianism" in reliable sources refers to the same meaning?"

Uhh... no? When did I say that? We're not talking about "Libertarian Cookies" or just any conceivable nonsense. We're largely talking about left-libertarianism, right-libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism and NUMEROUS reliable sources have been provided which show that those three are discussed as variants of the SAME concept. If multiple reliable sources hold the viewpoint that the three varieties (and others) are treated as Libertarianism then this viewpoint will be reflected by the article, per policy. Seems pretty simple to me.

The bottom line is that there is no "begging the question" from the editors here because we are directly reflecting the opinion consistently found in multiple reliable sources, so, at best, any presumptions would be those of the reliable sources, and accusing the RS of "begging the question" is beyond the scope of a Wikipedia editor's authority. BigK HeX (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

When you state, "If multiple reliable sources hold the viewpoint that the three varieties (and others) are treated as Libertarianism"' you're presuming the broad definition (the issue in debate) and thus begging the question. I know you can't see it but I can't solve your blindness (denial?) problem.

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. The proposition to be proved is that the topic of this article should be the broad meaning of the term. Your premise (quoted) presumes that meaning. The argument is obviously fallacious. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Verify minutiae in lead - WP:OR????

You wrote in lead: "which is not actually anti-statist, as individuals have an enforceable duty to pay others." using this ref. Where does this ref say that? Please quote it. I must have missed it, what with having to squash sock puppets wasting so much of my energies. And if you are going to throw in minutae, why not let me throw in "Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy”[102][103] or “market anarchism”[104] or “free market anarchism”[105])"??? I'd like to see that personal buggaboo of mine in there too. But I have respect for not imposing my pov in a short lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you found any sock puppets yet? Have you tried looking under your bed?

Regardless, your own personal POV is all over the Libertarianism page. Indeed, you are the primary reason that it is such an ideologically-biased incoherent shambles. BlueRobe (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

carol, i said it was in paragraph 3, line 2, if you missed it, you didn't both looking. if "enforceable payment" isn't statist, i will eat my hat Darkstar1st (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Quote the precise text for us, and paste it here please. BigK HeX (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, much as I read paragraph 3, line 2 [your ref I couldn't find it, only:

Libertarianism can be understood as a basic moral principle or as a derivative one. It might, for example, be advocated as a basic natural rights doctrine. Alternatively, it might be defended on the basis of rule consequentialism or teleology (e.g., Epstein 1995, 1998; Rasmussen and Den Uyl 2005; or Shapiro 2007) or rule contractarianism (e.g., Narveson 1988 and roughly Lomasky 1987).

And enforceable is not used to modify payments. But the other issue, of course, is why that minutiae belongs there and mine doesn't. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

because you are in the wrong section, notice the link takes you to section 4, para 3, line 2. next time, at least read the source before you revert, please Darkstar1st (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Quote the precise text for us, and paste it here please. BigK HeX (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Lazy formatting like you did makes it easy to confuse a section when you are reading/cutting/pasting a reverted diff, as I was. Anyway, feel free to stick it in the Left Libertarianism section (and article for that matter) as their opinion and we'll see what left libertarians and libertarian socialists disagree. I get impression all three authors could be pushing their own statist POV but more research will tell. In mean time it's one of many factoids about libertarianism that don't belong in a short lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

maybe you should read the entire sep article anyway carol. For on most left-libertarian views, individuals have an enforceable duty to pay others for the value of the rights that they claim over natural resources. statist, not anti-statist as in the lede. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

carol, sep is considered a rs, not an opinion. left-libertarians do agree, welfare sate is in the lede on their article. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There's quite a paradox at work here. If left-Libertarianism entails no State apparatus or coercive mechanisms (which would, for instance, enforce economic contracts or the Harm Principle at criminal law), then surely left-Libertarianism must be a form of Anarchism. BlueRobe (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

mountain of evidence ignored left-libertarian is statist Most left libertarians support some form of income redistribution on the grounds of a claim by each individual to be entitled to an equal share of natural resources. A number of left-libertarians of this school argue for the desirability of some state social welfare programs.

I will ask for a THIRD TIME. QUOTE THE PRECISE TEXT FROM THE SOURCE AND PASTE IT HERE FOR US. Why is it taking so long for this to be done??? BigK HeX (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

see above, i have already, next time, please review the source yourself, it was linked in the article: For on most left-libertarian views, individuals have an enforceable duty to pay others for the value of the rights that they claim over natural resources. statist, not anti-statist as in the lede. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Darkstar1st (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You have NOT quoted text from the source. For the 4th time, please do go into the ACTUAL SOURCE and paste the text here for us. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

To end the impasse, here it is from Stanford Section 4, para 3:

The above objections to the modern welfare state would be made both by right-libertarians and left-libertarians. Left-libertarians, however, can endorse certain “state-like” activities that right-libertarians reject. For on most left-libertarian views, individuals have an enforceable duty to pay others for the value of the rights that they claim over natural resources. Individuals seeking economic justice could form organizations that, under certain conditions, could force individuals to give them the payment they owe for their rights over natural resources, and could then transfer the payments to the individuals who are owed payments (after deducting a fee for the service, if the person agrees). The organization could also provide various public goods such as basic police services, national defense, roads, parks, and so on. By providing such public goods, the value of the rights claimed over natural resources by individuals will increase (e.g., rights over land for which police protection is provided are more valuable than rights over that land without police protection). Such public goods could be provided when and only when they would be self-financing based on the increased rents that they generate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

bigk i told you i did, you have just proved for the 2nd time in 2 days, you do not both to follow the sources you oppose. perhaps your pov would be different if you actually read what i have. carol, are you now convinced Left-libertarian is statist, if so, would you restore my edit, or at least not revert it this time? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarians opposed the establishment of the welfare state, which was pioneered by Conservatives in Germany and introduced into the UK and US by liberals. To them the welfare state was designed to meet the needs of the establishment and to destroy non-government institutions controlled by the people that already delivered many of those services. Now that the state has taken over these functions the debate is how can they be transitioned back to the people or is that even possible. TFD (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

agree libertarians oppose the welfare state, left-libertarians support such as per their wp article and a mountain of evidence, see above. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There was no left-right distinction among Libertarians when the welfare state was established. TFD (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

@tfd, please see source, the left libertarian page has the words, "grow the welfare state", so it is an ongoing process, and statist, which contradicts the lede. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is against using the info in the Left Libertarian section, just in the lead. Am I incorrect. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

then dont put left libertarian in the lede as anti-statist, the sep clearly says, enforceable duty , that means some form of state. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Your WP:OR will not dictate the article text. (see my post below, since apparently you haven't read it yet) BigK HeX (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Darkstar1st says, "bigk i told you i did, you have just proved for the 2nd time in 2 days, you do not both to follow the sources you oppose."

   The only thing proven so far is that you refuse to provide quotes when requested.

2. Darkstar1st says, "carol, are you now convinced Left-libertarian is statist"

   The irony of you telling someone else that they supposedly don't read sources, WHEN THAT SAME SECTION OF YOUR STANFORD SOURCE which supposedly supports text about "statism" actually has the text below that is highlighted [I quote larger sections here for context]:

   Libertarianism is committed to full self-ownership. A distinction can be made, however, between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources can be owned....[certain] objections to the modern welfare state would be made both by right-libertarians and left-libertarians.....Individuals seeking economic justice could form organizations that, under certain conditions, could force individuals to give them the payment they owe for their rights over natural resources, and could then transfer the payments to the individuals who are owed payments...Such “justice-promoting” organizations engage in many of the activities of the modern states, and left-libertarianism can accept the legitimacy of such activities....There may be many organizations providing such services....Libertarianism, then, is not only critical of the modern welfare state, but of states in general.

   That you figured you could use this section to support your WP:OR that "left-libertarianism is 'statist'" is amazing. Frankly, your consistent misuse of sources is very disturbing, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Darkstar1st is familiar with the concept of Gradualism. Some left libertarians may gradually want to get rid of welfare state just like some anarcho-capotalists only gradually want to abolish the military or police. Don't confuse strategy with ideology. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

according to wp:rs, left libertarian is statist, not up for debate. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You have provided not a single source about left-libertarianism being statist. I'll ask you not to push this WP:OR. BigK HeX (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

::It is interesting that Darkstar1st wants to exclude left-libertarians because they are statist, while BlueRobe (section below) wishes to exclude them because they are anarchists. Maybe they should be called anarcho-statists or statist anarchists. TFD (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

@bigk you must have missed the original link to the wp:rs above, or the mountain of evidence ignored left-libertarian is statist Most left libertarians support some form of income redistribution on the grounds of a claim by each individual to be entitled to an equal share of natural resources.[1] A number of left-libertarians of this school argue for the desirability of some state social welfare programs.[2][3] Darkstar1st (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Lots of governments denationalized industries by redistributing shares in government-owned companies to taxpayers. Would you call that statist? TFD (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

For the fourth time today, Darkstar1st POST A QUOTE FROM THE RS HERE IN THIS TALK SECTION PAGE. If you fail to do this, I will not be able to WP:AGF for any edits you make on these lines. Especially since a source you've provided to supposedly support the case that "left-libertarianism is 'statist'" actually says "Libertarianism is committed to full self-ownership. A distinction can be made, however, between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources can be owned..... Libertarianism...is not only critical of the modern welfare state, but of states in general." Due your recent penchant for misrepresenting sources, any of your edits that your refuse to back with quotes directly from an RS will be treated as WP:OR. BigK HeX (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

For the love of all that is holy, would you numpties learn some basic formatting skills. This section looks like a dog's breakfast. BlueRobe (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Numpties?" I had to look that one up. Please read WP:No personal attacks. (Article probably should specify if that includes sock puppets ;-)

Anyway, as Big K HeX points out, the source does say Left Lib is libertarian except "it" (actually more like some of them) wants statism in certain limited areas. Just like minarchist libertarianism is libertarian except some minarchists want a big fat state to keep out immigrants and outlaw abortion. But I'll let Darkstar1st put that in the article too. Just not in the lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@carol, ty for "letting" me add wprs, the problem is it contradicts your edit in the lede, which incorrectly list left libertarian as anti-statist. @bigk, your repeated request for verification of sources has become tiresome, this is obviously some kind of joke on me, haha you got me. from now on, you will have to look these up yourself, but for the 4th time today, here is the direct qoute, settling for all time, left libertarians are statist: Handbook of political theory By Gerald F. Gaus, Chandran Kukathas, page 128, paragraph 2. most left-libertarians thus uphold some substantial form of income redistribution . if you again ask for verification of a source readily available, a spaceship will land and take me back to zenu, where i will be melted downed a reformed as a more perfect unit, capable of communicating basic source coordinates to earth people. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If that is the totality of the source material for which you are basing your edit, then that leaves no doubt that you are engaging in WP:OR, as there is absolutely nothing in there saying "left-libertarianism is 'statist'". BigK HeX (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, suggesting that you've quoted this source for me in any of my previous requests in this thread is inaccurate. Your most recent comment is the only one in the thread to even mention the Handbook of political theory. BigK HeX (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that there are a few different positions which describe themselves as "left-libertarian". This is discussed in our article left-libertarianism. One of these, the one associated with Noam Chomsky, is largely anarcho-communism. It is not really part of the libertarian movement described in this article, and uses the word "libertarian" only in the French sense of the word, as a less-scary synonym for "anarchist". It is not really relevant here except in a disambiguation sense.

However, the other one, described here, is very much a part of the libertarian movement. It is even Rothbardian. It is derived from individualist anarchism and Austrian economics, makes use of the non-aggression principle, but draws different economic and cultural conclusions from these than right-libertarians do. Notably, left-libertarians of this sort claim that the economic and power inequality visible in today's society is not a consequence of market forces, but rather of state interference. Thus, a libertarian society would be more egalitarian and less classist than today -- in other words, would accomplish the sort of things that leftists claim to want. In addition, left-libertarians find cultural common ground with the left on issues such as labor conditions, feminism and sexuality, environmentalism, and the like -- although favoring voluntary rather than statist approaches to these issues. --FOo (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism lede implies some forms of Libertarianism = Anarchism?

The last sentence of the lede states: "Some libertarians support a minimal state (or minarchist) position and others various non-state anarchist views, such as anarcho-capitalism and left-libertarianism."

We all know that the left-wingers have been sabotaging the Libertarianism page and inserting revisionist doublespeak. But, an express declaration that some Libertarians are Anarchists, who oppose all State mechanisms, is absurd.

The core principles of Libertarianism entail the need for some basic coercive State functions - the enforcement of private property rights, the enforcement of contracts and the enforcement of the Harm Principle - even if the State contracts those jurisdictions out to the private sector.

The Libertarianism page - especially the lede - is no place for Anarchist ideologies that oppose all forms of State coercion. BlueRobe (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Note - the above comment appeared as if it was posted by BigK HeX. It was actually posted by me. I have no idea what happened to cause the confusion. BlueRobe (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"some" is a weasel word and a disgrace to the lede of this article. "some" is a sure sign the article is trying to cover more than 1 term. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Some is not a weasel word and I while I find accusations of left wing revisionism amusing, can we please this type of language and focus on the content please. --Snowded ^TALK 12:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

some actually is a weasel word, see example 20 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word Darkstar1st (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure what happened to my comment that started this section, or why it appears that BigK HeX posted it. BlueRobe (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Some" is merely a summary technique. Like "some humans are female and others are male." Is that being weasily? CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, Darkstar1st is right. That use of "some" is misleading. It's like saying "some Socialists are mentally retarded..." That may be true, but the prejudice embodied in that statement is misleading. BlueRobe (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Some" becomes a weasel word only when used to avoid talking about specifics, especially specific sources. For instance, it's weaselish in the sentence "Cats are widely accepted to be mammals, but some claim they are alien lizards." It is not a weasel word when it is used in a purely descriptive sense, such as "Some cats have short hair and some cats have long hair." The former avoids attributing the remarkable (and false) claim, whereas the latter merely introduces the idea of diversity in cat hair length, which would presumably be addressed in greater detail later on. --FOo (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If you start issuing some Clintonesque, "...it depend on what the meaning of "is", is...", I'm going to spend the rest of my evening looking for an ignore function ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@Fubar: Agreed. There's clearly no weasel-ing going on with the statement in question. With all of these dubious objections to the material, there does seem to be some POV pushing though. BigK HeX (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

New section which may help (movements)

A significant omission of this article is coverage of (significantly large amounts of) people practicing or promoting Libertarianism. IMHO if we could develop such a section, it would fill that gap, an dalso help resolve some of these other issues. I'm planning to start such a section..... probably "Libertarian-leaning organizations and movements" which, per wp standards, would mean those with significant participation. I'm planning on starting such a section......it will probably be a "stub" at first. North8000 (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. These might help: List of Libertarian Political Parties and List of Libertarian Organizations. I'm not sure how accurate they are.

Curiously, there used to be a links to at least one of these two pages in the Libertarianism page, but it was removed by CarolMooreDC. Further more, someone has been trying to delete the pages with those lists. BlueRobe (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I find lists usually present a problem. They continue to grow, they always contain items that should not be there and they are never complete. Lists of a well-defined set, e.g., member parties of the Liberal International or presidents of the United States are different. TFD (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's worth checking some of those so-called Libertarian organisations. Some of them are blatantly Anarchist, (have a look at the Italian organisations). BlueRobe (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

First, if you are going to say someone removed something, please provide a diff. I don't know what you are talking about.

As I have mentioned before in these pages several times, there used to be a whole section on the libertarianian movement worldwide that should be created in shorter form. See this Jan 1 2010 version with section called "Current libertarian movements." CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, you admitted it, yourself, here. BlueRobe (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? That's a notification of deletion, not an admission of deletion. Indeed, the deletion occurred here on Feb 24, 2010 by User:MutantPlatypus, not Carol. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with the idea that the article should have a section on movements. Are there any anti-propertian movements referred to as "libertarian"? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an indiscriminate list may be needed, but if we can come up with a useful objective criteria, then this is likely a good idea. In fact -- in a similar vein -- once upon a time, the article contained a section of the style "Philosophy X in Argentina, Philosophy X in Italy, Philosophy X in the United States" that is n often-seen in these types of articles. I'm not sure why it was deleted, and I seriously considered reinstituting it, but it did make the article extremely lengthy. BigK HeX (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

First, we're talking article content, not a list. I think that a good set of criteria would be thos emeeting both of these:

1. A group / organization involving some non-trivial amount of people. I don't know ther that means 500 or 5,000 of 5,000, but it's definitely not 5 or 50.
2. Their political philosophy is is identified as Libertarian (of some type) more so than any alternative.

North8000 (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I just conflated existing items and items from January 2010 with some edits and notes that refs needed. There are more that could be added in a similar NPOV format. The sectioning of parties was WP:UNDUE and possibly POV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Organization of "Organizations and Movements" Section

Carol, I'm planning to undo your removal of the sectioning in the "organizations and movements" section, but plan to do it by editing vs. reverting so as to not take out other work that you did at the same time. Not sure what your thoughts were, but "Political Parties" is certainly a subset of "Organizations and Movements" (unless we rename it "Other Organizatiosn and Movements" and put it after parties), plus, regarding due/undue weights, many of those certainly merit their own subsection. I think that we have whole sub-sections devoted to schools of thought that may be only in the minds of a few philosophers; a group with 200,000+ registered members should merit it's own sub-section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with moving Parties under larger section, however, this section was removed for being too wordy/WP:Undue last time and sectioning does increase the problem. I'll wait and see what you do. Others thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

They are not registered members, they are registered voters. TFD (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I just tidied up the "subset" structural problem. While, for reasons previously given, I certainly don't agree with the "undue" I don't plan any more sectionalizing right now. These need more material first. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't movements come first since parties often come out of movements and not other way around? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Structural Change on "Organizations and Movements" section.

Carol, you are right. Regarding the higher level titles, you changed it back to the way that I originally put in, prior to your earlier changes.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Issue resolved. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Welfare State

Imagine one belonged to a trade union in 1900. One's voluntary contributions were used to pay for unemployment insurance, health care, old age pensions, employment agencies and education. Then the liberals decided that these services were better delivered by government. One's new fees now exceeded one's previous payments, one's benefits were cut and they were harder to obtain. One's union now stopped providing benefits. Now the government decides to reduce benefits further and use the money to support "national defense". If one opposes what the government does, does that mean that one is "statist"? TFD (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No libertarian of any stripe obviously would support the government taking over and then gutting private or cooperative voluntary programs, while raising fees. Many, both left and right, would see these programs phased out while voluntary programs are encouraged through things like tax credits, end of anti-competitive and anti-cooperative regulations, etc. Maybe lefties would phase them out slower. Just like some "righties" would phase out immigration restrictions and military bases overseas more slowly. I think we could find some good WP:RS on that topic for a brief mention and will add to my TO DO list on this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

is left-libertarian anit-statist? "enforceable duty to pay others" and "income redistribution", if so, who is the enforcer, who redistributes the INCOME?

please only comment on statist, or anti-statist. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure. Left-Libertarianism is a fundamentally incoherent ideology - it endorses Positive Liberty (see John Stuart Mill) with regard to questions of economic egalitarianism (and sometimes Marxism), but it opposes the coercive State mechanisms that are necessary to ensure such a result. I'm open to persuasion. BlueRobe (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the advocates of left-Libertarianism are relying on all citizens willingly cooperating to ensure the egalitarian outcomes they desire. Otherwise, a coercive State is a necessary means for their egalitarian ends. In other words, left-Libertarianism is an "...it would work if we all just hold hands..." ideology. BlueRobe (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To BlueRobe and 122.....Why not (in a more Wikipedian way) cover what y'all said above in this article? You yourself said that some people practice it and that they call themselves Libertarians. So, if it too rare, and too marginal, it should not be in Wikipedia at all (i.e delete the left-libertarian article). And if not, I can't imagine covering the distinction in a disambiguation page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To Bluerobe: Would you say that "Left Libertarian" is a real term (vs. something made up by 1 or 2 authors and Wikipedia just for explanation purposes)? To me it seems that you are the strongest proponent of it being a real term. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. WP:NOTAFORUM. Your personal questions/opinions are not relevant here. Please find sources that raise and address the questions you're discussing, to make this discussion relevant to the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, to coin a British colloquialism, are you taking the piss? :-) 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. I think, perhaps, you have me confused with someone else or have accidentally attached my username to the wrong post, lol.

I think "left-Libertarianism" is a real term which should have its own Wikipaedia page. Indeed, I would be utterly horrified at the suggestion that the left-Libertarianism page be removed (censored) from Wikipaedia altogether, and I would fight alongside BigK HeX and CarolMooreDC to retain it.

But, clearly, it is too rare and marginal for the Libertarianism page and belongs in the Libertarianism disambiguation page. Frankly, I think it is utterly absurd and disgusting that left-Libertarianism is given equal weight with Libertarianism (aka. right-Libertarianism) in the Libertarianism page. BlueRobe (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, I'm afraid I don't understand British English well enough to fully understand the term "Taking the piss" But if I may try to explain my seemingly schitzophrenic behavior. I'm somewhat of a logician dissector of these things. And I think that step one of fixing this three article mess seems to be to figure out whether or not the terms "Left Libertarian" and "Right Libertarian" exist in the sense that they identify some real world philosophy or set of such. The folks on the "broadly" side of this debate seem undecided on this and can't seem to come up with a real definition of it, if it exists. But your actions (ironically) seem to imply that it IS a real world term, with a real world definition. And so I thought that I would challenge you with that question to try to help sort this out. So, there's my excuse for my apparent schitzophrenia.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are you indenting your comments as if responding to Born2Cycle? Please learn to colon. BigK HeX (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Anti-statist - which is why they are called left libertarians. There are of course leftists who are statists just as there are rightists who are statist. TFD (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

the sources say most, so the question here, is is the section title statist, or anti-statist. your answer, "why they are called.." is your personal opinion. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't even have one source about statism, much less "the sources". BigK HeX (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I second that opinion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Anti-statist in theory, statist in practice - This is one of those ideologies that might look good on paper to a leftist, but is not so in practice. There is no way redistribution of wealth can be accomplished without either of these two things happening:

• 1 - Government forces wealth redistribution to accomplish egalitarianism
• 2 - Selfish human nature is eliminated, peaceful anarchist revolution ensues, and private property is eliminated, resulting in a completely egalitarian society

Obviously, option 2 is impossible to accomplish, thus requiring option 1 to be used, which would obviously be statist. You can't just push a button, destroy government, and have everyone magically equalize their wealth; it requires the state to accomplish. There is nothing more statist then the theft of private property. Toa Nidhiki05 22:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05 is exactly right. In theory, left-Libertarianism is anti-Statist. But, to achieve it's redistributive justice aim of egalitarianism would necessitate the use of coercive force by the government, which is clearly Statist. As I stated earlier in this section, left-Libertarianism is fundamentally incoherent. BlueRobe (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly; like it or not, is needed to perform some tasks, such as running Police Offices/Jails, the Fire Department, and protecting it's citizens from crimes committed against them, but not those committed by the citizen upon himself; this is the fatal flaw of anarchism, and anarcho-socialism in particular. 'Mandatory wealth redistribution' would not be required by 'society' or 'the collective'; it would be required and enforced by a totalitarian, statist government. Toa Nidhiki05 23:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How amusing ... a false dilemma fallacy. To be clear, No, it is NOT necessary for either of your scenarios to occur to implement left-libertarianism. That is WP:OR. Why the heck are there so many editors expending so much time on original research on this page?? If there are reasons for any objections that actually FOLLOW policy, why divert our time with these other useless non-policy-justified arguments? I can only conclude that many of you must have no reliable sources when you resort to so much unsourced OR. Feel free to prove me wrong and start posting a RELIABLE SOURCE with your claims (or feel free to prove me right and make sure that your next post is completely devoid of any passages from an RS). BigK HeX (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Then explain to me how it can be accomplished without state intervention; can you give me a source that shows a working example to prove otherwise? Toa Nidhiki05 23:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the anarchists during the Spanish Civil War (Murray Bookchin wrote a great book on this). I'd also look at the anarchists in the Ukraine (look up Nestor Makhno). For a modern day example, you could take a look at the EZLN in Chiapas, Mexico. Or you could look at how modern social movements organize themselves on a large scale, in a decentralized manner. It should also be pointed out that not everyone is either "anti-statist" or "statist". Things aren't always so black and white. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If left-Libertarianism is completely "anti-Statist", doesn't that make it a version of Anarchism? Seriously, with no, albeit minimalistic, role for the State, what is left of left-Libertarianism to make it a version of Libertarianism? It sounds more like Communist anarchism to me. BlueRobe (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many left-libertarians consider themselves as anarchists. For instance, libertarian socialism is a type of left-libertarianism. Socialist anarchism is a form of libertarian socialism. But not all left-libertarians are anarchists. Some of them believe in the need for a small state (either temporary or permanent), in order to protect human rights and ensure an equitable distribution of the social products of labor. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "what is left of left-Libertarianism to make it a version of Libertarianism?"

A score of reliable sources that SAY explicitly that left-libertarianism is a version of Lbibertarianism. BigK HeX (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Lack of support for Left-Libertarianism

Here is just a quick list of all the ideologies on this page and their respective hit count on google, from greatest to least:

• Libertarianism - 4,520,000
• Libertarian conservatism - 2,400,000
• Right-Libertarianism - 537,000
• Libertarian socialism - 189,000
• Libertarian transhumanism - 153,000
• Left-Libertarianism - 142,000
• Anarcho-capitalism - 109,000
• Minarchism - 103,000
• Geolibertarianism - 34,100

From this list alone, one can see that anti-state 'Libertarian' ideologies rank far below Right-libertarianism. The search total for Libertarian conservatism is 12 times higher than Libertarian socialism and Left-Libertarianism, 22 times higher than Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism, and a whopping 70 times higher than Geolibertarianism. From this, we can see the primary and dominant ideology of Libertarianism is Libertarian conservatism, aka. Right-Libertarianism. I feel the primary focus of this page should be on that ideology; the anti-state variants should only gain minimal coverage, and I think Geolibertarianism should be cut from the article entirely. There is really no reason to grant proportional coverage to a relatively minor ideology. Toa Nidhiki05 22:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

So, you would be happier if the article reflected the "sub variants" of libertarianism by Google hitcount? Specifically, would you be willing to drop the objections if the balance of left-libertarianism did not exceed the rough proportion shown by Google hitcounts, as compared to right libertarianism? BigK HeX (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why my Google result for "left-Libertarianism" only had 32,400 hits, lol. Regardless, Toa Nidhiki05 is right. While a Google head-count is not an especially scientific source for the ascertainment of appropriate weight, it does make a very useful tool that is somewhat more persuasive than a few secondary-source-from-Mr-nobody-who-contrives-a-revisionist-use-for-the-definition-of-Libertarianism-to-boost-his-left-wing-academic-career. BlueRobe (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Precisely; I would not give much weight to the results if they were not so disproportionately showing a lack of popularity/prominence for Left-Libertarianism; however, they do, and that has to count for something. Toa Nidhiki05 23:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's important to discern references to terms (which is what google finds) from references to concepts. For example, minarchism and right-libertarianism are essentially synonyms for the same concept, but that concept is most often referred to as (drum roll) libertarianism.

Searches should be limited to only English pages.

Also, let's not forget quotes. For example, I get only 25,400 (English) hits when I google for "libertarian conservatism" (in quotes), and 31,400 for "left-libertarianism" (with or without the dash). I also get only 78.900 hits for "anarcho-capitalism".

When we consider that left-libertarianism is rarely referred to as just libertarianism, while the term "right-libertarianism" is typically only used to contrast with "left-libertarianism", the relative obscurity of that concept, much less the dearth of references to it as just "libertarianism", becomes even more obvious and significant.

I say again, perhaps it's time to suggest a page move? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, what do you mean by "page move"? Can you give some details of the move you have in mind? BlueRobe (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several possibilities, most involving a merge of some kind as well as a move. For example:

merge (Libertarianism, Libertarianism (disambiguation)) → Libertarianism

OR:

Libertarianism → Forms of libertarianism

merge(Right-libertarianism, Minarchism) → Libertarianism

--Born2cycle (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I believe those two choices are roughly representative of the primary debate that has dominated this talk page for the last few weeks (at least). The left-wingers invariably support the first option, (which is pretty close to the status quo), and the right-wingers support the second option. BlueRobe (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Precisely; I would not give much weight to the results if they were not so disproportionately showing a lack of popularity/prominence for Left-Libertarianism; however, they do, and that has to count for something."

Great! Then you'll be glad to know that the CORRECT Google results are as follows (in descending order):

1. "Anarcho-capitalism" - About 79,200 results
2. "Left-libertarianism" - About 31,400 results
3. "Libertarianism conservatism" - About 25,200 results
4. "Geolibertarianism" - About 18,100 results
5. "Right-libertarianism" - About 3,360 results

Apparently, BlueRobe and Born2Cycle confirm that your counts are off. In any case, since you found the (incorrect) 4-to-1 ratio significant, then this 10-to-1 ratio of left-libertarianism over right-libertarianism must be quite significant. Anyone care to backtrack from their Google logic, now? BigK HeX (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your links are not showing anything. Linkfail. Toa Nidhiki05 01:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Better than Google-fail? BigK HeX (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK, that's why I wrote above: It's important to discern references to terms (which is what google finds) from references to concepts. For example, minarchism and right-libertarianism are essentially synonyms for the same concept, but that concept is most often referred to as (drum roll) libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Even accepting that as true justifies nothing about removing other obviously prominent viewpoints of libertarianism ... in fact, it would be contrary to policy to eliminate other viewpoints in preference to one. BigK HeX (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I would have thought the reason for such a low number of hits for "right-Libertarianism" was bloody obvious - when the world says "Libertarianism", the world means right-Libertarianism. This is the predominant meaning of "Libertarianism". Your failure to appreciate this is truly staggering. BlueRobe (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your continued failure to use sources and make a policy-justified argument is even more staggering. Especially your push for censorship, in total disregard to WP:NPOV and in total disregard for the overwhelming outside opinion we've received on the matter. BigK HeX (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, if anything the Google hitcount establishes that Libertarianism is so predominantly recognised as so-called right-Libertarianism, that the vast majority of people around the world don't even bother to (or know about?) the use of the label "right-Libertarianism". BlueRobe (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So, a low Google hitcount "obviously" must be the One True Correct Topic of Libertarianism. Yeah.... that's a pretty blatant non sequitur.

It's somewhat amazing how this thread went from promoting the HUGE Google hitcount for Right-libertarianism as a reason for censoring other implementations, and now apparently it's low Google hitcount is an "obvious" reason that others implementations of Libertarianism are "inappropriate". BigK HeX (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, given the corrected hitcounts, is there anyone that still wants to support the premise of this thread in deciding the prominence of right libertarianism and left-libertarianism by Google hitcounts? BigK HeX (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

When people mean right-Libertarianism, they say "Libertarianism". When people mean left-Libertarianism, they say "left-Libertarianism". The hundreds of thousands of voters for the Libertarian Party of America are referring to right-Libertarianism when they say "Libertarianism". And we all know it. BlueRobe (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Instead of telling us what "we all know", try using reliable sources for your posts in the talk pages. If you want people to give your objections any credence, it works wonders. Unsourced, likely WP:OR is worthless on Wikipedia. Until you start trying to follow policy and use the support of RS, I expect to have no further replies for you, and will continue to accord to your arguments the weight deserved of any of your objections based on unsourced WP:OR (which is ZERO weight). BigK HeX (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. You continue to claim that the Moon is made of green cheese, based on some children's fairy-tales that you've used as WP:RS, until I provide some WP:RS to show that you might be a little off base... Welcome to Wikipaedia, where ANYONE can say ANYTHING and entrench that as the truth as long as they have even one reference that they can throw a "WP:RS" label at. BlueRobe (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who believe that they are libertarians and millions more who believe that they are liberals or conservatives, right or left. Millions of young people who supported Obama believe that they are socialists. Millions of Protestant Americans believe that they are Irish. Millions believe that the universe was created in 6 days, that smoking is unharmful, that 911 was an inside job, that the government is controlled by the New World Order. We do not base articles on the misconceptions that people have. TFD (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

what is relevant is most libertarians have never heard of left libertarian, and do not believe any of it's ideology. the proof lies in the number of political party/members with the term libertarian in the name, vrs left libertarian. your objections attack the editors, OR, NPOV, why not address the content this time. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I just explained that most Americans do not understand what these political terms mean. Do you think that articles on political ideology should be based on popular misunderstandings? Should we say that John Locke was a conservative because he supported limited government? You should read 1984, a novel by a left-libertarian writer, George Orwell, that complains about re-writing history for ideological reasons. TFD (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK, you're relying once again on the fallacious (begging the question) wp:rs argument, as explained above. Reliable sources don't tell us anything about what the scope of an article should be; they do tell us how commonly used are the various meanings of a given term, and which one of the uses, if any, is the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You're erroneously attempting to apply a begging the question fallacy. An error that is quite certain, since I've not made a serious argument here. Any suggestions in this thread (if there are any) about changing the article content are tongue-in-cheek, and made to point out the ridiculous backfire of trying to use Google hitcounts in support of "right libertarianism". BigK HeX (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion begs the question, should we base this article on popular misunderstandings of terminology? TFD (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

articles on political ideology should focus on a single ideology, and the understanding of the most followers of that ideology. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So would you re-write the articles on Liberalism and Conservatism so that they reflect what most Americans believe? TFD (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

apologies, my comment was not clear, i meant since there is one major libertarian party with hundreds of thousands of members, elected officials, as well as a few hundred more libertarian parties aligned with this ideology, and less than 1 party with the term "left-libertarian, it is obvious to anyone capable of OR, to deduce, which meaning is sought by the most searches in wp, therefore should be aligned to accommodate the search. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Heck with what the public understands, I've been asking for two weeks and nobody here even knows what "Left Libertarian" means. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that both "Right Libertarian" and "Left Libertarian" are not real terms, there are instances of authors, speakers and editors and editors adding an adjective ("right" or "left")to the term word "Libertarian" to try to organize a presentation. "Right" being a synonym for the overwhelmingly prevalent form of libertarianism, (used ONLY to disambiguate it) and "left" meaning who knows what / nobody really knows. To make it worse, by the common meaning of "right" and "left" (= meaning for a typical reader) these terms are both oxymorons. So right from the start, these terms confuse and mislead the reader rather than informing them. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. While the term "left-Libertarianism" does have some recognition outside Wikipaedia, the term "right-Libertarianism" doesn't really exist outside a handful of Wikipaedia talk pages. Perversely, this has led BigK HeX to claim that this means the "right" view of Libertarianism must be the fringe/minority version of Libertarianism (/facepalm!). And "left-Libertarianism" is such a fringe ideology that the overwhelming majority of self-declared Libertarians have never heard of it.

I don't know if you've asked any of your friends about left-Libertarianism as a result of the bizarre stalemate in this thread (how dare we suggest that Libertarianism be the predominant topic in the Libertarianism page, lol), but my friends responded with a mixture of eye-rolling, head-shaking and laughter at the absurdities of "Libertarian Socialism" and a "left-wing" version of Libertarianism. (Oh no, that's WP:OR! How dare I refer to the real world! lol) BlueRobe (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OR is ignoring sources and making one's own interpretations. TFD (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So are you implying that we shouldn't discuss left-libertarianism, even though it's clearly covered in a large body of reliable sources (which have been presented), because ... your friends rolled their eyes and shook their heads at something they knew nothing about? I don't find this to be a very convincing argument, and am having trouble seeing how this fits in with WP:V and WP:NPOV. What your friends think about something has no bearing on whether or how it is included in Wikipedia. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "nobody here even knows what "Left Libertarian" means"

There is NO indication that editors here don't know what it means. Moreover, I personally pointed you towards reliable sources to learn about it. That you have yet to learn more of it, in-depth, doesn't make left-libertarian somehow un-real.

Further if an editor admits not knowing about a subject, then -- to me -- that seems more of a reason not to worry about pushing for ANY sort of modifications to edits on that topic. I'm not sure that I understand how an editor would make judgments regarding the edits of a topic that they are asking for basic information on. BigK HeX (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Outdent. Your statement is founded on the premise that the "subject" exists. THAT is the question, and it appears that the premise may be false. Why don't you just clear it up and tell us what "Left Libertarian" means? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

On whether the subject exist, there is no question. An explanation from me on left-libertarianism or even a lack of an explanation, would not change that there are plenty of RS that cover the topic, and these RS have been provided and, I've even recommended some for you.

I'm still baffled as to how you indicate that you have not even a basic knowledge of the subject, but simultaneously feel confident that you know the Libertarianism article's coverage of the subject is inappropriate. To me, it seems the most prudent editing strategy to pursue on an aspect of a topic that one is unfamiliar with, would be to recuse one's self from editing decisions regarding that aspect. BigK HeX (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I commend you on that superb display of sophistry. So, using your logic, Stephen Hawking may not comment on a discussion where it is alleged that excessive weight is being accorded to Flat Earth Theory in the Big Bang Theory talk page because he hasn't studied that fringe POV in depth? Brilliant!

Btw, is it even possible to study left-Libertarianism in-depth? Aside from a handful of left-wing academics who have tried to bolster their careers by establishing that rare niche in political philosophy, left-Libertarianism seems to receive little more than an occasional note in the literature. BlueRobe (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So, when I say that someone is asking questions because they indicate that s/he lacks even a basic understanding, you create an analogy about a person not knowing a topic in-depth. And you also mange to wikilink sophistry in that same post. Very interesting... BigK HeX (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

See Left-libertarianism. The article also provides many sources that you may follow. TFD (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Although reliable sources have already been presented discussing left-libertarianism, I'll grant that North8000 has probably not had the time to read through the talk page and archives. So for your convenience, North8000, here is a list of about 11,000 books which discuss it: [2]. If you need me to, I can grab you definitions/descriptions of left-libertarianism from them (such as Unlike right-libertarianism, however, left-libertarianism holds that natural resources are owned by the members of society in some egalitarian manner, and may be appropriated only with their permission, or with a significant payment to them.). Or, as TFD suggested, you could just look at the article for left-libertarianism, which has plenty of sources and is defined there. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In the thousands of words, that's only the second time that someone has actually answered. ( I read the article and saw no answer there, but have not started reading references) Both said the same thing (ownership of property) so it appears that that is the main difference. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply to all the points in this WP:Refusal to get the point of the recent RfC section. (See WP:Disruptive editing.) But I would like to point out again that Libertarian socialism gets a lot of hits. 120 in news archives (as opposed to 210 for "left libertarianism") and 35,000 in google as opposed to 11 in google. (When narrow search through apostrophes.) Not to say eliminate left libertarianism, but to be aware of this point for future editing purposes. And I haven't even looked at books.google recently.CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User Conduct

Editors with an opinion may find it useful to comment:

1. here. -- BigK HeX (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

please remove this rfc user from the talk page. only rfc for this page may be posted here. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Pretty obviously there are allegations of disruption occurring on THIS VERY PAGE being discussed. The notification will not be removed. BigK HeX (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

you may link to the infractions on this page, but not advertise the rfc/u here. this section is inappropriate for the discussion of libertarianism. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You've already received my response on the matter. If you have a continuing issue with my use of the talk page, please explain your objections at an appropriate forum for doing so. BigK HeX (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

you may link to the infractions on this page, but not advertise the rfc/u here. this section is inappropriate for the discussion of libertarianism. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

you may link to the infractions on this page, but not advertise the rfc/u here. this section is inappropriate for the discussion of libertarianism. `````

You sore losers can't handle me challenging your lies and rhetoric in the Libertarianism page so you seek to have me removed from Wikipaedia? And you wonder why I have suggested that you lack integrity. BlueRobe (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to have you removed from Wikipedia. They are trying to get you to keep contributing, but to interact with other editors in a civil manner, and to base your changes/additions to articles on reliable sources, per WP:V. However, if you continue to act uncivil, and refuse to adhere to wikipedia policy, it is likely that you will be blocked. But that's not what we want -- we just want you to calm down and discuss things with people, in a civil manner, and to provide reliable sources for content. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, Leave me alone you fucking headcase! Stop following me everywhere! Stop obsessing over my every word! Stop trolling my every comment! Stop harassing me! Stop obsessing over me! Stop stalking me! FUCK OFF! BlueRobe (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

this section belongs elsewhere, please delete and/or move. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, those dogs will be coming after you next (actually, they're also showing signs that North8000 might be their next target for a campaign of harassment). NOW you know why, with the except of a handful of regulars, the MILLIONS of real Libertarians have abandoned this page entirely. Watch your back. BlueRobe (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

bigk and jr, you are reintroducing profanity which has been deleted. revert your edits for this section per wp:policy Darkstar1st (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You care to tell us WHICH policy? BigK HeX (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent change to lead by User:Darkstar1st

Darkstar1st recently made this change to the lead, which I reverted.

The problems that I had with it were:

1. It is an unattributed opinion, presented as a fact.
2. It does not seem to be supported by the sources cited. When asked for a quote, he stated that one of the sources said: "Most LL thus uphold some form of substantial income redistribution". But he has not provided a quote along the lines of "Most LL thus uphold some form of substantial income redistribution, and therefore they are statist", which is what his addition said. He seems to be drawing the (incorrect) conclusion "therefore they are statist" based on his own opinions and original research.
3. Even if he does have two sources, one of which says "they support income distribution" and another saying "they are all statist", it is a violation of WP:SYNTH to combine them together, unattributed, into one sentence.

I hope that he will read the policies I've linked to and remove the edit himself. But if he chooses not to, I won't get into an edit war with him, and will leave it to someone else to handle. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been explained to Darkstar1st -- in no uncertain terms -- how his edit constitutes blatant WP:OR (see: here). His misuse of sources to create edits that say exactly the opposite of what is actually in the source is pretty disruptive. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and ask here one more time for Darkstar1st to quote the relevant passage from the reliable source and post it for us here on the talk page. BigK HeX (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I can already smell a rfc coming Darkstar1st's way. You dogs must be so pissed off that doesn't facilitate shipping right-wingers off to the Gulag for their reeducation. BlueRobe (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

[the next post is copied from my talk page]

requested sources for left libertarian supporting substantial redistribution of wealth.

"For on most left-libertarian views, individuals have an enforceable duty to pay others for the value of the rights that they claim over natural resources. Individuals seeking economic justice could form organizations that, under certain conditions, could force individuals to give them the payment they owe for their rights over natural resources, and could then transfer the payments to the individuals who are owed payments (after deducting a fee for the service, if the person agrees)."

"most LL thus uphold some form of substantial income redistribution"

clearly not statist, and worthy of inclusion as it directly contradicts the claim in the lede LL is anti statist Darkstar1st (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "clearly not statist"? Because you've been putting the opposite into the Wiki article... BigK HeX (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not requesting sources for the statement "left libertarians support substantial redistribution of wealth." I know that this is correct, I know that there are plenty of sources that say this, and you provided me a quote from a reliable source that says this. I would not have a problem with you adding this exact statement to the article, as long as you tack "many" onto the beginning of it. What I did request, and what you have not provided is a quote that says "left libertarians support substantial redistribution of wealth, and therefore are statist", which is what you added to the article. Please see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

sorry bigk, that was my 1st and last attempt at sarcasm in wp. @jr, it already is in the article, just in a subsection, carol moved it there after deleting it twice and finally reading the source. it is also on the LL page as well as the statement a commitment to expansion of the welfare state how can one be anti-statist and support the state? where is the rs calling LL non-state anarchist? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait wait wait ... there's still doubt that the egalitarian agenda of left-Libertarianism entails a redistribution of wealth? How on Earth is a left-Libertarian society supposed to achieve its egalitarian goal if it doesn't redistribute the wealth? /facepalm BlueRobe (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Where in the source is left-libertarianism's statism mentioned??

Your edit not only misrepresents the source, but actually manages to completely contradict it.

Libertarianism is committed to full self-ownership. A distinction can be made, however, between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources can be owned....[certain] objections to the modern welfare state would be made both by right-libertarians and left-libertarians.....Individuals seeking economic justice could form organizations that, under certain conditions, could force individuals to give them the payment they owe for their rights over natural resources, and could then transfer the payments to the individuals who are owed payments...Such “justice-promoting” organizations engage in many of the activities of the modern states, and left-libertarianism can accept the legitimacy of such activities....There may be many organizations providing such services....Libertarianism, then, is not only critical of the modern welfare state, but of states in general.

Very clearly the source that you've quoted from says that "[Left and right] libertarianism is CRITICAL OF STATES." BigK HeX (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

unless you quote the exact source saying LL is non-state anarchist, i will remove it from the lede. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it, added in the original term that was there and cited it. BigK HeX (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Hopefully Darkstar1st will accept that and that will be the end of the conversation . Below is and "edit conflict" reply in case the response is otherwise:

I moved what appeared to me to be you valid info about some left libertarians to the Left Libertarianism section where it belonged. I don't know who removed it, or for what reason, but any valid evidence some libertarians think that or some WP:RS think all left libs think that belongs there. Even if I agreed that that material belonged in the lead, I'd do so only if information about some "libertarians" wanting to outlaw abortion, clamp down on immigration, fight foreign wars, etc. was included in the lead. But I don't think the purpose of the lead is to stress what some people who aren't as libertarian as others think.

I'm fine with whatever text may have been moved. I still think the lede is too short though. BigK HeX (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

How many times do these points have to be repeated? Not to mention other points by other editors? See WP:Disruptive editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

not disruptive just accurate. it seemed the word "state" is too broadly viewed, some made the point, growing the welfare state meant churches serving soup, others thought it meant enforceable redistribution of wealth to buy the soup. i already feel like we are becoming a team, now lets go fix the rest of this confusing article. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to quote someone allegedly saying "growing the welfare state meant churches serving soup". I only saw people saying the govt had co-opted such programs. Misunderstanding basic concepts doesn't help things. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all

more from npov

• "Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views. In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity." Prominent, meaning conspicuous, is not what most rs would consider libertarian socialism, when referring to libertarianism, socialism, the root of the term, is authoritarian, the opposite of libertarian. Certainly not parity, and certainly not in the lede.

• "It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common."

• "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." Anarcho-capitalism is certainly a tiny minority view.

• "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." In the rs stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, left-libertarian was described as a tiny minority. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting sources. NOWHERE in the Stanford encyclopedia do you see anything described as a "tiny minority". And .. PS, Libertarianism is a MINORITY viewpoint. BigK HeX (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV: "It requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material" (my emphasis). We take no account of the opinions of fringe theorists, even though they may be active on the internet. TFD (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

the jimmy wales test for minority views

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

1. Adherents of Libertarian Socialism:
2. Adherents of Anarcho-Capitalism:
3. Adherents of Left-Libertarian:

please only comment on the adherents in this sub-section Darkstar1st (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

1. CHOMSKY, Dejacques, Bakunin, Henry George
2. ROTHBARD
3. Chomsky, Dejacques, Bakunin, Henry George, Kropotkin, Vallentyne, Otsuka, Steiner, and User:The Four Deuces noted: William Morris, Oscar Wilde, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley BigK HeX (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Another good place to look would be in the 11,000+ books that google books lists discussing either "left libertarianism" or "libertarian socialism".[3] -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

i agree many hits came up in your search, but the policy is directed more toward the how many hold the viewpoint, rather than how many have written about viewpoint; "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Example, cannibalism is not considered a minority view of tribalism and not mentioned in the article, even though countless rs has described tribes who have eaten people. The practice is practiced by very few, like libertarian transhumanism. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

IWW, CNT-FAI, Mahknovishchina, ILP, left-Labour, left-ALP, dissident Communism both within and outside the largest parties, PO/AO/Autonomia, Autonomen, Solidarity (UK), Southern Advocate for Workers' Control, UWM (Both the Miners and the Unemployed Workers Movement). I haven't even yet noted or touched on communalism or intentional communities, bottom up social assistance movements or friendly societies. Your repeated claims that parliamentary politics exhaust politics is disruptive, please stop. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that some of us could have added various WP:RS material per initial comments, but the problem is the onslaught of WP:SOAPBOX - some of which has to be replied to - is so enervating people get too disgusted to edit at all. Which is the point of such POV WP:Disruptive editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fif, would you reword your comment, i had trouble understanding what you meant by your 1st sentence, a list of what? also, i dont know what your were referencing with this passage, "parliamentary politics exhaust politics". Darkstar1st (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia

would the above adherents be considered prominent? is there any proof these views are not extremely small or vastly limited, since this is a political article, wouldn't there be at least a few elected officials somewhere? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We have articles on anarcho-syndicalism and other political movements, and there are very few elected officials who subscribe to these views. While these are more well-known, my point is that someone is going to say this exact thing, only they have a stronger opinion than I ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

good point. does anarcho-sydicalism appear in the lede of other articles as well? we are fine with the minority views having a link in the disambiguation page, or even a section here, but in the lede as if parity exist? One form of libertarianism has hundreds of thousands of voting followers, elected officials, party hq, the other forms only exist in books. the fear is the majority of people searching for the popular form, will become confused by socialist, anarchist, left, and never actually click on minarchism, which is what the majority of libertarians practice today. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st -- This has been repeated to you ad nauseum, but I'll do it again. The reason that left libertarianism is going to be included is that a wide array of high-quality scholarly sources discuss left-libertarianism as a form of libertarian thought. Per WP:NPOV we should give it due weight here, as it is clearly a significant viewpoint. You have not given any policy-based reasons why it should not be included. You keep repeating that, in the U.S., the term "libertarianism" normally refers to the right-wing ideology more commonly than the left-wing ideology. But nobody is denying that. What people are pointing out is that although a minority view in the U.S., it is a significant (as in significant per WP:NPOV) minority view, and we should discuss it here. There is already a clear consensus about this -- sources have been provided, and policy cited to explain why it should be included. Nothing other than personal opinion and WP:IDONTLIKEIT has been provided in support of not including it at all. Stop wasting everyone's time trying to get it removed from the article -- it should be clear to you that this is simply not going to happen. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To extend and amplify Jrtayloriv, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of the United States. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

true, but outside the usa, there is not a significant ratio of people who vote or identify them selves as libertarian. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that if 11,000 books exist which mention a certain topic, then it's clearly notable enough to warrant inclusion per WP:NPOV, and the only question is how much weight to give it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this one is over? Darkstar1st is in a minority of one or less and its going no where new. Continued arguments for an unsupported position is normally considered disruptive behaviour on the wikipedia --Snowded ^TALK 08:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I was about to point to the RS for the last 150 years, and that most libertarian movements have been extra-parliamentary, but Snowded makes a better point about disruption. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough! From reading all of these posts, it is clear that a couple wackjobs have hijacked this page and put in a bunch of erroneous and misleading nonsense about anarchism, minarchim, ism this and ism that. Not to mention the "left/right libertarian" nonsense. They prob don't even believe what they are spouting. Unlock the page. Lock the wackos. Enough! Grow some... people! Areastrips78 (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This current line of discussion is not productive. If you agree, please stop. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, as a non-libertarian, I just think it's funny (and ultimately sad for the sake of pursuing knowledge) that a couple people do seem to have taken over a Wikipedia page. I guess the only productive thing I can say is that maybe these couple individuals should voluntarily or involuntarily back away from the page to let others make meaningful contributions. Thank you. That's all. Areastrips78 (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any plans to tell anyone which individuals you are talking about and what exactly is wrong with their behavior (with diffs to back up your claims, of course)? Do you have any suggestions for how to improve the article? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not here to throw accusations at each other. But if someone can't answer that second question, then there's no point being on a talk page. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Only because you asked: CarolmooreDC and BigXhex present themselves here in a way that makes it look futile to make or propose constructive changes. They will watch and override attempted improvements -- so why bother? Areastrips78 (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Areastrips78 -- with his/her brand new account -- certainly does seem rather familiar with the proponents, and strikingly hostile to them, as well. BigK HeX (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd noticed that as well. Yworo (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I put sock notice on User:Areastrips78. That's all I have energy for. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You may not realize this, but it is very easy to become "familiar with the proponents" here. Sure enough, both of the names I dropped (b/c I was asked to do so), quickly responded. It helped that I discovered this link: [4], which shows that the editing of this page is being completely dominated by a small minority. Anyhow, thanks for your feedback. I'm not going to be making any more edits here -- so you can save your energy. Areastrips78 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that tool also told you that "CarolmooreDC and BigXhex ... will watch and override attempted improvements". Quite convincing.... BigK HeX (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So now you all are arguing that we should keep it there because they used it first or that it has seniority? In that case, let's just replace our new info about the Earth being a sphere and replace it with that old flat-earth stuff. Geez. Toa Nidhiki05 19:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And the cabal swoops in!

What is the focus of this article? The philosophy of libertarianism, or the beliefs of libertarians? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Tiny introduction: Hi, I'm Xavexgoem! I mediate for both the mediation committee and the mediation cabal, and have chaired both. I'll be your mediator.

The family of political philosophies known as "libertarianism" (and thanks for dropping by). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

shouldn't a family each have it's own page? are multiple opposite philosophy supposed to share the same page? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, what do you think of my question? Xavexgoem (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Socialism or Mammals -- both describe families. In addition to an article for each of the sub-topics (different types of socialism or different types of mammals), there is a main article describing the family as a whole. The same applies here, which is why it's currently structured that way. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

hehe, you got me, i was busy researching trying to come up with the "correct" answer. it is the most relevant question here. my gut response, the beliefs of libertarians. i fear my answer may undermine my case, since it is part of the philosphy section of wp, but since libertarian redirects here, i sincerely think the majority of people are looking for a description of modern libertarian beliefs. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your honest reply! Xavexgoem (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

@Jrtayloriv: Yes, but all those are closely-related ideologies or species. All socialist ideologies are fairly left-wing, and all mammals are fairly similar in most regards (except for the Platypus). The same can be said for the 'Conservatism' page; all of the ideologies listed there are fairly right-wing, and are all fairly major. This page, however, is not about Libertarian philosophies, it is about Libertarian philosophy, and the dominant form is what would be called Right-libertarianism here, but is really called Libertarianism elsewhere. If we are to have the minor ideologies of Libertarian socialism or anarcho-capitalism (which reject the basic libertarian tenants of limited government in favor of no-government, which is Anarchy), they should be in proportion in accordance with WP:DUE and WP:Primary topic; granting them coverage equal to the primary topic would violate both. Toa Nidhiki05 15:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Err... making Libertarianism an exception in this fashion seems like rather blatant Special pleading. BigK HeX (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Focus should be all the forms of "libertarianism" that sufficient WP:RS identify as libertarianism (even the ones I don't like). Though short commentary on why some forms don't think other forms are really libertarianism is permissible. Per NPOV: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. and per the RfC on this page where a good majority of editors agreed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And what the heck is that supposed to mean? I'm not violating N:POV by saying that Left-libertarianism is not a predominant or significant ideology. You are also ignoring WP:DUE, which is just as important as N:POV. Unless you can provide reliable sources proving the predominance of LL and Anarcho-capitalism inside the Libertarian movement, then it should not focus on it as much as the standard form of Libertarianism, know here in an act of incredible redundancy as 'Right-libertarianism'. It is as if you don't even read what you are posting! Here, look at it again:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

Hm... According to this, we should proportionately cover views covered by reliable sources. Seems like what us right-wing crackpots are arguing, and what you left-wingers vehemently oppose. Toa Nidhiki05 16:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

First, please don't fling what you consider insults - i.e., "left wingers" - at other editors. Especially since many of us have long rejected left-right and only use it here because many WP:RS do. Second, I don't hear any concrete suggestions of what you want out (besides everything) and what you want in. Just constant complaining and attacks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Apropos to the identity question, wasn't Emma Goldman considered a "libertarian communist"? And Communist Anarchy has a journal called Libertarian Communism. Without going into who-hijacked-who (unless you have sources), is there a point where libertarianism as we generally conceive it today solidified as this "right-libertarianism"? More to the point, is there a point in the history of libertarianism where it significantly diverged from what we generally think of it as today? Xavexgoem (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think most people point to the 1950's as the point where right-libertarianism emerged, mostly in the US. TFD seems well-versed on the history, and I'm sure he's posted it. But, I think there was a schism where Rothbard branched off from the libertarian thought of the time and put together his more capitalist viewpoint. The old thought became associated with left-libertarianism (which still seems to be a small but significant influence in continental Europe), but the emerging US variant evolved from Rothbard's vision (under a further influence of Ayn Rand, Nozick and probably Goldwater) into what is known as right-libertarianism (with it's well known, but relatively small influence on politics in the US and elsewhere). Both obviously still share a common platform of civil liberty and a goal of minimizing the State apparatus. BigK HeX (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree with the substantive points of this summary? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Mostly agree. Not sure about "branching," which has heritance implications, would like to hear from TFD. Maybe needs to note the less radical and less economic Civil Libertarianism (admittedly in the 1930s in many places organisationally developed by Communist Party members and fellow travellers) as a stream? Fifelfoo (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

i do. the differences started in 1857 when the French anarchist communist, Joseph Déjacque who said "libéral et non LIBERTAIRE" to distinguish his anarchist communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in a correspondence about the rights of women. he then moved to NYC and published the periodical "Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement social", 27 issues from June 9, 1858 to February 4, 1861, Le Libertaire was the first anarcho-communist journal published in America. Hence the term "libertaire" has been used as a synonym for left wing anarchism or libertarian socialism since the 1890s. All of the left, anarchic, and socialist forms here trace their existence to this man, all of the minarchist trace their history to the English term libertarian, coined by enlightenment age free-thinker Belshan, as an opposition to determinism. the disagreement here is not about 1 term, rather the confusion of 2 different terms, from different languages, with different meanings. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I gather that Belsham was talking about metaphysical libertarianism. That means the belief in free will; it has nothing to do with political philosophy. Belsham is of interest as part of the etymology of the word libertarianism, but I don't think you can say that he originated the political philosophy of libertarianism. Iota (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. Darkstar1st generally shows a disinclination to credit Dejacques for his influence on libertarianism ... likely it more directly admits the possibility that anarchist views of libertarianism must be granted coverage or something, I'd guess. The info about Belsham is useful, but of little relationship to political ideology. BigK HeX (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, your summary is interesting. Are you suggesting that minarchist libertarianism evolved as follows?:

(1) There was anarchism (which was also known as "libertarianism", and included both individualist and socialist strands)

(2) From individualist anarchism evolved a strand called anarcho-capitalism (advocated by Rothbard).

(3) From anarcho-capitalism (and some other influences) there evolved minarchist libertarianism.

Also, classical liberalism seems to be a big ommission from your summary. Where does it fit in?

Iota (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

lol .. by "interesting", I hope you don't mean "WTF?!" I am, by no means, a satisfactory expert on the history of libertarianism. With that said, I would say that classical liberalism originally had some influence on the "original-style" (left-libertarianism), however Rothbard and Hayek likely amplified the influence of classical liberalism within the emergent capitalistic libertarianism that eventually became right-libertarianism. I'd certainly take this with a grain of salt though. TFD can likely provide a more authoritative understanding. BigK HeX (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of WP:Soapbox person opinions about libertarianism's history, but note that there is a whole referenced section on the topic in the article and even mediation conversation should focus on strengths and weaknesses of that. Libertarianism#Philosophical_origins_and_history CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Proportion of Prominence

In my opinion, bothering with reliable sources is not helpful because we are talking about different political ideologies. How can you tell where one political ideology ends and another begins? By looking at their tenets. Libertarians acknowledge the necessity of government while anarcho-capitalists and libertarian socialists do not. Many of us agree that this is really straightforward...so why the conflict?

You have to look on the anarchy side of things for that answer. According to David Goodway..."'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives."

Just because anarchists use 'libertarianism' as a synonym for 'anarchism' in no way indicates that the various ideologies are the same thing. Goodway offers a definition of true libertarianism..."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'."

Of course we already know that John Stuart Mill is credited with the Harm principle which is the foundation of Libertarianism...

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.

Here is Herbert Spencer's view on government...

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.

Which sounds very similar to Ludwig Von Mises's viewpoint...

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.

Which sounds very similar to Ayn Rand's viewpoint...

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.

Which sounds very similar to Milton Friedman's viewpoint...

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism

Which sounds very similar to David Boaz's viewpoint...

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.

Of course, Oliver Wendell Holmes put it best when he said..."The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins."

The existence of government is essential to the definition of libertarianism. The difference between a small government and no government is HUGE. Even if we go with a uselessly broad definition...based on proportion of prominence, in terms of Micromégas, the anarchist views would only merit the very briefest of mention. Of course, the problem with allowing even a little anarchism...is that before you know it, CarolMooreDC will have added links to anarchist ideologies in the lead of this article. Not a good idea. It's better for the primary topic of this article on libertarianism to solely focus on viewpoints that recognize the essential role of government. The rest of the ideologies belong on the disambiguation page. --Xerographica (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not having read the whole post, can I take it that your proposal is to focus on those things that all libertarianisms hold in common? Xavexgoem (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems here is schematic. There are genetic relationships between libertarianisms. Some 19th Century libertarians are claimed as, or produced, some 20th Century libertarians, but only in the form A => A' and B => B' in general, A and B emerging from different 19th century roots as ideal or social movements. Even then A1 => A1' and A2 => A2' may have no genetic relationship. Producing a Schema which notes that A1 and B1, A2 and B2&3, A3-5 and B4 share similar analytical attitudes towards libertarianism, without a RS to state such, is SYNTH. Similarly, placing an ideology/basis-of-theory approach delegitimises analyses which focus on social and political origins. And why the hell isn't anyone noting Georgism, Social Credit, etc. as relevant for discussion of pro-market Libertarianisms? (The A & B divide tends to be between pro-market, and anti-capitalist, though some libertarian ideologies or movements have been both, or neither). But a good article ought to note all of the above to the extent they appear in RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears this article would benefit from a larger history of libertarianism. What say you? Xavexgoem (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, the article would benefit from a theoretical account of libertarian similarity; a historical account of ideological heritance; and, a historical account of social movement heritance. It should touch on various major schematic classifications actually existing in academic RS, and RS of major social movement outputs (ie: US Libertarian party, elements of Social Credit and Georgism; US IWW, Au IWW, CNT-FAI, Zapatismo, etc, etc, etc). For an example of the latter, consider Sorel on the General Strike. Weight should be minimally afforded to RS of all movements which: elected members to parliament, or achieved a Parliament wide vote of 5% without attaining elected members, or created a parliamentary abstention (ie FAI abstentionism) of greater than (as an example) 5% of a vote; or which produced major strike waves, or, major social investments of income; or which threatened the revolutionary overthrow of state apparatus in revolt or secured territory free from state influence by other means (Zapas, Roumanian anarchists). The problem of polemically mutually incompatible theories of knowledge held by editors (who are libertarians of one or another kind) has stopped them from achieving consenses and from including and weighting the total variety of libertarianism. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I failed to correctly complete my thought. Weight should be minimally afforded to social movement RS as: Academic RS are inherently superior; there are so many threads and twists of Libertarianism even within the major divide of pro-market and anti-capitalist that they each need full and proper treatment in Main Articles. Obviously, Academic RS which deal with social movements are superior still, but, major Spanish Language academic publications, Sub-continental publications, Japanese publications, European publications are beyond the current editors concentrating on this article. As such, language bias (and due to its role in the Anglophone world) US bias enters into the available academic RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, this article should not stray outside of the major tenets of libertarianism. An article on the entire family tree of "liberty" would be completely unwieldy. For example, conservatism and liberalism are more closely related to libertarianism than anarcho-capitalism or libertarian socialism. --Xerographica (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To what post of mine are you responding to? The history of libertarianism (within reason, of course - you can always wikilink), or the commonality between all forms of libertarianism? Xavexgoem (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Both. The history and the rest of the article should focus on the main branch of libertarianism. There's certainly sufficient material for editors to write new articles to compare side branches. --Xerographica (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Using the vernacular up above, you're position is that the article should focus on "right-libertarianism", then? Xavexgoem (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, right-libertarianism when defined as recognizing the necessity of the state. --Xerographica (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That does seem to be the common thread, though: the necessity of the state. Or are there varieties of libertarianism that, like anarchism, reject the state in its entirety? And if so, how would this variety of libertarianism be so different from a kind of anarchism that the two couldn't be merged into the same article? And if not, wouldn't this article sufficiently describe the basis of all forms of libertarianism? Xavexgoem (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to unfairly intervene in this discussion, but a significant proportion of libertarian thought simply ignores the State (an agnosticism to more anarchistic thinking's atheism). The example of the decision of the Central Workers Council of Greater Budapest in relation to the Nagy Government and the Kadar Government, or communalism. Similarly, some libertarian movements are explicitly anti-state, or, practice explicit anti-state behaviour (The Australian IWW's decision to take the Commonwealth head-to-head over the first world war for example). Perhaps to advance a SYNTH the common thread is a doubting or questioning of the role and extent of the State. This, conveniently, allows Civil Libertarianism to be noted here wrt to its Main Article. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, libertarianism is liberally social like modern liberalism and economically conservative like conservatism...but it is not a variety of either. Anarcho-capitalism supports the abolishment of the state like anarchism yet supports capitalism like classical liberalism...but it is not a variety of either. Classical liberals regard the state as a necessity and anarchists are anti-capitalists. --Xerographica (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) Three thoughts:

1. The above "sorting out" is so complex that I think it needs to be presented in an article rather than a disambiguation page. It's also excellent material which I would like to see in an article. On the other side of the equation, the slippery slope inherent in Wikipedia rules is that the little stuff takes over the article. Not just by undue weight, (giving multiple items with .001% predominance each 5% of the article) but also because it's hard to get "overview" / perspective / big picture type information into WP articles.
2. What about the idea of vetting what gets / stays in here by coverage that there were / are actually practiced by some substantial number of people? If something existed only in the heads of one or 2 philosophers, leave it out of here. If it was made up by and only existed in the minds of two philosophers, having it in their two papers does not meet RS criteria. First, they are inventing the topic, not covering it. Second, in this context they are primary sources. Third their coverage is not on actual practice of that school of thought.
3. Ditto for weighting coverage in the article. Base it roughly on the amount of people that are (and secondarily were) practicing the particular school of thought, as determined by RS's. I think that this article badly needs this. Coverage of the massively predominant meaning of the term as such is occluded and missing in this article. So the sources would be covering the topic rather than creating it. RS gauging has context; a source that is inventing the topic is not a RS. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

i think we are making progress on the state or non state convo. to answer the question, left-libertarian makes a case for no state, and in the same breath wishes to expand the welfare state, substantially redistribute income, and enforce the duty to pay others for the use of natural resources, presumably meaning resources you already own. this is why so many have tried to distance left-libertarian from this article, as it would have to be an authoritarian regime in practice, no matter how nicely the proponents explain it would not be. libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian, coined by free-thinking enlightenment era Belsham. the french term "libertaire" was later coined by the anarchist communist deJacques, which has a very different meaning to libertarian. after the term anarchy was outlawed, anarchist freely admit co-oping the term as an euphemism for anarchy, to avoid being jailed for using the banned term. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You make the argument that [polemical point of view] => "this is why so many have tried to distance left-libertarian from this article" This is a description of POV pushing. Please do not do this. Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If I may summarize, one thing that Darkstar1st is saying is that "Left Libertarianism" is exactly opposite to the some of the major tenants of the pervasive mainstream meaning of "Libertarianism". Darkstar, did I say that right? To others, is there agreement / disagreement on this?

yes you did, that is my opinion. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is agreement, what do we do about it? Cover / say that in this article?

I'd agree with that assertion (though "pervasive" may be a bit strong). I don't find that it changes the article at all, though. The Socialism article covers both absolutist State-run Socialism and anarchist Communal Socialism (which are obviously two pretty different ideas for a society). It doesn't seem to be a problem there on that article. The Conservatism article incorporates material on both fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, which (ironically enough) is a platform conflicting to libertarians, and then there's the Monarchy article that gives coverage to absolutist and constitutionally limited variants. So, yes, while left-libertarianism may differ in respects to right-libertarianism, plenty of reliable sources have been provided that acknowledge these differences and still consider them variations on the larger philosophy of Libertarianism. BigK HeX (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you adequately summarise the editor's core editorial argument, that "the pervasive mainstream meaning of "Libertarianism"..." I disagree with this claim of fact. It is a claim which can only be contested in relation to US English in the past 15 years. Continuing historical usage points to civil libertarianism as the most common usage between 1940 and 1980 in English generally; prior to 1940, to forms of libertarianism tied up in anti-capitalist movements (predominantly of the extreme civil libertarian variety, though also of the class struggle variety); and, international usage points towards anti-capitalist movements. BigK HeX's examples of other articles with widely varying internal differences of meaning is useful. In particular, state socialist and non state socialist socialisms have three wildly conflicting uses of socialism, with differences of opinion dating to the 1840s and 1910s. In addition other uses of "socialism" abound in popular consciousness. Modelling this articles presentation of its subject off such articles may be a way forward. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

@Xavexgoem: Regarding proportion, read this too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_16#The_Blackwell_Encyclopaedia_of_Political_Thought

(1)I am on this page just to see that Rothbard's version is mentioned prominently. (2)I have no knowledge of the history of the term, or on the worldwide usage. (3)I have no fundamental problem with the way Libertarianism is now. N6n (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To speak directly to N6n without breaking the mediated oversight. I may think the article is a bit of a mess and unbalanced, however, your point (1) is completely understandable and substantiable from RS. The influence of Rothbard intellectually and through social movements on pro-market libertarianism, particularly in the US in the last 40 years or so, is clearly of encyclopaedic interest and WEIGHTy in a lead topic article of this kind. I liked the previous discussion you noted regarding the fact that both minarchist and anarchist forms of pro-market libertarianism are of encyclopaedic interest. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to see anything that has or had some significant set of followers (= not just in the minds of two writers) included in the article. But right now the common meaning is totally occluded in the article. Maybe it's a matter of providing the right context (historical, unusual view etc.) rather than reducing coverage. North8000 (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• First, I endorse all good arguments for keeping the article broadly focused as a summary of the different types of libertarianism and how they inter-relate. Something that could have been done much better by now if we didn’t have to constantly defend the article against gutting of most forms of libertarianism. I’ve collected a lot of great sources, but with this constant deletionist drumbeat, it’s too discouraging to organize and propose using them.
• The deletionists use all sorts of slippery arguments, including ignoring or poo pooing multiple WP:RS that identify libertarianism as having radical anti-state or anarchist views. So we believe there is no argument for eliminating them, whatever their views on property. The deletionists never come up with WP:RS saying libertarianism is ONLY minimal state, prop-property views of libertarianism, which is what they are pushing.
• Xavexgoem asked about “things that all libertarianisms hold in common?” The lead for a while was clearer when it said various versions of: Libertarianism is a term adopted by political philosophies which advocate liberty of thought and action and the minimization or even abolition of the state.
• FYI. There is a whole section in this article called Libertarianism#Philosophical_origins_and_history which is certainly relevant to the discussion, as opposed to mere personal opinions. Note that History of libertarianism redirects to Classical liberalism because the original article basically was a history of that subject. So a more complete article incorporating material from this and from other sources not explored could be written.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents

Above, Xavexgoem asked, It appears this article would benefit from a larger history of libertarianism. What say you? .

To me, the main issue is article topic and scope. This question cannot be answered unless the issue of article topic is answered first. That is, you can't talk about the "history of X" until you're clear about what X refers to.

One possibility (favored by several here) of how to interpret "libertarianism" for the purpose of identifying the topic and scope of this article is "all meanings associated with the term libertarianism in reliable sources". I object to this interpretation for the following two main reasons:

1. It violates WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There is no debate about the fact that the term libertarian has various uses in reliable sources; the issue is about which use, if any, is primary. If there is a primary topic, then that should be the subject of this article. If there is no primary topic, then the dab page should be at Libertarianism. Though there clearly are some reliable sources that use the term "libertarianism" to refer to the broad meaning, it is a relatively obscure usage among reliable sources. Much more common, especially in contemporary sources, is usage to refer to libertarianism as advocated by the Libertarian Party in the U.S. and the Libertarian Alliance in the UK.
2. It violates WP:NAD. The title of an entry in a dictionary establishes the subject of that entry. For example, the dictionary entry libertarianism is all about the word libertarianism, and all of its uses and meanings. In a dictionary, the title determines the topic.

   Encyclopedia entries (or articles) are different. First there is a subject - the title simply reflects the name used to refer to that subject. That is, the topic determines the title. Therefore, you can't look at the term that happens to be title of an encyclopedia article, and then see what reliable sources say about that term to determine what the subject should be. You have to decide what the topic is first, defined with much greater clarity than simply the title, and then see what reliable sources have to say about that topic.

--Born2cycle (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your final sentence in 1) is completely wrong, please take your Country-specific bias elsewhere! Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"...more common... is usage to refer to libertarianism as advocated by the Libertarian Party in the U.S." That belongs in the article Libertarian Party (United States). TFD (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. That's just one example. "Libertarianism as advocated by the Libertarian Party in the U.S." is the same as the "libertarianism advocated by the Libertarian Alliance in the U.K." ("advocacy of complete free speech and the abolition of taxation and government intervention in economic and social life "). I edited my original comment for clarity. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• I see what Born2cycle is saying. He makes a good point about dictionaries being focused on the multiple uses of the word, whereas an encyclopedia chooses a common name for a topic, and only focuses on a certain subset of possible interpretations of the word. I also agree with him that there is no debate that many reliable sources discuss left-libertarianism. The only significant dispute is which use of the term constitutes the primary topic. I would support his suggested proposal of having Libertarianism be a disambiguation page. Especially since English speakers outside the U.S. will be meaning left-libertarianism, while people from the U.S. will be searching for right-libertarianism. I think a disambiguation page is most appropriate, and then there can be a clear two clearly delineated articles about the two mostly separate ideologies. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• "dictionaries being focused on the multiple uses of the word, whereas an encyclopedia chooses a common name for a topic, and only focuses on a certain subset of possible interpretations of the word". THANK YOU. That's exactly what I mean.

  However, I'm not yet convinced that there is no primary topic here (just that the broad usage is not it). The Libertarian Alliance exemplifies typical usage outside of the U.S. (but still within English speaking countries - U.K. in this case) and is the same as the common usage within the U.S. (i.e., "right-libertarianism" in the obscure contexts where the comparison to so-called left-libertarianism is made). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you that the "broad" definition of the topic is clearly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But I would also argue that the right-libertarian viewpoint, while being the most widely applied interpretation of the word, it is also not the primary topic (in the sense of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). It is not overwhelmingly the most common interpretation. If we choose a single primary topic, then a very significant minority, and a majority in some areas, of readers will be looking for whichever one we choose not to make the primary topic. What would be better, in this case, where two very significant but widely differing viewpoints have the same exact name, is to have a disambiguation page. I would point you to Ubuntu as an example where this has been applied to good effect, and allowed editors on both sides of the conflict to stop arguing about the primary topic, and focus on the two seperate articles. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ubuntu is not a very good example since Libertarianism is overwhelmingly an ideology about obtaining human liberty from government control with just some ideological disagreements on what kind of private control one also wants to be free of, what is the proper method of deciding what property should be private and how much of it should be, and some strategic disagreements on how fast or slowly change can come, how much one should work within the system, how much nonviolence/violence must and should be used to security liberty, etc. (Strategic issues not even touched on in this article yet.) These are issues in all the movements calling themselves "libertarian," just different in manner of degree/focus/etc. People who are widely read in the subject and know all sorts of libertarians - and WP:RS - know this. People who have narrow ideological blinders and haven't figure out WP:What Wikipedia is not may not. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Though there clearly are some reliable sources that use the term "libertarianism" to refer to the broad meaning, it is a relatively obscure usage among reliable sources."

It'll take some actual sources to establish this "obscurity". BigK HeX (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not so. When it comes to determining the name of a WP article or the primary topic of a term, we don't look to reliable sources to tell us that explicitly. It's implicit, based on usage "as used in reliable sources on the subject." [*]. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes... very much so. If you're going to make an assertion that you believe should impact the article (especially when it such a large impact and it is contrary the the closed RfC), then you'll need to bring sources with that argument.... BigK HeX (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What blather. That's like saying you need to bring sources for the argument that Orange (colour) and Orange (fruit) should be in separate articles. You need to look to sources to see that there are multiples uses for the term orange, and that none are primary. But no source actually tells you that explicitly. Same with libertarianism. Stop trying to hold this article up to a standard no other article in WP needs to meet, or can meet. But if that's all you've got, I understand why you must resort to such nonsense.

And, yes, this argument requiring sources to explicitly indicate which use of the term in question is primary among reliable sources is also a begging the question fallacy. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

When there ARE sources that EXPLICITLY say Orange (colour) and Orange (fruit) are parts of the SAME concept, then YES, you would need sources if you choose to continue opposing that. Please drop the false analogy on "Orange". Unless you know of sources that state Orange (colour) and Orange (fruit) are parts of the SAME concept, then the analogy has zero application here. We do have plenty of sources that acknowledge left-lib and right-lib as aspects of Libertarianism, as you've already acknowledged. To sit there and argue that you DON'T need sources to oppose a WELL-SOURCED assertion ... I think that would be considered the "blather" here by most any understanding of policy. BigK HeX (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There are sources that explicitly say Orange (colour) and Orange (fruit) are parts of the SAME concept - the word itself is that concept. See Orange (word) and the references listed there. Where are your sources to oppose putting Orange (word) at Orange?

But that usage is minor among all the uses of the term orange, so we don't put Orange (word) at Orange, even though it encompasses all uses of the term, and is the broad meaning. The vast majority of references to the term "orange" in reliable sources refer to either the fruit or color, or perhaps to a place, but not to the broad meaning. In the case of orange, none of those uses is primary and that's why the dab page is at Orange.

In the case of libertarianism the jury is still out about whether there is a use that is primary, but the argument that the broad meaning (which encompasses all uses) is the primary topic is completely unfounded, so we know that topic should not be at Libertarianism in any case, and yet that's exactly what we have. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm ... no. The spelling is NOT a "concept". Trying to treat a word's spelling as a "concept" is a very poor attempt at equivocation. BigK HeX (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

How revealing that you see it that way, but you're the only one talking about spelling at all, much less about spelling as a concept.

Orange (word) is not about the spelling - it is about the word orange and all of its meanings, and how the various meanings compare and contrast, just like this article is about the word libertarianism and all of its meanings, and how they compare and contrast. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek

Regarding how to decide the proportion of prominence of the various viewpoints...how much weight should we give Adam Smith? From Public Sector Economics for Developing Countries by Michael Howard...

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.

Friedrich Hayek wanted even less government...but still wanted some government. From Friedrich Hayek: a biography By Alan O. Ebenstein...

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.

The pro-government definition of libertarianism is clearly widely held enough and significant enough to warrant an article dedicated to the topic. Why this article? Well, because libertarian socialism and left-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism already have their own dedicated articles. From now on, when I say "libertarian" I mean Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Ludwig Von Mises, Robert Nozick, David Boaz, etc. When I say "pseudo-libertarian" I mean any person that wants to abolish government. --Xerographica (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have a personal meaning, and one which you share intellectually with others. If we consider this article as a lead article in a broad topic, obviously the group you discuss has a relevance. Is their a self-declared name commonly known in their impact group (intellectually, in social movements) other than "Libertarian"? Is there a name for their tendency found commonly in RS outside of their own sources? What I'm trying to get at is something of a lead topic article, being Libertarianism containing a note on academic attitudes towards the bases of the intellectual history and social history of libertarianism; and then summaries of Main Articles for 19th century pro and anti-property Libertarianisms; Civil Libertarianism & Civil Liberties Movement; Propertarian Libertarianism with its minarchist and anarchist tendencies; Libertarian Socialism and Libertarianism within other socialist movements. Where would the libertarian tendencies inside Georgism or Social Credit sit? All of these topics seem WEIGHTy. All of them have a real claim to discussions of post French Revolution positions which are deeply doubtful of state authority. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue we're looking at is undue weight and where to draw the line between ideologies and articles. Undue weight is about proportion. The best way to learn about proportion is to read the short story by Voltaire called Micromegas. Drawing the line has to do with picking a single topic for an article. The topic for this article should not be pseudo-libertarianism because those ideologies already have their own dedicated articles. Rather, the topic of this article should be libertarianism, because that's the title of this article. Articles should not be so broad as to discuss ideologies with completely contradictory major tenets. Well, unless the title of this article was "pseudo-libertarianism and libertarianism"...but it's not. --Xerographica (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we would be better served having this discussion above through the MEDCAB editor above, as when you say, "The topic for this article should not be pseudo-libertarianism," I take your meaning that you're pushing a POV; and down that path lies unnecessary heat. In relation to articles which do contain radically different ideologies, see the discussion above. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There are appropriate articles for your pseudo-libertarianism. Just describe to me the tenets of your pseudo-libertarianism and I can point you in the right direction. --Xerographica (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. Of your personal views on what is or is not "pseudo-libertarianism." CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, seriously? We've already established that you're an anarchist and you've edited the libertarianism article so that pseudo-libertarianism receives just as much coverage as libertarianism. Libertarianism is a relevant political ideology. Please offer me any evidence of politically relevant pseudo-libertarian ideologies. Proportionally speaking, in terms of political relevance...pseudo-libertarianism is very insignificant. --Xerographica (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The WP:OR concocted about "pseudo-libertarianism" is probably the least relevant thing in this thread. BigK HeX (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I liked that part where you offered social conservatism and economic conservatism in the conservatism article as an example of how articles can contain conflicting views. That's like saying that covering social liberalism and economic conservatism in this article is an example of conflicting views. --Xerographica (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Smith and Hayek are better seen as influences on modern libertarian thought rather than as libertarians. Smith of course was a major influence on 19th century liberalism and both were major influences on neo-liberalism. If we decide that neo-liberalism is libertarianism as well, then there is no need for a Libertarian Party, because even socialist governments are now libertarian. TFD (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidently you didn't bother to read the passages or you might have noticed where the authors referred to Smith and Hayek as Libertarians. If you had read the passages you would also have realized that their views on government were nearly identical to the viewpoints I discussed in the Proportion of Prominence section. --Xerographica (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica, there are no references in the article or this discussion page that refer to Adam Smith as a libertarian. TFD (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

From the very first passage in this section, "Even though he was a libertarian, Smith realized..." --Xerographica (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Howard uses the term "libertarian" four times in the book and does not explain what it means. I would not base the scope of the article on that book. We also see a disagreement in literature about the use of the terms liberal and conservative. TFD (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, I'm interested to know what direction you would take the article. Specifically, how much weight would be given to "right-libertarianism" and why. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Content analysis and direction of article

User:Xavexgoem wrote: CarolMooreDC, I'm interested to know what direction you would take the article. Specifically, how much weight would be given to "right-libertarianism" and why.

First, definition. Many people outside libertarianism would consider any form of libertarianism that promotes private property and broad privatization of public services as “right wing.” However, the “deletionists” want to get rid of any mention of pro-property anarcho-capitalism/libertarian anarchy/market anarchism/free market anarchism as well as all mentions of left wing anarchism. I’m against that.

Then the question is what percentage of the article is and should be devoted to these variants. I actually divided the article up and counted (with my word processor) number of words in several categories below on my at my temporary talk page Content analysis of Libertarianism article. In summary:

1. Neutral Summary Language: 980 words
2. Language about "Right" (pro-property): 2281 words
3. Language about "Left" ("anti-Property"): 656 words
4. Language about other variants: 199 words

Give or take 150 words either way in the first 3, I don’t think that is overly-disproportionate to the libertarian movements worldwide. The material I intend to add probably would add about 200 words to neutral, 150 words to right, 50 words to left, 150 to other variants. Of course, reading through quickly I can see a lot of dubious material has snuck in that either should go or needs to be reorganized but I don’t anticipate that the proportion would change that much, if I had my way.

As for structure, I have some draft ideas for restructuring that would make the article more cohesive on my hard drive. But as long as this article is infected with POV Soap Box, Sock Puppets, Personal Attacks and Edit Warring, I’m not going to bother. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd second Carolmooredc about her proposed proportions (Neutral ~1200; Pro-property ~2500; Anti-property ~700; Other ~350). These are adequate to discuss the difference and distinction in a lead topic article. Carol: In your analysis, where did the Mutualist (etc.s) fit? I'm still a little concerned at the undertreatment of Civil Libertarianism (Other? Neutral?), and the need to note libertarian content in Georgism & Social Credit as pre 1940s social movements in favour of property. Having reread the article I'm very very strongly in favour of reorganisation. I agree with Carol about the article's editorial climate not being conducive to producing quality editorial decisions. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Civil libertarianism might get a passing mention in etymology or history as neutral. There used to be a section on mutualism but I believe was not defended with existing references linking it strongly to libertarianism and therefore removed. It might be "another variant," depends on WP:RS. Ideally the "right" and "left" differences won't be overly emphasized since they are sometimes about rather minor differences on property, depending on which groups you are talking about. As I've said before libertarian decentralism and libertarian municipalism also deserve mention and I have lots of WP:RS at whatever point I decide to put them in, but probably only as part of larger structural proposal I'll put forth if things calm down. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this this article isn't about balances between opposing point of view. The problem is that it so so loaded with sidebar stuff that it fails to communicate the main, core principles that run across 99% of Libertarians......smaller and less intrusive government. Including failing to communicate the 99% common principles as such.

Second I consider Carol to be amongst the 2-3 most active warriors here, in her case the warfare is by continuously over-claiming warrioring and other violations by others.

Exactly what IS the battle here? Everybody is off on the tangent of pretending there is is an ongoing battle regardign wheterh to not to completely exclude mention of other beliefs with the word "libertarian" in them.

If underneath it all, there are persons who really want to leave the article in such a confused state, then there might be a genuine underlying conflict. Otherwise I don't see one, it's seems to more like fighting for the sake of fighting.

Lastly I see no RSourcing that says that "left Libertarianism" is or was actually practiced, outside of in the minds of a few thinkers. If, as I suspect, it is/was at less the 1% of Libertarians, the article coverage should note or reflect that. North8000 (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism is not primarily about "smaller and less intrusive government" it is about individual freedom. However we see governments that reduce but not elimate some social programs while increasing the coercive power of the state and restricting civil liberties as libertarian. TFD (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:North8000: Have you tried to tell us what you think needs to be in, with WP:RS? All I've seen you do is add a section heavy on Libertarian Party stuff and hear you argue to get rid of the stuff you don't like. (And now accusing me of warrior-ing cause I keep complaining about disruptive editing behavior.) Please give us an analysis of what is missing. I can think of lots of stuff but am holding back on much work on the article until the talk page and article editing is more cooperative and civil. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That North8000 continues this odd assertion that left-libertarianism exists "only in the minds of 2 authors" is somewhat unproductive. Exactly what research did you do to come to that conclusion? BigK HeX (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

what evidence do you have left-libertarian is not a tiny minority of libertarianism? are there any rs that give the ratio of LL to RL? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly there are such RS. Let us know if you find some. Then you'd have evidence that actually supports your claim that they are such a "tiny minority" that consideration can be made to have it excluded despite it's prominence in reliable sources. In the meantime, there far more than enough editorial support to maintain the topic in the article, per the numerous RS. BigK HeX (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with Carol's order, but I think left-libertarianism is still over-emphasized.

In any case, the broad meaning has about the same usage among reliable sources as does left-libertarianism, perhaps even less. That is, when reliable sources use the term "libertarianism", in the vast, vast majority they are using it to mean something other than the broad meaning. Yet this article is written as if the broad meaning is the primary topic. That's totally backwards.

Even Darkstar1st has fallen into the trap, when he says, "left-libertarian is not a tiny minority of libertarianism? " That phrasing presupposes the obscure broad meaning of libertarianism. If you're using the conventional meaning of libertarianism, then left-libertarianism is not part of libertarianism at all. It is not part of the libertarianism advocated by either the U.S. Libertarian Party nor by the U.K.'s Libertarian Alliance. To say that left-libertarianism is even a minority of "libertarianism" is to refer with "libertarianism" to a meaning that itself has very little usage in reliable sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'll suggest that an actual source about the supposed "obscurity" of the broad meaning would make your assertion far more persuasive. BigK HeX (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

i set the trap Born, and it's a double-secret trap, hehe. i have given up trying to point out anti-property and pro-property are opposites, now i am trying to work within the intricate mechanisms of wp so brilliantly constructed to guide us thru this morass. by acknowledging LL does not have a political party hq, any voters or candidates, or even a place in most dictionaries, it is ineligible for any mention in the article according to the test subsection above. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a pretty poor trap, if that's the premise of it. BigK HeX (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK, even though WP relies heavily on relative prevalence of usage of meanings of terms in reliable sources, particularly in the area article naming, I believe this demand for an explicit source on the issue of prevalence of usage is unprecedented. It's as absurd as demanding that you or Carol find reliable sources that support the claim that the broad meaning of the term is the primary use of the term libertarianism. Of course, I won't demand that, because I try not to venture into the absurd. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's fine if you choose not to provide support for your personal assertion about "obscurity" ... just don't expect such an argument to hold much editorial weight. BigK HeX (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Dark, I think you missed my point. You're talking about a different trap. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

One of my main points and my main question were ignored. I think that the question of whether or not to 100% remove content on the more unusual forms of Libertarianism is more or less settled, most importantly per the comments of the closer, not as a yes/no to the mis-worded question. So we seem to keep pretending the settled issue is THE issue, instead of defining the real still disputed issue, if there is one. So, I ask again, could somebody specifically define the current dispute?

Second, I find it incredulous that people are saying that one must prove something is obscure in order to keep it to a small size in the article, or eliminate it. That is exactly opposite of how Wikipedia works, and you all know it! So, if I put in a section that takes up 5% of the article where two authors invented their own version of Libertarianism (let's call it Anthro-Zionist-Libertarianism) then you need to come up with than RS that has studied the frequency of practice Anthro-Zionist-Libertarianism in order to reduce or eliminate it's over-coverage in the article? Again, that is the exact opposite of how Wikipedia works, and you all know it.

Answering Carol's question on "what's missing" , it won't be easy, but what's missing is all of the statements to put all of the material in perspective. And the widely held forms or principles should be identified as such. And if there are any forms which exist only in the minds of one or two philosophers they should be eliminated. Of course, collectively learning that will be the tough part, particularly in this environment. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "I find it incredulous that people are saying that one must prove something is obscure in order to keep it to a small size in the article, or eliminate it."

Yeah. Someone should actually try to give a SOURCE (or five) for their assertion that a concept is "obscure", when dozens of sources have been provided which explicitly describe the supposedly "obscure" concept. BigK HeX (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, you didn't yet answer my question on what research you've done that prompts you to keep suggesting that "left libertarianism is a 'made-up' word that has no usage outside of 'a few writers'". BigK HeX (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has been saying "delete all that right libertarian stuff" or that non-right/left libertarian stuff, I think you can safely put in good WP:RS material. Now whether you'll put it in in the right sections or right order maybe debateable, but if it's good WP:RS info and not poorly or unsourced WP:OR, it's not going to be just deleted, assuming not WP:UNDUE. And the article probably could grow by another 20%. And if that's all the kind of material YOU think belongs there, then the whole issue of WP:UNDUE on lefty stuff is solved, right?? Do the work. No one is stopping you. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If I may throw in my hat here, I have a few comments I'd like to make. Before we can reach any solutions about the direction of this article I think we must first assess the underlying issues it faces. Right-Libertarianism, specifically Libertarian Conservatism, is a very popular form of thought in the United States right now. Many of the people who come to Wikipedia to learn about Libertarianism do so with certain conceptions of Libertarianism and other political persuasions (particularly Leftism). Because of the particularly polarized nature of contemporary American politics, a small percentage of these visitors will want to rewrite this article in a manner that more closely resembles their understanding of the term's relationship to other political philosophies.

As a valued source of information, Wikipedia should illuminate, not manipulate into unconsciously adopting a position on an controversy they may or may not be aware of. Personally I believe that in framing the future of this article we need to consider the presumptions people have about Libertarianism and emphasize the fact that political philosophies across the political spectrum seek to establish a free, non-coercive system under which the people may prosper. But at the very least we should create a controversy section that outlines the conflict that exists on the proper application of the Libertarian label. When I see these discussions about ommitting particular strands of Libertarian thought, I worry that they are the means by which the illuminating aspect of Wikipedia is undermined and in turn a particular POV is quietly introduced as the basis and critera of all Libertarian thought.

I also don't agree with the direction in which due weight is being determined in these dicussions. There is no doubt that Libertarian Conservatism is the most prominent of the Libertarian movements of today. But if we allow the popularity of a viewpoint to be the determinant of its definition then in all likelihood we end up with an article that is detached from the historical realities that shaped the development of Libertarianism in the first place. Imagine if we wrote the article on Fascism every time a large body of people came to regard their political opposites as Fascists - what a mess we would be left with. Or to use an earlier example I made, "Liberalism" in the minds of a majority of people refers to American Liberalism, Social Liberalism. If we were to rewrite the article on Liberalism to largely reflect the popularity of that perspective, it would mean drastically minimizing the great majority of the history of Liberalism, Classical Liberalism, and some of the most significant accomplishments of Liberals in general. The weakest aspect of this article is its inability to synthesize the various schools of Libertarian thought into a historical outline of their development. Hacking away at its topic matters until a simple narrative of Libertarianism is not only a step backward but more importantly a poor way to represent the bounty of differing perspectives that exist on Libertarianism Anatoly-Rex (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

" discussions about ommitting particular strands of Libertarian thought" - When a book organizes topics by chapters...does doing so omit any of the topics included in the book? Nobody is saying we should omit libertarian socialism or anarcho-capitalism...we're saying that this chapter should be dedicated to the "variety" of libertarianism that's politically relevant. To read a different chapter on another "variety" of libertarianism all somebody has to do is refer to the table of contents...the disambiguation page...and/or the "see also" section. It's simply a matter of good organization. --Xerographica (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, they feel that left-libertarian and associated views are not libertarianism, and should not be mentioned on this page. Editors who hold this viewpoint include: Xerographica Anatoly-Rex (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You both are saying the same thing. Xerographica is just trying to euphemize his desire to censor left-libertarianism within the Libertarianism article by describing it as "moving the information to 'another chapter'". BigK HeX (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Censorship is like when I could not access Wikipedia in China. The 3rd cousins twice removed in-laws of libertarianism would be equally accessible via the disambiguation page or via the "see also" section. The other ideologies are so distantly related to libertarianism that their kids would have 0% chance of birth defects. --Xerographica (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So ... you're acting like the Chinese government when it comes to left-lib/ancap/etc?? I don't get your point here. Also, thanks for more WP:OR, I guess ... this time about incest or some such. BigK HeX (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Acting like the Chinese government would be to completely remove references to anarcho-capitalism, left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism from Wikipedia. I'd really really enjoy hearing your explanation of why it would be incestuous. How are they related? By a love of liberty? Well...conservatives and liberals also love liberty...so we'd have to include them in this article as well. By love of capitalism? In that case we'd have to include conservatism and liberalism and exclude left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism. By the size of the state? In that case the closest relative would be conservatism. By wanting to abolish the state? Libertarians, liberals and conservatives do not want to abolish the state so, in that sense, no relation to anarcho-capitalism or left-libertarianism or libertarian socialism. Rather than answer the question of how they are related feel free to go with your typical response of "soapbox" or "original research" or "idontlikeit". --Xerographica (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"How are they related?" By the explicit description of a multitude of reliable sources. (Those things your soapboxes always lack.) WP:RS. Period. BigK HeX (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism (word)

What does everyone think of following the lead of Orange (word) and moving this article to Libertarianism (word), probably with some revision? After all, this article is about the word; it even has an etymology section!

Then we can discuss whether the term has a primary topic, and , if so, what it is, and put that article here; or, if no primary topic, then put the dab page here at Libertarianism. Comments? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to create a Libertarianism (word) article. Wouldn't have much bearing on this article though. The article here has content that has mostly been deemed as policy-appropriate. BigK HeX (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine it actually happening, but a complete re-boot (of the articles) per Born2cycle's plan would be an excellent and structurally sound way to unsnarl this mess. And they have gone right to the heart of the problem. North8000 (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that's only true if by "mess" you mean, "not written to my preferred POV". BigK HeX (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. Sincerely, my only "POV" here is to have (a) good, accurate, informative articles. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You most certainly have exhibited a POV against left-libertarianism, given that you've continually derided its inclusion despite the evidence that you don't know much about it [since you've asked us on the talk page to give you very basic information on the subject]. BigK HeX (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you will look back, you will see that I have never said to not include it in the article, nor derided it's inclusion in the article. What I HAVE said is that any philosophies where they have had few or no followers should not be included. And that anyting that is not a "real term" should not be included. And I also said that I wanted anything with the word "Liberterian" in it which has has / had some substance of a following to BE included. I made the point of using the article as a disambiguation-page on steroids, because the topic is too complex to be handled on a regular disambiguation page. And I honestly don't know which is the case regarding "left Libertarianism". I certainly wasn't able to learn it from this incoherent mess trio of articles. The left Libertarian article just has a bunch of "some people say it means this" type statements, without any assertion that the term has a meaning or that there is any group of followers with this philosophy. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I apologize as "derided" is a bit too strong for your comments. "Seriously questioned"/"extremely dubious" or something along those lines are probably more apropos descriptions.

If you don't know whether there are any "real" left-libertarian movements, then you weren't looking for that answer in this Libertarianism article, which I know contains such evidence (since I'm the one who put it there). If the Wikipedia article is the extent of your research and you didn't find the indications which exist in the article, then your research doesn't seem to have thorough enough to really make the claim that you "see no RSourcing that says that 'left Libertarianism' is or was actually practiced". Just my 2cents on this suggestion you've made, as you seem to have repeated a number of times. BigK HeX (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, if anybody can point to an RS saying that there's a group of at least 10 people practicing what they themselves call "Left Libertarianism" then I will consider myself to have been educated and the matter settled. North8000 (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the RS that have already been suggested to you to see if such descriptions are in there? BigK HeX (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My question is about practice. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not necessary. Cf, other political ideology articles. venE though their adherents may divide into different groups the correct approach is to have one article about libertarianism and separate articles about the different types. TFD (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK, by moving this article to Libertarianism (word), the content would remain (more or less) what it is. The topic would continue to not be a single coherent philosophic subject but it would be okay because the topic would be the word Libertarianism, and coverage of all meanings of the word in the title (there, Orange, here Libertarianism), and discussion of their similarities and differences, would be appropriate. By not having it at Libertarianism we would no longer be incorrectly implying that the primary topic of Libertarianism is the word itself and all of its meanings. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Most editors do not see the article as being about the "word". The significant majority of editors see the current article (correctly) as describing the political ideology with its many variations. The "Principles" section certainly doesn't support any argument that this current article is somehow just about the "word." I don't find that argument to have much merit. BigK HeX (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be more like changing the article Orange (fruit) to Orange (fruit) (word) because Seville oranges are not sweet, Green Oranges do not have orange skins and Blood oranges do not have orange fruit. Not only that but these pseudo-oranges only represent a tiny minority of oranges and most people have never heard of them and would not recognize them as oranges, which are sweet with orange skin and fruit. TFD (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be true only if the fruit concept referred to as orange in reliable sources usually excluded the fruit concepts of Seville oranges, Green oranges and Blood oranges in the way that the philosophical concept referred to as libertarianism in reliable sources usually excludes the philosophical concept of left-libertarianism. But that's not the case.

When I google for orange fruit, ignoring WP hits, I get all kinds of references to concepts that are inclusive of all these meanings. Googling for libertarianism, either in general google, in news, or in books, results in concepts that do not include left-libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The current version of the Libertarianism article is NOT about the word even if you may really dislike the article. BigK HeX (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Simply stating your opinion is not constructive. Yes the article IS about the word. There, see how unhelpful that is? How about backing up opinion with some facts and reasoning?

The article currently at Libertarianism is about the word libertarianism as much as the article at Orange (word) is about the word orange simply because the topic of both articles encompasses not one particular concept associated with the respective word, but all meanings associated with that word.

And it's not about disliking the article. It's about the inappropriateness of having a relatively minor usage of a term be at that term. I don't dislike the article at Orange (word), but it would not be appropriate to move it to Orange, because the topic of that article is not the primary topic for orange. Similarly, I don't dislike this article, but it's not appropriate to have it at Libertarianism because the topic of this article is not the primary topic for libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a clear primary topic, and I think the best route would be to either (a) have Libertarianism be a disambiguation page, like Ubuntu, which points to Libertarianism (word), Right libertarianism, and Left Libertarianism, or (b) to use this article as a sort of "disambiguation article", which covers libertarian philosophies in general -- i.e. the ideas that all of these philosophies have in common, and links to each of the sub-articles in a section summarizing them (which is what it's currently doing, albeit poorly). Personally, I hate disambiguation pages, and would prefer to have the article discuss libertarian philosophies in general, and then point readers to differing varieties of it. If we can't agree to that, then I'd say that we should do a disambiguation page. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Though I disagree that the tiny minority should be allowed to dictate whether the article is scrapped in favor of a disamb page, I do agree that a structure such as the present one is preferable. IMO, if there weren't so much of this PRIMARYTOPIC mess being argued long after being settled, then it would be far easier to work on the finer points of the article. BigK HeX (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Simply stating your opinion is not constructive."

I didn't "simply state" anything. You repeated your conclusion, so I repeated mine. I'd already previously made my points on the matter, which hadn't been addressed yet.... BigK HeX (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this whole discussion just a Wikipedia:POV_fork#POV_forks. And particularly annoying give the above RFC]]?? And shouldn't the mediator should take the RfC into account, since the request for mediation came before the RfC, not after. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's even worse than a usual POVFORK. With the usual POVFORK, the forked material is maintained in some obscure location (i.e., The One True Libertarianism, Despite Numerous RS And An RfC). Here, the proposal is to take the POVFORK material and actually hijack the main page with it. BigK HeX (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Support move - Currently, this page has little to do with the predominant form of Libertarianism. This would be a reasonable solution if we are going to keep the page like it currently is. Toa Nidhiki05 20:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you didn't manage to argue your contention about what the page deals with in the above thread. BigK HeX (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

• 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)

• 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)

Requested move

Libertarianism → Libertarianism (word) — The subject of this article, an overview/summary of all meanings associated with the word libertarianism, is not the primary topic for the term. There is no consensus about what is the primary topic, so the dab page should be at the term itself, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page". Born2cycle (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Libertarianism (disambiguation) → Libertarianism

• Support - This makes reasonable since; you can't write about 'X' without knowing what 'X' is. Toa Nidhiki05 20:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - As nom. Slight preference for Forms of libertarianism over Libertarianism (word) as new location for this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. For the zillion-and-one^th time, per the ALREADY-CLOSED RfC.

  Also Comment. Given THE RFC WE JUST HAD, this request arguably is quite tendentious. BigK HeX (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Zillionth time? This is the first time I've ever seen an official move request for this article. This is not about what this page should discuss, as the content of an article does not change when it is moved. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's not waste time with semantic games. THIS page is the Libertarianism page. "Forms of Whatever" is a different page. BigK HeX (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not semantics. There should be no confusion between an article's content (which was the issue discussed in the short-lived RFC) and its title (which is the issue here). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"an article's content" ... Specifically, the RfC was about the Libertarianism article's content (i.e. the page with this title). BigK HeX (talk)

Article moves have almost nothing to do with article content. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how that statement is relevant. The contents of THIS article were largely deemed to be appropriate for THIS page (i.e., Libertarianism). Even more, per Skomorokh below, the premise for this request to move is nonsensical. BigK HeX (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The RfC did not deal at all with the question of whether the current title of the article was appropriate for the content of this article, or whether there might be a better title for it. It dealt exclusively with article content. This move request is addressing only the issue of title. It's like confusing going to court to get your name changed with going to a shrink to get yourself changed. Night and day. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support If we could come up with another way to fix this confusing mess of an article (actually, trio of articles), I'd be willing to change my stance, but I see no progress towards that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as the rationale is farcical. If the article is about the word, I suppose the major sections deal with a history of the word that is distinct from its etymology, the principles of the word, forms of the word, and organizations of the word? Ridiculous. It is blindingly obvious that the subject of this article is the American-style offshoot of classical liberalism. The different forms mentioned are all variations or derivations of that philosophy, not competitors for the title. Appeals to primary topic are noted, but there is no satisfactory disambiguation for this philosophy suggested, leaving this proposal dead in the water like its predecessors. Skomorokh 20:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Prefer Forms of libertarianism as new location for this article. It's illogical that the title of this article is "libertarianism" but then it discusses left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism. If we can't get the topic to reflect the title then we'll have to get the title to reflect the topic. The article here at libertarianism can have one section called "Forms of libertarianism" that gives a short overview on the distantly related "forms" and it would include a link to the main article at Forms of libertarianism. --Xerographica (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - no reason given for move based on policy or reasonable argument. TFD (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? Does not meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria is probably one of the most common policy reasons given to justify page moves at WP:RM. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The primary topic is libertarianism as defined in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is what, exactly? The problem of course is that libertarianism is not defined in any one way in reliable sources. There are multiple topics that are referred to by that term, and none of them are primary (at least there is no consensus about any one of them being primary).

The burden those who oppose this move have to meet is to show that the subject of the article currently at Libertarianism is the primary topic for the term libertarianism. You can't show that, because the article is not about any one subject - it's about all the meanings associated with the word. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There may be disagreements about use of terminology in reliable sources just as there are with other political topics. E.g., liberal may mean laissez-faire or interventionist, or both. There is one article because there is a shared history and a common core set of beliefs. Topics are defined by essential not accidental attributes. TFD (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• support the article is confusing readers with pro-property and anti-property being the same philosophy. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The article isn't "confusing", just because it doesn't push your preferred POV where Libertaranism is only about right-lib theories of property. BigK HeX (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Libertarianism → Libertarianism (word): [Added later: I have requested someone familiar with Wikipedia:Requested_moves move this to "Contested request" (not clear how to do that since text not there). Note that while this is not technically a POV-Fork, it's definitely in that spirit, as I wrote previously]: Wikipedia:POV_FORK#POV_forks under "Unacceptable types of forking" reads: In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. It is clear this requested move is a result of some editors not getting their way, including in this RfC on the topic. Libertarianism (disambiguation) should be a separate discussion since there are pros and cons. [Added later: As for WP:primary topic, that is a subsection of Wikipedia:Disambiguation so I don't see how it can effect the discussion of this article; just that of the Disambiguation page, and that conversation should happen there.] CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fork??? No new articles are being suggested here. Just a simple article rename to put the dab page at the term in question since there is no primary topic for that term. Very normal/standard stuff in WP:RM land. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose move to libertarianism (word). Bad disambiguator for a start, but the case against this article being the primary topic is also so chronically weak that in the context of the previous discussions it does look like an attempted POV fork. Andrewa (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose; it's not about the word in a linguistic sense, but about the philosophy/ies under that name. The name is fine as is. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You did not address the issue of the topic of the article currently at Libertarianism not being the primary topic for that term. Also, the alternative destination suggestion Forms of libertarianism meets the "about the philosophy/ies under that name" description. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -- per the the recent RFC. The primary topic for this subject is clearly the family of political philosophies which go under the heading of "libertarianism", and have in common the promotion of civil liberties and limited or non-existent state intervention. Both right- and left- libertarianism are proper subsets of this topic, and this should be what the article is about. What should then be determined is how much weight to give each of them. But this has all been discussed in the RFC that preceding this one by a few days, and consensus was reached that the broader definition is the primary topic and should be covered here. This has already been debated ad naseum, and I'd really like to see the vocal minority that is still pushing against the consensus on the topic, to stop wasting everyone's time, and start working on improving the article instead. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"The primary topic for this subject is clearly the family of political philosophies "... That indeed is the implied position of anyone opposing this move, but this argument implies that the subject being sought when a reader enters [libertarianism] in the Search box is much more likely than any other to be "the family of political philosophies which go under the heading of 'libertarianism'". Seriously? That's clearly true? Not for me. That's the whole point of this proposed move. But I'll gladly change my position to oppose this move as well if evidence of this being true is presented by someone (guidance for how to determine primary topic is provided at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). --Born2cycle (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: As I said a month back, libertarianism (word) branches into libertarianism (metaphysics) and libertarianism (political theory). This article is the latter. N6n (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think "(word)" is a terrible disambiguator. This article isn't about a word, it's about a family of related political philosophies. We don't have an article called "liberalism (word)". Also if this article were about the word we would have to add a section on metaphysical libertarianism, which is a totally unrelated concept. This requested move only makes sense if one accepts the implicit assertion that the different philosophies covered on this page are unrelated and have nothing in common but the word libertarianism. That assertion has been rejected in two votes already–so this is now the third vote we've had in two weeks on basically the same question. I don't think repeatedly voting on the same thing is constructive Iota (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's a good suggestion to add a summary section on metaphysical libertarianism to this article since the article is already a potpourri of uses of the term libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "potpourri"

To quote User:Iota, "That assertion has been rejected in two votes already...." BigK HeX (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: I believe the optimal solution to this never-ending chaos would be to expand the article libertarianism in the United States as an alternative. It could become what some people would prefer this article to be. Also agree that "(word)" is a terrible disambiguator. –CWenger (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose no valid reason given. Article is not about a linguistic topic. Rather, article needs better organization and an inclusive summary. Yworo (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would seriously injure navigation for our actual readers, and it wouldn't really stop the edit war, even if that were a reason for a page move. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. First, there is no sense having an article about the word rather than about the thing. Second, the problem here is not one of disambiguation of words, but of WP:IDHT - a small number of editors really do believe that their own take on libertarianism is the only libertarianism worth reading about, and persist in pushing this belief despite the resistance of the rest of the editing community. The above proposed change would not fix this at all. --FOo (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am not aware of whatever edit war or other problems may afflict this article, nor do I care to be. What I do know is that the article as it stands now is most definitely not about the word "libertarianism", nor should we have an article that is primarily about the word "libertarianism". The topic is correct and clearly the primary topic for this title. Powers ^T 00:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

"... dead in the water like its predecessors". What predecessors? There have been other requested moves for this article? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Like EVERY OTHER attempt to significantly alter the concepts to be discussed at Libertarianism. BigK HeX (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the current plan is, it obviously isn't working. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems vastly superior to other recently proposed efforts, which seem to be focused on having the Libertarianism article push a POV. BigK HeX (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know which efforts you are talking about, but the core of the current contentions is essentially that the article massievly violates wp:NPOV by having such over-representation and lack of context for the 1% versions to the extent that it completely occludes the 99% one. And I don't see any substantive work or discussion to address that. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

When you provide for us some actual evidence for this "1%" theory that you keep repeating (instead of asking us to do your research for you/or for you to offer wild speculation on viewpoints that you admit to knowing little about), then you may find getting the potential issue addressed to be a lot easier. BigK HeX (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's just an educated guess, but I'll bet that most would agree that it's close, and from what's in the artclles so far the 1% might be closer to 0%. But I think that your statement has it in reverse. For inclusion there needs to be a reasonably amount of RS COVERAGE. From what I see, the sources are just the actual writings where people invented it in their minds. Those fail twice over, first for being primary, and second a writing that invents it is inventing it, not covering it. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you've been asking us about the matter, the suggestion that these authors "invented the term" has been nothing but wild speculation on your part, correct? BigK HeX (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to maneuver the conversation to be the reverse of how Wikipedia works. The article(s) do not even claim much less support that people actually practice this, identified as such. The way that WP works is that inclusion requires establishing it, not the opposite of having to prove a negative in order to not include it. North8000 (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

See that "search archives" box up at the top? Try sticking "move" or "rename" in there to get an idea of the volumnious prior discussion in this vein. Sincerely, Skomorokh 22:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have recommended editors read Wikipedia:POV_FORK#POV_forks several times over last month, but people just refuse to acquaint themselves with policy. Please do so. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's very perplexing to recommend reading policy about new article creation via forking in the context of a discussion about moving an existing article which has nothing to do with creating new articles, much less forking. I don't know what you see in there that might be appropriate, but I suggest you spell it out so other can help you find the source of your confusion. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have requested someone familiar with Wikipedia:Requested_moves move this to "Contested request" (not clear how to do that since text not there). You clearly did not read that very carefully. Note that while this is not technically a POV-Fork, it's definitely in that (negative) spirit, so I just left it there with that explanation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the box under "Current Discussions" on Wikipedia:Requested_moves says: "To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page." Who can figure out how to do that so it will end up under "Contested request"? Perhaps User talk:Born2cycle? CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think all page-moves listed there are presumed to be "potentially contested." Non-controversial moves are just done by any editor. BigK HeX (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Carol, it is you who did not read carefully (WP:RM as well as the stuff on POV forking, and probably the argument presented for this move too). This request is listed under "contested requests" at WP:RM and has been from the moment it was posted there by the RM bot. Pages move are not forks, much less POV forks. No evidence has been presented that the subject of this article is the primary topic for "libertarianism". --Born2cycle (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requested_moves says If you object to a proposal listed in Current requests, please relist it in the Contested requests section below. I would if I could figure out how to from the template at top of this section.
• Despite being frustrated at every turn (including in this request for move 9 to 5) the Deletionists keep coming up with new strategies to gut the article in what is very disruptive editing. Some of us would rather work on improving the article instead of dealing with these Refusal to get the point moves.
• As for WP:primary topic, that is a subsection of Wikipedia:Disambiguation so I don't see how it can effect the discussion of this article; just that of the Disambiguation page, and that conversation should happen there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Carol, I have a lot of patience, but I must say, this is getting ridiculous.

• What part of "This request is listed under "contested requests" at WP:RM and has been from the moment it was posted there by the RM bot" do you not understand? Current requests, which is under Wikipedia:Rm#Uncontroversial_requests, currently has only one entry in it, and, again, this request to move Libertarianism has never been listed there. It has always been in the next section, under Wikipedia:Rm#Current_discussions which is under Wikipedia:Rm#Contested_requests.

  You're apparently not very familiar with WP:RM and how it works, and perhaps have only skimmed that page which I hope explains your misunderstanding. If so, I suggest you take a few minutes to carefully read WP:RM (as well as WP:D, particularly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TITLE, which are polices often cited as basis for move requests at WP:RM).

• All move requests, including this one, have nothing to do with deleting content, gutting articles, or disruptive editing. This is merely a standard request to move a dab page for a given term to the actual term, due to a lack of consensus about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term at issue. The motivations of those who support or oppose this move are not relevant here, nor is anything that you or anyone else is frustrated about. All that is relevant here is the soundness of the arguments provided for showing that the subject of the article currently at Libertarianism is the primary topic for libertarianism (no such argument has been made).
• The whole point of this request is to move the disambiguation page -- Libertarianism (disambiguation) -- here to Libertarianism, because there is no consensus about there being a primary topic for the term libertarianism (which of course means first moving the article currently at Libertarianism somewhere else, and the two candidates suggested so far are Libertarianism (word) and Forms of libertarianism. For any move A → B, the discussion can be posted at either talk page, as long as there is a pointer to the discussion from one to the other, which there is in this case. I chose to put the discussion here because there is much more "action" here. If you really don't understand the relevance of WP:DISAMBIGUATION and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to this discussion, that explains much. Hopefully you do now. If you still don't, please read and reread this post, including reading the links I've taken the time to provide, to make sure you understand what this is about, because I just don't know how else to explain it to you. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• As I've said, I would support a disambiguation page. That is Libertarianism-->Forms of libertarianism and then Libertarianism (disambiguation) --> Libertarianism. The disambiguation page is not my first choice, but I would gladly compromise and accept it. What I do not support is moving Libertarianism-->Forms of libertarianism and then Libertarian conservatism --> Libertarianism. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• What you say here you support (the former) is exactly what you opposed above, precisely because it is a compromise (not to mention the fact that the move is sound since there is no primary topic for libertarianism). The latter is not being proposed. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv: Out of curiousity, what's your first choice? BigK HeX (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. As you know, there are basically two camps. Those whose first choice is to leave the article about the broad meaning of libertarianism at Libertarianism, and those whose first choice is to have the article at Libertarianism be about so-called right-libertarianism, or at least that it not include left-libertarianism and social libertarianism.

The compromise, for both sides, which has been proposed, is to put the dab page at Libertarianism. Not surprisingly, those who prefer the status quo to the compromise are going to oppose the compromise, and if the RM closing admin just goes with the apparent majority, there is no end in sight to the 6+ year long debate, thanks to the lack of willingness to compromise by that camp. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

To deviate from policy, standard practice, and clear community advisement, the editors in the vocal minority will have to propose some far more persuasive reasoning than, "We'll just keep complaining!"

So, your first step would be to find an agreeable REASON to compromise, first. The notion that the article discusses unrelated philosophies only sharing the word "libertarianism" has been rejected. BigK HeX (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The only camp deviating from policy is yours since you fail to even address the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument, much less provide an argument and evidence that the subject of the article at Libertarianism (a very broad sense of libertarianism which encompasses all political-philosophical meanings of libertarianism) is the primary topic for the term libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that we haven't addressed the primary topic objection is ridiculous. It has been discussed AND REJECTED multiple times already, most notably in the RfC. To quote directly from the closure statement of the RfC:

Are the various conceptions of libertarianism currently expressed on the page aspects of the same thing;...[or] Is 'right-libertarianism' so different from 'left-libertarianism' and other concepts (e.g. 'geo-libertarianism'), that they are essentially different ideas that should be disambiguated to different pages. That is, the terms represent ideas as different as goldfish (fish) and Goldfish crackers, Queen and Queen (band), and inflation (a rise in prices) and inflation (the early expansion of the universe). In that case, as laid out by the disambiguation guideline, right-libertarianism as the primary topic, should occupy the page.

Wikipedia answers such questions using reliable sources, and in this case, editors who hold the 'libertarianism should be construed broadly' viewpoint have offered multiple reliable sources that attest to the first interpretation. Reliable sources treat, on the same page, multiple variants of libertarianism – treating them as aspects of the same idea. (Unlike, for instance, goldfish and goldfish crackers, which no reliable source treats as aspects of the same thing.)

BigK HeX (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not take part in that prematurely-closed RfC, and, if I had, I would have pointed out that the undisputed existence of sources that interpret libertarianism broadly is evidence of existence of that usage, not evidence of that usage being the primary topic for libertarianism. How to show whether a given interpretation is the primary topic for a given term is explained at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That guidance has not been followed here. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That guidance has been applied. Your arguments have been rejected. That you can't accept the conclusion reached is no reflection on the fact that it has been discussed (and rejected). BigK HeX (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the guidance I'm talking about:

• Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere
• Wikipedia article traffic statistics
• Google web, news, scholar, or book searches

Since you claim this guidance has been followed, you should have no problem pointed me to where that was. By the way, finding some sources that uses the broad meaning is not an example of using this guidance to determine whether that meaning is primary among sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Check basically any thread on the talk page. The topic that people desire when they click the "Go" button is the political ideology, And That Is What We Have. BigK HeX (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

USer:Born2cycle writes: Wikipedia:Rm#Current_discussions which is under Wikipedia:Rm#Contested_requests. But Wikipedia:Rm#Current_discussions is NOT a subsection of Wikipedia:Rm#Contested_requests because both have two equal signs meaning they are equal categories. It's obviously a confusing formatting problem with the page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Given up on mediation??

Better late than never, it occurs to me that when you are in the middle of an informal mediation you aren't supposed to go initiating these types of requests. Does this mean that all those who signed that they supported this change have given up on it?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The mediator has not been saying much. The move request is a proposed compromise that is hoped to obviate the need for any more mediation. Opposition to it, especially based on so much misunderstanding, is disappointing. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope that no one's given up, but, of course, no mediator is going to be available around the clock for our squabbling. I think everyone's still on-board, though we may need more guidance on how best to conduct a mediated discussion. BigK HeX (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete disambiguation page entirely

The proposal to turn the libertarianism article into a disambiguation page is extremely POV and flawed. However, there is merit in getting rid of the Libertarianism (disambiguation) page which seems to go through cycles of growing and diminishing in size, depending on various people. I've usually just asserted it should be minimally inclusive or very inclusive, having a problem with POV inclusion/exclusion. I'm pretty tired of the cycle and have come to believe that this page is not particularly necessary. There should just be the libertarianism article with a note directing people to Libertarianism (metaphysics) on top. And then we can just mention every thing that WP:RS says calls itself libertarianism in the article, in proportion to its relevance. (With a few things not relevant to existing sections only listed under "See also.") So what we need is a deletion proposal on the disambiguation page, once this one is sufficiently buried. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Informal RfC: Disruptive editing

User:BigK HeX says...From WP:DISRUPT:

Refusal to "get the point"

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input..... Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act as though it is accepted when it is not.

The idea that variants such left-libertarianism belong in the article entitled Libertarianism (due to the numerous scholarly reliable sources that hold this viewpoint) seems to have been affirmed repeatedly in multiple requests for comment [most notably, here]. Do editors here believe it would be Appropriate or Inappropriate to consider the WP:RFC/USER or WP:ANI process for editors who propose edits based on a refusal to accept this editorial position for this article at Libertarianism? BigK HeX (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Appropriate, as 'nominator'. I loathe bringing scrutiny upon individual behavior, but this is getting very tedious. I think WP:RfC/USER would be more productive than WP:ANI. BigK HeX (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Inappropriate - Consensus was never reached and RfC was closed prematurely. So-called consensus was defined by the person who closed it, namely BigK HeX, who is by no means unbiased in this debate. Left-wingers have rejected a good-faith attempt by myself to reach an agreeable compromise, and are treating this page like a battlefield. This is a last-ditch attempt by BigK HeX to censor those who oppose him. Toa Nidhiki05 16:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

this section does not belong in talk please file your complaint in the appropriate forum. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The above proposal is very confusing. Big Hex started? Someone interrupted his proposal? Why proposed here? All confusing. I think we should just go to WP:ANI with a "refusal to get the point" complaint on editors who have been voted down in all or most of the actions above (RfC #1), (RfC#2), (Requested move), plus mention any behavior complaints about them. And request that all the people who opposed their various efforts chime in, if possible. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel the recent weeks on this talk page have been dominated by disruptive "refusal to get the point." I've posted this here because: A) the decision is about this talk page and I hope to get comments from the participants here, B) I want to know whether there are many editors who feel the same as I do, C) agreeing editors can put our heads together on what further WP:DR can be pursued, and D) if there are many editors who feel the same, then the editors who previously have not "gotten the point" may see that there may be good cause to rethink their efforts. BigK HeX (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that other editors initiated a Wikipedia:Requested_moves in the middle of a Mediation Cabal mediation, and the mediator didn't object, I can see why both of us would consider an RfC or ANI. But any formal move should wait until the Mediator has told us she/he has given up on this. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Second Carol. Request status from Mediator prior to next action in dispute resolution. Mediation is a a form of dispute resolution and (from my impression) is currently in operation. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A possible compromise / roadmap out of this mess?

This make take several months, but that's better than our current situation of failure after 6 years. And this relates to the trio of articles.

Step 2 For the next about 3 months do the following

• Everybody start using the and only the "Libertarian" terms as they appear in the source that is supporting the statement. Remove any terminology that violates this. One exeption: Use of the terms "Left Libertarian" and "Right Libertarian" in the TITLES of those article is exempt. And include statements IN the article asserting use of the term wherever applicable. E.G. "persons with this described school of thought describe themselves as xxxxxx Liberterians"

• When a Libertarian term is used, try to define it's core principles, particularly as they differentiate it.

• Everybody find and add information about actual practice of the various forms of Libertarianism. Whether it be current organizations, movements / political parties, or some clan of 20 people in a colony in 1951. It can go in with the individausl "sects". or int the "organizaitons and movements section". This will kill many birds with one stone. Covering a much-needed missing area and providing information for the later described reviews.

• Put the battles and the battle related maneuvers on hold which we try to find and add this. Let's just have fun and friendliness building toward a good article and articles.

Step 3 About 3 months from now, review and make decisions based on what's IN the articles.

Decide the "big picture" at the title level of articles. Are the terms "Right Libertarian" and "Left Libertarian" really substantially used AS TERMS (not just as noun with an adjective added in passing). Would there be better article-level terms. And then decide the fate of the separate "Left Libertarian and "Right Libertarian" articles accordingly. And, if they continue to exist, decide whether to have substantial coverage on the in the "Libertarian" article vs. just a quick summary wiht "main article at...."

Then implement the decision, including doing any article combining or renaming decided.

Step 4 Review prevalence of the forms using the material IN the articles, and create wording and decide space accordingly

Implement due / undue weight standards. If it's prevalent, say so, if it's miniscule, leave it out, if it's in between, say so and include. So, we have fund while getting to great article(s)

Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Roadmap Comments

The current structure is fine as-is. This roadmap is unnecessary. If it is meant to state principles that are already standard, then it is merely useful, but redundant. If the roadmap is meant to allow the vocal minority a guide on how to slowly push their preferred POV over time, it does nothing but encourage disruption. We've ALREADY settled on the general content of the article here at Libertarianism. The far simpler roadmap would begin at simply acknowledging the community's input and moving from there. BigK HeX (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt, but I think it's more detailed than what we need. The current structure needs some tweaking, and if people would stop WP:Soapboxing about grandiose plans for Deleting much of the content, perhaps we could just focus on specific edits that tweak it or specific proposals for tweaking it that are backed by WP:RS and not WP:Soapbox. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I see it as being in bad shape. And most people (yourself included) are just firing volleys rather than discussing. And the only conversation seems to be about the moot point of whether or not to totally exclude those other forms of Libertarianism. And the folks on the "narrower" side are saying nothing was decided, and the folks on the "broader" side are completely misstating what was decided, trying to pretend that it broadly said "status quo". I think that the RFC closing said that this article needs major surgery. So, this article most of the problems of a typical "eternal warfare" article, compounded by the extreme complexity of the topic and the issues involved. Ironically, the only thing I see whee the situation is different than the usual warfare article is that, as far as I can, there is not an underlying POV outside-world-agenda clash here. To me this looks more like the Hatfields and McCoys, caught in a rut of fighting for who knows what reason. I saw my roadmap as a way to truly start sorting out the complexity issues, as well as suggesting a more positive fun path for everyone to take on this. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No one on the broad side is misrepresenting the RfC closing as "maintain the status quo." That we have to continually point out that IT DOES find clear support for the broad consideration, is a direct response to those who have continually ignored the RfC in dozens of recent threads. We don't even get to discuss what changes can legitimately be made, since the tendentious crowd continues to push efforts [censorship, pagemoves, etc] that are FAR MORE significant than the RfC closure supports. YOU may acknowledge that there should be no censorship, but it's pretty clear that is not the view of certain other editors. You've shown support for those who DO keep pushing for censorship, and it somewhat impacts your credibility as a sort of informal mediator here, though you shouldn't take this to mean that your efforts are unappreciated.

As I've recommended already the far simpler roadmap begins with the simple acknowledgement that viewpoints such as "left-libertarianism" have been reliably sourced as a variant of the same Libertarianism as "right-libertarianism" (or "common US libertarianism" or "US Libertarian Party libertarianism" or whatever description tickles your fancy). So long as editors choose to disregard that finding, it will continue to be difficult to move forward with the legitimate tweaks that should be made to the article. BigK HeX (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "You've shown support for those who DO keep pushing for censorship", to clarify, I support what the RFC closer wrote, with a minor exception that I recommend proceeding cautiously / slowly on full acceptance of the "left Libertarian" term. So, I guess that on that question I'm on the "broader" side. However, another question seems to divide along the lines of the same groups. That is the "status quo / this article is pretty good as-is and just needs minor tweaks" vs. "this article is a mess and needs major work" There I'm definitely in the "this article is a mess" camp. In short, I have no allegiance to any group, I believe that when one sits at this talk page their mission/interest/obligation should be, above else, to help make a good article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem and behavior you complain about has been present on this page for at least six years. The people involved change, but the problem does not. Because nothing changes, nothing changes. This is the epitome of insanity according to Einstein.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Here we finally have a compromise solution proposed to address this time-and-people-transcending problem, and yet many of you oppose it. That's insanity, according to Einstein. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't "finally" have anything. That "solution" is just more of the same (which is exactly why people are treating it the same as others and telling you the question has been addressed umpteen times). BigK HeX (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How is moving the dab page from Libertarianism (disambiguation) to Libertarianism "more of the same"? I don't believe the dab has ever been at Libertarianism. Has it even been proposed before? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, why do you keep quoting left-libertarians such as George Orwell and Albert Einstein? TFD (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not him, but I think I can tell you why we might use them:

Einstein was a socialist who supported a planned economy; such an economy can only be provided by the state. Owell, on the other hand, was a democratic socialist, who supported the creation of a federal socialist Europe, opposed communism, and believed the government has the responsibility to punish crime. Left-libertarians oppose any and all forms of government.

Second, I strongly admire both these individuals; I don't know about Born2cycle, but Orwell's writings on totalitarianism, such as Animal Farm and 1984, are among my favorite political fiction novels; while we may have very different political opinions, both of these are great commentary on the state.

Also, fact is not hindered by one's political views; that statement Einstein made is a great example of what you try and argue, and as that statement applies, we will use it. Toa Nidhiki05 15:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

User:North8000: The best thing for sincere editors who are unhappy with the article but are NOT deletionists to do is to just propose changes. That's what I'll do if there's ever a point my Wikipedia budget for the day isn't consumed with dealing with deletionist antics. Frankly, the problem with this road map is a) too cpnfusing/complicated, in that not clear where you are saying comply with policy and where you are making up new rules and b) can't trust that it would be followed, especially by those who can't even participate in a mediation without running off to file complaints or request moves or whatever. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Devolution in the Lead

This page evolved substantially over the past several months, from an observer's point of view, from a "bipolar" identity crisis to what was getting closer to a conceptually sound consensus. Recently, however, it has devolved back into its previous state that it was at somewhere around January or so. Just pointing out the current status. I'm not an academician and am not fit to write an encyclopedia, so my comments will remain in the talk page. Just giving a layman's perspective. The developments and "drama" on this page have been interesting, and I've enjoyed watching the conflicted developments. This is my first post, and I'm just voicing my concern that all progress has been brought back to square zero. We're back to where we started, which is an identity crisis. If this page were a person, it would suffer from borderline personality disorder---it was on the road to recovery, and now it seems to have had a relapse.64.134.29.126 (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

So should we delete this probable sock puppet comment? Just one more form of disruptive editing. Oi! CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Any you accuse us of making personal attacks? Really? I don't know if this guy is a sock, but you have no basis to prove it, thus it is an unwarranted personal attack. Also, you seem to love outside opinions when you are doing RfCs, so why are you attacking this guy, who happens to oppose your stance? Toa Nidhiki05 18:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reported this incident on the WP:AN/I; you all may or may not want to get involved. Toa Nidhiki05 18:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The article Libertarianism has been under assault for years by User:Karmaisking and various of his socks have been banned from it in the last week to ten days. Since the editing style so is similar to past disruptive posts in content and attitude, I was just trying to get an idea from other editors more experience with this sock if this might be him, since dealing with this kind of abuse can be very frustrating and time consuming. Note that another editor User:Ddd1600 also created a sock puppet for the article when he was temporarily blocked. I can figure out how to show all the diffs if necessary. User:Toa Nidhiki05 must have missed those various discussions as well as this talk page section: Talk:Libertarianism#Warning_on_Sock_and_Meat_puppets. User:Karmaisking also has been busy on a couple of talk pages of editors to this page, User:BlueRobe and User:Darkstar1st, both of whom have been warned about these sock puppets. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP OP is obviously not a new user. The question is whether its style can be demonstrated to be sufficiently close to those named editors to meet the "duck test". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

KarmaIsKing (aka KIK) wrote (but it was removed since he's banned): To ensure this discussion doesn't get side-tracked yet again with ridiculous peripheral allegations, I confirm I am KiK and no, the anon IP above has nothing whatever to do with me. Any half-decent admin could work out that the geo-loc of the IP doesn't match mine. Someone explained to me that I can easily got to a site like this and put in IP address and find out what country it's from and if it is Kangaroo Land Australia there's a very good chance it's KIK. Learn something everyday. However, KIK must note that not everyone is as tech savvy as he is and it is very disruptive to keep posting and thereby cast doubt on all AnonIps. Couple of constructive suggestions: Why not go start a shelter for homeless Kangaroos or work on getting a dish at Outback Steakhouse named after you. (Of course, note that KIK is NOT the only reason AnonIPs were banned from editing this article.)

But seriously folks, now that I have been Enlightened as to this handy tool, it does make me want to see where all the anonymous IPs of the last 8 months have come from. At my leisure. 16:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmooredc (talk • contribs) 14:04, 12 September 2010

It is easier than that to trace an IP. Click on the IP address and the "User Contributions" page appears.[5] Then click on "Geolocate" at the bottom of the page, and it tells where the IP address originates, including the name of the service provider. The location may not be exact, it may read NYC for someone in Newark for example. TFD (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is perhaps the worst example of 'assume bad faith' I have ever seen. Toa Nidhiki05 15:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Why do you suppose they have Geolocate on there in the first place? A significant percentage of IP entries are vandalism or disruption. It's helpful to establish if there's a pattern. It's not foolproof, but it's better than nothing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is some Wikipedia policy that states unregistered IPs mainly make constructive edits; regardless, having the 'all IPs on this page are sockpuppets of *banned editor*' is the wrong mentality; that not only scares away constructive ones, but also limits discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 00:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review the AGF policy, in particular the part where "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ... around here, we call it a DUCK. BigK HeX (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

At least if it's an Australian duck. Unless of course the person's posting is not in the same POV-stylistic vein as User:Karmaisking. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, thanks to TFD for Geolocate info. Very handy! And certainly makes one less paranoid in dealing with Anon Ips!! Probably good to mention it whenever the topic of who AnonIps are since I'm sure there is a certain % of clueless editors like me on this point in any discussion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that Geolocate limits your free lookups to 20 within any given 24-hour period. But it's a handy tool. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

An article of interest

Roderick T. Long "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class" Social Philosophy and Policy 1998: 303ff. free here at 304-310 has an excellent discussion of a working definition of libertarianism. In fact Long so succinctly cuts across the issue of economic power, and the issue of small states versus no states, while presenting the debate as it exists, that I propose this article ought to be the basis of further definitional discussions. And it is free and peer reviewed. With some footnotes towards 19th Century syncretic / undivided movements in favour of liberty. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Long also makes some really useful points about the various different camps of libertarianism (left, right, and populist -- or in his terminology, LibSoc, LibCap, and LibPop). I've previously suggested that we rely on his definition of libertarianism (roughly, any political position that proposes to transfer power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals) because it aptly sums up that which all libertarians (minarchists, anarcho-capitalists, left-libertarians, mutualists, survivalists, Ron Paul Republicans, etc.) have in common.

As Long is both a scholarly and peer-reviewed source, and one who makes a strong effort to be neutral, I agree that his work is a good basis for definitions. --FOo (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's good to start with broadest Merriam Webster definition and then proceed to widely used ones and less widely used ones. Either in a bigger lead or elsewhere. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

How about the OED? "Laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens." Rapidosity (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

How about you paste the full OED definition when you're going to make an argument from authority? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend against using dictionaries as sources. Dictionaries are about the usage and history of words, whereas we are interested here in describing a phenomenon. The fact that some users may disagree on the usage of the words does not bear strongly on the facts about the phenomenon. For example: Ayn Rand abhorred the word "libertarian" and would not countenance Objectivism being described as libertarian. But few would deny Objectivism's influence on Rothbard and on the libertarian movement, continuing even today.

The existence of an article Libertarianism is premised on the existence of a phenomenon (specifically, a political movement) that is known as "libertarianism". What this phenomenon is, what its boundaries and its properties are, is not a matter for lexicographers (dictionary-makers) to decide. It is a matter for scholars and reputed writers in the field of politics to decide, and for us (as encyclopedists) to report upon. --FOo (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a section about the origins of modern libertarian in the United States (pp. 123ff.) It says they were led by Murray Rothbard, called themselves "anarcho-libertarians", waved anarchist flags, called themselves "left-wing" and formed the Society for Individual Liberty with left-libertarians (the same name used by a faction of the UK Liberal Party). Members of the Young Americans for Freedom chanted "Kill the Commies!" "Kill the libertarians!" The Cato Institute also later tried to connect with the Left. The left-wing influence on right-libertarianism is clear. TFD (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And there is also a line of descent, as it were, from Rothbard and Karl Hess to Samuel Konkin, Kevin Carson, and the other left-libertarian writers. Rothbard's own views were hardly the Jeffersonian minarchist-patriot fluff that I recall from my Libertarian Party days. --FOo (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have modified the article to reflect this discussion and the RS, replacing a first line Dictionary Definition from a US Dictionary, with a peer reviewed High Quality Reliable Source. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's the most prudent move. BigK HeX (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is an open clear summary definition in a HQRS, it summarises the core issue of the topic, it is superior to a dicdef. I don't see a sourcing or UNDUE problem. Also, it is one of the few articles I've noted actually dealing with the entire literature rather than a specific sub-segment of immediate interest to the author. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)