Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 25

Yet More Intresting and Fascinating HQRS
Searching for "international use of the "word libertarian"" in Scholar produced some interesting leads.


 * 1) HQRS (International Academic English): Drieu Godefidi "The Anarcho-Libertarian Utopia – A Criqitue" in Ordo: Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Walter Eucken (Ed.) Bd. 56 (Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, 2005): 123-140 books writes at 123, "Libertarianism denotes a current of thought, mainly American, rooted in classical liberal ideas and values. … Libertarians are either minarchists, who want a minimal State, or anarchists (anarcho-capitalists), who pursue the pure and simple elimination of any kind of state structure."
 * 2) *Obviously there are multiple HQRS academic definitions, varying from Cox (given above) who excludes pro-market forces, through to Godefridi who excludes anti-capitalist forces. With multiple definitions in the highest quality available writing, some of which are mutually exclusive, we must note all of them, and adequately characterise each.
 * HQR:S: Sapon and Robino (2010) already in use
 * 1) HQRS: Anthony Arblaster "The Relevance of Anarchism" Socialist Register 1971: 157-184 pdf at 159-160, "There is a version of libertarianism which has a closer kinship with anarchism than with the narrower con- ceptions of conventional liberalism, by virtue of its strongly anti- authoritarian emphasis and its concern with spontaneity and the greatest possible degree of voluntarism. It is in this form that the influence of anarchism is strongest. The anti-authoritarianism of the international New Left is one of its central characteristics."
 * 2) *Arblaster also at times discusses the fact that Libertarian Marxists exist (Marcuse is given as one example), and that socialist libertarianism exceeds the label anarchist (speaking of the New Left)
 * 3) HQRS: Karl Widerquist, "Libertarianism" International Encyclopedia of Public Policy, Volume 3, Phil O’Hara (Ed.) Oxford: OUP : 338- 350 the entire volume available as a pre-print edition, see pdf page 343, numbered as page 338 in the document. This is an academic encyclopedia, and Widerquist is a specialist (Politics, University of Reading) "Property rights advocates have popularized the association of the term with their ideology in the United States and to a lesser extent in other English-speaking nations. But they only because using the term in 1955 (Russell 1955).  Before that, and in most of the rest of the world today, the term has been associated almost exclusviely with leftists groups advocating egalitarian property rights or even the abolition of private property, such as anarchist socialists who began using the term nearly a century earlier, in 1858 (Woodcock 1962:281).  This entry distinguishes between three types of libertarianism: left, right, and socialist.  It then considers the extent to which the policies of these three diverse groups overlap.  The third section focuses on the policies of right-libertarians, both because they have popularized their associations with the name and because they have a more unified policy agenda."
 * 4) *This, and the rest of Widerquists' academic output bibliography lacking links appears to be gold. [it isn't, it is over specialised for this article] Widerquist explicitly answers the question about international useage and national useage of the term libertarian in a HQRS.  I strongly recommend people read this signed academic encyclopedia article.
 * 5) *He also provides a HQRS for "Is Right-Libertarianism Right-Wing?" answering in a beautifully useful "yes but no" which allows for detailed discussion of the interface between USLP/AC policies and US Conservative and Neo-Liberal policies.
 * 6) *Should we just make a subpage for sourcing issues, so we have a constant reference point? ie so we can link to Talk:Libertarianism/sources for example in discussions, and so that we don't lose Sources Given amidst other discussions in the archives?
 * Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I endorse the idea of a sources subpage, though I would make it be a subpage of the article itself (Libertarianism/sources) which would give it its own Talk page. It should be in alphabetical order by author surname.  Each entry would have all the normal information about a source, plus the quote, and any relevant information about it, like an explanation of why it's relevant to the article, what it purportedly shows, other sources that support or contradict it, etc.  --Born2cycle (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect we probably should not be using MainSpace Libertarianism/sources and I don't know if anyone else has done this before so we can copy their style, so I asked at Help_desk to get expert opinion! Fifelfoo (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As a result of help desk suggestions, moved the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Libertarianism for the WikiProject's opinion on them hosting it as a more reusable resource. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Bookchin BRD

 * Bookchin, M. (October 1991). "Libertarian Municipalism: An Overview." Green Perspectives, No. 24. Burlington, VT. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just ran into that when looking through some files the other day. But what does BRD mean? Always good to include WP:BRD for newbies or oldies new to an abbreviation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I ought to add bs04 as a language tag, for "This user is guilty of using bureaucratic shorthand at an advanced level." Speaking of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle.  Does anyone have a reason to remove Bookchin as an influential thinker?  Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Questionable Sources, general
This source:
 * Watts, Duncan (16 March 2006). Understanding American government and politics: a guide for A2 politics students (2nd Revised edition edition ed.). Manchester University Press. p. 246. ISBN 978-0719073274.

May very well be a secondary school student textbook published by a UP. Can someone check? My suspicions are heightened by this author bio on Amazon, "Duncan Watts is Editor of the Politics Association Resource Centre and a part-time tutor in a sixth form college." And of course GCE Advanced Level which explains that an A2 is the equivalent of a year 12 matriculation. I would suggest we ought to seek a different source to support any points made by Watts, as a secondary school textbook isn't sufficient. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be a concern only if the source in question was a primary source for the material in question, where WP:RS is of concern. But that's highly unlikely for a textbook of any kind.  Secondary  sources are preferred, and a secondary school textbook should qualify as more than adequate in that regard.  --Born2cycle (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you, but I'd like to take this to A class, GA or FAC. Secondary school textbooks omit scholarly detail, simplify unnecessarily, don't reflect contemporary scholarship but aim at pedagogy.  While the source probably reflects the truth here, it doesn't do so to a sufficiently high encyclopaedic level.  Secondary school textbooks often also reflect the political will of the curriculum authority.  Fifelfoo (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Most introductory textbooks are considered tertiary sources. There is no mention of high school textbooks, but it does not seem scholarly to use them, unless one is writing an essay for high school.  TFD (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is fine, per wp:v and wp:rs unless i see a policy based reason against it`s usage it stays in mark nutley (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD's link to WP:TERTIARY and your link to WP:RS adequately explain the reason why we prefer secondary sources like academic scholarship to tertiary sources like secondary school student textbooks. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have taken it to WP:RSN. TFD (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Need citation for libertarian socialism being part of the anarchist main branch of libertarianism
I keep adding a "Citation needed" tag to the following assertion about libertarian socialism being a form of the anarchism branch of libertarianism:


 * It [the anarchism branch of libertarianism] takes the form of both libertarian socialism ...

What I'm requesting is a citation of some text somewhere, preferably from a secondary source for this material, referring to libertarian socialism as libertarianism. Since there are no quotes or links associated with this citation, there is no convenient way to verify whether this citation does that. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are quotes given above for the sources I added, Woodcock is in books. Yet another good reason for the source repository, which I'm waiting on a some time AND/OR other editors at the Wikiproject Libertarianism to approve or disapprove of.  Additionally, the Wikiproject has an outstanding request for a guide to sourcing Libertarianism articles... given my strong interest in reliable sourcing, I suppose I volunteered myself when I saw that outstanding request. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology section demonstrates problem in this article
I think the etymology section demonstrates two things.
 * 1) Given the current layout/focus/structure of the article, it's appropriate.  That is, it fits.
 * 2) This shows the articles violates WP:NAD.

WP:NAD states: "Sometimes an article really is a mis-placed stub dictionary article, that discusses the etymology, ..." *. The article also shows in the Nad that a major difference between wikipedia and wiktionary entries is the existence of etymology sections (they should only be in wiktionary entries).

Now, I'm not saying that this article is a mis-placed stub dictionary article, just that it's about the word libertarianism rather than about the (singular) political view or philosophy that is predominately associated with that word today in the English speaking world (which is what it should be about), and the existence and appropriateness of the Libertarianism section is evidence of that. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. An article about a word is restricted to its definition, pronunciation and phonology, evolution of its etymology, grammatical categories, etc. It's quite possible that the etymology section should be removed, though. I'll look through it. Yworo (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The etymology section is simply mistitled, it's not about etymology at all, which would be about its derivation from predecessor languages such a Latin, not about its historical usage in English. Yworo (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest you review WP:NAD, including this:


 * --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You're clearly misusing it to soapbox. End of discussion. Yworo (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the definition provided in the 1st source has been removed
there are two definitions, the first was excluded as "metaphysical", if the first definition is incorrect here, what is the reason for not listing the full second definition? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because Libertarian political parties are covered by the disambiguation page. This article is about libertarianism (little 'l'). Yworo (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Zapatista Army of National Liberation
Why are they in this article? The source provided describes them as a revolutionary group with some anarchist elements mark nutley (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Zapatista Army of National Liberation? Even the nutters on this page wouldn't be ridiculous enough to claim that is a Libertarian organisation. It must be some random vandalism. BlueRobe (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don`t think it was vandalism, it was cited, i`ve removed it now mark nutley (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BlueRobe, could you please strike out your expression "nutters on this page". It is a derogatory term referring to people who do not accept mainstream and rational views and may be offensive.  TFD (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, I was referring to the nutters of this page. I did not reply to you, or anyone else, by name. I can't help it if you, for reasons of your own, feel that my label is especially applicable to you or your friends. BlueRobe (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not appropriate to call other editors "nutters". Please see WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Best wishes and warm regards -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Patrick Cuninghame, Carolina Ballesteros Corona, "A Rainbow at Midnight: Zapatistas and Autonomy" Capital & Class October 1998   vol. 22  no. 3  12-22
 * Casanova, Pablo González. 2005. The Zapatista “caracoles”: Networks of resistance and autonomy. Socialism and Democracy. 19(3):79-92. < http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/08854300500257963 >. (accessed 24 September 2010).
 * Really mark; we addressed your highly personal definition previously. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, the source used said quite explicitly they were a revolutionary group with some anarchist elements, i`ll go look at the ones you presented here and see what they have to say. mark nutley (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just waiting for Fifelfoo to include content about a Libertarian Division of the SS fighting on the Eastern Front during World War Two, lol. BlueRobe (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies mark: mea culpa maxima. I had projected out last interaction onto the current one unfairly. As a result of this I reviewed Ward at p16, and concur that Ward does not support the point. However, I would be greatly surprised if the point is not supportable from HQRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure A Rainbow at Midnight: Zapatistas and Autonomy describe them as libertarian? I do not have access to the pdf and have been reading through it here Thus far they are called revolutionary`s and is the source itself reliable? The article as written is very very POV and Capital & Class looks more like a student rag than a serious journal mark nutley (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Capital & Class is peer reviewed. The relevant quote is, "The EZLN takes its name and to some extent its ideology from the libertarian, anti-statist element of the 1910-1917 Mexican Revolution gathered around the peasant army led by Emiliano Zapata and the slogan `Land and Freedom!'."  (sadly I don't have Sagepub on this connection, but it is available at page 3 of the edition you gave.  Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we have to drop that as a source, the group was founded in 1983, they have since then become revolutionary. In fact Anthropologica describe them as a guerilla group from the get go mark nutley (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I felt we established during the WSM discussion that, until the broader editorial discussion on article focus is completed, that instances and examples should be included on either of two propositions:
 * Establishment in HQRS of notability to libertarianism; or,
 * Establishment in HQRS of
 * notability (in a broader sense than just being worthy of having an encyclopedia article, in WSM's case it was contemporary, English language, long lasting, and winning successful tax strikes), and
 * libertarianism
 * And, as no HQRS could establish either of these at the time, WSM was dropped pending on access to Gay & Gay's encyclopedia. Just to ground further discussion, is this your recollection of that discussion above?
 * To apply those criteria to this instance:
 * EZLN is notable for its ideology and its guerilla and social movement's impact in Chiapas; and, I think it is demonstrable from HQRS that they are libertarian. In fact, a variety of RS (not HQRS) that I can recall indicate that the EZLN is notable precisely for their impact on libertarianism, as finding a way out of the quagmire of revolutionary overthrow of the state in order to better the lives of their constituent communities.  That they are also influenced by indigenous thought, anarchism, and socialism is beside the point.
 * I don't see how the EZLN's status as a revolutionary group indicates that the Capital & Class source ought to be dropped; could you try explaining your reasoning (or my misreading)? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) The EZLN takes its name and to some extent its ideology from the libertarian, anti-statist element of the 1910-1917 Mexican Revolution gathered around the peasant army led by Emiliano Zapata and the slogan `Land and Freedom! It is this quote from the source which makes me think they are not a libertarian group. To some extent does not a libertarian group make really. The sources i have seen describe them as a revolutionary group. As for G&G no need to wait, even in the snippet view you can see WSM described as anarchist mark nutley (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * [snipped] I now read your meaning clearly as focusing on "to some extent" from the quote. I'll let a third editor intervene.  In any case the only reason I propose to use EZLN and WSM is to give illustrative examples in the text when describing libertarian socialism.  Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo, it is abundantly clear that Marknutley has been very patient regarding your claims that the EZLN and the WSM are Libertarian groups. Personally, I think you're laughing at anyone who does not immediately bin your RIDICULOUS suggestions when they are first brought to their attention - full credit to Marknutley for displaying such calm professionalism and bothering to check your (obviously unreliable) sources in the face of such WP:PatentNonsense when you proposed it. BlueRobe (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The current wording in the article is that EZLN "includes significant libertarian socialist elements". As worded, that's not a particularly sweeping claim, and surely it's consistent with EZLN taking its ideology "to some extent" from libertarian influences.


 * (By the way, can nothing be done about this endless uncivil conduct from BlueRobe? Reading this page is a real chore when you have to filter through all the vitriol.) Iota (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Industrial Workers of the World
Is a trade union? Were is the reference describing them as libertarian? Cos EB does not have them down as such And nor does there wiki article? mark nutley (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidently, Fifelfoo is using any reference to "Libertarian", even when that reference is clearly to the etymologically archaic Anarchist concept of the term "Libertarian", to justify including Anarchist, Socialist, Marxist and Communist organisations in the content of the Libertarianism article. BlueRobe (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * mark,


 * 1) David M Rabban, "The IWW Free Speech Fights and Popular Conceptions of Free Expression before World War I" Virginia Law Review Vol. 80, No. 5 (Aug., 1994), pp. 1055-1158 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1073625 ought to
 * 2) Kenyon Zimmer "Premature Anti-Communists?: American Anarchism, the Russian Revolution, and Left-Wing Libertarian Anti-Communism, 1917-1939" Labor 2009 6(2):45-71; DOI:10.1215/15476715-2008-058 http://labor.dukejournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/2/45
 * Should both cover, no jstor atm. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Industrial Workers of the World says, "The IWW was founded in Chicago in June 1905 at a convention of two hundred socialists, anarchists, and radical trade unionists from all over the United States (mainly the Western Federation of Miners) who were opposed to the policies of the American Federation of Labor (AFL)." BlueRobe (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, your edit summary indicates your removed the IWW on the basis of their being a trade union, not on the basis of them being unsourced. If this is the case, I will revert your edit summary.  Your edit summary did not justify removing them.  Nor is the discussion here finalised.  Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you hold off on that please until i have had time to check the sources presented above, thanks mark nutley (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries! I move slowly. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Makhnovist
Looking at this now, i am assuming the three sources at the beginning of the section are meant to cover the content which follows. Ref 1 describes them clearly as anarchist Ref 2 clearly describes them as anarchist  Ref 3  are citations from this book which surprisingly describes them as anarchist  As such i believe they have no place within this article and should be removed mark nutley (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, the title of the Platform. Go read the definition given in Long and Woodcock.  As repeatedly expressed to you: anarchist organisations are not necessarily not libertarian.  A trade union is not necessarily not libertarian.  I'll dig up some Voline and Woodcock for you in time. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A definition does not matter, were is the source which says these guys are Libertarian? If you bring me a source saying this guy says libertarians and anarchists share some common ideals and then bring another source saying such and such a group is anarchist but as the first source says they are similar then it can go it is actually wp:synth and wp:or a source describing them as libertarian is needed mark nutley (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument is correct for Long; but not for Woodcock. If Woodcock describes a group as anarchist, then, that group is necessarily libertarian for Woodcock.  Instead of saying "they are an anarchist group" which is a positive claim, you'd be better of saying "this source doesn't describe them as libertarian."  Moreover, rather than approaching this from the point "Current sources are insufficient; can we improve the referencing," your approach has been of a quick deletionist type.  You know, you can relax, let the discussion run its course, and then be comfortable with a conclusive outcome. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I endorse these remarks. I think it's a bit tendentious to keep declaring groups toe be "anarchist!" as if anarchism and libertarianism are incompatible.


 * Also I think people on this thread with different views are actually capable of reaching agreement as to which groups are libertarian. So it would be better to discuss big changes here first and allow Fifelfoo (who seems to know a lot about this stuff) and others the opportunity to bring forward sources. Iota (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel confident that Mark and I can reach a consensus on what the HQRS identified actually say, and thus reach a consensus on inclusion or exclusion of groups based on the same. The WSM discussion was longer, and reached a consensus pending on me being able to reference Gay and Gay (a wait condition).  But the IWW & EZLN discussions seems short enough to move into this session?  Mark, are you opposed into moving the IWW & EZLN discussions above into this general discussion as a subsection? Fifelfoo (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, feel free to drop them down into subsections, it will be easier for us to work through them one at a time that way, good idea mark nutley (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your second and third links to snipped views don't substantiate your argument, you've also searched on one synonym of a group reasonable well known for multiple synonyms. I don't particularly think those sources were the best or most reliable though. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

autonomist
Ref 1 does not mention them Ref 2 does not mention them  Ref 3 does not mention them  as such they should be remove from this article as unsourced mark nutley (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll check Steve Wright sometime in the next three days. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

CNT (National Confederation of Labour)
Another union? Who are described as having anarcho-syndicalist beliefs Well they certainly do not belong within this article either mark nutley (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Some sources

 * Nationalism and the nation in the Iberian Peninsula: Competing and Conflicting identities (Clare Mar-Molinero, Angel Smith) Berg Publishers, 1996.
 * P. 138 "statist forces were opposed by the radical Left, composing anti-state purist sectors of the libertarian movement (CNT-FAI-FIJL)".
 * P. 138 "The libertarian movement was composed of the anarcho-syndicalist trade union (CNT), the purist anarchist group (FAI) and the libertarian youth organisation (FIJL)."
 * P. 141 "Ironically of course the rapid political eclipse of the libertarian movement (CNT-FAI-FIJL) removed the force which more than any other on the Left had a discourse and practice of community"


 * The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, Volume 2 (Robert Alexander) Janus Publishing Company, 1999
 * P1045 - "The last major clash came in the plenum of the Libertarian Movement ...This was a meeting of representatives of regional organizations of all three elements of the movement, that is, the Confederation Nacional de Trabajo [CNT], the Federcion Anarquista Iberica [FAI], and the Federacion de Juventudes Libertarias [FIJL]"


 * The Third Revolution: Popular Movements in the Revolutionary Era (Murray Bookchin) Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005.
 * "Since libertarian theory in all its forms agreed that money was morally corruptive, the only paid officials in the Condederacion [the CNT] were the general secretary and the secretaries of the various regional federations." (p. 109)
 * "Nor was the CNT always able to convince its recruits that a libertarian society should be their goal. Although members heartily sang the CNT anthem 'To the Barricades', they often had only a limited understanding of what a libertarian social revolution would entail ..a longtime CNT leader, estimated that only a third of the union's membership could legitimately be called conscious libertarians. The CNT leadership did not educate them well" (p. 110)
 * "Its [the CNT's] workers centers or centro obreros (libertarian imitations of the socialists casas obreras)" (p. 110)
 * "During the First World World War the CNT was led by Salvador Segui, a textile-worker and moderate libertarian syndicalist.. Victor Serge, who knew him well, describes him as 'no anarchist, but rather a libertarian'" (p. 110)
 * "Whether anarchism and syndicalism could exist within the same movement - even a libertarian one, committed to mutual aid, decentralism, and confederalism - was not at all clear. The CNT's membership was marked by a great deal of ideological diversity. Indeed, the history of Spanish libertarian organisation was one of continual fracturing" (p. 111)
 * "Anarcho-syndicalists tried to use the CNT to strike revolutionary blows that would achieve a future society called libertarian communism." (p. 111)
 * "the congress had adopted 'libertarian communism' (communismo libertario) as the CNT's official ideology." (p. 116)


 * The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, Volume 2 (José Peirats & Chris Ealham) Christie Books, 2001.
 * "..the libertarian movement's three wings - the CNT, the FAI and the FIJL." (P. 92)
 * "Later, they [the FIJL] spread throughout the whole of Spain until they came to represent the third branch of the great libertarian family." (P. 76)

Iota (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of source 1
This source contradicts itself, 123 anarcho-syndicalist 127 anarcho-syndicalist 129 anarcho-syndicalist 135 anarcho-syndicalist labour union 175 anarcho-syndicalist If anything this source reinforces the anarcho-syndicalist descriptor of them than the pages you presented which only loosely defines them as libertarian (as there are three groups bunched in there) mark nutley (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The source only contradicts itself if one accepts the proposition that there is some sort of contradiction between libertarianism and anarcho-syndicalism or trade unionism. With respect, that is just your own assertion. As has been repeatedly pointed out on here for weeks, many reliable sources define libertarianism in a broad way that includes both minarchism and anarchism. In any case it is a HQRS; it is not for us to argue with the authors if they define CNT-FAI as libertarian. Iota (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand me, a mention in passing does not equate to libertarian, given the context of them being described as anarcho-syndicalist numerous times in the same source, you are giving undue weight to one line. More is required, this source does not cut the mustard. Also note, there are literary hundreds of sources describing them as anarcho-syndicalist and as such the weight falls with them. I will look to your second source now which i have sectioned below mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll just repeat that the fact they are described as anarcho-syndicalist is in no way evidence that they are not libertarian. So the "weight" does not "fall" with sources describing these groups as anarcho-syndicalist because there is no inconsistency between the two descriptions, no competing lumps of evidence to be balanced against each other. But moving along, could you clarify what type of evidence you would consider satisfactory? Iota (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can`t be one or the other, anarcho-syndicalist is quite simply not libertarian and a cherry picked line from one source against hundreds of sources will not do. Is there a source which goes into detail about their libertarian beliefs? All the sources i find describe them as i have said anarcho-syndicalist mark nutley (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Anarcho-syndicalist is quite simply not libertarian". That is your own assertion. Can we just stick to discussing sources rather than proclaiming your own beliefs, which are irrelevant? Iota (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not my assertion, it is backed by quite a reliable source which i linked in my previous respones to you mark nutley (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your source is a general definition of anarcho-syndicalism. The entry says nothing about the CNT-FAI or about libertarianism. It does describe anarcho-syndicalism as "a variety of anarchism", and we have many reliable sources stating that anarchism is synonymous with, or a form of, libertarianism. But I don't think this line of discussion is particularly constructive. Iota (talk)

I think you misunderstand me, the preponderance of sources call this group anarchist, one line in one book has no weight compared to this. Quite simply you are reaching here, you either need a source which covers their libertarian ideals with depth or they are just another anarchist group and do not belong in this article mark nutley (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of source 2
I gather that Mar-Molinero & Smith is a HQRS. The second is less certain. Iota (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Iota, are you sure of the second one? I only have volume 1 from 1999 was there a second edition printed the same year? mark nutley (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the link:, . Iota (talk)

Discussion of source 3
I believe this is a HQRS. It is written by Murray Bookchin and the publisher states that "Academic proposals are peer-reviewed before we commit to publication, to help ensure quality and to support the career progression of our authors."

FAI
Iberian Anarchist Federation, are described as anarchist not libertarian,   They have no place within this article mark nutley (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Anarchism in the lede
I had moved some content which were duplicated in the lede and in the overview section for the obvious reason that anarchism was in the lede already. This simple edit seems contentious for some reason as both Iota abd Bigkhex have both reverted it, Iota without the courtesy of an edit summary and bigk with a misleading one see no reason for the deletion of this summation from the lede as of course i had given a reason in my previous edit summary  Would either of you care to explain why you feel the need to revert this simple edit? And why you think anarchism should be mentioned in the lede twice? mark nutley (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the note on the reference that it does not support the claim, this removal seems appropriate -- although failing to provide a descriptive edit summary is annoying behavior. Also, I think it's accurate to say that Chomsky's sense of "libertarian socialism" is not within the notion of "libertarianism" described in this article (even the "broad" notion supported by the RFC). --FOo (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Insofar as Chomsky's views are given as examples of the left-libertarian facet of libertarianism, they seem valid for inclusion. BigK HeX (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They had not been removed, they had been moved big difference, why did you revert the edit? mark nutley (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The content was not "duplicated" in the lede. But anyways, I think a good lede of this type of ideological article ought to cover the wikilinks to the sub-philosophies as a sort of disambiguation to the more narrow variants. Personally, I've never been happy with the gutted lede, but gutting it further should come with a fairly good rationale.  BigK HeX (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To Mark nutley ... your edit summary asked whether people thought there was sufficient reason for the text to be moved. My edit summary answered no.  Obviously, discussion is warranted.... BigK HeX (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please discuss by replying to the questions in my first post, thanks mark nutley (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Marknutley, it should be obvious by now that BigK HeX and TFD revert all edits regardless of how reasonable those edits may be. Why have they been allowed to get away with this sort of WP:MyTurf WP:BattleMentality for so long? BlueRobe (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is how things work around here, time and patience is required to achieve an article which will actually discuss what it should, not what a few think it ought. Chill and have a beer :) mark nutley (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Merging rest of overview to lead
The overview section was created in mid-August as a compromise to deal with the constant and unrelenting complaints of those who wanted to delete anything but their narrow form of libertarianism from the article. Since then we've had a couple RfCs and requests to move which have made it clear the community is opposed to such "deletionist" motions. Therefore I believe the couple concepts in the overview, not in the lead, should be moved there and the rest of the section, which is just redundant to the lead, removed. And I'll be doing so soon in the most NPOV way I can imagine. Also, note that I do think some reference to the more common brand of libertarianism (free market or laissez-faire having better refs than "capitalist" by the way) does belong there and have only temporarily taken it out since it was used as part of a WP:Synthesis presentation of Boaz' definition. Some of the early August versions do a good job at it and will review. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Carol, I think that the section should continue to exist, at least for a while.  The article suffers from lack of overview / perspective material, and this gives it a good place to develop. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fiscally Conservative - Socially Liberal
In this Cato paper...The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama...David Kirby and David Boaz define libertarians as being fiscally conservative and socially liberal. What's interesting is the range of percentages of voters that fit into this category....from 14% to 59%.

If we say that libertarians are socially liberal and they strictly support a minimal government (courts and defense) then perhaps around 14% of the population would be considered libertarians. If we broaden the definition to the right and say that libertarians are socially liberal and they support a minimal government and/or no government then perhaps 14.1% of the population could be considered libertarians. Saying that .1% of the population wants to abolish the government for any reason is a very very generous estimate. The question is...how much do we have to broaden the definition to the left in order for 59% of the population to be considered libertarians?

To clarify...broadening the definition of libertarianism to the left is not the same thing as saying that this article should include left-libertarianism. Broadening the definition to the left means expanding the scope of government. For example, in addition to courts and defense, the scope of government would be expanded to include supply/control of the banks/money, infrastructure, etc.

Why do certain editors not want to broaden the definition to the left? Well...the more you broaden the definition to the left...in terms of proportion to prominence...the more insignificant the anarcho-capitalist viewpoint becomes. This is why certain editors have moved my recent posts on the topic over to my talk page...


 * Scope of Government Survey
 * Improving This Article

If we use the narrow definition (limited government) then anarcho-capitalism would be excluded. If we use the broad definition, which includes the far right, then logically, based on the numbers, it should also include the far left as well. The result would be the exclusion of anarcho-capitalism as well...based on the proportion to prominence policy.

BigK HeX, or any other editors who disagree with my point, let me forewarn you that if you hide or move this section to my talk page...a sufficiently clear pattern will be established and I will definitely report the incident. --Xerographica (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Cato Institute has to be taken with a pinch of salt as an authority in this area. Otherwise, it looks like you are seeking to define Libertarianism based on rather broad political criteria rather than use sources.  As you know this is OR and your speculation on motives doesn't help much either.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Cato Institute is the fifth most influential think tank in the world...and David Boaz is the vice president. He's also the author of several books on libertarianism and has written numerous articles on the subject...including the Encyclopedia Britannica article on libertarianism.  Rather than just accuse me of Original Research, it would be more productive if you specified which points you disagree with.  That way I can provide reliable sources which support those points.  Xerographica (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fifth most influential think tank in the world?  Have you got a source for that?  It is an organisation that supports a perspective on Libertarianism hence my comment.  Produce something with sources rather than your generalised comments and I'll respond.  For the moment your statement is your opinion and OR  This talk page is not a debating club (or should not be) -- Snowded  TALK  07:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The source for that is the wikipedia article...Cato Institute. See how that worked?  You disputed something specific and I provided a source.  It's much more productive than accusing editors of soapbox or original research.  --Xerographica (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Non peer reviewed report James G. McGann [Unpublished Report] 2009 THE GLOBAL “GO-TO THINK TANKS” The Leading Public Policy Research Organizations In The World. THE THINK TANKS AND CIVIL SOCIETIES PROGRAM, International Relations Program, University of Pennsylvania: 2010, p. 29 pdf  (I had failed to sign, oops) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the only thing you said about which a specific question could be asked; other than pointing it out I don't respond to soapboxing and OR.  As to the Penn study, a brief read of the method etc.  makes it highly dubious and I can see why it states that it is not peer reviewed.  The article uses it properly with the "according to" label which is the most that could be done.   -- Snowded  TALK  08:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My post discussed a reliable source on the topic. On one hand you say you don't respond to OR or soapboxing...but on the other hand...you obviously responded to my post.  So either my post was not OR or soapboxing...or you do respond to OR and soapboxing.  Xerographica (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Why do certain editors not want to broaden the definition to the left?". Please discuss definitions only present in reliable sources.  Fifelfoo (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo, thanx for that singularly unhelpful response. BlueRobe (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not an answer. Yworo (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo, would you say that this book by David Boaz is a reliable source?... The politics of freedom: taking on the left, the right, and threats to our liberties  Xerographica (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's quite enough soapboxing, Xero. Please stop attempting to discuss the hypothetical reasons for editor's positions. Asking if a source is reliable requires some context. Precisely what did you want to source from this book by Boaz, published by the organization of which he is vice-president. That in itself is pretty close to self-published. So, give us a quote and tell us what article text you'd like to support with it. Yworo (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * David Boaz, The politics of freedom: taking on the left, the right, and threats to our liberties Cato Institute 2008. Cato isn't an academic press, so this isn't the highest quality of reliable source.  Cato is a partisan press: it publishes material of a specific ideological bent.  This WP:RS/N thread I initiated wasn't particularly conclusive, I'd treat Boaz publishing in Cato press as a reliable source for a person who has an expert opinion, but his opinion needs to be credited to him.
 * A better way forward is seeking Boaz in an academic press, or a definition based on Boaz in an academic press, such as Drieu Godefidi "The Anarcho-Libertarian Utopia – A Criqitue" in Ordo: Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Walter Eucken (Ed.) Bd. 56 (Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, 2005): 123-140 who writes at 123, "Libertarianism denotes a current of thought, mainly American, rooted in classical liberal ideas and values. … Libertarians are either minarchists, who want a minimal State, or anarchists (anarcho-capitalists), who pursue the pure and simple elimination of any kind of state structure." is a better idea. Unless Boaz proposes a unique quote which is notable because Boaz is Cato's director.  I'm pretty sure that at least three of the US right wing organisations run academic peer reviewed journals, finding such definitions shouldn't present a hazard. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "The final group - those who favored a conservative position on economic issues and a liberal stance on social issues - are the libertarians." - Liberals, Populists, Libertarians, and Conservatives: The Link between Domestic and International Affairs by Ole R. Holsti and James N. Rosenau
 * Same definition...but this time by academics. Xerographica (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would help if you gave a full citation. Ole R. Holsti and Janes N. Rosenau (1996) "Liberals, Populists, Libertarians, and Conservatives: The Link between Domestic and International Affairs" International Political Science Review 17:1, 29-54.  That is a HQRS, and seems to be a definition in line with the "narrow" pro-property movement only definition.  Good find.  Fifelfoo (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Military noninterventionism cannot be excluded in any definition
Any definition limited to social liberalism/economic conservativsm are either ignorant, pro-military intervention - or come from people afraid of antagonizing pro-military intervention funders. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * RE: The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama...David Kirby and David Boaz define libertarians as being fiscally conservative and socially liberal. While I won’t speculate on why they leave out military noninterventionis, note they do say “Libertarians’ concerns about Republican overspending, government growth, excessive social conservatism, and the war in Iraq” (ie, that there was one in the first place!)
 * The politics of freedom: taking on the left, the right, and threats to our liberties by Boaz Contains a number of references to problems with and/or libertarians being vs. military interventions
 * an article called '"Liberals, Populists, Libertarians, and Conservatives: The Link between Domestic and International Affairs" certainly would mention that libertarianism is against foreign entanglements and military interventionism. Since most of us don't have access to verify, please find the relevant quotes and include those.
 * In my post on the scope of government...every libertarian listed at least two essential responsibilities of the government...provide security and justice. The freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.  When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor then military interventionism was completely in line with libertarianism.  Same thing when terrorists attacked our country.  Libertarianism is NOT pacifism...and it's definitely NOT anarcho-capitalism.


 * A volunteer military as proposed by anarcho-capitalists could probably keep Mexico from invading ...and it could probably stop genocide in many countries...but in no way shape or form would it deter attacks from countries with well funded armies.  Additionally, our current military has numerous governmental checks and balances that a completely volunteer military would not have...given that there would be no government.  The prominent libertarians all readily grasped these straightforward concepts when deciding what the basic responsibilities of government should be.  Failure to recognize the necessity of the government in securing the safety of all its citizens is why anarcho-capitalism is not libertarianism.  --Xerographica (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition you are using is present in some high quality reliable sources; but does not exhaust the definitions present in high quality reliable sources. Obviously the solution for the article is to present and attribute the major opinions on use of military force; if the issue of military force is WEIGHTy enough to be mentioned here and not at a topical article.  Interestingly this is one area in which libertarian socialist theory actually has bothered to develop a number of significant contributions to theory (centred largely on the concepts more or less equivalent to revolutionary self-defence). Fifelfoo (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The question is what does one mean by "definition". As non-intervention belief (being a different from "no military" belief) is certainly common amongst Libertarians and many of the various Libertarian philosophies. And so by that definition, I would certainly say "yse".     But if by "definition" you mean the short list of tenets which an overwhelming amount of Libertarians would agree with, then I don't think it would make that short list.  North8000 (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian political tactics: destruction of property, rioting, class intimidation such as lynching, terrorism, political assassination, and armed insurrection.
Other direct action strikes, workplace occupations, sit-ins, sabotage, property destruction and graffiti. By contrast, grassroots organizing, electoral politics, diplomacy and negotiation or arbitration are not direct action, and not included here as tactics used by libertarians. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify what you want us to take note of here, please? BigK HeX (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * this section should be removed or rewritten, hardly representative of mainstream libertarian principles or tactics practiced by modern libertarians. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia article direct action is almost certainly wrong regarding grassroots organising, at least with reference to Franks, B. (2003) "Direct action ethic." Anarchist Studies, Volume 11 (No. 1). pp. 13-41. ISSN 0967-3393. The reason for inclusion of Direct Action (apart from the request for greater left libertarian content dating from October), is that it is the most notable structuring princple, "So strong is the connection [between libertarian socialists and direct action] that the autonomist-Marxist group Aufheben refers to the libertarian milieu as the ‘direct action movement’." (Franks, 15).  The current direct action wikipedia article also appears from your quote to fail to mention bin-tax strikes, and petrol tax strikes by right wing rural communities.  Fifelfoo (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * anyone want to try to reword it? otherwise unless there is support for keeping this section, i will delete it until a better summation of mainstream tactics is assembled if needed at all.  Darkstar1st (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

libertarian party
This is not on, a consensus will be needed before the removal of the largest libertarian party in the world mark nutley (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That was just added by North8000 without discussion. There is a whole section on Libertarian Parties later in the article. There is a hatnote linking to Libertarian Party. One particular country's Libertarian Party cannot be in the overview without mentioning all the others (NPOV). So it is best to leave all parties in the section on political parties. This article is about libertarianism, not Libertarianism and is required to present a worldwide view and not have a bias towards a single party of a single country's political platform. Yworo (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see next section that I'm adding below. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That was not just added it has been there for weeks, i was adding refs to it just he other day mark nutley (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I see Carol removed it recently, which I'd missed. My apologies. However, it's still wrong to include the US LP so prominently in the Overview section. I've added a "globalize" tag. It should either be removed, or it should be an overview of LPs worldwide. Yworo (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, see below. My intent was a statement of tenants in common globally, not an introduction of the USLP. People modified it since. North8000 (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As the largest party in the world it will of course be more prominent that others within the article, you can`t give the same weight to groups which are much smaller can you mark nutley (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an overview section, which means it should give an overview. Certainly within the Parties section the coverage should be proportional. Yworo (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

LP Party common tenets statement and "organizations" statement in the "overview" section
I originally added 2 paragraphs about 3-4 days ago. The first was an attempt to get sort of a "comment tenets" statement in the overview. I only chose the US LP's version because it's the largest LP organization in the world, (thus being one of the most RS's on this in a real-world way) and the statement looks like something that few would dispute. It has subsequently been reworded to look more like an introduction to the party, which I did not intend. I put this back in (essentially reverting Carol's deletion today) but did an edit which "undid" the party orientation a bit, plus made it more accurate. This was to say that the LP asserts that these are common tenets of Libertarianism, not a statement of their core beliefs.

The second paragraph which got stripped and stripped and deleted and now is down to one short milk-toast sentence which I put into the first paragraph is an into to the "practice in addition to philosophy" concept which I sincerely believe will help resolve the issues with this article. Most practice, advocacy, organization etc. of Libertarianism is by people with disparate philosophies but with certain tenets and objectives widely held between them. I think that mainstream Libertarianism is just that, rather than a particular philosophy. This could be the Rosetta stone for solving some of the issues here.

Finally, a brief note on a big topic. I think that any article with the title "Libertarianism" (not Libertarian Philosophies) needs to cover it as a whole. We have already decided on diversity regarding certain aspects; we should also include the most obvious diversity inherent in the title. Including dropping that "philosophy" preface. North8000 (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Apart from presentism; the other assumption in your comment is that all libertarian politics is organised through parliamentary politics. (Without presentism, we will to address historical Georgist parties, which we ought, and the extraparliamentary historical parties of the libertarian socialists, both with "numbers" claims… a somewhat silly WEIGHTing proposition anyway.)  The best reasons to use the USLP are: it is well discussed in HQRS; it is demonstrative of minarchist and anarcho-capitalist beliefs; it has been active in the English language for a good number of years; it is the best exemplar of pro-property libertarianism organised as a parliamentary party; and, that the USLP articles ought to be well directed for internal wikilinking.  These reasons don't go to WEIGHTing the rest of the article, but are excellent reasons to use the USLP to demonstrate a particular tendency in an eventually decided consensus of WEIGHT. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * While the comment tenets asserted by the USLP may not include other tenets, do you feel / do you think that many would dispute that they are a bad choice for common tenets? Or are you saying that there are no common tenets? If there are, where should we get them from? If you have a better place than the largest Libertarian organization in the world?  Or would you have this article say that Libertarianism is just a zillion different philosophies that have the word "libertarian" in their name, and nothing else in common?  FYI, I am not a promoter of the LP.  As I mentioned before, I once even told Harry Browne over dinner that the US LP should not be a political party.  So promotion of the party is not my motivation.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we should follow HQRS for definition, and weight out of HQRS. There are key divides, but, the primary divide we need to make clear in the article is the primary divide in the literature: between the identified pro-property and anti-capitalist libertarianisms.  Using the USLP platform as the illustrative example for pro-property movements is safe and sensible.  Using them first allows the differences between pro-property and anti-capitalist libertarianisms to be made clear by comparison and contrast.  This idea of "tenets" isn't visible in the HQRS I've been reading.  We ought to use the comparative and differential terminology present in the literature review HQRS.  Then, based on the consensus weighting agreed [if ever] address the instances of libertarianism in terms of WEIGHT and their relevance to the article sections we've settled on (History, "Ideology", Groups & Movements seem to be our current divisions).  In my opinion (aware it is an example, on an uncompleted consensus process) is that LS, regardless of weight, is much more relevant to history than to ideology.  AC, for example, is far more relevant in terms of ideological output (arguments from deontology for example). Fifelfoo (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, but such has been impossible to do for 5 years in this article. I was trying to go out on a limb a bit for a little forward progress that few would dispute. As an aside, that isn't the LP platform, (which I see as items that have >51% support in the USLP)  it's from their "are you a libertarian?" def, which to exist there, I think needs/has >90% support in the USLP.
 * Sorry, my bad for inappropriately using a technical term when I meant a gestural term instead. I'm in favour of using the USLP "are you a libertarian?" statement as a descriptive illustration (as photographs are used often in wikipedia) of the more technical political science definitions we'll find in HQRS.  But we ought to get a HQRS as the "backstop" to the more reader friendly USLP document.  Similarly on illustrating libertarian socialist points: HQRS for the concept, major illustrative example from partisan opinion literature where and when such an illustration will improve article comprehensibility and readability. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope. Compare articles on Conservatism, Liberalism, Republicanism, etc. One thing I do note is that there are in-depth articles titled Conservatism in the United States, Liberalism in the United States, and Republicanism in the United States, but Libertarianism in the United States is just a stub. I suspect these articles had the same kind of problem and both resolved it the same way, by making nationally-oriented articles. I suggest we do the same here. Clearly Libertarianism in the United States needs to be improved and expanded. Perhaps those who find this article too broad should engage in working on that article. Yworo (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the analogies are applicable. The first 2 involve country-specific coverage, which I am not advocating. The third is on two unrelated topics(Republicianism and the Republican Party)North8000 (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Liberal Party of Canada is the world's largest liberal party, and it would be peculiar if the Liberalism article were edited to represent their views. TFD (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said before, I was just trying to pick the biggest in order to have a better shot at being representative, plus that particular description looked like common tenets that few would disagree with. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Liberal Party of Canada is the world's biggest and is representative, but no one argues that the article about Liberalism should be about that party. TFD (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't arguing for more on the USLP. Elsewhere I have been promoting / inserting more material on practice of Libertarianism (movements, organizations, publications, parties, think tanks etc.) i.e. not just the various philosophies of Libertarianism. And in the paragraph that we are discussing, I was just saying that we shouldn't have any wording that would exclude that. North8000 (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The assumption is that these organizations represent libertarianism, rather than a specific element of it, and you would need a source to support that assumption. Many major libertarian writers like George Orwell and Noam Chomsky did not belong to organizations that represented their views.  TFD (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just advocating for more content in general regarding practice of Libertarianism, not just my examples, and not any particular group. North8000 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism as form of libertarianism - sources challenged
I am reinserting the "Citation needed" tag for this assertion in the intro:

"[Anarchism in libertarianism] takes the form of both libertarian socialism[6] and ..."

Footnote 6 is:

"Woodcock, George. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Broadview Press, 2004, 8, 10. Laurence Cox, "News from nowhere: the movement of movements in Ireland" Social movements in Ireland Eds. Linda Connolly, Niamh Hourigan. Manchester University Press, 2006: 220,222. Anthony Arblaster "The Relevance of Anarchism" Socialist Register 1971: 157-184 at 159-160. Karl Widerquist, "Libertarianism" International Encyclopedia of Public Policy, Volume 3, Phil O’Hara (Ed.) Oxford: OUP : 338-350."

I just searched Woodcock's book at books.google.com. No hits for "libertarian socialism". I am removing Woodcock from this reference and calling bullshit on any reliance on Woodcock about anything related to "libertarian socialism".

Next, we have Cox in "News from nowhere: the movement of movements in Ireland", for which there is a total of 38 hits on google. Pathetic. And when I add "libertarian socialism" to that search, zero hits. Apparently this obscure primary source is virtually unreferenced by any reliable secondary source, and never referenced anywhere with regard to "libertarian socialism". Even if it does somehow support this assertion (which I doubt), no way can this be used for such a powerful assertion in the intro. Removed.

So, how about Arblaster's "The Relevance of Anarchism"? Well, a search for that produces 17,200 hits, which would be impressive except that when I add Arblaster to the search we're down to the pathetic number of 52 hits, and when we add "libertarian socialism" we're down to 2 hits, one of which is this WP article! The reference in the 2nd hit to Arblaster's work, in a piece by Blackledge, has nothing to do with libertarianism, much less is evidence of anyone ever refererring to "libertarian socialism" as libertarianism. Removed.

Finally, we have Widerquist. When I query for "Widerquist libertarianism" I do get a relatively respectable 527 hits, including his actual entry. Here is what the only potentially legitimate primary source has to say about this:

"At least three distinct groups claim the name “libertarian” today. There is no clearly agreed terminology to distinguish the groups but the terms “left-libertarian,” “right-libertarian,” and “libertarian socialist” suffice. The three are not factions of a common movement, but distinct ideologies using the same label."

At most, this is sufficient to claim that there is one primary source who claims that a distinct ideology from what is commonly known in English as libertarianism also uses the "libertarian" label, and it should be noted that this same source identifies "left-libertarianism" as being as distinct from "social libertarianism" as they both are with respect to common (right) libertarianism.

I'll leave this one in but it is extremely weak, and the broad assertion is clearly not supported by any of this.

I'll also add that this source is much stronger support for the existence of at least two if not three distinct ideologies (and therefore articles) than evidence that "social libertarianism" is just another branch of libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed the intro so that it reflects what the sources say and removed the citation needed tag I had just added. Changes.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I recommend reading Widerquist to all editors here. Here is another nugget:


 * One might say that is going on here. Maybe so, but the fact is Widerquist recognizes, unlike the proponents of "broad libertarianism" here, that we are discussing distinct ideologies, which he properly treats separately. This also supports the fact that libertarianism is commonly used exclusively to refer to the so-called ideology of "right-libertarianism" (and that that ideology is the primary topic here).  Yes, yes, I know, we've had rfcs and move requests on these points, but does anyone honestly think these issues were fairly presented? Finally, I can't speak for others, but I've long said that the solution here is probably a dab page pointing to the distinct ideologies that each claim the name "libertarianism", which is not claiming the name libertarianism only for right-libertarianism and denying others the use.  What I, for one, am denying, is that they are sufficiently related to be coherently discussed in one article.  And this is supported by separate treatment by sources including Widerquist. Just one example of the practical problem is the following statement in the Overview: "Libertarians exhibit differing approaches in areas such as the treatment of property rights, ..."  That statement is only true if you define "libertarians" in the broad sense, for which I don't know of any significant English reliable sources (not that I've looked into and verified, not quite yet totally denying they exist).  What's true is that "right-libertarians" and "libertarian socialists" exhibit differing approaches in areas such as the treatment of property rights.  But if you use "libertarian" conventionally, then it's a false statement.  That is, libertarians do not "exhibit differing approaches in areas such as the treatment of property rights".  It's like saying Christians disagree on whether Joseph Smith, Jr. was a prophet - a statement which is only true if you include Mormons within the definition of Christians, something that can be technically argued but is normally not done.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes ... you've repeatedly pushed for viewpoints to be stripped from discussion alongside right-libertarianism, and the community has repeatedly rebuffed such proposals based on the reliable sources presented which have presented to support inclusiveness. Opposing viewpoints may exist but an article can still describe them both. BigK HeX (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know of a view point in reliable sources that disagrees with Wilderquist about right-libertarianism and libertarian socialism being distinct ideologies? If so, please cite.  If not, what opposing viewpoints are you talking about?  Viewpoints that oppose what viewpoint, specifically (in the context of the issues being discussed in this section)? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the challenged cites, but I added cites on anarchism within the broad viewpoint of libertarianism. Trying to whitewash libertarian socialism, left-libertarianism, etc from the same concept of libertarianism as right-lib would be a disregard for the many RS that have already been provided that express that viewpoint. Some editors would do well to accept that the sources advance this view, even if one may not personally agree with it. BigK HeX (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It took me enough time to review each of the sources cited for the assertion originally. The onus is not on those who challenge content to find the source for it.  I will be happy to verify/review sources actually cited for any particular challenged assertion, as I will what you just added.  Thank you for continuing the discussion about these changes here. BTW, personal agreement or disagreement is irrelevant here; please don't bring it up again.   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's no secret that personal agreement is clearly relevant to many of the problems on this talk page. Whether it'll have a large effect on the outcome of the discussion in this thread remains to be seen.  I am hopeful for now....  BigK HeX (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Round 2
The statement has been reinserted:


 * [Anarchism in libertarianism] takes the form of both individualist anarchism (which includes anarcho-capitalism), as well as libertarian socialism.

with new citations:


 * title=Right and Left Wings in Libertarianism | first=Vladimir| last=Sapon|first2=Sam|last2=Robino| journal=Canadian Social Science| volume=5|issue=6|page=3| year=2010|url=http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/css/article/view/1245/0
 * Goodway, David. Anarchists Seeds Beneath the Snow. Liverpool Press. 2006, p. 4

Sapon
I've looked at Sapon/Robino before, which I've noted is almost certainly a translation from French (opens with, "In Political Science one can observe various discourses to defining the essence of libertarianism..." -- "one can observe various discourses" is not typical English turn of phrase; there is much of that throughout the paper). Since the issue here is about what libertarianism means in English (and, in particular, whether it can mean "social libertarianism"), I think it is especially important to stick to original English sources. I would also like to point out that the French title of this work is, "LA DROITE ET LA GAUCHE DANS LE LIBERALISME", and that the French word translated to libertarianism in English throughout the paper is "liberalisme". This paper, unlike Widerquist, equates (at least in the English translation) left-liberalism and libertarian socialism. In the apparently original French, they equate libéralisme de gauche (liberalism of left, literally) with le socialisme libertaire (note that here the French word is not liberalisme but libertaire, so really what might be a better translation is that social libertarianism is a form of (classical) liberalism, and so is libertarianism). To add to the confusion, in the Introduction on page 2 they rely entirely on Boaz for a definition of libertarianism, including the "Libertarians defend each person’s rights to life, liberty, and property" line, which, per the terminology of this current article applies only to right-libertarianism, not left-libertarianism or libertarian socialism. Finally, I can't find any references to this paper anywhere. In particular, if I search for "Right and Left Wings in Libertarianism" "libertarian socialism" -wikipedia there are only 4 hits, one of which is the paper itself, and 3 non-reliable sources. For this particular issue, and for something as important as an assertion made in the lead, I think Sapon/Robino can't be used. Not for the assertion that the anarchist form of libertarianism (as used in English today) takes on the form of "libertarian socialism". I just don't see how it supports that.

Goodway
So, let's look at Goodway. First, the title is Anarchist [Singular] Seeds ...", not "Anarchists [Plural] Seeds..." (that cost me at least 10 minutes). Okay, there are 11,700 hits, for that, and still over 2,500 when we add "libertarian socialism" to the query. Good so far, now let's look at p 4 which is where the source for the assertion is supposed to be. Sorry, I don't see it. This certainly supports the use of libertarianism to refer to anarchism ("'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently used by anarchists to refer to 'anarchist' and 'anarchism'"), but there is no debate about that (from me anyway). There is no reference to "libertarian socialism" on this page at all, although Orwell is referred to as a "libertarian socialist" (but not as a libertarian or even as an anarchist). I don't see at all how this source is supposed to substantiate the assertion in question. It just doesn't say that libertarianism refers to "libertarian socialism", nor does it refute Wilderquists assertion that what the describes as right-libertarianism (what Boaz refers to as libertarianism) is a distinct ideology from "libertarian socialism".

Enough!
Okay, I think that's more than enough of this nonsense. I'm going to remove the assertion from the article once again and politely request that before anyone reinserts it to please first show your sources on this talk page and allow other editors to vet them before inserting the text into the article. I suggest that is being more than reasonable considering all the lame references that have been used to supposedly substantiate this assertion.

Also, right now we have a reliable source that indicates that libertarianism socialism (never referred to as just "libertarianism" in reliable sources), left-libertarianism (never referred to as just "libertarianism" in reliable sources) and right-libertarianism (almost exclusively referred to as just "libertarianism" in reliable sources) are all distinct ideologies which strongly suggests that they should be treated separately in distinct articles. Now, are we going to follow reliable source or just make up stuff out of thin air and keep these distinct ideologies combined here in an incoherent and unsupported fashion? Born2cycle (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * RE: "Enough!"
 * The assertion will remain in the article, even if there are a few editors that may refuse to acknowledge the numerous reliable sources that very many other editors have agreed would support inclusion. Your demand that we "follow reliable sources" is fairly ironic. BigK HeX (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * On another note, I don't find your attempt at verifying support from the Sapon ref to be very thorough. A noticeboard may be able to advise more presuasively... BigK HeX (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've softened the assertion in the lede for the time being. The sources were reviewed at the oft-referenced RfC.  So, I don't see much issue on that front. BigK HeX (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources were reviewed for what specific content? Please add only content that is supported by the sources, and please be clear about how that content is supported by the sources. For example, we have a source for RL, LS and LL are being distinct ideologies that claim the label libertarianism, but the article refers to variants of libertarianism, listing all the following supposed sources for that phrase.

For examples of philosophical literature describing the left/right variations of libertarianism, see:
 * Bevir, Mark. Encyclopedia of Political Theory. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2010. page 811;
 * Christiano, Thomas, and John P. Christman. Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy. Contemporary debates in philosophy, 11. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. [ page 121];
 * Lawrence C. Becker, Charlotte B. Becker. Encyclopedia of ethics, Volume 3 Encyclopedia of Ethics, Charlotte B. Becker, ISBN, page 1562;
 * Paul, Ellen F. Liberalism: Old and New. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007. page 187; and
 * Roderick T. Long, "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class," Social Philosophy and Policy 15:2 1998, 303-349: 304-308.
 * Roderick T. Long, "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class," Social Philosophy and Policy 15:2 1998, 303-349: 304-308.
 * Roderick T. Long, "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class," Social Philosophy and Policy 15:2 1998, 303-349: 304-308.

Which, if any, of these sources, refer to variants of libertarianism? Are these primary or secondary sources? Well referenced and reliable, or obscure? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's my review.


 * Bevir - only 5 hits for "variant" in the book, none in reference to libertarianism.
 * Vallentyne - refers to "version" not "variant" of libertarianism, and notes that RL is "better known". Unclear if "version" is closer to meaning to "variant" or "distinct ideology" here.
 * Christiano - 6 references to "variant" in book, none in reference to libertarianism
 * Becker - Four references to "variant" in book, none in reference to libertarianism and none on referenced page. References on that page to refer to "distinctions" with respect to libertarianism, and only then when "libertarianism" is "understood as the thesis of full-ownership".
 * Paul - no reference to "variant"; does refer to "two broad forms" and versions; also that RL is the better known form.
 * Sapon - discussed above. Not English (originally), obscure reference.
 * Long - highly obscure. Nothing about "variant"  in another paper.

Once again, we have a long list of sources none of which support the content in question. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed "variants" to "forms" because that is at least supported in some of the cited sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The long list of sources supports the text. Objections based on Googling for the word "variant" don't really seem worth the fuss. Also, I'd say there is nothing unclear about whether the sources refer to related variations/wings/versions of libertarianism. As the sources were reviewed at the RfC, a single editor who has long refused to accept the RfC certainly would be hard-pressed to unilaterally overturn that consensus. BigK HeX (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Many folks have been misquoting the results of the RFC. In this case BigK via. implying that Born2cycle is conflicting with it.     It said to include significant viewpoints as determined by reliable sources, and to follow wp:due/undue weight guidelines  regarding space/prominence in the article. Due to the volume of this section, I'm not sure, but it appears that Born2cycle efforts above are trying to IMPLEMENT the result of the RFC. North8000 (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User Conduct - Deletion of Comments on Talk Page
Interested editors are invited to comment: here

--Xerographica (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-English sources
There is no rule against non-English sources. Removal of them appears to be disruptive editing. Darkstar1st please self-revert. Yworo (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please try and wp:AGF accusing an editor of disruption can be deemed to be a wp:PA, why have you posted this here when you already posted on his talk page? mark nutley (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's clearly intended to be disruptive, user is just back from a block for edit warring on this very article, is aware that problems with sources are under discussion, and rather than bringing the issue up on the talk page, simply starts removing sources. Yworo (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * actually, there is a rule which was not followed Non-English sources: When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then request the translation on the talk page. Removal is not appropriate. Yworo (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the references removed were not supporting foreign language quotations, which is what the guideline you quote is about. It's not required to provide a translation unless foreign text is quoted. Yworo (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * does the word "libertaire" qualify as foreign text? If not consider me requesting a translation, since none can be found after searching, i suggest we leave the sources out as a translation by an editor here may be synthesis.   Darkstar1st (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Yworo (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No? No what?, what exactly are these sources supporting? If a foreign language source is supporting content then a translation must be provided so an editor can verify it mark nutley (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, discussion of a single word, 'libertaire', doesn't count as a "quotation". You'll also note that the first source removed clearly states that the source contains an English translation. The fact that 'libertaire' translates to 'libertarian' can be easily verified in any French-to-English dictionary, or via Babelfish. Yworo (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually i think you have misunderstood me, how am i for instance verify that the content is supported by the reference if it is not translated? And one of them is a dead link btw ref name="Graham" one mark nutley (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Hmm, it would seem they were the same ref, hard to translate that which is not there mark nutley (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not delete the source claiming an english translation exist, i deleted the other 2 in french ^ “De l'être-humain mâle et femelle–Lettre à P.J. Proudhon par Joseph Déjacque” (in French) ^ Pelosse, Valentin (1972). Joseph Déjacque and the Neologism Libertarian the 1st i deleted incorrectly credits dejacques with creating the neologism "libertarian"    Darkstar1st (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? The first reference refers to a book. It has Wikilinks but no external links, so what is there to break? In any case, that source contains the English translation of Joseph Dejacque’s 1857 letter to Proudhon, the second source is the same letter in the original French, so the first reference provides the translation, and the third source is a third-party source discussing that this is the first use of libertaire (libertarian) in French. This is quite clear even using Google Translate. I didn't add these reference, have never seen them before, but have no problem understanding what they are and how they apply. Yworo (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * is google translate now a wp:rs? the 1st link actually does not have the translation in english, rather links to a wp article.  i am requesting the translation be provided, the other two sources will need separate translations as well.   Darkstar1st (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that the source be available online. It's a reference to a published book. I've not made any suggestion that Google Translate is an RS, I simply said that it provides a good enough translation to verify that the source verifies the text it supports. Do you dispute that? Yworo (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yworo your edit here introduces this link which is a 404  That is the source i am on about. DS1st can you link me to the sources you are refering to please mark nutley (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There may be something wrong with your browser, both links work fine for me (refs 16 and 17). Yworo (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In particular, it seems your browser is not detecting the end of the link and the beginning of the link text. The link is only, but your browser is translating the space following it as %20 and thus not detecting the end of the URL, which it shouldn't be doing. It may be due to the non-standard quotation marks (not sure whether they are "European" style or Microsoft "Smart" quotes). I've changed them, does that help? Yworo (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * i have never disputed the claim a person has translated the letter, i simply wanted it presented here. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's in a book I don't have. Use the library. Yworo (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I read the section on Translation requirements (V), and user submitted translations are acceptable ("Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians."). While we wait for a RS translation, I submit the following translations Google machine translation of french archive french archive

"¶"Ecrivain fouetteur de femmes, serf de l'homme absolu, Proudhon-Haynau [Footnote in French edition: "Haynau, général autrichien qui réprima les mouvements révolutionnaires en Europe centrale et balkanique en 1848-49."] qui avez pour knout la parole, comme le bourreau croate, vous semblez jouir de toutes les lubricités de la convoitise à déshabiller vos belles victimes sur le papier du supplice et à les flageller de vos invectives. Anarchiste juste-milieu, libéral et non LIBERTAIRE, vous voulez le libre échange pour le coton et la chandelle, et vous préconisez des systèmes protecteurs de l'homme contre la femme, dans la circulation des passions humaines ; vous criez contre les hauts barons du capital, et vous voulez réédifier la haute baronie du mâle sur la vassale femelle ; logicien à bésicles, vous voyez l'homme par la lunette qui grossit les objets, et la femme par le verre qui les diminue ; penseur affligé de myopie, vous ne savez distinguer que ce qui vous éborgne dans le présent ou dans le passé, et vous ne pouvez rien découvrir de ce qui est à hauteur et à distance, ce qui perspective de l'avenir : vous êtes un infirme !"""

The following translation has been amended by Fifelfoo from the Google Translation for grammar and grammatical word order, and two French words that aren't readily translated (knout, the-person-who-gouges-out-eyes), but not for the use of technical words (Anarchist, liberal, and Libertarian are left as Google translated them), "¶The writer who whips women, the serf of the absolute man, Proudhon-Haynau [Footnote in French edition: Haynau, Austrian general who suppressed the revolutionary movements in Central Europe and the Balkans in 1848-49.] who has to cudgel speakers, like the executioner of Croatia, you seem to enjoy all of the lewd lust of unleashing your fine paper on the victims of torture and flogging them with your invective. This is the Anarchist golden mean: liberal and yet not LIBERTARIAN: you want free trade for cotton and the candle, and you are advocating systems protecting man against woman in the movement of human passions, you scream against the barons of capital, and want to rebuild the barons of the male over the female vassal; logician to spectacles, you see the man with the telescope that magnifies objects, and the woman through the glass which decreases; thinker afflicted by myopia, you do know what you distinguish gouging out their eyes in the present or in the past, and you can not see what is up or remotely view what the future is: you're a cripple!"


 * Notes from Fifelfoo's translation: knout is a Russian judicial whip or cudgel used to beat victims of the judicial system; éborgne means the person who gouges out eyes (what kind of language has a single word for this? Seriously?).  This looks like a typical feminist attack on Proudhon.  The French word used for LIBERTARIAN (small caps in original) is LIBERTAIRE which fr.wikipedia defines as, "On désigne par libertaire ce qui prône une liberté absolue et rejette toute autorité." which I don't believe I need to translate. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

does the google translation support the claims made?
isn't there something in the source Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas - Volume One: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300CE-1939), ed. Robert Graham that could support these claims? (The use of the word 'libertarian' to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon) Darkstar1st (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't here for the original claims made using the translated text, does anyone have a diff or remember what the claims being made from this were? I'd suspect that a documentary history is a set of original documents, collected by an editor because of their importance or interest, the original documents which would need to be treated as PRIMARY sources of opinion and cited as individual documents contained in the edited work.  We could certainly say, "Déjacque used the word Libertarian to distinguish his own politics in an 1857 attack on Proudhon's anarchist position on the status of women." but I don't think that drives the article forward much.  I really enjoyed the invective of the original source though.  I don't think a quote from this text is really useful in illustrating anything: I agree with you we'd be better off making use of an RS's opinion on the earliest use of the word libertarian to refer to a political ideology. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reading this diff it looks like it was relying on Robert Graham in some way. Perhaps Graham introduced the source?  I wouldn't call a short introduction to a PRIMARY source particularly Reliable, unless he has extensively commented all documents.  If only a page number had originally been given, we could ask the reference exchange people to try to get us a copy of the pages before the PRIMARY. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just checked Dictionnaire de l'Académie française, the French OED equivalent, they list 1858 Proudhon as their earliest use. I have heard that they're deletionist as opposed to the OED's inclusionist stance.  Then again, the OED is pretty lackluster on the word libertarian. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's archive everthing but...
I suggest that we archive all the finished or particularly soapboxy/wp:or discussions (which have been firmly decried even by neutral editors at this WP:ANI. So let’s make it easier to proceed in a rational fashion. Below are the sections we probably should keep IF discussions are not finished. (Discuss below, NOT in between list, whether they are done.) Any others that include actual discussions of sources and proposals that are unfinished and important? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Request we go to formal mediation
 * Yet More Intresting and Fascinating HQRS
 * Intro definition should be NPOV from widely cited source, not a cherry-picked obscure POV one
 * Deletion of left-wing groups
 * Anarchism in the lede (or at least “Merging rest of overview to lead” which I’m not done with yet)
 * Fiscally Conservative - Socially Liberal
 * Questionable Sources, general
 * Need citation for libertarian socialism being part of the anarchist main branch of libertarianism
 * Non-English sources
 * libertarian party
 * Libertarian socialism as form of libertarianism - sources challenged
 * Seeking protection for article
 * Lemons into Lemonade? (Protection)
 * i would prefer hide anything you fell is suds, the let the overly prompt 7 days auto do the job. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just delete it - it is distracting. I cannot even follow the conversation.  TFD (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow, but the idea of archiving everything and getting a nice fresh start in every respect sounds great. Maybe leave a little section or two to explain that we decided on all of this. Carol, just be bold and roll with it. We can reverse any areas where someone has a problem. I'll back you on it, if lil' ole' me matters any. :-)    North8000 (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Having notice that the User who protected the page tweaked the automatic archiving, it occurred to me that manual archiving might screw things up. In seven days all the old archives hopefully will be archived. Though it looks like a lot of stuff already has been hanging around for longer than that. Hmmmm... CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, manual archiving won't mess things up, but it's probably easier to change the thread age in the archive settings to something small and wait a day for it to happen, than manually moving big blocks of text. Currently the thread age is set to 7 days. You can set it to something like 3 days temporarily. All I did was reduce the number of threads that must be present on this page from 4 to 3. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the earlier requested move to Libertarianism (word) (of which I was the nom) be closed/archived. It's clearly dead and has been for some time. I was never a big proponent of it (I do believe the current content of the article is about the word, but I think the ideal solution is to fix that problem, not accept it and rename the article accordingly), just tried it as a possible compromise as preferable to the current situation. I closed it some time ago, which caused the notice to be removed from WP:RM. It was subsequently reopened but the notice was never reinstated at WP:RM. I believe the automated processing at WP:RM only supports one request at a time per page. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion of left-wing groups can stay, i did not title that btw mark nutley (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To be conservative, did some today. Will do some more in next day or two. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good. Fresh start. Keep rolling! North8000 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Long's definition
" Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power [either "total or merely substantial"] from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals" "

His definition didn't include " [either "total or merely substantial"] ", so we shouldn't have that on the page. Besides that, I don't see how "substantial" can count as "radical." byelf2007 (talk) 28 September 2010

A good definition, and fine if it is stated as just being his, but that doesn't mean that every word is a good description of Libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe Long later elucidates his definition, perhaps in the paragraph containing the quote and one following. Additionally, talk page debate indicated concern by a number of authors that "radical redistribution…from…state…to voluntary" indicated an exclusively anarchist definition, which Long does not actually make.  In Long's case radical redistribution includes both anarchist redistributions and minarchist redistributions.  Additionally, the Long quote was chosen for its demonstrative but not for its exhaustive nature in defining libertarianism.  Other definitions exist in High Quality Reliable Sources.  Long's was chosen as it does not advocate any of the more exclusive definitions, while it does not rule them out either, allowing the article to later discuss more exclusive definitions properly.  Thanks.  Fifelfoo (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fifeloo. It's best to start with a broad, non-exclusive definition. Then the lead would need to go on to state that libertarianism can be divided into two broad categories: so-and-so1 additionally defines libertarianism as blah, blah1 (this should be the "mainstream" view); while others, exemplified by so-and-so2 view libertarianism as blah, blah2. Since there are what are perceived as major difference between these two categories, the article should also be divided into two major sections.


 * Is there any agreement as to which form might be considered a "bridge" form? One that really places itself in the middle of the extremes of the range? Minarchism perhaps?


 * Oh, and our quotation policy does not permit the insertion of any editorial material not in the original source, so the "total or substantial" definitely has to go. Might I ask who inserted it? Yworo (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is from later in Long. "foo" redistribution can either be "bar or baz" might be the way? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, where was that dang sources page? What with all the discussion volume, I can't find the link anymore. Perhaps we could list discussion subpages at the top of this discussion page? Yworo (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources page I'm working on is too alpha at the moment for community discussion on it. The search archives works well leading to Archive 22 which contains an expanded quite from Long, "my definition does not specify whether this redistribution of power is to be total or merely substantial", Long is available at Roderick T. Long "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class" Social Philosophy and Policy 1998: 303ff. free here at 304-310. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that does seem to be a good dividing quotation.
 * However, I meant the talk subpage here where some sources were being accumulated. I still can't seem to find the link to it. Yworo (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The source accumulation page is in alpha and not ready for release. It took about an hour to provisionally process the current bibliography (not the refs list!), and it probably needs another hour to completely refcheck, verify, and quote extract from the online sources available for the bibliography only.  After doing the bibliography I have to do the refslist.  After the refslist the Talk: Archives for missed or rejected sources.  I've notified the other editor who had a central interest in the sourcing issue and generating such a page.  The page won't be a subpage of this Talk: but rather a generally available subpage of the WikiProject Libertarianism to allow for better general use across other Libertarianism articles.  Thanks for your interest.  Check back in a couple of weeks for the resource. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, perhaps you mean /scope? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible direction / compromise?
Without getting into a lengthy analysis / summary and elaborate case-making RFC:

I think that there are a lot of folks who feel that this article has serious problems, maybe a BIT less so with changes in the recent weeks. Ostensibly, within them there seem to be two "camps."
 * Camp 1: One sort of says that this article is disproportionately overwhelmed with offbeat, unusual, rare or possibly non-existent groups, philosophies etc. that it is incoherent, confusing or uninformative.
 * Camp 2 One sort of says that some of the included philosophies are so different or opposite from the main meaning of Libertarianism that they should not be in the article.  Possibly some of them may feel that the most important problem is that voiced by Camp 1, and that exclusion is the best or only way to get it fixed.  Or that UNILATERALLY giving ground on the exclusion topic would result in shifting the overall issues/article in the wrong direction.

Contrary to the common mis-quoting and mis-characterization of the RFC closer's comments, the core of them was to (this is my paraphrasing) include significant strands of with the word "Libertarian", "significant" as determined by RS's, and to apply wp:due/undue weight standards to all coverage of strands.

My thought was to let this a portion of the be a sort of "disambiguation article", and apply the closer's advice to decide what goes or stays, and what gets expanded or contracted coverage. I think that another Rosetta stone is solving this is to understand that "strands" of Libertarianism can be defined by sets of common tenets held by larger organized / non-organized groups of people which hold different philosophies. In short,Libertarianism in practice is more often defined by sets of tenets held in common rather than people organizing themselves into belief sets defined by a couple of philosopher/writers decades or a centuries ago. And finally, to  at least temporarily put "exclusion-based-on-philosophy" arguments aside, and instead focus on paring, up-playing and down-playing the various philosophies based on significance. And let "significance" be based on a combination of presence in SECONDARY RS's (where the writer is writing about the existence of a clearly-existent philosophy, not creating one with the writing) plus actual practice of Libertarianism. Possible if make progress in this area, the concerns of the "camp 2" might be assuaged.

Rather than asking people to "agree" with the above, maybe it would be better to ask for a consensus to just sort of try something somewhat along the lines of the above for a few weeks and see how it goes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The disambiguation idea has already been rejected multiple times. This article is an overview article, written in summary style, which is the same style as Conservatism, Liberalism, Republicanism, etc. Those ideologies are just as diverse. There is no legitimate reason to make this a disambiguation page. This comment is pure soapbox. Yworo (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the insult, and for not assuming good faith.  The "disambiguation article" is a way of looking at an article which explains widely varying strands, and an attempt to reconcile the various differences here.  To those who would rather exclude the strand, it can instead be included and explained here. 14:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No insult intended, I was characterizing your comment, not you. Yworo (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * i consider saying that I was soapboxing in this case to be an insult. NOT a personal attack, but an insult. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Yworo. Clearly, proposals for disambiguation have rejected multiple times.  If he's not assuming good faith, then perhaps there's a good justification.... BigK HeX (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that you both misunderstood me. I was NOT proposing or advocating a disambiguation page. I was proposing keeping all of these diverse strands in THIS article. I meant "Disambiguation article" as a middle-of-the-road way of looking at THIS article. North8000 (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The terminology for that is "summary style". That's what the article already is. A disambiguation page is something like Libertarian Party. So why precisely is a proposal to keep the current form of the article worth so many words? Yworo (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's funny that you always complain about "misinterpretation of the RFC" when you seem to one of the largest parties to that. Here's what the RfC actually said. "Are the various conceptions of libertarianism currently expressed on the page aspects of the same thing; that is, there is a valid concept 'Libertarianism' that encompasses all of these ideas – just like the idea of Christianity includes Roman Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, etc. Or, Is 'right-libertarianism' so different from 'left-libertarianism' and other concepts (e.g. 'geo-libertarianism'), that they are essentially different ideas that should be disambiguated to different pages. That is, the terms represent ideas as different as goldfish (fish) and Goldfish crackers, Queen and Queen (band), and inflation (a rise in prices) and inflation (the early expansion of the universe). In that case, as laid out by the disambiguation guideline, right-libertarianism as the primary topic, should occupy the page. Wikipedia answers such questions using reliable sources, and in this case, editors who hold the 'libertarianism should be construed broadly' viewpoint have offered multiple reliable sources that attest to the first interpretation. Reliable sources treat, on the same page, multiple variants of libertarianism – treating them as aspects of the same idea. (Unlike, for instance, goldfish and goldfish crackers, which no reliable source treats as aspects of the same thing.)" The numerous reliable sources were reviewed in that RfC and largely regarded as sufficient to support the prerequisite prominence as a viewpoint.  You may want to acknowledge that one of these days .... or persist against an established consensus (as you've done here as well). BigK HeX (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's cool it.
 * Reliable sources like Widerquist note:


 * See that?
 * "Three distinct groups".
 * "Not factions of a common movement."
 * "Distinct ideologies using the same label".
 * Do any reliable sources say anything like that about Conservatism, Liberalism, Republicanism, etc.? Yworo, please do not dodge this question, for then you'd be avoiding the central issue about this article that a myriad of editors have been complaining about for over five years, something that is not true about the other articles (and it's no coincidence that there are no reliable sources that refer to distinct ideologies that are not factions nor variants of the same movement that claim the same label). This is the point you keep ignoring, if not outright denying.  But there it is in plain black and white English from a reliable source writing about political ideologies.   --Born2cycle (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Other sources put the matter a different way. We're not relying on your single preferred source for this, you know. Yworo (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First, it's not my source. This is one of the sources from the list of sources that supposedly support the notion that there is one general ideology of which all ideologies that claim the label libertarianism are variants.  Second, you're dodging the question.  Do any reliable sources say anything like that about Conservatism, Liberalism, Republicanism, etc.? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, wait, seriously? You think conservatism is a single coherent political philosophy?  john k (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. The fact that there are two points of view has already been discussed and it was determined that in such a case the broad view should be the basis of the article. The discussion that determined this was an RfC which involved outside editors with an interest in political articles.


 * I propose that the topic not be brought up again. It's not productive. See the previous section as an example of a productive discussion. Yworo (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yworo's understanding reflects common practice and common understanding of policy throughout Wikipedia. Anyone wishing to make Libertarianism an exception to that common understanding of policy (even though the understanding has already been reinforced by the closed RfC) has a long road ahead of them.  Repeating the same objections on the talk page three times a day will do nothing to achieve that exception. Wikipedia respects QUALITY of arguments, not quantity. BigK HeX (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000 I do not belong to a camp. I have no preconceived views about the subject but insist that reliable sources are used. Could you please refer to sources, otherwise this discussion is a total waste of time. TFD (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Couple comments:
 * Proposal wasn't terribly clear itself but from responses I can see what problem is with it.
 * Please don't provide alleged WP:RS like in the box without a link to it or more info. Even if it was presented before, the link may have been archived and we shouldn't have to go searching for it, even if it's still on main talk page. [ ✅ link (sorry, and thanks) --Born2cycle (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)]
 * Considering the page is locked except for consensus changes, the most productive thing might be for people who have controversial changes to create talk pages with THEIR versions of how the article should look. (Perhaps with changes in bold or colors to make it easier to find changes.) Only changes related to clear policy problems should be brought here as proposals. As I'll do soon. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Should I withdraw this?

Well, since I got accused of various things by BigK and Yworo, (although they may have misunderstood what I meant)  and flamed by Darkstar on my talk page, that might indicate that my idea was truly middle ground, or that I totally blew it. Life's too short for this. If ya'll want me to withdraw it, I will. If y'all want me to withdraw from the article I will. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yworo, you are the one that asserted that "[The ideologies of "Conservatism, Liberalism, Republicanism, etc"] "are just as diverse".  Then, when I presented a reliable source that refuted this assertion,  a source that was used in the bogus and way-too-prematurely closed RfC to which you refer incorrectly to support the opposite notion, you make no acknowledgment of this and instead call for the topic to not be brought up again, that it's "not productive".  Yeah, not "productive" from the biased POV that wants to keep this article written in a manner that wrongly presents separate and distinct ideologies that happen to share the label libertarianism as variants of the same ideology.  Can you make this argument without asserting soapboxing absurdities easily refuted by reliable sources?  Or are you going to ignore this question too?  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that some sources say that. Other sources say otherwise. It's not black and white, which is how you're presenting it. How is that not soapboxing? If you instead said, 3/5th of the sources present it this way, 2/5ths present it that way, you might have a point, assuming you are taking all major sources into account. Your argument based on a single source is deficient. There's really no point in responding to a deficient argument as if it were a valid one. Yworo (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, your source doesn't say anything about whether Conservatism, Liberalism, and Republicanism are unified or complex ideologies. We all know they are complex. Taking a look at these pages, they also in their lead indicate a range of positions which share the same label. Yet another deficiency in your argument. You claim that it addresses the difference in complexity of four ideologies when it only addresses one. Yworo (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yworo, first you claim they are "just as diverse", now you admit it "it's not black and white". Which is it?  My argument is that your claim is soapboxing, something not supported in the sources.  There are no sources that say those other ideologies are "just as diverse".  Besides, the issue isn't about diversity, it's about how related they are, whether all the ideologies have common roots from which they all evolved, or whether they have distinct unrelated sources.   The complete dearth of sources describing any one of those other ideological labels as being comprised of distinct ideologies with original unrelated sources is telling.  They are not "just as diverse".  What is deficient about this argument?  It makes no reliance on all sources about libertarianism making this observation.  By the way, referring to the distinct ideologies as "variants" does not preclude the possibility of them being distinct with separate/unrelated origins. No one is questioning the complexity of Conservatism et. al.  Yet that article never-the-less correctly associates the topic of that article with the political ideology of the U.S Republican party, just as this article should associate the topic of this article with the political ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party, something you oppose (see below).  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, you've made clear that you have an agenda. Your agenda is not compatible with Wikipedia's goals. As such, you should educate yourself about Wikipedia goals, because you have clearly mistaken conceptions of what those goals are. Yworo (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * North8000 .. your efforts to find a compromise here are valuable. I don't think it was a particularly good idea to preface your suggestion with the charge that people "keep misinterpreting the RfC" (which you've accused me of doing many times), but without that bit of commentary, the proposal of expanding on the commonalities among the various implementations of libertarianism is something I feel the article is in desperate need of.
 * This sort of thing could likely have been accomplished quite a long time ago.  However, the refusal by many editors to accept that different strands should receive more than a token mention have ground a lot of progress to a halt though, since it's hard to expand text when there is a vocal minority screaming that it "really shouldn't be there anyways" and feel they can only "allow" it there as part of a compromise. BigK HeX (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the RFC, my apologies for saying it in such an unfriendly way. IMHO the two "operative" statements from the closer were:


 * The consensus was:
 * "Libertarianism" should be broadly construed to include all significant viewpoints from reliable sources.
 * and


 * "Although all variants should properly be described on this page, the weight given to various viewpoints should depend on their weight in reliable sources. This includes the weight in the lead, which should summurise the article, and reflect the weight given to various ideas in the article. Concepts that are only briefly mentioned in the article need not be mentioned in the lead."


 * And that anyone who quotes things from analysis or "pre-amble" sections without noting the operative statements from the above is not representing the closing accurately.


 * If I were on the "narrower" side, ans saw that the RFC had the result that the "broader" folks grabbed the gained ground of the "broadly" word, and ignored and refused to move on the due/undue weight finding, then I would certainly dig in my heels and note the flaws of the RFC process here, ones which could merit it being revisited.


 * Personally I think that the finding, at least as I see it above, was a good one. But flawed in one way which is that it went along with one false premise of the question, which is that an article can cover Libertarianism via a description of various philosophies as written by the original philosophers.  In reality, I think that the bulk of the practices of Libertarianism (organizations, groups, movements, advocacy, politics, think tanks, media etc.) is defined by sets of common tenets between those who have philosophies which differ in other areas. North8000 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Careful, that's getting into precisely the area (original research using Venn diagrams), that got Xenographica blocked for soapboxing. The pertinent question is, do you have a source that says that "the bulk of the practices of Libertarianism (organizations, groups, movements, advocacy, politics, think tanks, media etc.) is defined by sets of common tenets, etc." If you don't, then you are only expressing a personal opinion. Yworo (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No and No. On the latter, you are saying that every comment or statement on a talk page that doesn't have a citation (such as the one that you just made) is "OR". Why don't you flip through some article talk pages what fraction of talk page statements have citations?  Or, start by counting what fraction of your statements in this talk page have citations? North8000 (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yworo wrote a note on the talk page of the admin who banned Xenographica, linked to my "Possible direction / compromise?" idea, and said that it was showing me as being intent on soap boxing. Huh?  What a vicious place this article is!  North8000 (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove redundant WP:Undue WP:Synth in "Overview" section
Per this diff I removed the material because it was a) POV WP:OR synth from both sources mentioned (this is the Understanding American government link which was not included in edit) (some also consider this a non-WP:RS source; I am undecided); b) redundant to later material about Libertarian Party; and c) WP:UNDUE to an Overview. The material was reinserted anyway despite my and/or others' objections detailed here.  The Overview has been moved, so the paragraph and quote should be removed manually by the editor. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion seeking consensus below:

On WP:Undue issue

 * Support Yworo (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was the one who originally put it in.  The goal was to just list common tenets held by most Libertarians, and having it come from the largest Libertarian organization in the world is a good place to find something like this, and identifying their assertion as such. The "third largest party" stuff was added by others; I would have preferred that that not be these.  This was there to be an attempt at a "common tenets" overview, not an into to the LP. Carol, you have not said what your actual objection to this is.  North8000 (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * oppose, the case for OR or synth has not been made to my satisfaction, "undue" is still being debated. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - "undue" is not really being debated, it's being soapboxed. Once someone provides a source detailing global demographic or survey data for the various libertarian positions, then it can be debated. Yworo (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * incorrect comment - "undue" is being debated, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/  (the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism)  meaning it be the major and left be the minor according to wp, minor should be minimized.  Darkstar1st (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Major and minor would not eliminate a 51%/49% balance to the article without further sources. Yworo (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * wp is very clear, "minimized" meaning not in the prominent parts of the article, but a moved to a section near the bottom of the page. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Err what? That's the opposite of the treatment recommended in policy (i.e., "folding disputes into the narrative"). BigK HeX (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * left libertarian is the lessor well known articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight


 * Oppose The political ideology of libertarianism, with respect to what it generally means today when used without qualification throughout the English speaking world, is closely aligned to the ideology of Libertarian parties in English speaking countries, just like the political ideology of Conservatism is closely aligned to conservative political parties like the U.S. Republican Party, which is properly covered in the last paragraph of the intro of the Conservatism article, and appropriately referenced elsewhere in the article. The NPOV-violating transparent attempt here to try to separate what libertarianism generally means in English today (what an article named Libertarianism should be about) and the ideology of the U.S. LP is not supported by reliable sources.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect about what a Wikpedia article is supposed to do. All Wikipedia articles are supposed to give a global view of a topic, not an English-speaking countries' view. Yworo (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that Systemic bias is an essay. That means it's what some people think; it has not necessarily gained consensus.  Please do not represent it as a consensus view of what "Wikipedia articles are supposed" to do unless you have evidence for that.
 * That's sort of a procedural comment. On the merits, I haven't read through the whole previous discussion, so I'll just say in general terms &mdash; sure, libertarian thought in France or Russia or Nigeria is relevant to this article.  However that's libertarian thought as it would be described in English.  The existence of cognate words in other languages, with different meanings, does not make their referents suitable to this article; those topics would go in articles talking about whatever we call those currents of thought in English.
 * I hope the distinction I am making is clear? The whole world is relevant, but the language we use to talk about it is English, and therefore in questions of language, the practice in English-speaking countries does in fact control.  (The English used in non-English-speaking countries is not particularly relevant.) --Trovatore (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, and the fact is that there are English-speaking people who adhere to the views which this editor is trying to eliminate from the article. There are English-speaking writers who write about their views and there are English-speaking writers who neutrally describe these views. So the characterization of the differences here is deficient and misleading. Yworo (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I say, I'm late to the dispute so I don't know exactly which views those are. The question, though, is whether they are standardly described as "libertarianism" in English.  If they are not, then they can still be covered in Wikipedia, but the main coverage belongs under their most standard English name.  It would be appropriate to mention them briefly here, as things called by a cognate name in another language, with a pointer to the standard English name. --Trovatore (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And of course "in English" does mean "in English as used in English-speaking countries". --Trovatore (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, these views are described as libertarianism in English. Yworo (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly, Trovatore. That is exactly the point I was making.  Well stated.  Thank you. Yworo, please identify English reliable sources that describe the ideologies of "libertarian socialism" or "left libertarianism" views as "libertarianism" without qualification as "libertarian socialism" or "left-libertarianism".  If you can't provide such sources, then please stop claiming that "these views are described as 'libertarianism'". And, yes, there are sources that refer to "variants of libertarianism", but then they go on to write about "libertarianism socialism" and/or "left libertarianism" without ever referring to those ideologies as just unqualified "libertarianism".  However, there are a plethora of sources (starting with Boaz, quoted in the intro of the article) that refer to so-called "right-libertarianism" (called that only in contexts where there is a need to differentiate from the "variants" that are never referred to as just libertarianism without qualification), as "libertarianism" in English.  That's the point.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those sources have already been supplied by other editors. Many of them are used in the article. "I didn't hear that" get old pretty fast. And by the way the phrase "variants of libertarianism" doesn't remove the domain of discourse from libertarianism. For somebody who throws around the word "semantics", I'd have thought you would know that. Yworo (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're confusing two issues. We're talking here about semantics - what a  particular word (i.e., "libertarianism") means.  We don't need to consider what that word means in any language other than the English that is spoken by native English speakers.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm have some education in semantics and I disagree with you on that point. You have an agenda and you're proposing applying systematic bias to this article, using whatever excuses you can come up with, one after another as each is countered. Yworo (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Prominent libertarians all indicate that at a bare minimum, the government should be "limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence."  Limited government is a defining tenet that differentiates libertarianism from modern liberalism and anarcho-capitalism.  --Xerographica (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you may have missed the memo, but in the Libertarianism article, editors have largely decided that there is NOT a sharp, unequivocal differentiation between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Your comment loses value if premised on such a restrictive POV. BigK HeX (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * most editors here agree there is a sharp difference anarcho-capitalism is for no state, a position most (major/better known, etc) libertarians oppose.  Darkstar1st (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Some are missing the point. I put that statement in as the best I could do in an attempt to common tenets of Libertarianism on a worldwide basis. If something in common like this does not exist, then what is the basis of these being in the same article? I just went to the largest Libertarian organization in an attempt to do this, and do it per WP:standards. finding a source that is a RS in both Wikipedia terms and real world terms instead of us trying to create a summary. That is also which I want to their common tenets type statement and not to their platform. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * RE: "I just went..."
 * I think that's the issue some find problematic here. You made a choice on "who best exemplifies libertarian tenets", and that choice seems to have been fairly arbitrary and, more problematically, it may not have a basis that can be supported by RS.  So, yes, we need to discuss commonalities in the article, but we can't decide on our own that Organization X is the one to mine for commonalities. BigK HeX (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Choosing the largest organization in the world, by far, that uses the name "libertarian" (in English), is hardly arbitrary. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether it is arbitrary or not is moot, since it clearly violates the Wikipedia's core principle of maintaining a neutral point of view. Yworo (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV is about not excluding certain viewpoints, it's not about excluding the most widely held relevant viewpoint. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BigK, I second what Born2 said, plus: I think that the choice shows a best effort at FOLLOWING WP:NPOV.  Do you know a better place to go to with respect to this? North8000 (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do take it to the NPOV noticeboard. I've already set the context. Yworo (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Responses to a few points:
 * It’s WP:Undue because it singles out one organization in one country, and I don’t notice a WP:RS saying ‘’the Libertarian Party is the most significant libertarian organization in the world’‘ and that no other organization has as many members/contributors/etc. If Cato raises, say $5 million a year and the LP it’s $1 million, should that be taken into account? Some might think Ron Paul’s Republican libertarian campaign was the most significant libertarian organizational effort. It got a heck of a lot more publicity than anything the LP did in 2008. (However, to me this is actually less of an issue than the fact that someone’s WP:OR/synth is presented as if it was a quote from the Libertarian Party. Very dishonest and against Wikipedia policy.)
 * People are going off topic into the broad versus narrow discussion which already was settled by RfCs and Request for moves. Maybe all those comments should be hidden and people should give more relevant reasons for putting the LP in the Overview. If the description actually reflect sources, I might even support it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The various strands of Libertarianism must have something in common (other than the word in their name); if not the what would they be doing in the same article? I think that one step out of the incoherent mess that this article still is is to try to cover these. Carol, do you agree or disagree with this?  And, if you agree and have a better idea on how to do it than mine, (which was using the common tenets wording from the largest Libertarian org in the world as a source) great.....what is it? North8000 (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just notice recommendation that I take this to NPOV board and maybe I should. But first will see if I can come up with better language. Of course, the other problem is I still think overview should just be merged to lead. Maybe that's the needed proposal. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

On WP:OR Issue (Not representing sources accurately)
Given that we can't get consensus on getting rid of the section, I will propose language that actually reflects the source and does not misrepresent the sources, including making them look like a quote. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * IMHO cool, want to draft something? Also, remembering the goal of an overview via trying to state common tenets, if you have a better idea / source(s) IMHO that would be cool to draft.   North8000 (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)