Talk:Austin Petersen

Disruptive Editing

Biographies of Living Persons should be treated with care. No addition of information without sources or explanations and no disruptive editing. user:Auggyp has been engaged in an apparent edit warring, and this should stop. Please, explain your edits and bring your concerns here. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

A hostile editor who has a personal vendetta against Petersen is vandalizing this page and putting their subjective opinions into the article. Auggyp (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Auggyp

@Auggyp: Thanks for writing back. Perhaps you are correct. However, you hurt this article by engaging in edits warring WP:WAR and disruptive editing WP:DIS. The best you could do to make this article better is to follow the guidelines WP:EDITING (this would help to avoid the flagging of your contributions as vandalism) and assuming good faith: WP:AGF and WP:CIV. If your intentions are to contribute to Wikipedia in a non-subjective manner and with a spirit of collaboration, I am here to help you. Please, let me know how can I assist in improving this article. Cheers, Caballero/Historiador (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Caballero1967 Ironically the hostile editor is someone who engages in internet harassment against the article's subject on a daily basis on other websites, and has taken his vendetta to Wikipedia. The article suggests that a philosophical principle (the NAP) is the sole defining position of libertarianism, which is an obviously subjective claim, and one that Buncoman is seeking to force onto the page. It is accurate to say that Petersen rejects the principle, but inaccurate to claim it as the sole defining principle of libertarian philosophy. I suggest that the edit read that Petersen simply rejects the NAP, without it stating that that principle is the sole defining principle of all of libertarianism, which is subjective and mere opinion. Auggyp (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Auggyp

• Auggyp I see what you are saying. But can you explain why you took a source away from the article here? And can you produce sources and, perhaps, quotations to sustain your arguments? I know lots about the history of anarchism, but not the current one. I know close to nothing about this person neither. But I can help you in making sure that what you write follows good practices. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Auggyp, I have been waiting for an explanation to your latest deletion here. I can't see why is this a reasonable thing to do. You deleted a source, which seems to be legitimate and reliable, without explanation. This triggered, once more, the vandalism flag for your edit. I will revert it, but I still hope you will explain it here. As I said, above, I am willing to help, but please, explain and support your changes. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Caballero1967, I am not the hostile editor. The paragraph I am protecting is not incorrect (see below). I have been with the Libertarian movement for 40-years and the NAP is indeed one of two foundation principles. It is listed as such in the party platform which I referenced. Libertarians have to sign a pledge of non-aggression when they join. Petersen wants to remove the NAP which has caused great turmoil within the party and movement. My paragraph is true and conforms to Wiki rules. Jeff Smith (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"Petersen is controversial in his opposition to some of the Libertarian key positions, such as his denial of the NAP[7] (Non-aggression principle), one of two foundation principles of libertarianism.[8]"

@Caballero1967 Jeff Smith is indeed the hostile editor, and someone who engages in daily harassment campaigns against Mr Petersen on other websites. The Non-aggression principle is an anarcho-capitalist creed, and is not the foundation of libertarianism. It's accurate to state that Mr Petersen rejects the NAP. It's inaccurate to state that it's the foundation of libertarianism. Many libertarian scholars have written authoritative pieces explaining why including these three pieces: http://www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians-should-reject-non-aggression-principle http://www2.gcc.edu/dept/econ/ASSC/Papers%202012/bennett_rethinkingnonagression.pdf http://dbzer0.com/blog/why-the-non-aggression-principle-is-useless-as-a-moral-guideline/

Jeff Smith's claim is subjective, not objective, and should be edited to more accurately reflect that the NAP is an anarchist principle. Petersen is a constitutional minarchist (not monarchist), and believes that the NAP is anti-capitalist because any pollution is a violation of the NAP. Since libertarians are capitalists, it means that the NAP would be the end of all industrial civilization, since any pollution would necessarily be a violation of the NAP. The NAP is pacifist anarchism defined, and Jeff Smith knows this, and is impinging on others so as to force his worldview on the rest of the libertarian movement. Ironically, he's violating the NAP, and vandalizing Mr Petersen's wiki page. Auggyp (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Auggyp

• The NAP is not an anarchist principle. It is listed and referenced exactly 10 times within the Libertarian Party platform, which I reference in the article. What Petersen personally believes is not what the Libertarian Party believes. The sentence below is how it reads now. What is the problem with it? It is true and well-sourced.

"Petersen opposes some fundamental Libertarian positions, such as the NAP[7] (Non-aggression principle), one of two foundation principles of libertarianism.[8] Jeff Smith (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• ADDENDUM: The three articles listed by user:Aggyp were not written by the Libertarian Party, and they have counter articles of which I can retrieve if I must. It is probable that user:Aggyp is actually Austin Petersen [[1]], [[2]] Jeff Smith (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Caballero1967 First of all, it is absolutely absurd to claim that the NAP is the "fundamental principle of libertarianism." Libertarianism predates the NAP, and people can be libertarian for any number of reasons. Political ideologies are based on positions on policy, not ethics. Libertarianism is a political ideology, and the NAP is an ethical ideology. Wiki's own articles on libertarianism (which themselves are well sourced), make very clear that the NAP is fundamental for some libertarians, but is not remotely fundamental to libertarianism. Furthermore, the LP platform makes all of zero references to the NAP, and in fact specifically references consequences throughout, even in the Statement of Principles. I don't agree that the NAP is "pacifist anarchism," or even that the NAP is fundamental to anarchism--itself a political ideology, which can be defended on any ethical grounds. Second, let me apologize for not having any idea how to properly format a section on a talk page. 68.229.48.250 (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, the NAP is one of two foundation principles listed in the Statements of Principles, listed in the Libertarian Party platform (https://www.lp.org/platform), and has been a huge part of libertarianism since the Party was created in 1971. The NAP is referred to exactly ten-times in the platform. It is absolutely absurd to claim that the NAP is NOT a "fundamental principle of libertarianism." No, Libertarianism does not predate the NAP. Wiki's own articles on libertarianism ALSO states that the NAP is the "fundamental principle of libertarianism." Jeff Smith (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution WP:DR

All Wikipedia articles are important, but more are the BLPs, particularly if they are currently in politics. They require special attention (WP:BLPKIND) and its editors should tread with care (WP:AVOIDEDITWAR). Unfortunately, the current state of this article hurts WP, but it mostly affects the living person. These are my key points: this article should NEITHER continue as the realm of an editors' niche (WP:OWN), nor the playground of puppets (WP:SOCK), nor the battleground of ideas, NAP or not (WP:BLPCOI) & (WP:COATRACK). Admittedly, this Talk Page seems moving in a better direction than what it was a few days back when the tug of war was taking place in the form of a deliberately gradual war editing (WP:WAR). Users Jeff Smith and Auggyp have begun speaking here, and for a few days, I harbored hopes for a consensus. But now I fear the discussions are leading nowhere, repeating the same accusations and rehearsing the same old arguments. Keeping this article as a combat zone only rewards those hostile to the living person, but attempting to vindicate the person in sneaky or un-Wikipedian ways (WP:TE) is as harmful. So, I suggest you bring your disputes to the appropriate forums. If things go worse, you can always ask the WP:OTRS's team for help--this article, I think, qualifies. But I suggest you start here: WP:BLPN. Submit your dispute for resolution to experienced editors. Recognize the controversial nature of this article, and learn from previous experiences. A better article is good for everybody. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 10:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Page for Deletion

I have read all of the commentary on why the Austin Petersen page is not in compliance. I am working all day today to try to correct the problems. Please keep the page up while I work diligently to fix it. If I have any questions, I will certainly ask. Thank you so much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezymundo (talk • contribs) 17:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit update.

I was wondering if anyone had a chance to review my edits. I put a lot of time, heart and Soul into it, so if there is something I need to fix l we t me know. Thank you Hezymundo (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian Party debate

It's possible Austin Petersen may be getting close to deserving his own article. There's been some coverage of yesterday's LP debate on Fox Business:

• Washington Times
• Fox Business
• Fox News

Admittedly, the last two sources might not be considered independent for the event, since it was on a Fox channel. There's also a profile specifically for him here. And this Newsweek article covers Petersen along with the other significant LP candidates. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The first two items are almost identical - the ones in the Washington Times and Fox Business. And the Fox News item is a teaser, written before the debate by the person who was going to host it, urging people to watch - so it's not independent. But Newsweek seems to accept Petersen as "one of the three leading candidates;" that adds an independent voice. We may be getting closer to notability, but maybe not; notability of a candidate is generally taken to mean notability for other things besides being a candidate. That's why the other two "leading candidates" have articles here; they were already notable for other things. Petersen hasn't achieved that. As the convention gets closer it's possible that people here might accept his candidacy in itself as notable. However I note that one of the articles refers to Johnson as the "likely nominee". --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

If we look at a candidate like R. Lee Wrights, who was notable enough to have his own article in spite of never getting the nomination, there are a couple differences - Wrights was covered by multiple reliable and notable sources including Al-Jazeera and Independent Political Report, both before and during his candidacy, while no evidence has surfaced of independent and notable coverage of Petersen before he became a candidate. Were such evidence presented, it would justify recreation of the article, though it requires a lot of work to comply with WP:NPOV and other policies. I should point out that NPOV violations should be resolved by rewriting the article, not deleting it, assuming that is the only issue. As mentioned above, it is possible Petersen's campaign will be notable in its own right, particularly if he gets the nomination, but we are not there yet. As I recall, consensus is that nominees of "major" third parties - Libertarians, Greens, etc., are notable regardless of whether they were before. And if evidence could be provided for coverage of Petersen before the campaign - such as the ample coverage of John McAfee for his computer software and the alleged incident in Central America - then, again, that would constitute notability and the article should be recreated but significantly rewritten to ensure NPOV. And based on what I've seen, I'm also concerned about conflict of interest issues, though those could be addressed on a case by case basis and are not, in themselves, a reason for not having an article. So do a little research, see if Petersen has comparable coverage to Wrights, from notable, reliable, independent sources, and if so, we can go from there. And if and when it's recreated, we need to stop with the edit warring and remember that nobody "owns" articles here. Smartyllama (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I copied the last good revision of what was at Austin Wade Petersen into Draft:Austin Petersen. I added a few new sources and tagged the bad sources. --Hamez0 (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)