Talk:Green libertarianism

Balance of ecology and economics
The "Balance of ecology and economics" section lacks reliable sources and thus comes across as original research. There is one citation, ostensibly used to corroborate the claim that "…a green libertarian might be concerned by the phrases such as 'wealth redistribution' and 'reducing poverty' in the Stern Review and in some IPCC documents and statements." It cites the GWPF, which gives the GWPF's stance, but does not mention "green libertarian," much less state that a green libertarian would be concerned by these phrases. Moreover, as far as I can tell, the GWPF does not identify itself as "green libertarian." Furthermore the "Limited government" subsection makes assertions about Greens, then cites a source that doesn't mention the word "Greens." As of this writing, three of the four references in this article are flagged as problematic, while the fourth is essentially an opinion piece. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Another editor has since removed the GWPF citation. At this point, that entire section is unreferenced (though already flagged for WP:NOR). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Redundant page?
Is there anything at all redeemable about this page? Besides the first paragraph literally nothing is sourced (and those first few citations don't tell us anything about "green libertarianism"). Half of the information is irrelevant (the Hayek stuff especially), and the author of this page seems to be confusing two completely unrelated and disparate traditions, and is calling the end result green libertarianism. All this page seems to prove is that such a tendency doesn't exist. Is there anything here worth redeeming at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1AD2:7600:2572:CF97:2C35:A4D (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, just found this page. "Green Libertarianism" does seem to be a "thing", albeit a new one. Here are a couple of articles mentioning it:


 * 1) |Green Libertarianism: The New Reformist Movement? (alternet.com, 2007)
 * 2) |Gary Johnson: Libertarian and Green Party do not cancel each other out (cnn.com, 2016)
 * So I don't think it's redundant, and do think it's worthwhile. In fact, the combination of Green and Libertarian works for me. Perhaps I can clean up the article to present this seeming contradiction in a more logical way. (No promises, though, LOL.)
 * Thanks & take care ~ Big universe (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Request to add a logo specifically for "green libertarianism"
Hello, I've just created an image to represent "green libertarianism", since a specific logo doesn't seem to exist yet. It's a combination of the logo for the US Libertarian Party (a torch with a yellow flame in the shape of an eagle) and the logo for the US Green Party (a yellow sunflower with a green center). The final image is the yellow sunflower of the Greens (instead of the yellow eagle) atop the Libertarian torch. I thought it worked out quite well, considering. :) Wanted to see what people thought about this before putting it on the page. Would it be weird to have such a logo, when the term "green libertarian" seems to be a fairly new one?

Here's the image:

Cheers & thanks in advance for any input! Big universe (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Article issues
The problems start with the opening sentence. As I mentioned in, I've been watching and occasionally editing this article for about 11 years, and in that time I haven't seen a reliable source corroborating the claim that "Green libertarianism, also known as eco-libertarianism, is a hybrid political philosophy that has developed in the United States." (To put it another way, if it has developed, I really can't tell from reading this article.) The phrase "green libertarian" (or "green libertarianism") does not appear in any of the four (currently) cited sources; they might discuss ecology and/or libertarianism  but none of them mentions "green libertarianism." (Bookchin's piece mentions "anarchist-ecologist" and "eco-anarchism" but this seems to be in the context of him dismissing the terms, along with the idea that these were his views. (He does mention social ecology -- is that the same thing as green libertarianism? If so, where's the source and, again, some prominent followers who've said so?) The Partridge piece is rather critical of Libertarianism in general (and now that I've looked more closely, doesn't seem to have anything to do with the text that cites it).) Putting the phrase "green libertarian" together on behalf of the sources' authors (who, again, don't even use it), or implying that green libertarianism's what they're actually writing about, runs afoul of WP:NOR and/or WP:SYNTH. The rest of the lede paragraph seems to have changed over the course of the years, suggesting various editors' ideas about what green libertarianism might (or should) mean, but also suggesting there's no developed movement in which some prominent and notable voices (or, simply some reliable sources) have unequivocally said, "we're green libertarians, this is what we believe, and here's what we're doing." An earlier version of this article cited someone's blog (which said "[the Green-Libertarian Movement] came into official being about 30 minutes ago (25 Jul 96), when I decided it did") as a source; that conflicted with WP:SPS until it was removed in 2013. The "Balance of ecology and economics" section already had problems when it did cite sources, now it doesn't cite any and has not done so for more than 6 years. I and others have already raised other issues with this article over the years (e.g. see this page's archive). Past versions have cited libertarian views that don't mention (or simply criticize) green politics; other versions simply did not make much sense (e.g. suggesting that Ralph Nader and the Cato Institute are both green libertarians). Some editors have self-identified as green libertarians, or otherwise suggested that green libertarianism is an actual political movement (and the appeal of the phrase itself is what brought me here in the first place), but I'm not sure it really exists outside of this Wikipedia article (in which the description keeps changing). (And also see WP:NOTNEO.) Again, I've tried to work on this article now and then over the years, and if I really haven't put my own shoulder to the wheel, I'd have thought that someone who knows more about this than I do (not a very high hurdle) might've come along and made better sense out of it than when I first encountered it in 2009. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did find this essay which appeared in Green Revolution (presumably a publication like a magazine or journal, but about which I know nothing). It describes potential areas of compromise between greens and libertarians but the two words don't appear together (e.g. "green libertarian") anywhere in the text.  Instead the author identifies (elsewhere on that website) as geolibertarian which already has its own article. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And I just remembered that this source was already mentioned under "Further reading." (I thought it looked familiar.) -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just about to nominate this at WP:AFD (for WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOTNEO if not WP:JUNK), but one of the links from that template led me to this source. It would appear to actually define green libertarianism (at least an idea, if not as a movement).  It looks like paid access so I can't (yet) read the content.  I'm not sure whether it's enough to hang this article on or not but maybe someone else can access it. Also possibly more here. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's available as a PDF from academia.edu. Here is the full citation: -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I have re-written this article based upon the Walshe source. The good news is that now every single sentence has an in-line citation, and I've deleted the original research and/or unsourced content. The bad news is that now most of the text relies upon this single source. In fact, it really just summarizes Walshe and could just as easily be an article about Walshe's piece (assuming it's notable, on its own) and, therefore, Walshe's (but not anyone else's) idea of green libertarianism. That brings me to my concerns about the source itself. Part of the source uses a chatty, informal tone that I would not have expected to find in an academic journal (in which it indeed appeared; I guess that's the journal editors' decision). Another version of this text comprises one part of the author's own dissertation (just now I can't find the link for that), in which WP:SCHOLARSHIP might become a concern (and I wouldn't imagine the chatty, informal tone is better suited for that context, either, but then I've never written a dissertation). That said, it's a reliable source that is unambiguously about green libertarianism, which this article has lacked until now. If there's a better source online, I couldn't find it (and if I personally think that Walshe's idea is highly problematic, I guess that's neither here nor there as it's still verifiable; I tried to be dispassionate about it). I cited two other sources in the lede. All three of the cited sources at least put the two words "green libertarian" or "green libertarianism" together, and still not one of these sources gives a concise definition like "green libertarianism means X." And while these sources corroborate that there is a political idea called green libertarianism, I still don't see any sources (that are not WP:SPS) that say "green libertarianism is a political movement and some of its notable proponents are X, Y and Z". Long story short, in the long term I don't think my version of this article is viable; I still think WP:NOTNEO applies. But I believe that WP:NOR and WP:V are no longer issues. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)