Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 14

"Anti-property libertarian principles" section WP:OR?
It seems to me that certain points have been made using previous references -- with full and not always relevant quotes. Not to mention the statements aren't necessarily accurate, since there are a wide variety of views on property among anti-property libertarians and this paragraph describes them as one over all view. The previous listing, while overly long, at least differentiated some of the different views. Please replace any irrelevant quotes from various unlinked sources with quotes that prove the author made the point you are referencing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate lead paragraph from Non-WP:RS source
The assertions of an anonymous author on a amateur advocacy site like InfoShop do not belong in the article unless they are describing infoshop itself. See V and the section after it. They in no way trump the superior academic sources like Johnathan Wolff, Stanford Encyclopedia, Peter Vallentyne's "Liberalism and the State." or Allen E. Buchanan. (In the past there were some media sources making same points.) Therefore the paragraph should read pretty much what it read in the past. (Note the next paragraph which also was more accurate on anti-property libertarian views.)

Dec 28 version:

From current version is something that had been merged into the lead also, but somehow ended up down further. It should be merged back in shorter form:

Also from the Dec 28 version a description of antiproperty libertarianism which actually are relevant to the references, as I know from checking them all out myself last year. They are not WP:OR, so it's annoying to see these references abused as they have been subsequently.

I should have gone in and nipped the Infoshop reference in the bud and perhaps that might have prevent some other problems, but sometimes things fall through the cracks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Public Relations Theory (Botan)
The Public Relations Theory reference only talks about privately owned media. Geolibertarians could consistently argue that the media was something created by humans, and therefore ownable, while land is not. I don't think this source can be applied to a statement talking about all privately owned property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MutantPlatypus (talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Carl H. Botan, Vincent Hazleton, Public relations theory II, p. 262, 2006 ISBN 0805833854, 9780805833850 “Worldwide, libertarianism has been as much the hallmark of media struggles for political and economic independence as it has been for nonmedia enterprises seeking liberalized investment policies; it has also been a rationale for establishing privately owned media.” This statement bares no relation to what you write above and is perfectly good source for statement "The most commonly known formulation of libertarianism supports free market capitalism" but it got moved around by some sloppy editor and I somehow missed it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Right to Abortion: A Libertarian Defense (Presley, Cooke)
The alf.org reference does not argue that propertarianism is a "weak basis for morality," it only states that it can not resolve, consistently, on the issue of abortion. It doesn't apply that to morality as a whole. -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the quoted phrase "propertarian philosophy" doesn't even exist in the document. MutantPlatypus (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ALF paper states:Some people may question the need to argue an alternative theory of natural rights, especially in an article on abortion. However, we have found that serious problems arise out of the propertarian model. In particular, the question of abortion does not resolve itself unambiguously under the "self-ownership" model.  Totally relevant to the topic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Asserting the question of abortion - and abortion is the only morality talked about here - doesn't resolve itself under the propertarian model doesn't mean that they also asserted that the propertarian model "is a weak basis for morality" as a whole. MutantPlatypus (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That was just one quote proving word "propertarian" used. (I don't know why "propertarian philosophy" needs to be used.) The rest of the article generally criticized strict Lockean model or one of self-as- property theories) both in general and relevant to abortion. I happened to read another article questioning that for of propertarianism as a basis for libertarian morality today elsewhere, so there certainly are other WP:RS sources.
 * Of course, you don't even have a source for your WP:OR definition of propertarian. Your ref is a Harry Browne article that doesn't even mention it. So I don't know what you are griping about.
 * A proper definition of propertarian, as in the wikipedia article on the topic, would include both the more general use (supporting private property) and the more specific use (strict Lockean model or one of self-as- property theories). When you've finished playing with the article I'll read through and clean up these sorts of problems. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Patriarchy, Racism
All three references following the patriarchy and racism sentence reference anarchy, not libertarian socialism. To then say libertarian socialists oppose these things is synthesis, or even that anarchists do, is borderline synthesis. -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC) One source says something along the lines of "all forms of hierarchy, domination...". If this could be applied to patriarchy and racism, then it could also be applied to parental dominance, worker's councils, etc. My main objection is they're not unique to anti-property libertarians. You could argue for property and against racism. -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That whole section had been messed with quite a bit lately when I was taking a break. However, your own synthesis definitely problematic and not in touch with sources as I mentioned above and I'll deal with it at some point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Anti-, non-, and pro-propertarian
The propertarian/non-propertarian sentence's sources also do not explicitly say libertarian socialists may be called non-propertarian, and never mention libertarianism. They're also used in very specific contexts, so it would definitely be synthesis to extrapolate them to the entire libertarian socialist label. I think the passage is true and wouldn't challenge it if it weren't sourced, but someone will definitely challenge it eventually. MutantPlatypus (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Actually, upon closer inspection, "Anarchism, Alternative Publishers, and Copyright" actually does compare intellectual property to "all other property rights", then uses the word "non-propertarians" to describe those opposed to such things. The article only uses intellectual property explicitly, but by saying "intellectual property, like all other property rights". They actually use some fallacious logic (intellectual property restricts freedom, intellectual property is a type of property, therefore all property restrict freedom), but I'd be surprised if anyone even challenged this claim. After all, "propertarian" is a pretty sensible word to use. I don't see why it would be disputed, except to be petty. -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not clear what you are referring to, what I wrote above, your new edits, or whatever. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Preface for Japanese Libertarianism
According to WP:SELFPUB rule number 1, this source is not acceptable. It's incredibly self serving, written by a pro-propertarian scholar for the Cato Institute. Since the passage still has a good source for it (the book review), I say the Cato thing should go. -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A book review from the Cato Institute is a perfectly good source. Again at some point since January someone moved it as a reference to the partial sentence "The most commonly known formulation of libertarianism supports free market capitalism." So you can see how annoyed I am by people just sticking whatever they want in front of an existing ref or moving refs around to support their own points. I'll have to go back to the last date all the refs were in the right place - maybe October - (while not ignoring good changes that did slip in in the interim). CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Cato source isn't a book review. It's the preface to a book published by the Institute.  It's an article patting Libertarians on the back about how well they've exported libertarianism.  Coming from an organization whose entire purpose is the promotion of libertarianism, the Cato source is a primary source when used in this manner.  The book review is an article from the New York Post.  I had presumed it was a reliable newspaper, but now that I look more closely it seems to be a tabloid.  The book itself seem to have garnered mention in other, more reliable sources, so I'll add one of those sources when I next have the time.  MutantPlatypus (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You may be right in this specific case. But the more important thing is that it is an example of an at least relevant reference that was moved and made irrelevant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Quoting a single source multiple times
I've noticed a few of the sources in the references are quoted multiple times. I've been trying to gather them up into a quotes section. If you're going to quote a source that's already in the References section, quote it in the notes section instead of adding another entry to the references section. You can do it like this:

This sentence makes a claim that is backed up by a source.

--MutantPlatypus (talk) (c. March 7, 2010)


 * I don't know what you are talking about. But have to track through dozens of multiple, often minor, edits certainly make it discouraging for other editors to compete with you. I don't know if you realize that or not.
 * Not everyone has a lot of time on their hands to track page after page after page of minor edits.
 * How about stopping for a few days to give others some time to catch up? Remember, lots of things can still be undone at some point a few weeks/months down road after you have exhausted your editing interest - as well as everyone else trying to keep track of your edits. Which is whaat I feel like doing at this point to avoid being overwhelmed by trivial and confusing change after change after change after change after change etc. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any objection to letting MutantPlatypus take a crack at cleaning up the article, which everyone agrees is problematic. If that takes multiple edits, and several days, so be it. There's no deadline.  Maybe an underconstruction tag is appropriate. THF (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand why the "note" has replaced a reference. It just looks sloppy to me, for no good reason. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Because I expected those sources to be quoted a lot, and didn't like the harvard reference style. Eventually, more quotes from those sources will pop up.  I've already seen a few other sources (I think Colin Ward's book is one of them) that are in the references list multiple times for different pages.  I would prefer the "note X" actually just read "X" and it's numbering was consistent with the other citations, but I'm not sure how to rig it so that it does that. MutantPlatypus (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The way you do it is very confusing and just means people will miss the references. Seek consensus before making such a radical change per NOTES. I'll change it back during a future cleanup. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Outpacing objections

 * He's doing POV, WP:OR writing at a rapid pace, trying to outpace objections. THe best thing is til wait till he "s h w" and then clean it up...
 * But here's one anyway: "According to academic literature, libertarianism usually refers to a minarchist philosophy that protects an individual's right to appropriate natural resources.[note 1][note 2][5]" and the version that was in there five minutes ago, a variation on the same problem. But since he'll change it eight more times in the next hour, who can keep up? This is not cooperative editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So why do you have to object to it this second? Unless you think MP is operating in bad-faith, or unless you think the version he was working from was FA-quality, the editor is making a substantial revision, and we can discuss the substantial revision when it's done.  WP:COOL.  The wrong version can sit on the articlespace for a couple of weeks. THF (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what FA-quality means. But I see constant problems with his edits, but he changes them so quick, who can keep up. I will wait and then do my corrections of the numerous questionable issues. But it can't be a wiki principle to let people totally mess up articles and then expect people to clean up later. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This sure looks like an improvement to me. Your proposals to glom together totally unrelated subjects and call it a "libertarianism" article would do more to "totally mess up" the article than anything MP has done. THF (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You misrepresent my intentions. One is not supposed to barrel ahead with POV, WP:OR edits, ignoring others concerns. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh my, seems like I've caused quite stir...Oh well. :-P If you have concerns with particular edits, tag the specific passage or post on my talk page.  I guarantee I'll notice tagged sentences while I'm editing, so you won't have to worry about your objection going unnoticed in the middle of a flurry of edits.  I'm not sure which content you consider to be POV and OR, all the claims made in my editing have actually been made by the sources cited, not myself.  Please post on my user talk page (we can copy it here if necessary) which content you feel violates policy.
 * I'll try to tag which section I'm working on with an under construction box, but I'm not expecting my editing to go uninterrupted. That's why I save changes fairly often: to describe each edit in the edit summary, and allow objectionable ideas to be scrapped immediately.--MutantPlatypus (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Have fun cleaning up the newest editor's edits. Don't forget to comment in full on each one deleted and prove it's not really in the reference he stuck it in front of. Something I complained about in your edits. Bad habits seem to be contagious. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that once editors finish "integrating" WP:OR as mentioned above and all this other editing, all these assertions will be gone through line by line and anything not in source will be removed or tagged, depending on how irrelevant to the source they are. Since text gets completely changed everyday - an only occasionally in relation to something I mention - it's not worth my while to do it now. Meanwhile I'm going back and saving old versions where I know material and sources searched to be prepared to reintroduce anything useful/verifiable. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Reminder on WP:Verifiability
Wrote this elsewhere today so might as well copy it here:
 * A bottom line Wikipedia principle is expressed in first line of WP:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true. Not to mention PROVEIT:  When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Anarchist publishers can't publish WP:RS?
Here MutantPlatypus has removed a reference from ''Skirda, Alexandre. Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organization from Proudhon to May 1968. AK Press 2002. p. 183.'' explaining "Removed unreliable sources. Books published by anarchist publishers and not cited by other literature are not reliable sources." He did the same thing with a Colin Ward book! While one can argue about some publishers and some authors and some books and some quotes, this is absurd. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please be aware that this issue is being discussed at WP:RSN. Please contribute to the discussion there. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Redundancies
I can't believe I have had to spend all this time dealing with redundancies in this article - so far two sections just repeated word for word. Please be more careful in the future whom so ever. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please expand left libertarian history
In the past there were various refs delivered (See archives) about left libertarian movements but no one knowledgeable put them in. I didn't have energy to learn the subject myself. So there's an "expand" section there. Go for it. Using WP:Reliable sources of course. Same with principles. I don't know enough to do it right. CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What I think needs doing
Usually I put up such a list before I start editing away, but given the way the article was messed with in sloppy ways to promote the minarchist philosophy, I just couldn't stop myself from correcting it today.
 * General continued cleanup from a point of view of making a balanced and accurate article and not pushing one variety of libertarianism. Obviously the proposal to split the articles has fallen flat, as it should.
 * Note that the earlier "Libertarianism and Anarchism" section found in this Feb 14 version was gutted out in one of the dozens of edits meant to make this article about MINARCHISM. Make a section on Libertarianism/Anarchism/Minarchism/ to actually explain the relation of the three. Plus maybe include Libertarian decentralism when I finish and put up the article; its frequently mentioned by libertarians of both stripes, though with somewhat different meanings sometimes (just to confuse things more). This also would make it easier to bring in Libertarian Municipalism, which is small active government, evidently, to increase liberty. And lets not forget minarchists can be nationalists or radical decentralists. (I was going to do that article first, but I just finally had it with questionable changes this morning.)
 * If that's done, the structure is ok; it's just a matter of cleaning up whatever problems exist in each subsection.
 * There is still a concern about a worldwide perspective, so a much shorter section on world libertarian movements, perhaps organized by continents, and linking to categories, might be in order, if someone wants to do the work. CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeline
I just found this old and rather undeveloped article: Timeline of libertarian thinkers. As it's so short, it seems to me it should be merged into the history section here, or otherwise expanded. (I did check to see if we have a separate History of libertarianism article to merge it into, but that simply redirects to Classical liberalism. Perhaps this should be merged there instead?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * Eh? For some reason this new section isn't showing up on the talkpage. Can anyone work out why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * I think it would be nice if someone just updated the article, but I don't have time. There's more than enough in this article already. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Which form of libertarianism?
Which form of libertarianism, if any, should be the main focus of this article? MutantPlatypus (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC) -

I think the amount of coverage of the anti-propertarian libertariansm/libertarian socialist/left-libertarianism view is in violation of the Wikipedia undue weight policy. Note, especially that

and

and, finally,

All the secondary and tertiary sources that I've seen either use "libertarian" in the propertarian minarchist sense, or lament that "libertarian" is, most commonly, used in the propertarian minarchist sense and go on to describe themselves as libertarian-with-a-qualifier.

We must make necessary assumptions, and the assumption we should make is that an unqualified "libertarianism" refers to minarchist propertarian philosophies. Note that the WP:MNA policy states

If some English speaker's friend said to her "I'm libertarian", and she didn't know what libertarian means and looks it up on Wikipedia, she'll come across this article. It's far more than likely that her friend meant "libertarian" in a propertarian sense. I don't think anti-propertarian ideas should be given as much weight within the context of an article on "libertarianism". There shouldn't be an entire section on antipropertarian principles, and the section on propertarian principles should be named libertarian principles, without qualifiers. —MutantPlatypus (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Here are some sources that indicate "libertarian" has, in the English speaking world, pro-property connotations.
 * "libertarian Ayn Rand disciple Ron Paul" Huffington Post: Mike Lux: The Philosophy of Me (First and Only)
 * "Ron Paul, the Texas libertarian" The Economist: Mitt Romney and the Republicans
 * "the libertarian Cato Institute" CNN: Budget hearings mix policy with presentation Feb 8 2010
 * "Property rights advocates, supported by a range of conservative and libertarian legal groups..." CNN: Justices debate rights of beachfront land owners
 * "the libertarian Cato Institute" CNN
 * "the libertarian Cato Institute" CNN
 * "John Stossel, a libertarian" MSNBC


 * Strong oppose. If that happens, this template should be added: --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to JokerXtreme:


 * "...libertarian Republican Ron Paul..." (UK)  BBC News Business.  Written by a Briton.
 * "Australia's small but vociferous army of libertarians - most of them associated with Sydney's Centre for Independent Studies or Melbourne's Institute of Public Affairs - ..." (Australia) The Sydney Morning Herald Business Day. Written by an Australian.
 * Could you please quote a reliable, secondary, source saying that unqualified-libertarianism refers to some kind of anti-propertarian libertarianism? In fact, libertarianism, from what I've seen in the sources, is either qualified as leftist (and is used synonymously with unqualified-anarchism), or has minarchist propertarian meaning.  In Facing the Enemy, (originally written in French about Spanish anarchism) libertarianism and communism are two separate sets of ideals, and libertarianism is - more accurately - anarchism.  And there's already an article on that.  The dichotomy is between propertarian minarchism or anarchish (of both the propertarian and anti-propertarian kind). —MutantPlatypus (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I found one! It's over a century old though... so it doesn't lend much weight... American Journal of Sociology (1906) —MutantPlatypus (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well communism itself is split to libertarian and authoritarian(or statist). What do you mean secondary source? : Will that suffice? I do know from first-hand experience that in Greek(my native language), libertarian(ελευθεριακός) is used as a synonym for all left strains of anarchism. It is not extended to anarcho-capitalism and minarchism to my knowledge. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I should correct myself. When I said "...a secondary source saying..." I meant "...a secondary source that implies...".  All my sources require inference (especially knowing about Ron Paul and the Cato Institute).
 * Chomsky is a primary source. There's no way you could say he's an unbiased observer.  See WP:SECONDARY for a description of secondary source.  So something like a newspaper article.  Even if it's in Greek.  Your example of eleutheriakos (...I tried) would actually be a poor translation.  You wouldn't say "that Greek libertarian make tasty gyros, while that American libertarian makes bad ones", you would say "that Greek left-libertarian makes tasty gyros, while the American libertarian makes bad ones".  Translating that into Greek, the Greek dude would be just a pure eleutheriakos, and the American one would be something else.  I recently noticed there used to be a small-l libertarianism article that just redirects here.  That would be an ideal place to expound on this. —MutantPlatypus (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any connection between libertarianism and gyros :P But I get your point. There is a previous version of the small-l article, but it being deleted probably shows the use is not that widespread:. Well I don't have much time right now, but I'll get back to it. In the meantime, try to attract more attention to this discussion, so we can figure out what should be done once and for all (or for a long time anyway). Not sure how you can do that, RfC didn't work. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First: I've been trying to attract outside discussion, but it doesn't seem to be working.  You're allowed to help too. I'm starting to get desperate, and I'm wondering if I should file a protection request, alleging y'all are vandals that the article needs to be protected against, just to get some outsiders in on this.  I'll give it a few more weeks, though.
 * Next: The small-l libertarianism deletion discussion said the page was deleted precisely because it's the same topic as the libertarianism article, further backing me up.  However, it's also an old discussion, so I don't give it much weight. -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First, while the article did suffer from a bit too much left libertarian detail in the sections, over all I do believe sources support that various left anarchists and others use the concept libertarian enough to warrant about 1/3 of article. (However there have been unanswered requests (mostly by me) for someone who understands them to detail the "principles" behind these various left views, which has in the past excused the emphasis on pro-property libertarians in the principles section.)
 * Second, the global Tag WAS there before and thus the creation of the whole list of groups/movements worldwide which then itself got out of hand. I personally cleaned it up a couple times and then gave up. So a solution to the issue is needed.
 * Third, I think MutantPlatypus is POV pushing to the extreme and seriously disrupting this article, which is why when I finish a few personal projects I may revert much of it to before the time when he started editing and then let's clean up that. Also I left a message on the NPOV noticeboard asking people to check out Feb 1 vs. March 3 versions and opine here. My complaint is that after a lot of issues had been settled after many months of debate, one editor has come in here and willy nilly deleted material without bothering to read archives or consult others here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I'm a bit new here, so I admit I might have been a bit too bold in removing much of the article's content without discussion. However, I don't feel as thought I'm POV pushing anything besides improvements to the article.  I realize now it's a contentious issue, and I've learned a lot about the various uses of libertarianism since I started.  But I'm not convinced the others warrant much coverage.  I still have not seen any sources that refer specifically to libertarianism in the leftist sense.  I've seen a lot that use it synonymously with anarchism, but anarchism itself is split into many factions, each purporting to be the "real" anarchism, which I think is where this disagreement begins.  Publications by people directly involved in anarcho-communism, minarchism, anarcho-capitalism, etc. are biased sources in establishing modern notability in this case.  I've been careful to make sure my sources to justify my use of libertarianism have been from unbiased observers.  Chomsky, although biased, is also an academic, so I would accept him.  But so far I've only seen Chomsky and Frank use libertarianism as inherently leftist, and it's always been in some context of how the current definition of libertarianism is rightist.
 * My motivations for doing this are: I could find no consensus on the page title because all the discussions seemed to end inconclusively; and that I'm dismayed that an article could be demoted from featured status.  I've been basing my edits off of the version that was most recently voted to stay a featured article and the Wikipedia for Schools versions.  Those focus mainly on libertarianism as minarchist propertarian, ala the Cato Institute.
 * It looked like the article was getting way too large and covering far too many topics (that even had their own sizeable articles), so I pared it down. I really want a consensus.  However, I'm not swayed by uncited claims about the notability of libertarianism as an inherently socialist idea.  I want libertarian socialism covered to a limited extent in this article, but I don't want it given undue weight, lest the article become bloated and confusing.  If you want to put some stuff back, I won't revert it, but I will challenge it, vigorously, here.  The version you linked to has a lot of duplicated coverage in both the "Usage by..." sections.  It contains lists that are duplicated in categories and list-articles.
 * Please assume I'm acting in good faith. -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The once featured article had hardly any references and would not pass muster today. Schools version is an old version of this that also has very few references. Again, I don't have a problem with cutting down overly long sections, however gutting WP:RS material (on antiproperty views and worldwide views) and misrepresenting sources in WP:Original research are problems which obviously have been complained about already. Have you bothered to read the past archives. SOme of those people are still around and able to bring all this up again. I'd rather revert to and clean up much of the Dec 2009 than see a few free for all, which is what your edits are leading to. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

-
 * Comment. Anti-property libertarianism is really a flavor of anarcho-libertarianism, which is itself a WP:FRINGE subset of libertarianism.  Without looking at the article, and thinking about it from a blank slate, it makes most sense to segregate the anti-property stuff to part of a single section or subsection with a main template.  COI disclosure: Wikipedia thinks I'm a notable libertarian, and I'm friends with well over a dozen other notable libertarians.  None of them are anti-property libertarians. THF (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Pro-property libertarianism is a flavor of anarcho-capitalism. Go play with your friends. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Draw the Venn diagrams. Most pro-property libertarians are not anarcho-libertarians; all anti-property libertarians are anarcho-libertarians; anarcho-libertarianism is a small offshoot of libertarianism; only some anarcho-libertarians are anti-property.  So we're talking an offshoot of an offshoot, and WP:WEIGHT says that it doesn't get more than a subsection.  Please strike your rude violation of WP:CIVIL. THF (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of anarcho-libertarianism before. This must be a neologism. So what are the differences between anarcho-capitalists and pro-property libertarians? --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * People use a lot of different descriptors, and the ones that can be referenced with WP:RS should be in the article in some form or other. That's the sort of thing that is supposed to prevent time-wasting debates on personal definitions.
 * So to JokerXtreme, note there are lots of anarchist libertarians who are pro-property and choose not to be called "anarcho-capitalists" because capitalism is not the same as the free market and some versions are statist.
 * So to THF, I don't know what the Venn diagrams are, but I don't see evidence they are WP:RS for the article. Note that there are some anti-property libertarians who want small state libertarian municipalism, something I believe formerly discussed and ref'd in the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Mutant, I think it's less confusing if you post in the end of the article. Maybe we should take this to mediation? --JokerXtreme (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If I posted to the end of the article, how would you know which point I'm responding to? I hope you don't take this to mediation, because you would likely be admonished (see WP:TP and WP:INDENT) and risk having some privileges revoked.  That would be one less opinion on which to form consensus, and we have few enough as it is. -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * While I don't think mediation is the solution at this point, I do think that threatening someone who brings up mediation with some minor complaint is unnecessary. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think having the section titled forms of Libertarianism works fine.  I think any variations can be adressed there. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about?!?! "libertarianism" is a political philosophy, not a current day manifestation, or the the present state of a "movement".  Why has this latter day bullshit been allowed to corrupt an article which should be concerned with the Enlightment Era (especially John Stuart Mill)) development of the political philosophy and its influence on the founding fathers of the US? This article is simply exaggerating the (pronounced) confusion in terms by discussing the history of a political movement and its manifestations in the current day in an article which should be discussing a political philosophy, as its name would suggest. Nusumareta (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In wikipedia we go by what sources say, and they say "Libertarianism" only has been used as a word for political philosophy mostly in 20th-21st century. And obviously there are a number of movements claiming to follow that political philosophy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment from editor
Originally on my talk page but belongs here:
 * You think it's blatantly POV to at least suggest to the reader that libertarianism propertarian and methodologically individualistic, and to let them know that "libertarian socialism" is actually an umbrella term for various left-anarchistic tendencies, having nothing to do with the libertarianism covered by this article (or the kind that Chomsky pans, take your pick)? If libertarian transhumanism (an apocryphal subject, if ever there was one) gets a section, then where does the line get drawn? An introductory article should be just that: a digestible primer, not a manifest crisis of Too Many Cooks.


 * Original research? Give me a break. You're the perfect picture of a Wikipedian: care more about making other editors happy than the integrity of the articles, servile to consensus, and reactively against well-informed edits made in good faith when they contravene established consensus.


 * 1% of this website's users make the majority of the edits. Wikipedia's jealous internal politics sacrifice accuracy and coherence, drive away potential editors, and make all this a waste of my time. 68.155.217.221 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
FYI discussions below outline some of the POV editing tactics that are being complained about by putting up this tag. To be clear, the POV pushing is by individuals who want libertarianism to mean only their brand of Minarchist pro-property views and keep coming up with dubious excuses to delete views and sources that disagree with that, slowly chipping away at the article. I'm not an anarchist communist by the way, so I'm not objecting for POV reasons but because of Wikipedia policy reasons. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What is all this "left" and "right" bullshit cluttering up an article on a political philosophy -- do we speak of "left" or "right" socialism, Marxism, fascism, monarchism, or dictatorships? "libertarianism" (and it really wouldn't be a bad idea to keep this in a lower case) is a core liberal political philosophy (one the US was founded upon) -- it has not changed, but the terms have.  It's easy enough to see the source of the confusion: today, "liberal" and "conservative" apply to two different, particular dimensions -- "social" and "fiscal".  The simplest way to describe a "libertarian" (and, definitely with a small "L") using the current usage of the terms would be "socially liberal" and "fiscally responsible.  This article is simply exaggerating the (pronounced)  confusion in terms by discussing the history of a political movement and its manifestations in the current day in an article which should be discussing a political philosophy, as its name would suggest.  Nusumareta (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering that I evidently put up the tag and the issue has been resolved, I guess I'll take it down! CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism?
Is libertarianism, a european romanticist replacement for Land owners ? or Real state people's party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.90.159.233 (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Problems with recent lead changes

 * Removal of bolded "Libertarianism is a political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action(Definition of libertarianism in Merriam-Webster Dictionary) No reason to remove the actual definition by a reliable and neutral source.
 * Replacement of above with "Libertarianism is a term adopted by a broad spectrum(Peter Vallentyne, Libertarianism, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, July 24, 2006 version.)".... Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum, ranging from pro-property to anti-property, from minarchist to openly anarchist.'  The first use was changed before because the word spectrum is NOT used by Vallentyne (my own WP:OR a year or so ago) or anywhere else in the article besides mention in Nolan chart description where it is discussed as inadequate. The second use snuck back in there at some point and is problematic mostly because we are talking about two different spectrums, not just one, which should either be discussed more at length with a source or left out. I would suggest the latter.

Therefore I think the lead should revert to: Libertarianism is a political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty of thought and action[1][2][3] and the minimization or even abolition of the state.[4][5] Libertarians embrace viewpoints ranging from pro-property  to anti-property and from a minimal state (or minarchist) to anarchist.[6][2][7][8]CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Libertarians embrace viewpoints ranging from pro-property to anti-property"

"Libertarians have been described as "left" or "right" depending on their views of property rights over natural resources." Both of these sentences lack a clear reference. Could anyone point me to the exact page in the ref listed? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have waited 5 days for clarification and none has been presented. I have read all of the sources cited and cannot find supporting material in the poorly referenced material which is lacking page #s, so I will delete the 2 lines  Darkstar1st (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The first sentence, of which you quoted only the first half, has four sources, but they're all for the minarchist versus anarchist viewpoint. The second sentence, however, is expanded upon by the next few sentences, which reference the Stanford Encyclopedia definitions.  So I would say the first quoted phrase could be referenced to the same Stanford Encyclopedia definitions.  On a related note, I think the libertarian socialist sentence should be removed, as it is the only sub group mentioned in the lead, which is a serious case of undue WP:WEIGHT.  I'll make the changes and see what people think. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 13:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Having made those changes to the lead, and looking at it again, I think we may still have an issue with WP:WEIGHT, this time with the sources. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is cited five times in the lead. Every other source, of which there are nine, is cited only once. I think information should be gathered from other sources, as this one source, though it seems reliable and well-researched, shouldn't be the sole explanation for so much critical content. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 13:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * not only is Stanford located in Santa Clara county, CA, but two other primary sources in libertarianism; Dr. Fred Foldvary (Anarchy), and William A. Sundstrom (specifically left-libertarianism) are from Santa Clara University, also of Santa Clara County, Ca. I fear this article, and sub-articles are being manipulated by a small geographic location, Santa Clara County, Ca. USA. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Stanford encyclopedia makes no mention of Socialism in the article about Libertarianism. Of the "left-Lib sources cited, I read one of the primary sources; Vallentyne, P, who incorrectly labels John Locke as Egalitarian which he is clearly not: Locke, "he who appropriates land to himself by his labour, does not lessen but increase the common stock of mankind. For the provisions serving to the support of humane life, produced by one acre of enclosed and cultivated land, are (to speak much within compasse) ten times more, than those, which are yielded by an acre of Land, of an equal richnesse, lyeing waste in common. And therefor he, that incloses Land and has a greater plenty of the conveniencys of life from ten acres, than he could have from an hundred left to Nature, may truly be said, to give ninety acres to Mankind."  I am also unable to find the term: libertarian socialism in any encyclopedia, including Stanford.   Darkstar1st (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you examined references 96-99? They are cited in the libertarian socialism section. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 15:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Source 96 Mendes, Silva. Socialismo Libertário ou Anarchismo Vol. 1 (1896): "Society should be free through mankind's spontaneous federative affiliation to life, based on the community of land and tools of the trade; meaning: Anarchy will be equality by abolition of private property and liberty by abolition of authority" This source has been translated AND interpreted by the posting editor. The source lacks page numbers and does not directly support the claims made by the editor. I suggest it and the passages be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 April 2010
 * TFD, thank you for reminding me to sign my post, a rather confusing omission of functionality in such an elegant organism as wiki to allow anonymous posting imho. Has my ban threat been lifted?  Or shall I continue to suggest my edits on the talk page in hopes others will do my work for me?  Darkstar1st (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you start a new section at the bottom of this page, and re-organize and outline your current issues. Since things have gotten a bit jumbled, with conversation spread out over a few different sections, and some of the issues have been addressed, it's hard to be sure what problems remain.  I personally don't have an issue with changes made, as long as they are properly justified.  But first, like I said, lay it all out in one organized new section. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 19:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of libertarianism
I have a minor objection to that section, and a slightly stronger one to the article itself: Criticism of libertarianism. It seems to be slightly POV to me. Note, there are no articles for Criticism of conservatism or Criticism of liberalism, nor are there even such sections in the Conservatism and Liberalism articles themselves. I do see that there are articles for Criticism of anarchism, Criticism of socialism, and Criticism of communism, but I would think either all ideologies should have such articles, or none should. Probably this isn't even the correct place to discuss this, and I suppose I could start the missing articles I mentioned above myself, but I thought I'd point it out. In fact, I would think liberalism would get a criticism article before libertarianism, as the latter is really an outgrowth or sub-section of the former. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 19:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe do a stub with a couple of WP:RS on criticism of Conservatism and Liberalism and then tell everyone in those articles and the politics working group pages. :-)  In this article the problem is that there should be some outline of the criticisms not just current format. Enough people have come by and asked why there wasn't such a section, someone should take responsibility. I'm just too pro to do it NPOV, myself :-) However, if someone does not expand it in next few weeks I will delete it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental errors of this article
This article have a lot of error and some editor are coinfused about what should be referenced, specially about an imaginay filiation between libertarianism and libertarian socialism, and the focus in a anacronic use of a french word (liberTAIRE) with the modern english word liberTARIAN.

- The only one ideology called "libertarianism" is capitalist/laissez-faire/individualist one. There isn't any reference about and import use of this sustantive for another ideology.

- This is not an article for the use of the adjective "libertarian". You can reference this article a lot of times of ancient uses of the adjective "libertarian", but that don't create a filitian between a form of socialism and a form o capitalism, and that references are impertinent to his article about an ideology called "libertarianism" (a sustantive).

- A seemed name don't make one ideology part of another one (libertarian socialism is not part of libertarianism, and the isn't no reference about this).

- The only one referenced ideology like the mostly knowed, is libertarianism like laissez-faire/capitalist/individualist ideology. Any other use is a particular interpretation of political ideas and vocabulary.

- In Wikipedia, articles should explain a real extendend use and significance, not a interpretative use of some politized editors. In a last petition for honesty I hope all editors check what is understand by libertarianism(Libertarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy /// Publications about libertarianism. Google Books) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sageo (talk • contribs) 17:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First, there was quite a bit about existing libertarian socialist groups worldwide that was deleted when "Movements" section taken out. Second, some left libertarians have left a lot of refs in the past, in addition to what is in there now, but they don't choose to update the article. At this point there isn't much in the article about them but IMHO it does reflect the prominence of those who identify as left or socialist libertarians, which is a small but existent presence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe I was not understanded by you. In wich sense, with which references, we can say that libertarian socialism is part -belongs- to libertarianism? If they are two separated ideas why this article -and also sidebar template- creates a fictional filiation? What I say is that a seem in the name with a form of utopian socialism/radical collectivism is not justification for ignoring that definition of libertariansm is only about radical capitalism (left-libertarianism is not the same thing that libertarian socialism). What I say is that this article creates an imaginary filiation between two ideas which don't belong one to the other. Sageo (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Trying to reply to what you seem to be saying in rather broken English, the article is about those who profess some form of libertarianism according to WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

- The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. I am having trouble correcting the page, Zhang He has threatened to ban me from editing for noting the following errors: source 75 links to a self published blog post: http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/tals.html source 69 is an editorial on progress.org source 70 is a blog post on an institutional website. source 6 list a book review: ^ David Gordon, Delete the State: A challenge to minarchists, book review on Ludwig von Mises Institute web site, April 21, 2009. source 3 links to an edu search engine Darkstar1st (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the edu search engine source, as it has nothing to do with the statement, "political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action", where it is placed. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 19:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard over these sources. Perhaps we can determine whether they are usable there. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 18:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus on the RSN discussion page seems to be that neither Lew Rockwell nor The Progress Report are reliable sources. I think they'll need to be removed, and some significant changes made, but I'm unwilling to jump into that just yet.  I'd like some more comments and discussion first. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 22:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead is rather confusing. "Libertarians have been described as "left" or "right" depending on their views of property rights.[2] However, some pro-property libertarians reject being described as "left" or "right."   Would it be possible for us to distill the def. from several sources?Darkstar1st (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DarkStar's edits
Editor DarkStar is in the midst of a campaign of disruption in this article. He began by removing the majority of the lede, claiming "Listing opposing views about the definition does not belong in the opening paragraph," which is patent nonsense. The lede has been the subject of much debate and discussion (in which the editor in question has not participated) and I believe the current version has consensus.

He then moved on to repeatedly templating the article, arguing that the sources are insufficient and inappropriate, because, and I am going to quote him so that I get this right:


 * "source 3 links to a .edu search engine," with the source in question being the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy;
 * "source 6 and others have no page number," in which case it is a general reference to a number of relevant titles---specifically, note 6 is Woodcock's Anarchism---in which the books themselves are not directly quoted, in which case page numbers are not necessary or even possible;
 * "source 7 list a book review," which is a review of a libertarian book on the Ludwig von Mises website.

He then repeated this same reasoning again after I reverted him. He also added the following: "The word 'source' as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work." I fail to see how that is relevant, as none of these are inappropriate sources.

The only conclusion I can reach is that DarkStar is bent on disruption, not article improvement. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 19:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Darkstar removed sourced information and placed several tags on the article. Could you discuss these issues here so that we can determine if these actions are merited.  There opposition from many editors to these changes.  TFD (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The search engine source has been deleted, the other sources which point to self-published blogs and book reviews will soon be deleted as well, not by me, as I have been threatened with a ban.Darkstar1st (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, it was not a search engine, as you bloody damn well know. It was an encyclopedia of philosophy.  Your continued mischaracterization is indicative of your overall attitude toward editing.  And the source was removed because it did not support the statement, not for any reason you have given. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  00:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, you are correct, it was the home page for an encyclopedia of philosophy search dialog box and clearly not a search engine as you said. My attitude is to actually follow sources and delete them as I find as you said, "it did not support the statement" which would be impossible to determine as the link did not lead to any specific material.  I believe I have offended you RJ and wish to bury our differences in the spirit of truth.  Darkstar1st (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So you admit the source was invalid, perhaps now you will review the others, like this self published rant of a 16 y/o child in Texas, which is the primary source of Libertarian socialist, a contradiction of terms. http://www.zcommunications.org/prospects-for-libertarian-socialism-by-david-bakeDarkstar1st (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From the bottom of that article: "David Bake, 16, lives in Lubbock, Texas". That does NOT look like a WP:RS to me at all.  The kid has zero credentials. I think it needs to be pulled immediately. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 03:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the 2nd of the 5 sources I flagged that has been removed, the others have received support for removal as well. Please stop undoing my edits.Darkstar1st (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

more self-published as source 10 of the left-libertarianism page: ^ e.g. Faatz, Chris, "Toward[s] a Libertarian Socialism." Available at [1]. http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/tals.htmlDarkstar1st (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * After the article was gutted a month or so ago of libertarian socialist ideas, it may be that some of the real WP:RS were removed. I know I tried to replace some stuff, but really was leaving it to lib socialists, as not to misrepresent their ideas. Guess will have to go back and see what might be missing since it hasn't been fixed up yet. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * PS please take off tags as make corrections. A couple probably belong on top of REFS section not on top of page. Just looks like someone had a temper tantrum the way it is now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Carol, for some reason, Santa Clara County CA, is the home of several primary sources associated with left-Libertarianism and Libertarianism from 2002 forward. I suggest using 3rd party sources, should any exist, as Santa Clara County CA, has overly influenced this debate.  EX:  Stanford encyclopedia, multiple SCU professors listed as primary   Corrections are ongoing and the tags should remain   Darkstar1st (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I started another discussion about the Flag site being used as a source. It may not be good on its own, but the particular author, Chris Faatz, may be a WP:RS on his own.  I also fixed up the tags on the page to better reflect the current state of the dispute. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 15:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I reversed a recent Darkstar re-write to the lead and removed a reference to Lao Tzu as the first libertarian. Please keep this article encyclopedic and neutral.  TFD (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Lao Tzu source is the von mises institute, which has been used in other Libertarianism articles on WP. The other material was from an encyclopedia and sourced  Darkstar1st (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) While the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a reliable source, it was not referenced properly. You must follow instructions for "Citing Entries" on their website. The Encyclopedia of Political Information on the other hand is not a reliable source. It says, "Please be advised that "The Encyclopedia of Political Information" CANNOT guarantee, in any way whatsoever, the validity of the information found here." Also, Murray Rothbard's article claiming that Lao Tzu was the first libertarian was not intended to be taken literally and is not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * not "must", rather "suggested way" according to the site. Also, please use the  WP:Template messages/Cleanup/Verifiability and sources instead of deleting sourced material from a WP:RS  Darkstar1st (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * On the minor point:Even if you find a source the correct thing to say is that SO AND SO SAYS Lao Tzu was first libertarian. I'm sure their are lots of historical figures who were in whichever of ones definitions from today one wants to use. But in any case it goes in history, not the lead.
 * The major point of course is that Darkstar is pushing her/his own POV, running roughshod over editors, ignoring any attempts at consensus and testing everyone's patience as s/he did in April. See Her/His talk page.  CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Carol, everyone knows all stars are male. Please review the last 10 deletions/additions i have contributed to WP, from WP:RS, like the one one saying Lao tzu was the 1st.  All 10 were challenged, some reverted several times, threats to ban, yet all have stood the scrutiny and remain.  Perhaps mine, is not the POV that should be reviewed?Darkstar1st (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Darkstar, I get the impression you're a capitalism-favoring libertarian, and while I'm extremely sympathetic to that viewpoint, we have to discuss these major changes to the lead, and be careful to preserve neutrality in the article. I know you think the lead is slanted incorrectly, and I may partially agree, but the proper way to achieve major changes is to present them here, so we can work out the details first, reach consensus, then make the changes.  I've asked you a couple times to give an organized presentation of your concerns, so we can figure them out.  I'd still like you to do that.  You won't win any friends by going back and forth with edits like this though. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 03:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is the Stanford encyclopedia used as a source, but other WP:RS encyclopedias are not?Darkstar1st (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Stanford encyclopedia is a WP:RS, and it relies on a number of other sources to compile its information. The other encyclopedia you want to reference is definitely a WP:RS as well, and I'd like to add some content from it, but your additions were fairly severe, not discussed here first, and a bit clunky as well.  We'll need to figure out a way to properly weave them into the lead first, instead of just wedging a few random sentences in. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 03:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty." "states may legitimately provide police, courts, and a military, but nothing more. Any further activity on the part of the state—regulating or prohibiting the sale or use of drugs, conscripting individuals for military service, providing taxpayer-funded support to the poor, or even building public roads—is itself rights-violating and hence illegitimate."

the additions I made were word for word equal to those of other encyclopedias. In fact, I have found many more encyclopedias with vastly different def. than Stanford. Perhaps some varity of sources would benefit WP here.Darkstar1st (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * CarolDC, tzu is, and always was in history??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 03:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Insufficient reason to delete much of lead
Making big changes to a variation on a longstanding lead that's been worked on by a lot of people with an explanation that doesn't make much sense or provide details is questionable. Please explain or see it reverted. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. While I wasn't totally thrilled about the way the lead was before, it at least provided something of an overview of the contents, which is the point per WP:LEAD. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs)

Agreed. The lead we had before was a decent summarization of polarized viewpoints, and discussed the historical origin and development of the philosophy. All we have now is two paragraphs that revolve around the supposed importance of the right/left definition of the term, and quotes from a couple of anarcho-capitalists. Sir Richardson (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead currently states "Libertarians have been described as left or right depending on their views of property rights over natural resources". This is erasing from the record those left-wing "libertarians" who oppose other forms of private property. The older intro seemed more comprehensive and balanced. Iota (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that is not the best description and that something more general in the lead saying they disagree over property which would be elucidated further down would be better. Others in the past have disagreed, which is why I left it in. But have no problem with more general statement there and using that particular descriptor elsewhere. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not left or right becoming WP:Undue
Now that all real description of difference between anti and pro-property libertarians deleted, it seems particularly absurd to have in the lead four sentences saying that that distinction is rejected. Also, the "northern region on an axis" business should also be compared to the Nolan chart; which itself might be WP:undue in the article. And the last sentence "50 years of research on public opinion, etc." is not relevant and seems WP:OR unless the article mentions libertarianism and I'd like to see what it says in quotes in the reference. Just saying for future reference when I play around with it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that article mentions libertarians. Are you lacking access to university databases? I agree that the "left or right" stuff should be moved to other articles; that was just included in order to demolish any arguments that libertarians fit anywhere on the traditional left/right spectrum (unless one wants to call them moderates because they are socially liberal and fiscally conservative; but "moderate" doesn't accurately describe, for instance, radical libertarians. How can one be a radical moderate?) Tisane (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is important. The amount of content in lead becoming disproportionate. At this point it might be best to say something like "A number of libertarians reject terms left and right as authoritarian or whatever" and then list refs and include quotes in the references, including whatever in the article in question above mentions libertarians (a lot of people can't get university material). (If not written by libertarian but still significant change descriptor of who says what.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. The state of the lead right now is, frankly, ridiculous.  It's supposed to introduce and summarize the subject, and spending an entire paragraph on the left/right nonsense is wildly out of proportion to the contents of the article. <B>Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 11:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * SOFIXIT. Tisane (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry; it's on my to-do list. Mind you, it's a very long list, but still. <B>Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 19:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * if we could distribute the lead with equal words given to 3-4 encyclopedias, or even sources of differing origin, we would be 99% there. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains many libertarians do reject the left right continuum, so maybe I should just reference. As I wrote above, content is the issue, not number of words. Why not run any draft lead by here. As I will... :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Intro
The introduction currently includes the following paragraph:

This wording suggests, incorrectly, that the only difference between libertarians on the left and right is a disagreement over whether natural resources should be made private property. I introduced a modest, single sentence on libertarian socialism to correct this. This was deleted as a "violation of WP:WEIGHT". So I tried another wording, which was also reverted. I'm now trying a third time.

There is a group of libertarians on the left who do not believe in private property at all. Some may feel that they are not significant enough to be specifically mentioned in the introduction, but it should not imply by its wording that they do not even exist. That is factually inaccurate.

Please do not revert my latest attempt to fix this unless you can suggest an alternative way of rewording the paragraph. I hope we can agree that it's not quite right yet.

Iota (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't what is described as the libertarian theory of private property actually the liberal theory, without which private property would not exist anyway? TFD (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the way you have it now is better. I primarily was objecting to mentionong specific subsets, e.g. libertarian socialists or geolibertarians.  As it stands, I somewhat think it needs a citation, but on the other hand, there is a statement a few lines above it about right libertarians that isn't cited either.  I do agree that it isn't just natural resources that is the issue.  However, we still need a WP:RS to really explain that it's all property, in some cases, that is disputed between the right and left of libertarianism. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 23:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is the Stanford encyclopedia allowed but other encyclopedias used as WS:RS excluded?
http://www.iep.utm.edu/libertar/ All of the material posted from this source has been removed, why?<B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 15:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 03:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Properly sourcing the Lao Tzu information
Darkstar, you need to give better citations than what you currently have for Lao Tzu. A list of vaguely libertarian-related phrases, which may or may not be book titles, is insufficient. You'll need to organize the citations with authors and book titles connected, preferably with page numbers, and hopefully with ISBN numbers as well. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 15:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, the ref was correctly sourced the 1st time; Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School.

Read more: The Ancient Chinese Libertarian Tradition - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Institute http://mises.org/daily/1967#ixzz0nbwBDixB The addition of "according to Murray" by Carol, and the skepticism of TFD "Murray Rothbard's article claiming that Lao Tzu was the first libertarian was not intended to be taken literally and is not a reliable source." According to whom the ref is not to be taken literally? Von Mises is recognized as WP:RS in many WP articles, if Murray was the Dean of the Austrian school, why is TFD claiming he is not reliable? I am fine with either edit, but implying Murray was the only person who published this fact is not true. If more sources are required, i will be happy to acquire page #, etc, however I am concerned some, who do not have a NPOV, simply wish to restrain efforts to complete the article when it does not agree with their beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 09:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it to say simply that Rothbard called Lao Tzu the first libertarian. That is as neutral as it gets.  You must say who is calling Lao Tzu a libertarian.  The word "claimed" that TFD used is definitely non-neutral and unacceptable.
 * The other problem was that the Lao Tzu quote wasn't properly attributed to him. It could have been a Rothbard quote based on the structure of the paragraph.  I re-organized it to make it clear.
 * It's possible that you could add that many other libertarian thinkers agree with Rothbard, without listing all the names, as long as there are properly formatted references to the people who said it, and where they said it. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 15:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hamoway's book states "Lao Tzu (the “Old Philosopher”) is thought to have been an older contemporary of Confucius and arguably the first libertarian." So with three libertarians making the claim it could be written "Some libertarians write/hold/believe" etc. with the refs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, i prefer the current edit by Torchiest. Thank you both for all the help.  Whenever sources are challenged, i always uncover more information to add to this and other WP articles.  Darkstar1st (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * After looked at it made two correcting changes. Two more refs would strengthen so this doesn't look like a Murray Rothbard article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While I'm a big fan of Murray Rothbard who used to work with him in the 1980s in NYC, one must admit that it seems absurd to call Rothbard the dean of Austrians from an unattributed author, even if it is at the Mises site. And what happened to Hayek? At the very least to be NPOV one would have to say that according to an unidentified author at the Mises site he was the "dean." And there are certainly more credible laudatory statements that could be made about rothbard further down IN the article where his role is discussed. It's just silly looking there, if you look at whole picture. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You could be right. Here's another source:  Still, I think your overall point is valid; there's no need to always include every detail just because it's true or cited, and, as you say, there could be more details about him added to a more appropriate location in the article. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 18:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it that Chinese philosophers are always trying to Confucius? Tisane (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Need consensus on use of pro and anti-property
After looking around at refs, obviously people use the terms but not always as specifically "anti-property libertarian" and "pro-property libertarian" as would make things neat and clean. The terms certainly are preferable to left and right, which is why they were inserted in first place and a consensus of editors arose to use them. However, now Darkstar has challenged that consensus and no one is sticking up for it. It could be argued it's a "summary technique" if a bunch of refs were added, and I guess brought to - which noticeboard? Or an RfC??

Also I keep leaving messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy/Anarchism to tell them to come in here and put properly ref'd info in since I don't have time, energy or interest to keep it that NPOV. Inevitably someone will come along and complain, add non ref'd material or add a bunch of refs they themselves refuse to insert (as happened in the past - see archives). So it can be very frustrating. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Carol are you saying a group of WPians coined the term "anti-property" collectively, recently? If so, I suggest we refrain from using WP created terms in the future.  Carol, would you be opposed to adding the same amount of words from other encyclopedias in the opening paragraph?   Darkstar1st (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It was not coined. See Books google search listing for term anti-property, Books google antiproperty, books google pro-property. Obviously many more through web internet searches. It was used descriptively to classify the two different groups, those which broadly are for most forms of property and those which are against at the very least large scale and corporate property ownership. Stanford Phil. seems to be the source that most clearly makes that point, even if it just talks about ownership of resources.
 * The issue is not the "amount" of words but what the words say. Over all content is what matters. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please specify issues instead of tagging away
So has anyone identified the various issues previously tagged? Please do it issue by issue rather than making others guess. Considering no one has corrected alleged issues in a month, it is obvious such generalized tagging just discourages editing corrections and makes article look bad. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've asked Darkstar1st, at least twice, to list exactly what his remaining objections are, but he has thus far failed to do so. I'm fine with the removals you've done, as they haven't gotten any response yet, and more specific tags would help. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 17:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi all, and thx for the nod, but none of what Carol changed was mine. All of my tags were added and removed in a matter of days.  Apologies Carol, for not waiting the week on "anti-property".  My remaining objections center around the unbalanced use of the Stanford encyclopedia, and two lecturer's notes from SCU, all from Santa Clara county, California.  Peter Vallentyne has classified John Locke, who said, "private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.", as "egalitarian", on the 2nd page, of the primary source, for much of the Stanford article.


 * Part of the issue is the confusion over the use and definition of the words "Liberal", and "Libertarian".

I suggest the singular quote cited in the "left" ref to libertarianism was a mistranslation/misinterpretation of the French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque, "libéral et non LIBERTAIRE" (liberal but not libertarian). IMHO, Dejacque was forming the French version of the term defined as "one who subscribes to the philosophy of liberty. Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will. Classical liberalism, as understood in the time of Joseph Déjacque, is a political ideology that developed in the 19th century in Western Europe. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. IMHO, Today the term Liberal has been linked to income redistribution and "anti-property" rights, a term I reject, furthermore, most liberal's today would not support the classic liberal belief in smaller government. The result is a misunderstood combination libert(y) + -arian, according to me.


 * "A distinction from the classical liberalism that Proudhon advocated in relation to economic exchange, in contrast to the more communist approach advocated by Déjacque.", Peter Valentyne.

"liberal and non LIBERTARIAN, you want free trade in cotton and candle, and you advocate for protective systems of man against the woman in the movement of human passions, you scream against the barons capital, and want to rebuild the barony of high male on female vassal", Letter to PJ Proudhon. New Orleans, May 1857. The Libertarian not a libérâtre it is not one to make the authority for freedom but on the contrary, freedom and against the authority. " (Libertarian No. 1) Does anyone think "freedom and against authority", means more communist, socialist, or left anything?  I conclude Peter Valentyne's misunderstanding of Dejacques words, have lead to the confusion.


 * Lastly, "Libertarians have been described as "left" or "right" depending on their views of property rights. However, some libertarians reject being described as "left" or "right."  The lead paragraph may not be the best pace to debate the "slant" of a philosophy.  Example: Some horses have stripes, but reject the label, "Zebra".  Darkstar1st (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There maybe past confusion on tagging with another editor. But content wise, the bottom line is there are different people who define and use the term differently and the ones who have made it to a level of notability that there is a WP:RS on them that someone chooses to put in the article should be given their appropriate percent of attention. That's why I wanted to move the discussions of how libertarian is used and by whom together and not separate them in a confusing manner.
 * And it is up to those who are interested in having those views represented to come up with sources or they can expect to see material eventually deleted. I don't want to misrepresent anti-property views, especially since the voluntary ones I find acceptable and those enforced by - what?? "anarchist" violence?? - I don't.  CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we all agree libertarian is the word liberty with the suffix arian? As I tried to research liberty, I ran into the same source yet again, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which has been compared to WP itself referring to the method authors submit work and sources.  SEP appears as a primary source in every political and philosophical article in WP, to the exclusion of other encyclopedias.  Go here if you want to comment a section I created in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stanford_Encyclopedia_of_Philosophy

Carol, please give the source of your continued use of the term "anti-property", and/or the definition. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should compare the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page for libertarianism with the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy page for libertarianism. Also compared their about pages IEP SEP.  I think they both look solid, but I do notice some differences, fairly significant in their libertarian pages.  The SEP page mentions left-libertarianism VERY early on, while the IEP waits until much later in the article.


 * I think there is an obvious reason for this. Peter Vallentyne, a major proponent of left-libertarianism, wrote the SEP article, and uses himself as a source four times.  He also uses H. Steiner, who he collaborated with on three of his own cited works, as a fifth source.  The IEP uses Vallentyne and Steiner as sources once each.  There could be a bit of undue weight in the SEP version.


 * This may not be strictly correct WP policy, but perhaps we should consider the situation with this page as a guide. As Carolmooredc has stated before, there are more pro-property, "right" libertarians working on this page, and every once in a while a "left" libertarian comes along demanding more weight to that side.  That may be an indication of the relative sizes of these differing sub groups, and an indication of how much weight each group should get.  I would hazard a guess that a large majority of people that label themselves libertarian are pro-capitalism.  That may just be an American bias, however, and clearly I wouldn't try to just cram that into the article.


 * Here's what I've noticed. The SEP is used as a source eight times, three times in the lead, and the IEP, only once, halfway into the article, to give a definition of libertarian principles, which is immediately followed up by more usage of the SEP.  I think we should mix that up a bit more, and add some IEP citations to the lead, to match the way the article itself is written.  I would support using a capsule version of the IEP definition in the lead, and trimming down the left-right distinction to perhaps a single sentence. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 21:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To Darkstar, antiproperty has a lot of WP:RS, meaning opposition to some or all forms of private property, but you seemed to want only the term "antiproperty libertarian" and I can't supply that. If no one thinks we should be trying to use pro and anti-property instead of left and right I'll drop it and all such refs should be removed.
 * To Torchiest, the reliance on IEP is recent when a contentious editor ran roughshod over article and frankly I forgot about it. Look back 5 or 6 months and see if you can find a version and/or sources you like better. I'm sure there is one, since I wrote most of it. Also I think that that version used another internet encyclopedia (of Philosophy?). And there is also Ronald Hamoway's (2008). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. which I'm sure was used as a ref at least once in the past but got gutted. Sometimes going back through talk and history pages will reveal versions that, with changes you might make, are superior to some new questionable version that people weren't paying attention to or didn't have time or energy to correct. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Carol, as clearly as I am able to say this, please cite your source for the word, "anti-property" of any form, libertarian or not. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll dig into the history eventually to see if I can find the older versions you're referring to. <B>Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 20:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See Books google search listing for term anti-property, Books google antiproperty, books google pro-property. Obviously many more through web internet searches. It was used descriptively to classify the two different groups, those which broadly are for most forms of property and those which are against at the very least large scale and corporate property ownership. Stanford Phil. seems to be the source that most clearly makes that point, even if it just talks about ownership of resources. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally think the right and left distinctions are sufficient, but I'll have to look things over again to form a more complete view on it. Again, I'll get around to it eventually.  Lots of stuff to worry about on WP. <B>Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 20:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)