Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 27

Editable Draft / List Section
Feel free to edit anything in this section including deletions. Anything you put here may get deleted or edited.

Editable draft moved here: Talk:Libertarianism/OverviewDraft

End of editable sectionNorth8000 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Section
Normal talk section rules apply hereNorth8000 (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've mentioned above that I think it would be a good idea to look at other tertiary sources - the major encyclopaedias mainly. If we start deviating too much from, say, Britannica then it's probably something of a red-flag. This approach keeps us all "honest" and should prevent our own biases creeping in. TFOWR 17:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

When adding tenets, it would be very useful if sources were added, too. That'll give an indication of how many sources support each tenet, which will help with WP:UNDUE etc. TFOWR 18:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Broadened the economic point to cover the wage slavery idea behind libertarian socialist justifications of opposition to economic compulsion and the right to revolutionary self-defence. Added self-actualisation, religion and education. All contestable, feel free to nuke them. Fifelfoo (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: "Freedom of religion is an aspect of individual liberty" - I don't see that as being excluded by libertarian socialism. And I'd reiterate that sources would be a huge help here - otherwise this all seems like WP:OR. TFOWR 19:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to personally overlook sourcing issues for the early stages of this draft. Of course, nothing without a source will be used to modify the article. BigK HeX (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern with that is that it's far too easy for WP:UNDUE issues to creep in. We're drafting an overview of libertarianism's key tenets, but we're doing it ourselves - we're not basing it on what RS's regard as the key tenets. We're effectively becoming scholars, not editors. TFOWR 19:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But since since it's a collaborative effort, and includes removing items that are known not to be supported by sources, it should work out as well as the rest of WP. Anything major should definitely be challenged and backed up.  Feel free to tag with  anything that definitely needs sourcing before adding to article.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's still the issue of weighting - WP:UNDUE in particular. How much weight do we give to each tenet? How many RSs consider tenet #1 to be a key tenet of left-libertarianism?, etc <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 20:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we're talking about tenets, their inclusion should not be controversial at all, supported implicitly if not explicitly by practically all relevant sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...then let's have the sources! What are the relevant sources and what do they consider to be the key tenets of each form? This all seems like we're considering what we consider to be the key tenets, not what RSs consider to be the key tenets. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 20:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It could be problematic if we're not assiduous in striking unsourced assertions. I'm not really worried about this group being very lenient about letting unsourced material make it into the article...  :oP
 * I'm treating this as a "new article" where placement of the citations often is done after the general form of the text is hashed out. BigK HeX (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sold on starting new articles without sources ;-) Far easier to start with the sources then sort out the text. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 20:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that starting from sources is ideal, but, unfortunately, drafting articles without sources is pretty common practice. I assume there's some decent reason, so I'm fine with giving that same sort of leeway here. BigK HeX (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't we have sources? It seems like we should have loads already, as there's already a fairly well-sourced article. Drafting articles without sources is quite common, but it's (a) less than ideal, and (b) well removed from what we have here. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 20:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If people aren't aware of the term of art from political science, an established religion is a state funded religion or a state controlled religion, such as the Church of England. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Evolved from
Re: I suggest "evolved from" is not relevant to classification.

The title of that subsection is, currently, "List of tenets exclusive to libertarianism which evolved from classical liberalism"

What I mean is, "List of tenets exclusive to what is most commonly referred to in contemporary English as libertarianism though sometimes as classical liberalism because in the early 20th century and prior to that it was known as just liberalism, but since then liberalism has taken on a statist form", but that seemed too long. Suggestions? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like good info. But is it a COMMON tenet is some way? The section is exploding with good work. Maybe we need to reorganize. North8000 (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed the name of that subsection to "List of tenets exclusive to libertarianism not including libertarian socialism". I like the way it is organized now:
 * outline of terminology usage
 * common tenets
 * tenets exclusive to lib soc
 * tenets exclusive to lib not include lib soc
 * How would you suggest reorganizing? What current organization problem would be solved?  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking your hing, lets leave as is and see how it goes. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems like this would be pretty tricky stuff to show sources for. I doubt this "evolution" material is worth much effort, if it's not going to be usable in the article due to policy issues. BigK HeX (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The "evolution" wording is gone, though I know there are sources for how libertarianism came to be used in the contemporary manner... they preferred liberal but that was "taken", some preferred (and still do) "classical liberal" but "libertarian" was preferred by most (I didn't make that up, I read it). Can't speak for others, but I'm not adding anything except that for which I know there are sources.  I presume we only need to be held to that when we actually propose a change to the article per this.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't want to read a lot of vague proposals. Let's make proposals to see if anyone interested. If not shot down, create a talk page of what you (and whoever wants to work with whatever you propose) think article should look like and let us go there when you are happy with it. You'll have to do it at some point anyway. You don't have to provide every reference right now for more general outlines, as long as you are pretty sure you can find one or more solid references for any assertion. On the other hand, if people ask for them, you'll have to provide them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Two kinds of left lib and right lib
In the outline I'm trying to distinguish the two forms of left/right-libertarianism used in sources. They're very different.

In some sources LL is used as a synonym for lib socialism, and to distinguish from the US form of lib (for lack of a better term) which is referred to as RL.

But in other sources the US form is subdivided into RL and LL to distingish the minarchist from the A-Cs, reflecting whether the ideologies are coming from the political left or right. This LL is very different from LS.

Geolibertarians, mutualists, green libertarians are all basically the libertarian socialist type of left-libertarian, which is why I put them in that section, rather than the Rothbardian type of A-C left-libertarian.

here is a source describing Anarcho-capitalist Karl Hess as being a left libertarian.

And this source, from Robert T. Long, is explicit about usage:

Source: http://praxeology.net/historical-justice.doc

So, those two uses of "left-libertarianism" (and, accordingly, right-libertarianism), are reflected in the outline. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The core tenet of modern libertarianism is minimal government impact on individuals and on business. Neither political liberalism nor political conservatism is compatible with libertarianism. The reason is that each of those groups are only willing to embrace the parts of libertarianism that they agree with. There is no such thing as a "left wing" libertarian or a "right wing" libertarian, because both of those wings believe in government-imposed restrictions on individual freedoms. The core flaw with libertarianism, of course, is the notion that individuals all act with "enlightened self interest" and hence don't need to be restricted. Any questions, class? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's starting to look like "Left Libertarianism" and "Right Libertarianism" are fluid terms for organizing writings rather than actual specific belief sets. (do RS's confirm or refute this?) I think that that quote goes right to the heart of the issue, but in an unintended way.   Note that he said  "By left-libertarianism I mean".  He says that that it is HIS definition used in that writing, not that he is reporting an an extant definition or strand by that name.  If so, then I think that we need to explain those terms as such including their common use(s).  Not to say we can't use them too for organizing the article(s).
 * What Baseball bugs is saying is that if one took the "right" and "left" adjectives seriously with the general meanings of those terms, those terms are oxymorons. I think we know that, and the sign-off was a bit arrogant. . But the question is potential uses and meanigns where that is NOT done. North8000 (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * North, I would say that most usage of such terms in most writings reflects only the usage of that author. Other authors may use the same meaning, others may not.  Some are explicit, as Robert Long is above, about what they mean, specifically.  Others are not so explicit, and you have "reverse engineer" what they mean by their usage.  For example, if someone refers to Karl Hess as a left-libertarian (and some sources do), we know they are not using left-libertarian in that context as a synonym for libertarian socialism, but as a synonym for Left Rothbardism, or to distinguish anarcho-capitalism from minarchism.  I was derided for saying so yesterday, but this is why we have to beware of context, both implied as well as explicit, when using sources.   --Born2cycle (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources refer not only to right and left libertarianism, but to two kinds of each. It is true that there is no such thing as "left wing" or "right wing" libertarianism if you presume that either usage implies government-imposed restrictions on individual freedoms, but why would you do that?  None of the sources do. There is a big difference between traditional libertarianism as still used linguistically in continental Europe but now usually referred to as libertarian socialism in English, and contemporary libertarianism which would rather be called liberalism (in the classical sense), but that's too confusing.  Sometimes these are distinguished by left and right, respectively. Also, sometimes the Nozick/minarchist and Rothbard/anarcho-capitalist versions of libertarianism are distinguished by right and left respectively.  See the outline.  Government intrustion on individual liberty is never implied in these uses.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, anarchocapitalism is never included in left-libertarianism of ANY sense. BigK HeX (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So far I can only find an indirect association. Karl Hess is regarded to be both an anarcho-capitalist and a left-libertarian.  The sense of LL that applies to Hess also applies to A-C.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's probably pretty good reason you're only finding indirect associations (as opposed to direct statements about it being right-lib in sources such as these, , ). Of course we can't use indirect evidence, so I'd suggest we defer to the understanding that can be directly found in sources.   BigK HeX (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Still not definitive, but the article on agorism claims it is both left-libertarian and a form of A-C, implying a form of LL that is assocatied with A-C. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * agreed, therein lies the flaw w/carol assertion that 2/3 of the article is right-libertarian. right libertarian is a fallacy applied to those who are lpusa, as if legal weed and prostitution is "right", or the lpusa is anti-national defense, or anti-public judicial system.  Darkstar1st (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary Lib vs Lib Soc
From the outset I've tried to show the political ideology most commonly known in contemporary English as libertarianism (idiosyncratically per Chomsky) on the same level as libertarian socialism. Both ideologies are forms of libertarianism (in the broad sense), and the outline shows that, essentially like:


 * Libertarianism (broad sense)
 * Libertarianism (idiosyncratic sense per Chomsky)
 * Libertarian Socialism

See: #OverviewDraft

There is is more to it, but that's all that's relevant here. BigK keeps changing this to this form:


 * Libertarianism (broad sense)
 * Libertarianism (idiosyncratic sense per Chomsky)
 * Libertarian Socialism

This incorrectly indicates that LS was somehow spawned from contemporary libertarianism. BigK, can you explain? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I boldly fixed it again per the above. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be able to explain what you've described above, as I doubt that I've tried to place Lib-Soc as any sort of sub-member of right-libertarianism (the term you apparently refuse to use, and what you call "the idiosyncratic sense per Chomsky"). I'm not really going to do a bunch of semantic guesswork on the talk page here, so I'll ask that you use the term "right-libertarian" when you are referring to such.  If that's not reasonable for you, I may be dissuaded from responding. BigK HeX (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to use RL to refer to "idiosyncratic 'libertarianism'" (for lack of a better term) for two reasons. 1) it's not what primary sources like Boaz, Rothbard, Chomsky etc. use to refer to it, and 2) this ideology includes left libertarians (but not libertarian socialists) as well as right libs; left libs like Hess and other agorist founders of the American LP. Yes you did make lib-soc a sub-member of this ideology.   --Born2cycle (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If I did, then disregard it please. I don't think I did, but ... then again it did take me a while to figure out that you had just "libertarianism" where specifically "right-libertarianism" would be a more discerning descriptor, so .. maybe that would've thrown me off.  In any case, I wouldn't knowingly have it under right-libertarianism, so I would approve of you moving it away from there. BigK HeX (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This note is not germane here but In case any missed the note, there is work on developing an overview draft at [] North8000 (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Improving the outline
To avoid an edit war, let's discuss, starting with this edit summary comment... "agorism is often considered right-lib, but for the outline, should probably keep it with the New Left movement"

This is why I structured the outline the way I did. The fact is that agorism is considered both right and left, depending on context. The sources have it both ways, and so can we. Here's how the /OverviewDraft outline looked after my last edit.


 * Libertarianism (in the broad sense)
 * The ideology of major libertarian orgs around the world.
 * The ideologies which recognize the Non-aggression principle and property rights and are advocated and represented by the majority of Libertarian political parties and organizations around the world (Australian Libertarian Society, Libertarian Party of Canada, Libertarian Party UK, Libertarian Party (United States), The Libertarian Alliance); usually called libertarianism in contemporary English which is based on the non-aggression principle and so spans from Agorism and Anarcho-capitalism (the Libertarian Left) to Minarchism and Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
 * Right-libertarianism (Usually "libertarianism" in contemporary US/UK/Australia/Canada usage though sometimes referenced with the more specific qualifier, "right-libertarianism", to distinguish from left-libertarianism); pro-property-rights; This usage of libertarian is considered to be 'idiosyncratic' by Chomsky); A.k.a. classical liberalism and simply "liberalism" in early 20th century and prior; Has advocates who give a morality-based justification (e.g., Ayn Rand, Nozick, Boaz) as well as others who give a consequentialist justification of libertarianism (e.g., Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises);
 * Minarchism (of the typical Nozickean conception) advocated by R Nozick, M. Friedman; idealizes a society containing legal/recognized governance with authority limited to a small number of functions
 * Anarcho-capitalism is a right-libertarian strain of thought originally advocated by MN Rothbard; idealizes a propertarian society without legal/recognized government
 * New left movement (also The Libertarian Left). May be distinguishable from contemporary left-libertarianism (in its synonymous use for libertarian socialism). Describes the views of left-Rothbardians and agorists like Samuel E. Konkin III and Karl Hess; associated with geolibertarians, mutualists, among others
 * Libertarian socialism or left-libertarianism a.k.a. socialisme libertaire; usually "libertarian socialism" in contemporary English usage, but often left-libertarianism and sometimes, libertarianism ; known as "libertarian" in contemporary continental (non-English) European usage and in English usage prior to the 1950s; anti-individual-property-rights;

Note that agorism falls under Libertarian Left, which itself falls under "ideologies that recognize the NAP and property rights" which is sometimes (to distinguish from non-propertian libertarianism, best known as libertarian socialism) referred to as right-libertarianism. So not only does this outline show that agorism is both right and left, it explains why.

What we have now doesn't do this at all:

Libertarianism (in the broad sense)
 * Right-libertarianism (Usually "libertarianism" in contemporary US/UK/Australia/Canada usage though sometimes referenced with the more specific qualifier, "right-libertarianism", to distinguish from left-libertarianism); pro-property-rights; This usage of libertarian is considered to be 'idiosyncratic' by Chomsky); A.k.a. classical liberalism and simply "liberalism" in early 20th century and prior; Has advocates who give a morality-based justification (e.g., Ayn Rand, Nozick, Boaz) as well as others who give a consequentialist justification of libertarianism (e.g., Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises); these variants recognize private property rights, even with respect to natural resources; based on the non-aggression principle and so spans from Anarcho-capitalism to Minarchism and Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
 * Minarchism (of the typical Nozickean conception) advocated by R Nozick, M. Friedman; idealizes a society containing legal/recognized governance with authority limited to a small number of functions ''(At some point CarolMooreindc or perhaps others will ref the current statement in article about differences between centralist and decentralist minarchism; also any refs that might exist comparing them to libertarian municipalism. So heads up. It's my number one priority - besides moving overview to lead and deleting LP from it.)
 * Anarcho-capitalism is a right-libertarian strain of thought originally advocated by MN Rothbard; idealizes a propertarian society without legal/recognized government
 * New left movement (also The Libertarian Left). May be distinguishable from contemporary left-libertarianism (in its synonymous use for libertarian socialism). Describes the views of left-Rothbardians and agorists like Samuel E. Konkin III and Karl Hess; associated with geolibertarians, mutualists, among others
 * Libertarian socialism or left-libertarianism a.k.a. socialisme libertaire; usually "libertarian socialism" in contemporary English usage, but often left-libertarianism and sometimes, libertarianism ; known as "libertarian" in contemporary continental (non-English) European usage and in English usage prior to the 1950s; anti-individual-property-rights;

As you can see, it simply lists right, left and lib soc as three distinct forms, doesn't demonstrate much less explain most of the relationships and related usages we had before, and wrongly implies the following:
 * A-C and agorism are note closely related.
 * What is described as New Left is never referred to as left-libertarianism.
 * Agorism and other propertian left lib ideologies grouped with non-propertian geolibs and mutualists.

I'm not saying that the version we had earlier is not without problems. But what's no longer shown here at all is the big distinction at the top, differentiating propertian from non-propertian ideologies, as is done here (but there only with anarchisms, obviously the minarchists are propertian too). Then the propertian branch, if you will, also is divided into right and left. Showing that is what I was striving for above, and it's now completely lost. If we're not going to use this outline to show how these terms are used and related relative to each other, what's the point? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure where to start, so I guess I'll keep it short. Your version appears to be wrong on a number of counts, and further, IMO, overall it looks unsourceable (in fact, the "source" you provide above clearly contradicts your version).  My version above is sourceable, and AFAIK, doesn't make claims easily contradicted by sources. I noted the problems that I encountered in the many edit comments that I made in trying to make it sourceable.  We could go through those if you like ... just let me know which edit.
 * As for the edit comment that you specifically refer to above, your attempt to represent the entire New Left movement with agorism is erroneous and leads to assertions about the New Left movement that were factually incorrect. BigK HeX (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * RE: "the big distinction at the top, differentiating propertian from non-propertian ideologies"
 * I'd say the attempt to shoehorn this categorization into the outline prompted a fair amount of the issues which likely made the effort impossible to source and prompted some of the inaccuracies. What source puts this distinction "at the top" of New Left and right-lib strands anyways...? BigK HeX (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Folks, y'all are experts on this, and are carrying aroudn the result of reading hundreds of sources in your heads. If you all agree with something, it will be sourcable. This is just an outline / lists to assist in the development of the draft including to hammer out unclear / questioned areas and hopefully create a bit of structure for the information/descriptions/overview. May I suggest going a few days with just trying to hammer it out based on what you know / agree with? (at this stage, just use sourcing to sort out unclear areas) Then go to sourcing for the draft. I think that the "common tenets" section is simpler to consensus, because if there's not consensus that it's a common tenet, it simply won't be on there. The outline / description of the strands (and their differences) is tougher, but you are tackling a very complicated tough job and in 2 days have made more progress than this trio of articles article has in 5 years. BTW I will be gone (canoe trip in Canada where even cell phones don't reach) October 9th - 17th, so I won't be here then. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking maybe each editor who is interested should have his/her own working outline, each with a dynamic "problems" section. So if someone sees a problem in the current version of someone's outline, they would comment accordingly in the problems section (latest first; striked out as addressed). In theory, especially if each participating editor is diligent in analyzing all the others, all of the outlines will converge to a consensus version, because something missing from, or stated/represented questionably in A, but is in B correctly, will be listed as a problem for one or the other.  --Born2cycle (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think broader outlines first would be useful, two big issues being:
 * Do we want to separate broadly left from broadly right libertarian views in two sections similar to as was done back in December here.
 * And/or do we want to want to make sections according to the levels of decentralization different forms think are ideal. (The problem being that I've never met a libertarian who would use military force vs. secessionists, which means decentralization is inevitable under all libertariani regimes.)
 * Q. - What's the difference between a Libertarian and an anarchist? A - About 6 to 7 years, if you're paying attention, or 20 years if you're real slow, like me. ~ Richard B. Boddie 
 * Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Intro
Text of current intro:

1st paragraph
I think the first paragraph of the intro is very good because it speaks of libertarianism only in general, and cites appropriately. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Bracketed clarifying phrase
The "[either total or substantial]" must be removed. Wikipedia policy doesn't not allow changing quotations from being exact. Even though Long said it, he didn't say it there, and it can't be inserted. Yworo (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference to that policy please. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSQUOTE. Only ellipses or non-substantial grammatical changes (such as substituting the subject's name for he or she) are permitted. If quotations from two different places are needed, they should be two different quotations. One should not be inserted into another. This is a pretty standard style and citation requirement for scholarship and encyclopedias and not at all special or unusual for Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but the MOS is a guideline, not policy (it's about preferred style, not about what is allowed or not). Further, WP:MOSQUOTE also says this:


 * The "[either total or substantial]" is completely compliant with MOS (and policy too, of course). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better solution is to comply with the guideline and expand the quote or add an additional quote of the appropriate portion of Long's text. Dunno.... BigK HeX (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's already in full compliance with the guideline as is, as far as I can tell. WP:MOSQUOTE. No need to change anything, at least not to comply with the guideline. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not agree with that. The guideline is "minimum necessary change". It may not be spelled out in the first section but it is in the second section. The example you quote is of an entirely different nature, expanding a grammatical filler word only. Just use two separate quotes. Yworo (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The phrase "minimum necessary change" is not present at WP:MOSQUOTE nor anywhere at WP:MOS (in case anyone else was mislead into thinking you were quoting the MOS when you put that phrase in quotes). I have no idea what you mean by "spelled out" or "second section" (could you please use actual quotes of what you're talking about, and name the sections to which you refer?). The example is expanding a word, but the instruction at Minimal change simply states, "Where there is a good reason to make a change, insert an explanation within square brackets". That's exactly what we have in this quote...  "good reason to make a change", and "an explanation [inserted] within square brackets".  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is also this at Brackets and parentheses:


 * The purpose of this bracketed phrase is to clarify. The intended meaning is preserved.  What is the problem?  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The heading of the first section is "minimum change" and the words "the requirement of minimal change is strict" are in the second section. There is not a good reason here, because the two separate quotes can be quoted separately to make to clarify what Long really says just a easily. Yworo (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No section in the WP:MOS has a heading of "minimum change". The section I'm talking about has the heading, Minimal change.  This is a minimal change, simply bringing in the clarification of Long's intended meaning that he himself presents a few sentences later, right into the quoted sentence, so the reader better understands what Long clearly means.  How is Wikipedia improved if we split this into two quotes?  It doesn't.  Therefore, even if the WP:MOS said what you incorrectly think it says (and it doesn't), this would be a case for WP:IAR.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I like the quote as-is, but I'd concede that a bit too much interpretation is used in making the bracketed insertion. I'd have to lean towards it being more on the editorializing side, than just simple clarification. BigK HeX (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For crying out loud, the MOS clearly states that a purpose of square brackets is precisely to indicate this type of "editorial insertion within quotations ... to clarify". The intended meaning of the original sentence, which was originally presented in a context in which Long reasonably presumed the reader would read the entire paragraph which included the clarification in question, is preserved.  What is the problem?  How is Wikipedia improved by creating two quotes instead of inserting the clarification like this into the one quote?  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A good blunt debate amongst collaborators is cool. Let's just keep the "collaborators" part and have some fun doing it. North8000 (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is more of the relevant text used for the first definition from Long:

As can be seen here, after providing his definition, Long goes on to clarify that the meaning of the phrase "redistribution of power" is intentionally left ambiguous in his definition with respect to whether the "redistribution of power" is "total or merely substantial" in order to allow "both anarchists and nonanarchists to count as libertarians". Now, surely there is no question that it's reasonable to only use the definition from Long, without the clarifying phrase in square brackets: "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals". The only issue is about whether it's fine to insert the clarifying phrase in square brackets to make the ambiguity of that phrase as clear to WP readers as Long wanted it to be to his readers, or whether that would be "a bit too much interpretation" and is so contrary to WP:MOSQUOTE that the clarifying phrase "must be removed". Further, it is argued, if the clarifying is desired, we need to include more of the original text instead, though I have not seen a specific proposal as to what that would look like. As I explained above, I don't see a problem here at all, not with WP:MOS, nor with standard editorial practices. There can be no question as to whether inserting the phrase simply conveys more clearly the original intended meaning; of course it does. So what's the problem? Personally, I suspect what's really going on her is that some people are so eager to disagree with me for some reason, that even if I say something as mundane as "I think the first paragraph of the intro is very good", they'll rationalize (perhaps unintentionally, subconsciously) something like this simply to disagree. I hope I'm wrong, but I simply cannot fathom any other reasonable explanation for this entire thread regarding that bracketed phrase. So, where are we on this? Can the bracketed clarifying phrase stay, or must it really be removed? With or without a second quote? What would that look like? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See below about Wikilawyering over policies and guidelines. There seems to be consensus to follow the guidelines closely and avoid drama about it. Either leave it out, quote the whole thing, or use two quotes. I personally think the insertion should be left out and the second quote used to introduce range of implementation a bit later in the overview. Yworo (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree the guidelines should be followed closely. I think leaving the inserted clarifying phrase in the quote is doing exactly that. What do you think about the part of the complete quote where Long makes the point that defining libertarian so broadly is doing so "rather more expansively than is customary"?  How do you think that can be incorporated in the intro/article?  Thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Some history: Apparently there were no objections at that time. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Long quote first added. Note that the clarifying information is just added on at the end of the quote in editorial language.
 * bracketed clarifying phrase inserted.


 * Actually, that's not true, it been previously discussed as inappropriate recently here. Not noticed at the time due to the voluminous postings going on at that time. Yworo (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In a broad sense
I propose we follow the lead of Atheism and clarify right away that the topic of this article is the term in its title used in a broad sense. So, instead of I propose we reflect the broad sense in the wording somehow .We use Long's expansive definition (see above) in the intro, but remember that Long notes that defining libertarian so expansively is not customary. Other sources make similar comments (noting one use is most common, but there are other uses too, etc.) So I think this current wording is problematic in that it could incorrectly imply to the uninitiated that this broad sense is how the term is used customarily in contemporary English. So, I propose:

Or even:

Or perhaps maybe:

Comments? Preferences? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Great idea......we need plainer English and more direct statements in the lead. The first three all look good. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I proposed three alternatives to the current wording (which is shown first). Did you mean the first two of those three alternatives look good, or all three of them? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I meant the first 3 including the original. I didn't realize that that confusing and tangent-filled mess of a lead actually had a direct plain-english phrase already in it.  North8000 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's hard to follow this discussion, but FYI, I think using "individualist" is problematic for a lead trying to accommodate all forms because socialist libertarian types usually don't like to bandy the word about. So you'd need a really good source. The Merrian Webster definition remains the "broadest sense" definition. So leave it in. Think I'll archive a lot more items which are no longer under debate and sometimes against "general disruption warning." CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Following Atheism's lead
The article at Atheism has a challenge similar to this article in that the term is used with different meanings among reliable sources, mostly to refer to a specific ideology but also in the broadest sense, though the broadest sense is not the most common use. The opening paragraph there addresses this right away:

What if we did something like that here (this is meant as sketch example, not a specific proposal):

Something like that? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The above implies that "traditional usage" somehow does not view that "each person has the right to live his life....etc". BigK HeX (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we wouldn't want to do that, but that's a detail in the particular wording of this example. What about the idea in general?  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The wording will have to be more careful, but the approach doesn't seem too contentious. BigK HeX (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that means a lot coming from you. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

2nd paragraph
The second paragraph is problematic however because it delves right into using arguably technical terms without defining them first. Yes, they're wikilinked, but most readers are unlikely to know what they mean. I think we need some content in between that bridges the gap. Something like, "A variety of forms of libertarianism are recognized, among them are ...", and at least introduce the terms there, in a way that defines their meanings, that we're about to use (in what is currently the 2nd paragraph). --Born2cycle (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd tend to agree. It reads like there was a middle paragraph about right-libertarianism, which has since been removed or moved elsewhere. Some introduction to the different forms would be good, before jumping into how one writer claims certain forms are distinct. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 17:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Also identified is a large faction advocating minarchism, though libertarianism has also long been associated with anarchism (and sometimes is used as a synonym for such), especially outside of the United States.[6] This is just confusing. Only "right" libertarians use phrase minimal state or minarchism, right? What similar phrases beside "libertarian municipalism" do lefties use? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Democratic socialism," "workers' council," "industrial union," "transitional state apparatus," I forget what the Makhnovists called their transitional state form. The most important revolutionary libertarian socialist analysis of transitional state apparatus is in the KAPD / Councilist traditions.  The most important non-revolutionary one would probably be Fabianism.  Does this help Carol? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to respond to this one substantive comment, this is why it is good to have a section on libertarian decentralism which I believe has enough WP:RS (from my last researches) to deal with all aspects of the issue. Think I'll have time to work on this weekend, maybe even create who article. Will report. [Add two days later: Work on another article and a sudden work task took up my time, but I shall yet report with progress!!] CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As TFOWR, I'd agree as well. The lede has been alternatively expanded and gutted, and eventually spawned the Overview section.  I'm not sure if having a minimal lede is still a point of contention. BigK HeX (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead will be very complex to write well. I think the  "overview" section moves some of the difficulty away to make it just tough instead of impossible. North8000 (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I nominate TFOWR to be a peacemaker/moderator, doubly so when I'm gone. North8000 (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've actually asked if they'd be willing to continue. I gather they're busy in real-life, but will try. I'm wary of getting too involved, due to my own potential biases. However, while I'm here, and having followed some of the above discussion yesterday, I'll make a few general points:
 * Wikilawyering over guidelines and policies: don't do it. If we go down that route we'll get bogged down. Strive to make the article as good as possible, and as compliant with policy and guidelines (and especially the manual of style) as possible. Our goal here, as with any article, should be that it becomes a featured article as quickly as possible. If the choice is between making a quick and easy change to comply with a guideline, or arguing the toss over interpretation of a guideline - I'll choose the former any day. In the argument above it sounds as if Long says two things in two places. Cite them both. It's quick, it's easy, and it's drama-free.
 * Sourcing is key, at each and every step. Sourcing shouldn't be a problem - the article seems well-sourced already. I'd like to see sources used in pretty much every discussion. Apart from anything else, this talkpage should not be a walled-garden where only editors with extensive knowledge of libertarianism can edit. All articles here should, by and large, be capable of being worked on by complete laymen. If we cite sources in discussion we make that possible: if we assume that editors are intimately familiar with the topic then we make that impossible. Things like key tenets and the overview should be far easier than we're making them - writers have written about libertarianism, identifying key tenets and providing their own overview. I started going through first Britannica (Boaz) and then Stanford (Vallentyne) in my sandbox yesterday. It needs completed for Vallentyne, and needs further sources, but that's how I'd like to see these discussions going - compile sourced lists of prominent writers' views, then we edit the lists - where do Boaz and Vallentyne (etc) agree? They use different terms, different phrases - how do we reconcile two (or more) different writers' views? Then it just becomes a matter of us writing our version of each tenet ("the freedom to act is paramount, but tempered by respect for others' freedom. (Boaz: '...complete freedom of action, provided their actions do not infringe on the freedom of others...'; Vallentyne: '...each agent has a right to maximum equal empirical negative liberty...'")
 * Nailing down the fundamentals, and getting into good habits, is the way forward. Otherwise we'll argue round in circles, and there'll be no progress. Incidentally, our goals should be common ones - not "hold my position, keep CNT in the article, stem the tide of right-libertarian propaganda" - but "make the article accessible to a lay-reader. Get the article to Good Article status. Have a long-term goal to get Featured Article status back. Get the article on the Main Page". <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 08:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My goals for this article are, "An excellent article supported by the highest quality sources available, written from the structure of the academic literature debating what libertarianism is, with excellent use of examples and imagery, wonderful prose. An article that proves that wikipedians hold the encyclopaedia first, and that collective editing of a contested topical article can be successful.  An A class, GA, and FA article worthy of being on the front page." Fifelfoo (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget / I submit that this article covers libertarianism overall.  Even "Libertarian" redirects here. IMHO it should include practice, organizations, movements, media, think tanks, as well as philosophies.   I think that this  will also help sort out some of the sever "lack of perspective" issues which IMHO this article has. Much of that will need to come from non-academic sources. North8000 (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey all, basically I entirely agree with what TFOWR says. I think the best move forward is the one being started now - taking each aspect of the article and refining it with sources at every step. Although there may need to be a wider discussion about the general layout as well. I'm willing to try and be peacemaker again, at TFOWR's request, but honestly the attitude here seems fine since the departure of certain other editors. I have been watching for the last couple of days.. but not seen anything particularly problematic :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 12:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Without writing at length, I think that the change was due to things / events other than the departure of editors. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem coincidental to me ;) BigK HeX (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Bold new outline
Really researching libertarian decentralism, I discovered I ran into all the same issues of left-right and anarchist/minarchist that we had in this article. In trying to resolve those, I came up with a new lead and outline for this article. (I also noticed how stuffed with non-verified/non-proved references it is, plus POV right-liberarian nonsense, as a result of the edit wars.) Anyway, below is a rough lead (no refs, though we know they abound) and outline to get us thinking, hopefully more constructively this time. (Outline in bold, with my questions, comments regular print.)
 * Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action. Libertarian philosophy has two somewhat different theories, each with various factions. In the 19th and early 20th century “libertarianism” referred only to theories that were anarchist and socialist oriented, seeking the equalization of wealth and emphasizing democratic processes in relationships.  Since the 1960s libertarianism has become more commonly associated with theories that support private property, free markets, and emphasizes private contract as a form of relationship. Due to this shift, socialist libertarians have come to identify themselves more as “left-libertarians” and refer to the other theory as “right libertarianism” (as do some liberals and conservatives). However, some libertarians who are labeled “right” dispute this description, in part because “right” originally had authoritarian connotations.
 * Both theories support their own versions of “libertarian decentralism” -- decentralizing power to states, communities and/or individuals. And both divide over the role of the state. “Right libertarianism” has both minimal state and non-state or anarchist factions. “Left libertarianism” works to eliminate both state and private capitalist organizations, which they also consider coercive. However, there are left libertarian factions that support centralized state welfare policies until a distribution of wealth more to their liking is institutionalized.
 * *History
 * Left origins and today (or something; more on movements and trends since 1911)
 * Right rise to prominence (or something; more on worldwide spread of ideas)
 * Libertarian principles
 * Intro mentions existence of overlaps and divergences
 * Ethical theories (leftie ones need more detail; assume it's not "because we say so")
 * Self-Ownership (Vallentyne thinks common to both - anything else?)
 * Natural resources and private property (compare and contrast)
 * Democratic processes (Important - laws/rules to limit/abolish state power vs assumption good democratic processes will do it)
 * Role of the state (anarchy, minarchy, decentralism)
 * Strategic implementation (violence/nonviolence, parallel institutions/work in system, and gradualism/revolution)
 * ”Left” libertarian factions
 * Libertarian socialism
 * Left-libertarianism (including largely pro-property ones)
 * Geolibertarianism (which might be more right since only land rent seems to deviate from right lib)
 * Mutualism (put back cause there originally - not sure why out or if should be)
 * ”Right” libertarian factions
 * Anarcho-capitalism
 * Minarchism (and make clear that even most of them support right to secession and defacto radical decentralization)
 * Libertarian conservatism (even most of them pro-secession)
 * Objectivism
 * Libertarian transhumanism
 * Green libertarianism (not clear from existing article if real or where really belongs)
 * Libertarian movements and organizations (end this illogical POV of making parties above this category instead of part of; such irrationality)
 * ("Theorists" section is out as an unnecessary response to Ayn Rand edit war)

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see sources, even if they do abound ;-) Getting sources in early makes analysis easier, makes it easier to copy text here to the article, etc.
 * I like the way it defines terms early on. There's a "Libertarian grammar", and we need to define that for the reader - we need to use certain terms in the article, over and above "libertarian", so it makes sense to explain them in the lead/outline. This does that. However, I'd suggest that we only use "scare quotes" on the first instance of a term - "left libertarianism" and "right libertarianism" are part of the "libertarian grammar" - once they're been defined they should be used without quotes (also: pet hate of mine: you've used curly quotes, not straight quotes, e.g. ”Left” instead of "Left". Really minor, really petty point, but it does mean extra work later on to convert the quotes to MOS-compliant quotes).
 * "History" and "principles" looks good, though I don't know enough to agree/disagree with the left/right split. (And I note that you mention that there may be some - e.g. Geolibertarianism - that don't fit neatly in one or other. It may be worth being "vague" about this, i.e. saying something like Some factions are typically categorised as left libertarian: Libertarian socialism etc etc and others are typically regarded as right libertarian: Libertarian conservatism etc etc. However, other factions are not easily categorised: Geolibertarianism has been described (by X et al) as left libertarian because etc etc. Y et al dispute this, ponting to etc etc. Green libertarianism, too, has been described (by Z et al) as ...
 * Would movements and organisation not be something that could be slotted into history and/or factions? Or are there movements/orgs that transcend history/factions? For example, I could see CNT being mentioned in the history of left libertarianism, and the US Libertarian Party being mentioned in the (recent) history of right libertarianism: The growth of right libertarianism is exemplified by the growth of libertarian parties: in the United States in the past decades the Libertarian Party has become the third largest political party... Something like that?
 * All in all, good though. And I apologise for some of the petty quibbles I've raised ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 09:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Which reliable sources are you going to provide in order to justify including left-libertarianism under the libertarian umbrella? --Xerographica (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Review the talk page archives. It's unlikely that you've forgotten, but you already participated in the many, many discussions that have been had on this issue. BigK HeX (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For a US perspective, Schneider would be good - particularly for the history of the rise of right libertarianism - but to help define both left- and right-libertarianism as well.
 * Hulsmann and Kinsella (Ludwig von Mises Institute) might also be useful for a more contemporary perspective.
 * Not an area I've really dig into, so BigK's talkpage archive suggestion may well throw up better sources. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 11:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Both the sources you cited strongly contradict Carolmooredc's use of left/right. Schneider uses the term "right" to refer to what we think of as conservatism...traditional values, anti-legalized marijuana, pro-Vietnam War (communism was the biggest threat) and he uses the term "left" to refer to anarcho-capitalism.  Gottfried uses "left" to refer to the Cato institute and "right" to refer to anarcho-capitalism.  Regarding BigK HeX, when I posted my outlines (aka diagrams) without any sources he immediately deleted them from this page.  Not only is he fine with Carolmooredc not including any sources for her outline but he expects me to look up the sources myself?  BigK HeX has zero credibility with me.  --Xerographica (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced I agree that Schneider's "left libertarian" is exclusively anarcho-capitalist: part of the reason I chose it was to illustrate the connection between the New Left and libertarianism. Regardless, I believe the sources illustrate well that there is a continuum, and one that changes over time. If sources differ then we note that, providing any context (time, author, etc) as necessary. I'm not interested in confirming Carolmooredc's position: my only concern is with an article that's coherent and backed by robust sources. Likewise I have no interest in your past quarrels. If you can't work with another editor - don't! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 21:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Both Carolmooredc's outline and your own outline included Vallentyne's version of left-libertarianism...but neither of your sources illustrated that the libertarian continuum included Vallentyne's left-libertarianism. Schneider's continuum ranged from anarcho-capitalism to conservatism and Gottfried's continuum ranged from anarcho-capitalism to minarchism (the Cato Institute).  Vallentyne's version of left-libertarianism, defined as public ownership of external objects (socialism), falls considerably outside both continuums.  I wasn't assuming that you had any interest in past quarrels, I was just letting you know, for future reference, that I have no interest in any suggestions from BigK HeX.  --Xerographica (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, does that mean we're on the same page? There are various sources which discuss left-libertarianism (including Vallentyne). Vallentyne shows "Vallentyne's left-libertarianism" within libertarianism. What remains for us to do is note that various sources define left-libertarianism (and right-libertarianism) in different ways - as would be expected in a hotly-debated field - and we've done our job. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 23:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should say that there are many sources that use the term left-libertarianism to reference some ideology that is being written about, but we cannot make the mistake of assuming that every reference to left-libertarianism in every source is referring to the same ideology. If one source uses left-libertarianism to distinguish Chomsky's libertarian socialism from the "right-libertarian" ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party, and another uses left-libertarianism to describe what the Cato Institute espouses, and to distinguish that from, say, the "right-libertarian" politics of Ron Paul, they are using the same term to refer to very different concepts. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Sources differ: we cite the sources, noting differences as needed. Terms change over time, and depending on the context. Showing that to the reader is part of showing the history of the topic, and debates within the topic area. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 23:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My problem is when we editors use these terms in the article text... what exactly do we mean by each use? For example, in the outline above, it says, "“Left libertarianism” works to eliminate both state and private capitalist organizations ...".  Well, that's true for only some uses of "left libertarianism".  In the sense that Cato is left-libertarian, there is no effort by "left-libertarians" to eliminate private capitalist organizations.  See what I mean?  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that as much less of a problem. When the terms are first used we describe how they're used by different sources. The outline above goes on to qualify the definition you cite - "However, there are left libertarian factions that support centralized state welfare policies until a distribution of wealth more to their liking is institutionalized" - showing that the definitions aren't set in stone. I think what you're getting at is that some sources use the term in a manner which directly contradicts other sources? Again, that's not an insurmountable problem - we note the contradiction, obviously, but use the most commonly-used approach. (Off-topic, but this highlights the reasoning behind my personal dislike of left and right as labels - they mean different things to different people). <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 23:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My problem is when we editors use these terms in the article text... what exactly do we mean by each use? For example, in the outline above, it says, "“Left libertarianism” works to eliminate both state and private capitalist organizations ...".  Well, that's true for only some uses of "left libertarianism".  In the sense that Cato is left-libertarian, there is no effort by "left-libertarians" to eliminate private capitalist organizations.  See what I mean?  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that as much less of a problem. When the terms are first used we describe how they're used by different sources. The outline above goes on to qualify the definition you cite - "However, there are left libertarian factions that support centralized state welfare policies until a distribution of wealth more to their liking is institutionalized" - showing that the definitions aren't set in stone. I think what you're getting at is that some sources use the term in a manner which directly contradicts other sources? Again, that's not an insurmountable problem - we note the contradiction, obviously, but use the most commonly-used approach. (Off-topic, but this highlights the reasoning behind my personal dislike of left and right as labels - they mean different things to different people). <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 23:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * TFOWR, well, yes, you and Carolmooredc are on the same page... but still, the only sources you've provided to support your outline have illustrated the problems of organizing the article by labels (left/right) rather than tenets. Hopefully we all agree that it's not very neutral to cite Vallentyne in order to support that "Vallentyne's left-libertarianism" should be included within the libertarianism continuum.  --Xerographica (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed this yesterday. We cite Boaz (Encyclopaedia Britannica) to support claims made by Boaz. We cite Vallentyne (Stanford Encyclopedia) to support claims made by Vallentyne. We cite X to show that "X claims..." This is garden-variety editing, surely? Or am I missing something? In the case of the Stanford Encyclopedia, this is academically published, written and edited by experts in the field. Frankly, I find your claim that it's not very neutral to cite Vallentyne in order to support that "Vallentyne's left-libertarianism should be included within the libertarianism continuum bizarre, and I feel I must be missing some subtlety in your comment. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 08:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What's bizarre is that neither your, nor Carolmooredc's outline contains a section for the criticism of libertarianism. If you look through the article on criticism of libertarianism you'll notice that the biggest criticism is that libertarianism is against redistribution.  What's the justification for redistribution?  Equality.  What's the justification for equality?  A broad definition of freedom.  If you look back at the article on libertarianism you'll notice that the first sentence includes a broad definition of freedom..."Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action."  Then you'll notice that your and Carolmooredc's outline divides half the article between a pro-redistribution position (Vallentyne) and an anti-redistribution position.  So at first glance it's bizarre that the article is missing a section on the criticism of libertarianism...but on second glance it's even more bizarre that your and Carolmooredc's outline integrates the primary criticism into the article itself.
 * With a deeper look it's not so bizarre...From Liberalism: Rights, property and markets...
 * For those who remain committed to the basic goals of the welfare state, it is appealing to think that one could show that libertarians, by virtue of their adherence to libertarian principles, must accept those goals as well. This would be not only a refutation of libertarianism, but a demonstration of its contradictory nature, since it consists not only of basic principles but of a fundamental rejection of the welfare state.
 * What is the justification of the welfare state? Equality based on a broad definition of freedom.  Therefore, it's a fundamental joke that editors have successfully managed to integrate the biggest criticism of libertarianism into the very definition of libertarianism.  If you still don't get the joke feel free to carefully read through this discussion on my talk page.


 * Even if we assume a definition of libertarianism that's broad enough to include its strongest criticism...in terms of the neutrality policy which mandates that we give each viewpoint coverage based on "proportion of prominence"...it might help to compare the c-span search results for Vallentyne and Boaz. --Xerographica (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First things first: my sandbox page isn't an outline, it's an attempt to show how to develop tenets (hence the name of the page - "Sandbox/Libertarianism - tenets"). My main concern was showing the use of tertiary sources during the process to avoid undue weight issues.
 * Secondly, my sandbox page is taken largely from Boaz, not Vallentyne - you can see that it's split into a (large) "Boaz" section, followed by a (far smaller) "Vallentyne" section. The latter section is obviously incomplete, and the page as a while is obviously incomplete because I would imagine there are other sources Boaz and Vallentyne that should be included. The page summarised Boaz's article at Britannica, obviously with respect to tenets, and then showed the Vallentyne summary beginning.
 * Thirdly, the intent with this page was to show how, having identified key tenets from tertiary sources, we could then hone in on key tenets overall. Doing this is the key to avoiding undue weight: if one source mentions a tenet but others don't - we give that tenet less or no weight in the article. If some but not most sources mention a tenet we give it slightly more weight. If most sources mention a tenet we give it still more weight, etc. This is, surely, standard operating procedure: I'm sure you'll have come across this on every other article you've edited.
 * So, in summary: my attempt to demonstrate how to use tertiary sources to avoid undue weight issues with tenets in the form of an obviously incomplete sandbox has been misidentified by you as a completed overview draft with serious weight issues. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 15:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You say that your sandbox was taken mainly from Boaz but then acknowledge that the section on Vallentyne is not complete. My apologies if I jumped to the conclusion that, upon completion, the section on Vallentyne would be equal in size (weight) to the section on Boaz.  In determining the proper weight of tenets I agree it can be helpful to review how many different sources include that tenet...which is why my initial question to Carolmooredc was to ask which sources she planned on using to justify her giving equal weight to left-libertarianism in her outline.  That being said, to count different sources by the same author gives undue weight to that author's viewpoint...as in the case of Vallentyne.  For example, he wrote sections on libertarianism in the Contemporary debates in political philosophy, the Encyclopedia of ethics - Volume 3, Liberalism: old and new - Part 1, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and several other sources.  So as far as different authors go, we're right back to square one, with only Vallentyne's viewpoint to justify the inclusion of left-libertarianism  within the libertarian continuum.  --Xerographica (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't apply different counting methods to different sources simply because you dislike or disagree with their views. Vallentyne was invited by the editors of multiple publications to write about libertarianism. This is because he is notable and his views are also notable. Yworo (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Xerographica: no worries. My sandbox first got mentioned in a thread above, and I assumed its purpose was clear. I now know better than to assume ;-) I should probably have provided some explanatory text so it's clear when viewed without context...
 * @Yworo: Agree. What I wanted to do with the sandbox (albeit in regard to tenets) was show how we could use several (more than two, I'd hope) respected tertiary sources (Britannica, Stanhope, etc) to get several high-level views on tenets, and then identify what was common, what was less common, what was uncommon, etc. That's the counting measure we should use. Regarding Vallentyne: he edited the Stanhope article; I'm not sure how much content he produced for it. Even assuming he wrote it all I still feel it's a valid inclusion - as part of a broader list of sources. I wouldn't support using Vallentyne to the exclusion of all other sources, any more than I would support excluding Vallentyne without good cause. That doesn't mean if Vallentyne says it, we can use it without further consideration: it needs to be balanced against other sources. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 17:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break for outdent
TFOWR, nice job. For Valentyn you've noted that one of the tenets in his conception of libertarianism is that individuals can aquire property, but not for Brittanica. I summarized how Brittanica (Boaz) presumes the tenet of property property as well, here: User_talk:TFOWR/Sandbox/Libertarianism_-_tenets. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, quite likely. It's entirely likely that there are other things I've missed as well. My goal was to show how to do it, not to actually do it all - I'm much too lazy for that! If my sandbox were ever to be used "in anger" it should be by multiple editors, and with extensive review - you shouldn't trust me to do a decent job any more that you'd trust anyone else. Collaborative editing works only when it's collaborative. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 18:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want it to be collaborative, make it a subpage of this article rather than our user space. We already have another subpage here that is an attempt to identify tenets, though not starting with sources like yours is.  See /OverviewDraft.  Maybe you could incorporate yours into it?  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no strong views on it, to be honest. Its purpose was to show a process, not to be the process. If folk here think it could be usefully incorporated into OverviewDraft then go for it. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 18:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...though do keep in mind that it's deliberately incomplete - Vallentyne needs (mostly) doing, and other tertiary sources should be added. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 18:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yworo, huh. You seem so skilled at identifying agendas...when you attended university, none of your political science professors gave any indication of their political leanings?  They were all as completely neutral and unbiased as yourself?  Nearly all of my polisci professors leaned pretty liberal...maybe it was because I went to a public university?
 * TFOWR, just to clarify, do you support the inclusion of equality as a tenet of libertarianism as per Vallentyne or are you supporting the inclusion of Vallentyne's tenets only where they overlap with Boaz's tenets? --Xerographica (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Xero, I fail to see what that has to do with anything. Yworo (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You said "Vallentyne was invited by the editors of multiple publications to write about libertarianism." Basically you assumed that those editors were neutral and unbiased.  My question to you was, based on your university experience, would you say that your political science professors were neutral and unbiased?  --Xerographica (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not pertinent. We don't evaluate things like that, that's original research. We determine whether the specific publication is reliable based on whether it is published by a reliable publisher. We don't make judgments about whether or not someone is neutral and unbiased if the publisher is reliable and can be presumed to have vetted the content. It the publication is non-academic and polemical, that's different. But in this particular case, the type of analysis you are suggesting is simply inappropriate. Wikipedia articles have to present material in a neutral and unbiased fashion. But there is no requirement that the sources we are reporting on be neutral and unbiased. Nor can we include our opinions on whether the source is biased or not. We can report what other reliable sources say about any biases, if such sources exist. Your and my opinions about whether or not sources are biased or not have no bearing on the Wikipedia article whatsover. Yworo (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You accuse me of cherry picking sources but you don't think editors cherry pick who they include in their book? Out of 9 sources you selected as "more" representative of libertarianism...you selected one by a Marxist, three by Vallentyne and one by the author of "Liberty, property and markets: a critique of libertarianism".  Seriously?  --Xerographica (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion is over, because you aren't paying any attention to what I am saying. Yworo (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither - I'm advocating an entirely different approach. What I'm saying we should do is examine tertiary sources, identify tenets, then apply weighting depending on how many sources discuss each tenet. I'd advocate more sources than just Boaz and Vallentyne, but in a hypothetical example where we just considered Boaz and Vallentyne then tenets discussed by both would be weighted higher than sources than appeared in one. (Obviously there's room for some editorial judgement - a tenet mentioned in both, but only in passing, might be weighted below a tenet mentioned in detail by only one source). This way avoids - as far as possible - giving undue weight based on our own opinions. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 20:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, in other words, you're proposing a tenets matrix...with tenets on the x axis and sources on the y axis? Are you going to create this matrix using Google Spreadsheet?  --Xerographica (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but no, I wasn't suggesting we use a spreadsheet ;-) As simple list of tenets and sources should suffice. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 21:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, you can always create a spreadsheet at a later time I suppose. In terms of which tenets to track I would suggest...
 * limited government
 * no government
 * socialism
 * capitalism
 * social liberalism
 * social conservatism
 * How many sources do you plan on including in your list? --Xerographica (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "My" list?! - the list should be a collaborative document. In a perfect world once the regular editors here start down this route I can take a back seat... like I said, I'm extremely lazy!
 * As to which tenets, that's something that'll come from the sources, not from my opinion - that's the point of doing it this way. We should use the tenets that the sources discuss, weighted according to the number of sources that cover them.
 * I'd suggest five or so tertiary sources - encyclopaedia articles such as Boaz/Britannica. The reason I'm advocating tertiary sources is because they'll tend to provide better overviews, which is what we're after here. An article by Boaz on a specific aspect of libertarianism would be less useful for this than an article by Boaz on libertarianism in general. Five isn't a magic number, however - the goal is to get a representative sample that covers as much as possible. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 22:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not "your" list? Weren't you nominated to be the moderator and keeper of the list?  But I'm sure editors will be more than happy to suggest sources.  If there's only 5 sources then there will be plenty of contention regarding which sources are included and the results won't be as legitimate.  It would probably also help to keep track of the influential thinkers mentioned in each source.  Teasing the tenets out of smaller sources is easier compared to larger sources...The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism.  Everything is in there from Abolitionism to Whiggism.  --Xerographica (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, no nomination, and I'd decline, anyway! No problem with more sources rather than less, and I'd agree that smaller sources are preferable. So long as they provide an overview of libertarianism, and aren't too specific or too "large". The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism sounds like it would be a good source for lower-level stuff, but too "large" for overview stuff like this. I'd agree that identifying influential thinkers would be useful: we should follow the same process as this one for tenets (weighting by occurrences in sources etc). <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 23:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds pretty reasonable. So what's the first step?  --Xerographica (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been busy for a couple days and probably won't read all of the above til Sunday, but if people are off on other tangents or very specific tangents with their outdents, I'd wish they'd label the topic. I did notice a couple things in first section will respond to briefly.
 * Re: criticism section, I don't have a problem with a WP:RS section, I just personally don't want to research/write it. So put a draft here, or one of your pages, or then end of the one I come up with when I do.
 * Re: some description of broad differences besides left and right. I tried pro and anti-property in past and they were rejected. I don't have any other ideas. What are yours? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is all still about the overview draft. I've been trying to keep tangents limited. See below for a draft that's hugely unfinished, but aims to be a template for moving forward. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 15:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

arb break for 'nother outdent
Well, there's already the /OverviewDraft. My advice would be to return to it, but to start with something like User:TFOWR/Sandbox/Libertarianism - tenets - work out which tertiary sources to use for the overview, tenets, influential thinkers, etc. Then work through each source identifying picking out the tenets. I'd keep tenets, thinkers etc separate, so have something like:


 * Tenets
 * Boaz
 * Vallentyne
 * Source #3
 * Source #n
 * Influential thinkers
 * Boaz
 * Vallentyne
 * Source #3
 * Source #n
 * Source #n
 * Source #n

The difficulty will be working out which tenets are the same - Vallentyne explicitly mentioned "negative freedoms", for example, while Boaz discussed negative freedoms without using that term. I doubt this will be a serious challenge, however.

Once the sources are thrashed out, it's then just a question of completing the rest of the /OverviewDraft, applying the weightings determined in the first part. Citing the /OverviewDraft will be easy at that point, because the sources are all available at the top of the page. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 08:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * One other thing: I'd strongly recommend using the same citing format as I've used at User:TFOWR/Sandbox/Libertarianism - tenets. It means books/articles/etc only need to be added once. It seems tricky to start with, but once it's been done once it makes it easier after that.
 * So adding a new source would be a question of editing the "Bibliography" section and adding:
 * <tt> * </tt>
 * This only needs to be done once for each source: the "ref=harv" part links cites to that source. After that, citing that source is done by adding (either after the part you're citing, as normal, or using list-defined references):
 * <tt> </tt>
 * The first part (the part between curly brackets) links the citation with the source (clicking on the cite highlights the source in the bibliography, thanks to the "ref=harv" in the source), but more importantly the part after the curly brackets is a direct quote - it means other editors can see the quote easily without necessarily having to check the original source. Ultimately, it'll make life easier for readers, too. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 08:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Using the /OverviewDraft page is fine if everything on that page is removed...otherwise it's like putting the cart before the horse. Once the matrix has established a clear pattern then an outline can be created.  Or we could leave the OverviewDraft page as is and create a matrix page.  It would be great if you could get the citations started and then editors could just follow your pattern.  Once a good list has been compiled then a matrix can be created to help tally the results.  For example...
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * || Cap || Soc || Lim Gov || No Gov || Soc Lib || Soc Con
 * Boaz || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0
 * Vallentyne || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0
 * Totals || 2 || 1 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 0
 * }
 * If an author says, "few libertarians want to abolish government" then we could rank their statement as a .2 under "No Gov". It would also be easy to give certain authors more weight by multiplying their row by 2 or 3.  That Boaz has around 50 search results on C-Span is a good indication of how prominent his viewpoint is...so his "vote" should carry more weight.
 * Totals || 2 || 1 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 0
 * }
 * If an author says, "few libertarians want to abolish government" then we could rank their statement as a .2 under "No Gov". It would also be easy to give certain authors more weight by multiplying their row by 2 or 3.  That Boaz has around 50 search results on C-Span is a good indication of how prominent his viewpoint is...so his "vote" should carry more weight.
 * If an author says, "few libertarians want to abolish government" then we could rank their statement as a .2 under "No Gov". It would also be easy to give certain authors more weight by multiplying their row by 2 or 3.  That Boaz has around 50 search results on C-Span is a good indication of how prominent his viewpoint is...so his "vote" should carry more weight.


 * Regarding definitions and tenets...it's probably preferable to bundle them as much as possible otherwise we might get bogged down. For example, the definition of capitalism is private ownership of the means of production...which is basically strong property rights.  --Xerographica (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sold on the idea of a matrix, to be honest - it seems a little simplistic, a little too much like OR. Ultimately, the article isn't going to be presenting a matrix, but prose and quotes. I'd recommend sticking to prose and quotes all the way through. The "negative liberties" example is a good one: Boaz and Vallentyne both refer to this, but only Vallentyne explicitly says "negative freedoms". That can't easily be represented in a matrix, but it can easily be shown in prose/quotes, and the editor/reader can make their own mind up. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 16:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If the "prose and quotes" approach alone solves the issue of undue weight then there won't be any need for a matrix. As far as I can tell...Boaz supports negative liberties while Vallentyne supports positive liberties.  Boaz supports a narrow definition of harm/freedom while Vallentyne supports a broad definition of harm/freedom.  Public funded education is an example of a broad definition of liberty/harm.  If you can't afford private education then, in the absence of public education, your choices in life would be limited...which can be construed as harmful.  It's a continuum between capitalists (negative liberties) and socialists (positive liberties).  You can separately track freedom (narrow and broad), harm (narrow and broad), liberties (positive and negative), socialism and capitalism...or you can bundle them all together.  --Xerographica (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The great thing about sourcing as we go is that it makes a quick response easy ;-) Vallentyle (2010):
 * "Libertarianism is sometimes identified with the principle that each agent has a right to maximum equal empirical negative liberty, where empirical negative liberty is the absence of forcible interference from other agents when one attempts to do things."


 * Negative liberty seems to be a fairly fundamental tenet - the idea that you can do what you want without interference from others. Using quotes we get to see - and get to show the reader - where different sources believe "interference from others" is OK. Obviously that'll differ between sources. You suggest (I think) that Boaz supports a minimum of interference from others, whereas Vallentyne supports more. That's fine - using quotes will help identify that, both to us, and for the reader. I agree there's a continuum, but I don't believe we should be entering this with preconceived ideas - we need to stick to the sources, and let them speak for themselves. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nearly every editor here can substantiate "preconceived ideas" with numerous reliable sources. We can literally speak through reliable sources.  For example, it's easy to label Vallentyne as a socialist...
 * Finally, I shall discuss the moral powers that agents have to appropriate unowned resources. I shall suggest - but without elaborate defense - that a version of left-libertarianism offers the most plausible account of moral powers.
 * If individuals don't own external objects then positive liberties are completely justified. Positive liberties are the basis of liberalism...not libertarianism.  So when Vallentyne says libertarianism is only "sometimes" associated with negative liberties then it's hard to take his statement at face value.  But lead the way on the list and we'll see what happens.  --Xerographica (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nearly every editor here can substantiate "preconceived ideas" with numerous reliable sources. Exactly. That's why I believe it's so important to work with tertiary sources - overviews. I can use reliable sources to prove that Ethel MacDonald was born in Bellshill. I can provide equally reliable sources showing she was born in Motherwell. If we stick to tertiary sources for the overview, for the tenets, we avoid inserting our preconceived notions - however easily justified through sources.
 * I'd greatly prefer it if no one led the way on the list - it would be far better if everyone worked on it together. So far we've got Boaz, and a tiny bit of Vallentyne. What's needed now is further sources to be suggested - what tertiary sources cover libertarianism in sufficiently broad strokes to be of value here? Vallentyne could do with being finished, and Born2cycle mentioned an issued with Boaz. These could easily be done by anyone - I'm reluctant to set myself up to be "secretary" ;-)
 * I'm deliberately avoiding addressing some of the points you raise (education funding, above, and liberalism, here) because I'm not prepared to get drawn into debates - I maintain that our views are largely irrelevant. We have a duty to provide an overview of libertarianism, not our own analyses. Whether you or I take Vallentyne seriously really isn't the point. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 18:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not expending too much effort on debating this. The reason Xerographica objects that "Nearly every editor here can substantiate...[blah blah]" is because he won't accept that RS's justify the inclusion of viewpoints on libertarianism outside of the minarchist right-libertarianism he's been tendentiously pushing. BigK HeX (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * TFOWR, what I actually won't accept is undue weight given to minority viewpoints. BigK HeX believes that the undue weight problem can be solved with a single sentence...Prominence of Viewpoints.  --Xerographica (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Until we've actually worked through tertiary sources we won't really know what are and aren't minority viewpoints. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 19:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is a good argument for deleting the outline created on the OverviewDraft page. --Xerographica (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an argument; whether it's a good argument is debatable. If it helps, though, and on the basis that we can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old, I'll copy my sandboxed example to a talkpage-space /OverviewDraft2. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 11:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * TFOWR, it's a dilemma then because the only person without...hmmm...readily apparent...views on the subject is...you. American Government and Politics Today 2008-2009 is a tertiary source that's super easy to "tenet harvest" from.  --Xerographica (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, my views are probably apparent if you look hard enough... I don't want to sell myself as a completely neutral editor here. But it's much less of a dilemma than you might think: by using multiple tertiary sources "tenet harvesting" is balanced, and our own biases can't creep in nearly so much. If a tenet only appears in that one source, it gets less weight. Really, this isn't a new problem, it's a problem that Wikipedia long ago encountered and developed ways to tackle. The problems on this article are minor, compared to, say, the problems with climate change articles (where many experts were editing, both for and against, and ultimately ArbCom had to get involved). This article is fully protected: we've got a golden opportunity to adopt best practices. The only challenge I see right now is the challenge of taking that first step. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My views on the definition of libertarianism differ from my own personal views. My views on the definition of libertarianism are based on watching the news/C-Span and reading reliable sources.  My own personal views are based on my broader perceptions of socioeconomic reality.  You've already taken the first step...you just have to move your work over to a subpage that we can all edit and contribute to.  --Xerographica (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I take the view (repeatedly...) that I don't have to do anything - any one here is capable of taking that vital first step. If it helps, however, I'll do it now. I am relying on other editors getting stuck in, however; I have no intention on being "secretary"! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 11:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * Seems fine to me. I agree that it is important to get the sources in first.  Also we should be careful with the libertarian movements section because these can become huge and controversial.  For libertarian parties for example I would mention that there are many such parties and mention one or two that are notable and provide a link to List of libertarian political parties.  TFD (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Overall, I think it's a good draft. After an initial read, I have two issues that I think could be easily resolved:
 * There should be at least a sentence about the history of "right-libertarianism" stemming from classical liberalism. So back when "libertarianism" was used to mean anarchism and socialism, "liberalism" was the ideology of individual liberty, including the freedom to homestead, buy, sell and rent property.  But as "liberal" took on a more statist connotation, and "conservatism" went statist as well (Nixon's price freezes for example, and, later, Reagan's huge spending increases), the ideology of liberty needed a new name, and "libertarianism" was usurped for that, initially by the founders of the U.S. Libertarian Party, in a manner that encompassed (mostly property-rights-recognizing) anarchy as well.
 * I suspect every left-libertarian will find at least one of the labels listed as being appropriate for him or herself. Not so for the right-libertarian list.  That is, there are many right-libertarians who consider themselves to be "libertarian" but not necessarily anarcho-capitalists or even minarchists.  They just refer to themselves as "libertarians" and their ideology as "libertarianism".  Not sure how to handle that.
 * But, again, overall it's a very good job. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for comments. Wanted to see what biggest objections might be. Will now feel free in next couple days to create a new draft version on one of my draft talk pages that will deal with all issues mentioned above. The one thing I would comment is if Schneider and Gottfried (who are new to me but will check them out) are creating whole new methods of categorization that are different from all other sources which generally support a different view, then it would see we should relegate them to footnotes only noting that other categorization schemes like theirs exist. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the sources carefully, I think you will definitely find very distinct uses of, especially, the term left within libertarian materials. After all, the term is inherently relative.  What is "left" to Chomsky, for example, is very different from what is "left" to Boaz, or Rothbard.  Just pay close attention and don't be too quick to dismiss some source that seems like an outlier exception.  I'd say the majority that use "left" and "right" in libertarian writings have something specific in mind that is significantly different from what most others have in mind when they use "left" and "right".  That's the problem.   --Born2cycle (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian Marxism
I've recently cleaned up the Libertarian Marxism article a bit and I'd like to see the Libertarian Socialism section to reference it. Maybe change this:

"Libertarian socialism includes most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism,[129] mutualism[130] and social ecology[131]) as well as some varieties of Marxism (such as autonomism), and some versions of individualist anarchism.[132] Some libertarian socialists, such as Noam Chomsky, are willing to use the powers of the state until it can be overthrown"

To this:

"Libertarian socialism includes most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism,[129] mutualism[130] and social ecology[131]) as well as the currents of Libertarian Marxism, and some versions of individualist anarchism.[132] Some libertarian socialists, such as Noam Chomsky, are willing to use the powers of the state until it can be overthrown"

Anatoly-Rex (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A paraphrase of what I just noted on the libertarian socialism article: Any assertion must have a WP:Reliable source that is a reference to it. Who says that "Libertarian socialism includes most varieties of anarchism." Just because you "know" it is true, doesn't mean it can be used on wikipedia. Second sentence needs a ref to. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not write "Libertarian socialism includes most varieties of anarchism." nor did I write the second sentence.  If you'd like to add a citation needed reference to both of those (as they are already in the article), go ahead.  As for the part pertaining to what I did write.... the Libertarian Marxist article has a citation which verifies its association with Libertarian Socialism (and by extension Libertarianism).  I'd be happy to copy it over.  Anatoly-Rex (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for confusion. If it's ref'd it staysAnyway, stuff not ref'd does at some point have to come out. Of course, I can't put a Needs Citation tag on those parts right now. ;-( I didn't see wikilinks on Lib Marxism so didn't realize there was an article. Same principles apply there. Is http://libcom.org a WP:RS? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In re: Libcom, its hard to say. Libcom, like the Marxists Internet Archive, hosts a variety of materials (both primary and secondary) pertaining to Libertarian Socialism.  This includes everything from scholarly journals, to reprints of historical texts, to amateur writings.  In this sense the reliability of anything coming from LibCom should be determined based on the quality of the actual document rather than the reliability of Libcom itself (in my humble opinion).  Anatoly-Rex (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

/OverviewDraft2
...Have at it. I don't WP:OWN it, and I don't expect to do much more with it - I'd like other editors to suggest tertiary sources, and to work through those sources as I've done with Boaz. There's a to do list, but it all should be fairly self-explanatory. I've linked to various pages for the benefit of editors who haven't worked with Harvard citations or list-defined references before.

As noted several times above I believe this approach is a sensible one because it limits our ability to impose our own views and biases. It provides a broad overview based on a number of tertiary sources, providing a framework around which we can expand using secondary sources. It should reduce arguments and drama, and provide the best opportunity for taking the article to Good Article status and beyond. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 12:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a good start. Just added another tertiary source...will work on it more at a later time.  --Xerographica (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well...editors show up when the discussion turns to narrowing the scope of the article...but nobody has rolled up their sleeves to help source-thrash. They haven't even suggested additional sources.  Have any theories?  Should we just move on to source-thrashing textbooks and secondary sources?  --Xerographica (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that libertarian organizations would be a good source, particularly the medium and larger sized organizations. North8000 (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. So we don't get too bogged down I would just hit the key tenets that there's been disagreement on...private property, the scope of government, influential thinkers, etc.  --Xerographica (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We have to keep our "main track" in motion. How bout this?:


 * Add more sources and analysis until November 2nd
 * Then start summarizing "main tenents" from the material / sourcing that is there.
 * A few days later start drafting / consensusing an overview section.
 * Get it put into the article.
 * after that, still keep/rename/use/develop the overviewdraft2 sub-article as a long term tool/guide.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary section break
The intro and entire article speaks too much of the differences between "left" and the numerous variants of mainstream "right" libertarianism. There are seperate articles on each of these and the article should be changed to reflect the broad principles of the philosophy in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 08:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

the article seems to have been hijacked by "libertarian socialists" and "left libertarians" who in just about every section place undue (given the it should be left to the schools/variants section) emphasis on the differences between "left" and "right" libertarianism.

It goes so far that in the organisations section "left libertarian" groups such as the libertarian book club are placed before the far more renowned cato institute.

These differences should be left to the sub articles, and one line in this article itself admits that so called "right" or free market libertarianism is the far better known of the two. I feel that if protection were removed this problem and blatant ideological bias would correct itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 08:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

the article also makes too much of a supposed connection to anarchism. anarchism advocates the total removal of the state, which libertarianism does NOT. whoever has written this article and then locked it so no one can change it (a very un-libertarian thing to do) is clearly not a libertarian in any sense of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.54.131 (talk • contribs)
 * You're assuming that the same one person wrote the article and protected it. In reality, many different editors wrote - and continue to write - the article, and one admin protected it (an admin who, so far as I'm aware, had no prior contact with the article - see WP:INVOLVED).
 * There are problems with the article, and that resulted in edit warring, which in turn resulted in the article being protected. While it's protected we're trying to address the issues that led to the edit warring: you're welcome to join us. As a first step there's an attempt to identify how different tertiary sources cover libertarianism, so that this article can adopt a similar approach: see /OverviewDraft2 for what's been done so far, and the discussion above which discusses this approach. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 12:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that things have calmed down enough that one can look at it more objectively and not always have to defend against deletionism, it is easier to see things more clearly. One thing I noticed recently just reading various things from various perspectives is that it really is true that "right" libertarianism really has become more the "mainstream view" which is why "left" libertarians have taken so much to using modifiers (left, socialist, marxist).  And most of those calling pro-property libertarians "right" tend to be liberal/progressive/marxists. Of course finding a WP:RS that says that difficult. The main application here would be if we decided to settle on NOT using "right" libertarianism (except to note that some do use it) and basically talk about pro-property libertarianism as the "norm" and left and others as a variant.  Anyway, been busy, but soon after my original "Bold New Outline" gets archived, I'll put up a new one - and maybe even a draft restructured article on my talk page - that shows how that can be done in a way that makes everyone happy. ho hoho CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "... settle on NOT using "right" libertarianism (except to note that some do use it) and basically talk about pro-property libertarianism as the "norm" and left and others as a variant." Amen. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily agree with Carol's comment, as the popularity of Right-Libertarianism is a definitely American phenomenon; with most of the editors complaining about undue weight to the Left being American as well. Libertarianism first entered the English language in reference to Left-Anarchism, Libertarian Socialist politics have played a major role in various conflicts over the last few centuries and in that sense to describe Left-Libertarianism as a "variant", an offshoot of the very modern concept of Right-Libertarianism, seems inaccurate to me.  As for the use of modifiers, this seems to be have been done as a largely internal matter on the Left; a desire to distinguish between the predominate forms of Socialism/Marxism (being pro-State, Authoritarian, or Hierarchical) and lesser appreciated forms of Socialism/Marxism, which are united in their common adherence to liberty and non-coercion. Anatoly-Rex (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I was the first person to make the complaint and I am not American but Australian. In Australia libertarianism is also planted squarely on the right. Our major center right party has a libertarian faction, and conservative think tanks and publications generally form a large ideological "tent" from traditionalist conservatism to libertarianism. Looking at the pages for the main libertarian parties and blogs from new zealand and canada, I can see that right libertarianism is also by far the norm in those two countries. So maybe, rather, we should say that "left libertarianism" is specifically a EUROPEAN phenomenon. That said, I went to some of the pages that this article claims are european libertarian parties and found that most are in alliance with that country's center RIGHT coalition. Indeed, there is a leftist faction of libertarianism that is tied in with anarchism, but the fact is that it is only one of many strands of the ideology and should not be given such massive emphasis in this article to the point that every claim made is made from a left and then right libertarian POV. i think it would be far more representative to leave such discussions of the differences between the different strands to the "schools/variants" section and in particular the "left libertarian" section of that. Add the united kingdom to that list --- i am failing to find even a European nation whose major libertarian party is not of the capitalist free market variety. Maybe these references to "left libertarianism" should be largely relocated to the anarchism article. whats clear is that they should not have anywhere near the monopoly or degree of prevalence that they are given on this article. Saruman-the-white (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "In Australia libertarianism is also planted squarely on the right." Sources _please_.  Takver's archives pretty clearly indicate that the primary political use of libertarianism in Australia has been to refer to the Push; Inglis, Amirah Hammer sickle and the washing up makes this reasonably clear as well, when talking about the difference between Melbourne University's domination by the CPA compared to the Push's role in Sydney.  Further, Takver's discussion of the late 1970s makes this relatively clear as well Takver.  Please do bother to learn a little Australian history; just living here is not a substitute for reading. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Australia itself is a pretty Right-leaning country, I don't think its particularly surprising that they share the American perspective. That being said, I recommend you study Left-Libertarianism itself before attempting to weigh the popularity of the two.  Most Libertarian Socialist currents reject party politics; associating them with the authoritarianism of Leninism.  Arguing that the absence of Libertarian Socialist parties equates to it being minor is a bit like arguing that absence of Right-Libertarian King or Dictator means Right-Libertarianism is unpopular....it kind of misses the point.  And to further reassert my point, the content of a Wikipedia page is not a popularity contest.  Its a matter of history.  Libertarian Socialism has been an element of revolutions, resistances, it has inspired art movements and been the subject of novels.  It has inspired activists who in turn have played key roles in the civil rights, suffrage, and labor movements.  To minimize centuries of historical impact just because, in your belief, something newer is more popular is to present an incomplete picture of Libertarianism in general.  It would be akin to removing everything about the US Founding Fathers, the globally revolutionizing impact of Liberal Democracy, the seminal nature of Classical Liberalism to Modern thought, simply because today when people hear the word liberal in America they think of Al Gore and Hippies.  This war to remove everything Left from the article on Libertarianism has severely disrupted this article and is the cause of its locking.  It has been decided - nothing is going to be "relocated".  Anatoly-Rex (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Your post is incoherent. You linked to an article referencing university anarchist movements termed "libertarian socialist alliances" in the 1970s.... how representative indeed. here are some links: liberty australia: http://www.la.org.au/ menzies house: http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/ australia's only libertarian party : http://www.ldp.org.au/ (clearly of the right wing capitalist stripe) please make an attempt to gather some up to date information on the movement rather than posting obscure references to self-proclaimed socialist libertarian STUDENT organisations appearing in two UNIVERSITIES four decades ago.... I just visited your page and the reasons for your bias are immediately evident. Saruman-the-white (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you immediately redact the accusation that I am Takver, I consider it a personal attack. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of being "takver", a reference which at first glance appears to be most dubious indeed. a personal blog of sorts and not a published work - in fact the name "takver" it says is a "net name". (my reference to "your page" was to your own wikipedia profile page, which unabashedly demonstrates your political stripe - so your comments are understandable. That is not the point though, as the information cited in it relates to university student "socialist libertarian" societies, and has nothing to do with the conventional definition of mainstream libertarianism in australia (hence the "socialist" libertarian) and relates to a couple of obscure student organisations of 40 years ago. I also notice in almost every instance the reference on that page is to anarchism, not libertarianism - there is an article for anarchism, please don't confuse the two. Please check relevance to discussion, which is the definition of mainstream libertarianism in australia. I have posted links to the two largest libertarian online communities in the country, as well as a link to the nation's only libertarian political party, proving in a far more authoritative manner the conventionally accepted nature of the mainstream libertarian movement in Australia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 06:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You've engaged in presentism, argument at the person, argument by personal definition, and have failed to survey the current situation in Australia fully (for one, your previous argument about relevance has an obvious bias towards legitimating parliamentary parties). You need to learn how to sign your posts, use ~ .  Wikipedia is not the encyclopaedia only of the here and now, nor is it the encyclopaedia of Saruman-the-white's definition of libertarianism.  You may wish to read WP:NPA. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry but this article attempts to summarise libertarianism in its current form, without references to obscure student organisations of no significance from 40 years ago. if both of the largest libertarian internet communities in australia and the only libertarian political party are of the free market, pro property variety, then its pretty safe to say that reflects the situation in australia better than some weblog-style unpublished website referencing obscure student unions from last century with fat more sway given to anarchism or "socialist libertarianism" than libertarianism. i'm sorry but its just a case of which sources stack up better and i'm quite sure there wouldn't be too many people without some blinding ideological bias that argue otherwise. indeed i think you should pay more attention to properly reference-able stats and sources rather than viciously defending your own obscure POV. Saruman-the-white (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ahh yes... as soon as the blatant ideological bias of this page and the faction that has hijacked it is questioned, this discussion is "closed" and marked as "disruptive". Goes hand in hand with the article being locked. Clearly the editors of this article are exhibiting clear symptoms of thinking they "own" it and that is why they oppose any changes or discussion that goes against their own obscure ideological bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.54.131 (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at /OverviewDraft2 yet? You're welcome to participate if you're concerned about bias. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 14:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A month ago we had an article that is a mess plus warfare which preventing forward movement. Not I think we've fixed the warfare part, and just have an article that is still a mess. Coming from a possible middle-grounder, a big concern of mine was not trying to exclude any less common or past forms, it's that there is no definition and presentation of current prevalent Libertarianism, and not as being such.  I think that the work being done at the overviewdraft2 is building an excellent foundation for fixing many of these things. I just hope that it keeps moving forward.....perfection is the enemy of progress.  In 2-4 weeks we should start summarizing what is in there, even if not 100% complete/perfect. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One of these days I'll try to make more sense of it :-) Will use/comment on when I get around to a draft.
 * Didn't mean to start the battle again over intellectual territory :-) Struck comment and try to rise above into a more holistic and neutral view. But that's easier to say when you are 62 years old than when you are 22 :-)
 * Speaking of struck comments, what town in Australis is KIK from again?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sydney. Yworo (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been self-confirmed IP edits from KiK that have been from Queensland down to South Australia. I'm guessing that he's on the dole and bumming around the eastern half of Australia. LK (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 211, there are people agree with you that this issue exists. But we are trying to achieved a consensused resolution. The "ground up" work at the overview2 page is at the core of it at the moment. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone else of the impression that discussion  of left libertarianism (oxymoron) should be moved to the  article on anarchism as such a classification would be more accurate? Also, the anarchist article has no reference to libertarianism so maybe we should remove it from historical origins in the chart  and the intro, as well as many instances throughout  the article. i find the fact that ALL major libertarian thinktanks, organisations and political parties are of the "right" stripe, including  the cato institute, von mises institute, reason magazine, and the respective libertarian parties  of the USA, UK, CAN, AUS, NZ. I think more of the central features of contemporary libertarianism ie Rothbard, Rockwell, Paul should  be included,  as well as more about the central component of Austrian economics. So called "left libertarianism" seems to be an antiquated historical movement which today would better identify with anarchism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.54.131 (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No. This has already been discussed ad-nausuem and the consensus is to include the full breadth of the subject here. This is an overview article. Yworo (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection template
Please change the protection template to "pp-dispute". --Bsherr (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus Opinion?
How can there possibly be a consensus of opinion "about the breath of libertarian ideologies discussed in this article" if a substantial number of editors disagree about the breath of libertarian ideologies discussed in this article? 122.57.126.131 (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus doesn't mean that everybody agrees. There is a majority opinion which can be seen in multiple RfCs in the archives. Continued dead-horse-beating about scope is considered disruptive: your comments may be collapsed or removed or you may even be blocked if you continue in this vein. See the warning at the top of the page. Yworo (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We're trying to work this out with a solid foundation/consensus; current work is at North8000 (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Fifelfoo. Why do you keep posting warnings to my user page accusing me of advertising? 122.57.126.131 (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The top of this page clearly indicates that your conduct is unacceptable soapboxing. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

General warning disputed
The general warning at the top of this page states as follows:

Though I think until February 1 is too long of a period, I generally have no other issue with point 1. However, I dispute much of what is said in Point 2:
 * "the community of editors has clearly and repeatedly discussed this topic and reached a consensus position"...
 * what exactly is this "consensus position"?
 * Where was it established?
 * I thought Polling is not a substitute for discussion. No?
 * "When editors cannot reach agreement by editing", isn't the "process of finding a consensus ... continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages?"
 * Can't consensus change?
 * The purpose of this general warning is to prevent disruption, not to prevent editorial opinion.
 * Perhaps that was the original intent, but some seem to think they have carte blanche to hide discussions about article content, including an entire discussion in which half a dozen editors were involved.

Based on this, I hereby dispute point 2 of the "general warning" above. Unless there is adequate response/explanation to this, or consensus support for Point (2) and the way it has been interpreted is demonstrated, within, say, 48 hours, I will support anyone who deletes point 2 in the general warning. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This was born out of the fact that a discussion on how to improve the argument was getting bogged down on a constant stream of argument over whether this page should deal with both left and right libertarianism together. I don't 100% agree with the wording of the notice, but I think it has sense. To be clear; so far discussion seems to be sensible and dispassionate about what to include and at what weight. This seems the right approach; get some good wording of some form in the damn article. Then in a few months when that is written the scope might be reasonably reassessed. Comments like the collapsed IP comments today are exactly what this notice is warning about; rehashing identical issues that have been clogging up the page for months. As it is I think there comes a point where we just have to step back and say "how do we best move forward and improve the content". And for that reason, a short moratorium on disputing the broad scope of the article seems reasonable. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 16:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The agree'd consensus was that the article discuss all Libertarianisms with appropriate weighting. It was established by demonstration to the point of nausea through the repeated presentation of reliable, high quality, academic sources indicating that a significant proportion of scholarly definitions of Libertarianism are broad or libertarian socialist specific.  (These presentations, did not of course, refute the existence of the large literature of scholarly definitions that are narrowly minarchist or pro-market specific).  This occurred over six months of continuous disruption.  Editors are currently working on a replacement article with well developed weighting.  They seem to be editing productively in this process.
 * No, we can't talk about consensus change, because the continuous question begging of consensus change was the disruption problem. As such periodic questioning of consensus is preferable.  The article will revisit consensus in February.  This delay will allow for the preparation of higher quality discussion of consensus on the article's coverage.  Please feel free to develop magnificent reliably high quality sourced persuasive arguments to present in February if you disagree with the current consensus.
 * The purpose of thread hiding, rather than persuing individual editors, is to recognise the community of editors had a disruption problem; not any individual editor. Thread hiding is an excellent alternative to singling out individuals.  It cuts off the discussion without apportioning blame.  Thread hiding also cuts off the "one last word" aspect of the discussion of continual revisiting.  As such thread hiding reduces the combative atmosphere of the article.
 * As such I support point 2. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO we set the dispute aside to see if we can solve it by general article improvement. I'd like to stick with that plan. Including nicely telling this to new folks who raise the question. (or say THAT in the template)   However, that point 2 is badly worded and should go. It makes it sound like anyone who raises the question is a bad person who needs to get punished. North8000 (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * tmorton166, do you realize that the comments recently collapsed (at ) includes the hiding of comments by over half a dozen non-IP editors (Saruman-the-white, TFOWR, CarolMooreDC, yours truly, Anotoly-Rex, Fifelfoo, North8000, Yworo, and LK), not just "collapsed IP comments"? Do you support that?
 * Fifelfoo, isn't "the continuous question begging of consensus change" de facto evidence of a lack of consensus? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it was going exactly the same way as every other discussion for the last few months, and was born out of an IP deliberately dredging up the issue. Once the ball starts rolling it seems no-one on this page can resist jumping in to say something. I never made up any opinion on the scope of the article, my only opinion is that it is a pile of crud, and there seems little point spending another 6 months figuring out what to write about. Much better to do the reverse; write some really good content. Then have a rationale discussion about whether to split it up or keep it together. Since the moratorium there has been movement but I would really like to see some draft work emerge in the next few weeks. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 17:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of consensus
Saved this since I was sure it would come up again. Can update the (now archived) links if you don't remember the incidents and dispute them. Remember consensus doesn't have to be unanimous. And let's not forget all the disruptive comments by now sanctioned editors. Why not just work on actual edits instead of behavior I'm controlling myself in not describing. Signed: CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This August 27 RfC rejecting just making it about Right wing libertarianism,
 * This September 3 successful RfC for removing a tag saying that the article lacked a “single coherent topic” (because it did not have the desired single POV,
 * This September 9 rejected Requested move to "Libertarianism (word)". (need to update link)
 * This September 9 rejected Requested move to "Libertarianism (Forms of)".(need to update link)
 * This rejected proposal to revert to the 2005 version which does not include material deletionists do not like does not go to broader community; currently 5 for and 5 against.(need to update link)


 * We're going back down the same hole again. Including one side trying to overstate the degree and clarity of whatever consensus was reached. I suggest we stop right here, and move on to solving this by improvement of the the article. Maybe lighten up the wording on point 2 a bit, if someone feels bold. North8000 (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * These are supposed to demonstrate consensus of what, exactly, Carol? Remember, Polling is not a substitute for discussion.  I suggest you mistitled this section, which would better be named, Evidence of lack of consensus for any of the initiatives proposed so far.  ---17:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2cycle (talk • contribs) 17:17, 25 October 2010


 * Consensus does not mean unanimity. It seems we have discussed all these issues and come to a consensus.  TFD (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's just leave this up in the air and move on. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Carol forgot the most clear, recent, and overwhelming RfC: September 30. Ten editors opposed limiting the scope of the article (4 strongly opposed) vs. 3 editors for limiting the scope of the article (only 1 strongly). The opposed arguments were firmly based on policy while the supporting arguments were weak and/or based on weak arguments or personal opinion. In every RfC on the topic which has brought in outside opinion, the gap between the positions widens and support for a broad view gets stronger. Continuing this discussion, especially with someone who's not committed enough to WP to create an account, is pointless. Yworo (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if you ignore the three supports to claim consensus, that indicates consensus only on that one particular very specific point, which, AFAIK, has not been raised since. What is the relevance of that to this discussion?  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And this is why the moratorium is in place; because now we are wrapped in another thread going nowhere. I'm a bit annoyed with the direction the conversation has turned the last couple of days. I recommend you make a determined effort to focus on the drafting that was progressing nicely, if at a snails pace. Consensus is not about "something everyone is happy with". It is about what seems to have the most support. And right now what definitely has the most support is writing the article. so can you please go back to that --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 18:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, can we please leave this up in the air and move on? Thanks North8000 (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for link to the forgotten RfC. Have added to list for future reference! CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)