Talk:Right-libertarianism/Archive 6

‎"Right-libertarianism" as it is used in the article is neither unambiguous nor common
"right-libertarianism" is the most common unambiguous name. JLMadrigal  @  06:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The term is ambiguous because it associates this view with the "right" (social conservatism) from which it is not only distinct, but which it opposes. If it were to refer to Libertarian conservatism, it would much less ambiguous.
 * The term is uncommon because it is mostly used by taxonomists to differentiate views regarding only one aspect of libertarianism (the nature of property and capital) and from the vantage point of one type of libertarianism (and an uncommon one at that - particularly in the English speaking world) - namely libertarian anti-capitalism.
 * , I hope you can reply to this whenever you can because I'm honestly tired of having to repeat myself., we've been discussing this to death already, you're going to take us back in circles again. Once again, , whom I invite to reply and participate when possible, said it best, for [y]ou've been arguing variations on this point for (as far as I can see) months, without getting anywhere. [...] As it is, it seems to me fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept which the current article covers fairly excellently and that it's pretty indisputably a real term, so trying to argue that it isn't used is just wasting everyone's time. It's an established academic term with extensive usage; so you're taking us back to the start. Not only that, but your issues with it seem to be ideological and based on your own POV, for why else you continue to make no mention of all the users who rejected a move in August, merge in November and see nothing wrong with the current naming. As things stand, it's only you and North8000; and you have provided us with nothing that could get you a consensus on changing the current status quo. All of your proposals have already either been rejected (page move, merging, etc.) or reached no consensus; and your request for comments include them in spite of this.--Davide King (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * David, you are mis-paraphrasing JLMadrigal's argument into a straw-man version of it. Nobody is disputing that it is a real term. Yes, it's areal term used by a small sect of people, namely those trying to create a certain taxonomy.  It's overwhelmingly not the terms used by wp:rs's in general, (0 out of 828 uses in the sampling)  and it is a confusing oxymoron when you move outside of the small sect of people who use the term. The compromise ideas that you have been reverting  merely seek to cover that it is taxonomoc term more prominently (including earlier) in the article.  North8000 (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Tell me, do you and JLMadrigal realise that this article is about the concept and not about a term? Once you actually realise that, you will see there really are no issues. Again, you failed to reply to that 's message I linked you in which it literally says why that isn't a good way to start the article and I fully agree (this isn't about compromise, this is about respecting Wikipedia guidelines about the lead). None of you has convincingly made the argument that this article has any problems significant enough to require major changes; and whatever problem it may have had in the past, like content fork from Libertarianism in the United States, lack of clarity, or whatever, I think it's been fixed by now with mine and Pfhorrest's edits. Also, why do you keep mentioning [i]t's overwhelmingly not the term used by wp:rs's in general, (0 out of 828 uses in the sampling) and it is a confusing oxymoron when you move outside of the small sect of people who use the term when both Pfhorrest and I had issue with that sample? [B]eyond that[,] academic and popular usage can differ - and we have to cover the academic usage, we can't erase it the way this would suggest; as for the polls, I agree that [t]hey require secondary coverage to interpret [them] and so are not a good reason to modify the article.--Davide King (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that getting into your "term" vs. "concept" is an important and fruitful area to discuss. I have to start by asking what do you mean "concept".  To use an analogy to ask the question, lets say that the big topic is "things orbiting the sun".   And then, to discuss them further, somebody makes up the term "planet" which is an English word which by varying definitions there are usually 8 or 9 of in our solar system. Of course they are real, but that particular grouping is an invention of that taxonomy system.  And a statement like "pluto is or isn't a planet" is not inherent info about Pluto, it is primarily info about the rules of the taxonomy system it is being seen through.  So, would you call "planets of the solar system" a term, or a concept? I'd say "same thing".  We already have coverage of Earth, Mars etc. The only new thing in the "Planets of the Solar System" article would be the taxonomy systems that decide which things they are and aren't going to assign the word "planet" to.North8000 (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more useful if you made more poitical-related examples. Still, I think Pfhorrest association foootball–football analogy suffices. As far as I understand it, the concept is this modern American libertarianism has spread beyond North America via think tanks and political parties [since the resurgence of neoliberalism in the 1970s], more specifically the Rothbard–Nozick et all libertarian school that supports capitalist property rights and the private ownership of natural resources, so overlapping with mainstream libertarianism in the United States but not being exactly the same or being confined there. This is very much a real thing and not just a taxonomy term. Right-libertarianism is simply the best, if not the most common (then again, the same could be said about left-libertarianism, that was called simply libertarianism ever since the 19th century and still is to this day), name to disambiguate the two articles, which are separated to avoid turning Libertarianism into Libertarianism (disambiguation) and have a main Libertarianism article.--Davide King (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree with 's comments here that see them as two distinct concepts warranting their own article. I wrote this just before Pfhorrest's comments below which I also support and agree with.--Davide King (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also very tired of this intractable mire, and have been very busy lately, so thank you Davide for holding the fort here while I haven't had time to comment.
 * Madrigal, that's not what "ambiguous" means. "Ambiguous" would be if there was more than one thing called "right-libertarianism", especially if that other thing didn't have another, unambiguous name. I've not seen any sources using "right-libertarianism" to mean "libertarian conservativism", just people here on Wikipedia, and even if there were some sources that meant that, that topic has the unambiguous term "libertarian conservativism" to title its article, leaving "right-libertarianism" free to refer unambiguously to this topic. In contrast, "libertarianism" is ambiguous in the same way "football" is: there's a bunch of different things called "football", and a bunch of different things called "libertarianism". The footballs and the libertarianisms all have things in common, so we don't want just a disambiguation page, but a broad-concept article, for both of them, which we currently have; and then the narrower topics get their own articles, like we currently have.
 * And sure, it's less common than just "libertarian", but again, "association football" is way less common than just "football", but that's what we call that article anyway, because it's the most common unambiguous term, which of course was created by taxonomists specifically to resolve that ambiguity.
 * I don't know how many times I have to repeat this as you just won't WP:LISTEN. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Current edits are not addressing the naming issue
While much of the discussion surrounding the resolution of the problems surrounding the disputed title has been archived, the struggle to settle on a more appropriate title for this article, if it is to otherwise remain largely intact, continues. Editor Davide King has been making a large number of edits that do not touch on the naming problem, and likely digging it in deeper. It would make much more sense to settle the dispute first, and then begin with any required revisions. JLMadrigal  @  22:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been monitoring Davide's edits and they all look appropriate to me regardless of the naming dispute. The main thrust of them besides minor cleanups seems to be ensuring that this article and Libertarianism in the United States are not just content forks of each other, and that this article and Left-libertarianism give similar types of coverage to the two kinds of libertarianism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your response underlines my point. You refer to left and right libertarianism as "the two kinds of libertarianism". Not every form of libertarianism that does not conform to so-called "left-libertarianism" is "right-libertarian". This oversimplification is at the heart of the naming issue. It lumps all minarchists and property-acknowledging libertarians with the right wing. JLMadrigal   @  01:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ugh. “The two kinds of libertarianism” discussed in the two articles I mentioned just prior to that. Nothing else implied. Reading compression: get some. —Pfhorrest (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you (finally) concede that there is something between left and right libertarianism. I'm very anxious to know what (in your mind) that would include. I'm all ears. JLMadrigal   @  05:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I said a long time ago, when the SEP article's discussion of left and right libertarianism came up, that I don't disagree with that article's treatment of it as a left-right spectrum, and that I see myself as very much near the center of that spectrum. That doesn't mean that we can't talk about things on the left side of the spectrum, or on the right side of the spectrum, which our articles on left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are about. That doesn't mean that there are only two exact positions along that spectrum, just that any position can be placed somewhere on one side of it or the other.
 * Also, more importantly, nothing anyone has said here "lumps all minarchists and property-acknowledging libertarians with the right wing", if by "right wing" you mean of the general political spectrum. I and others have said this over and over again: "right-libertarianism" doesn't mean "libertarians, who are on the right side of the general political spectrum", but "those libertarians who are on the right side of the spectrum of different kinds of libertarianism". --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you also consider the users who rejected a move back in July 2019, or a merge in November 2019 (I think that template should be removed, too), who said there was nothing wrong with the current naming or even that it was the common name? All other proposed names are either made up, non-neutral, or still less well known than right-libertarianism. Especially when you simply cannot comprend the topic despite all the help and clarifications both and I gave you. As I said on Talk:Libertarianism, I think the templates should be removed by now because any so-called disputed seems to be based on "I don't like" and not on reliable sources. Even seems to be fine now that it's mainly about the term and not a content fork. You seem to be the only one to have problem with it. While Wikipedia isn't a democracy or isn't based merely on voting and so the minority can also get the consensus, your arguments or reasons doesn't sound convincing and you haven't show us any reliable source that support your proposal. Right-libertarianism still has the most hits on Google Scholar. You're free to create a Libertarian capitalism page though.

What should be done (and what could have been done in all these months without this dispute based not on Wikipedia guidelines that keeps getting prolonged) is improving and expanding the page. For example, we could create a section in both Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism that talks about their relation to the libertarian right and New Right; and the libertarian left and the New Left, respectively; or creating a History section for both from the scratch that talks about the birth/separation of left and right libertarianism in the United States, the Movement of the Libertarian Left, etc.). Right-libertarianism could be expanded with In South Africa and In the United Kingdom section by merging Libertarianism in South Africa and Libertarianism in the United Kingdom since they seem to be referring to this.--Davide King (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I had proposed a compromise solution which is to make it an article about the term. IMO it's not there now, so IMO the status quo is not OK.  Perhaps I'll try inching the article in that direction and see what happens.  North8000 (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The status quo is actually perfectly okay for the simple fact that when there's a dispute like this, the page should remain to the status quo version until a consensus is reached. Your proposal isn't really Wikipedian or in following the guidelines. We don't talk about the term in Left-wing populism, Right-wing populism, Social liberalism, Liberal socialism, Liberal conservatism, Conservative liberalism et all. Nazis don't call themselves Nazis, they speak of National Socialism, yet we call them Nazis and the article is titled Nazism; I don't see why the same shouldn't apply here when there're clearly reliable sources for it and Right-libertarianism is the common name. Arguments against the status quo aren't based on Wikipedia guidelines, nor were proposals such as that tally, nor are they based on reliable sources. You also can't just change the text without actually put reliable sources. This discussion cannot also going on forever, especially when in the case of JLMadrigal is based only on "I don't like it" and seems to be a libertarian himself who cannot maintain a neutral POV, unlike . I still don't understand why the previous rejected move or the users who rejected the merge aren't considered. If we consider them, there's really no dispute and there's instead some consensus to keep things as they are. The template shouldn't be used just because someone doesn't like it or dispute it based on ideology like JLMadrigal rather than reliable sources.--Davide King (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just not seeing many people agreeing with you that there's a problem here. You've been arguing variations on this point for (as far as I can see) months, without getting anywhere.  If you think you have a proposal that could reach a consensus, start an RFC; but otherwise, maybe it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other disputes. As it is, it seems to me fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept which the current article covers fairly excellently. --Aquillion (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You mis-characterized the history and nature of the discussion and my role in it, and then based on that mis-characterization mis-characterized my behavior as "stick" behavior. You should retract that. The reason why I've continued to participate in this is because it's a pretty good discussion between good well-meaning editors trying to tackle a hard-to resolve issue. And it's not a real-world conflict being played out here, it's simply different lenses and meanings of terms that people have experienced and learned the topic through.  North8000 (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether mischaracterised it, but I agree with that. JLMadrigal ignores all my sources and both mine and 's attempt at explaining many things and concept that it probably wasn't knowledgable enough. You also seem to misunderstand sources and don't accept these that actually refer to it as a real thing. As for this, when you said that even minor changes towards that have bee[n] reverted, it's simply unnecessary to add some writers or ideologies deemed by some to be. It degrades and misrepresent these sources, basically saying They don't matter; it's just academic; they don't call themselves such and such, so it's not a real thing, etc. The same counts for left-libertarianism, but the main issue seems to be with right-libertarianism when it should be for both; this further prove in my eyes that such dispute is based on a narrow POV, either simply disliking the name or not accepting any source (this is especially true for JLMadrigal) that discusses it.
 * The thing is that the left–right libertarianism distinction is a categorisation supported by reliable sources, so there's no need to add that or act like they're just terms. While I respect your position, for JLMadrigal, when writing here I hope we can resolve this soon, what that really means is I won't stop until Right-libertarianism is deleted and right-libertarian isn't used anymore. Why, then, would the discussion be dragged out for months and months, when a quick research on Google Scholar debunks that? I agree with Aquillion's assessment that not [...] many people [agree] with you that there's a problem here [...] [and that] it seems [...] fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept. You keep saying I see this through European lens; I repeat that I see this through what reliable sources I've been reading and searching.--Davide King (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that that's my interpretation after reading the discussion - one or two editors clearly object to the name or existence of this article, but you've repeatedly failed to get a consensus for that basic issue, which is why all the other discussions have devolved into circular arguments that lead nowhere. You talk about "well-meaning editors trying to tackle a hard-to-resolve issue", but there is no issue, or at least no consensus that there's an issue.  If some people don't think we should have an article on Right-libertarianism, they should take it to WP:AFD, where it would inevitably fail.  If you've conceded that we should have an article on Right-libertarianism, or at least that you won't be able to get a consensus to remove it, then most of your other arguments fall apart and there's little else to discuss at such length. This discussion has been going on for months, essentially circling the same "is there a major problem with this article" question without getting a consensus for it, so it's time to move on and focus on something else. --Aquillion (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC about a libertarian philosophy sometimes referred to as "right-libertarianism"
I have provided the four main paths, discussed at length above, to resolve the naming dispute regarding this article. Please comment under each topic below about how we should move forward.

JLMadrigal  @  17:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Merge this article into Libertarianism
 * 2) Merge Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism
 * 3) Reduce Right-libertarianism to a disambiguation page about the term
 * 4) Rename this article Libertarian and rework it to reflect the typology

0) No change (status quo)

 * Support Things are fine enough as they are. This RFC is really unnecessary. —Pfhorrest (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Things are fine enough as they are. This RFC is really unnecessary. These are exactly my thoughts (I would have written exactly the same, it's incredible) and is the reason why I haven't commented my opposition to all other proposal in the first place, for there's no rationale in supporting this request for comments, other than JLMadrigal simply thinking so and having a bias against this article.--Davide King (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose  Has significant problems. As a bare minimum, would need the compromise wording changes. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Nobody has convincingly made the argument that this article has any problems significant enough to require major changes. --Aquillion (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose  The term is used to differentiate economic liberalism from socialism by those familiar with socialist concepts, is uncommon as used by both outsiders and proponents to describe it, and is confusing to most people who use the standard left-right (liberal-conservative) dichotomy as well as those who see left-right descriptors as antiquated and problematic.  JLMadrigal   @  04:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the fact that the concept of "left-" and "right-wing" politics is not scientific. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The status quo is untenable not because separate articles are wrong but because "left-" and "right-" are currently used as WP:Coatracks for railing about terminology, which is better handled another way. If the bloated summary of similar ideologies was removed, there would be little left to justify separate articles. I proposed an alternative below in . (not watching, please )  czar  22:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

1) Merge this article into Libertarianism

 * Support North8000 (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Conditional non-oppose; only if left-libertarianism is also merged, both into a section about the differences between them. That would be acceptable, but is not a necessary change. —Pfhorrest (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Support only if "Left-libertarianism" is also merged. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support JLMadrigal   @  19:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC) I think this is the best option of the four, and has the most support. Comparing the various concepts side-by-side (in one article) would help the reader differentiate them and better understand their incompatibilities.  JLMadrigal   @  00:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree that if this was the case, then Left-libertarianism should be merged too. As of this writing, Libertarianism is at 177,680 bytes, Left-libertarianism at 118,679 bytes and Right-libertarianism at 70,722 bytes; and there's no longer any duplication in each article. Besides warranting their own article, spacing may be a further reason to oppose the merge. I also would like to remind and  that you should give a rationale like,  and I did. Merely saying Support or Oppose doesn't mean much; the result won't be based on the numbers of Support and Oppose.--Davide King (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Extensive academic use indicates that there is, at a bare minimum, enough sourcing to support a separate article, and the Libertarianism article is already bloated. --Aquillion (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article that currently exists as "Libertarianism" is incoherent. A simple disambiguation page would better accomplish its intent. There are other articles, however, where the "left-" and "right-" content can be merged. I propose merger to the Definition of libertarianism article below . czar  22:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

2) Merge Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism

 * Support North8000 (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-oppose This would be acceptable, but is not necessary. —Pfhorrest (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While better that just merging Right-libertarianism, I agree that it isn't necessary. Furthermore, Google Scholar results seem to show they're talking about the general left–right political spectrum including libertarian and authoritarian, rather than the libertarian political spectrum or discussing both Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism. While both may be mentioned when discussing each topic, for they're related, they're still two different concepts and philosophies, although they may have some or significant overlap in their libertarian principles, even if they reach different or vastly different conclusion from them. I also would like to remind and  that you should give a rationale like,  and I did. Merely saying Support or Oppose doesn't mean much; the result won't be based on the numbers of Support and Oppose.--Davide King (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Comparing the various "libertarian" concepts side-by-side (in one article) would be a big improvement and help the reader differentiate them and better understand their incompatibilities. A standalone Left-right libertarianism article would be OK if the main page feels cluttered. JLMadrigal   @  00:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The concepts are distinctive enough to support their own articles, and this article contains a large amount of well-sourced content about ideological details and factions that wouldn't make realistic sense on a merged article.  --Aquillion (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I support merging this two pages into the article "Libertarianism", but not into the new article. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ?. This choice is unclear because it does not distinguish where to merge. To the general question of whether these should be treated separately, ask what sources have discussed "left-" and "right-" as full-bodied concepts beyond terminology. From my read of the sources, there is discussion about "left-" and "right-" as terms but little more. If anything, "left-" and "right-" should be treated as summary style expansions, but I don't see the depth of unique coverage to justify the split. This said, I propose merger to the Definition of libertarianism article below . czar  22:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

3) Reduce Right-libertarianism to a disambiguation page about the term

 * Support North8000 (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually I think this this is mis-worded and actually /inevitably means simply an article about the term. Pfhorrest and Madrigal, what do you think about changing it? <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is a topic here, not just a term. —Pfhorrest (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's been way too much discussion about this already and it was said many times this article wasn't and isn't merely about a term but a concept. Again always relevant 's comment that it seems [...] fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept which the current article covers fairly excellently and that trying to argue that it isn't used is just wasting everyone's time. It's an established academic term with extensive usage. Again, I would like to remind and  that you should give a rationale like,  and I did above. Merely saying Support or Oppose doesn't mean much; the result won't be based on the numbers of Support and Oppose.--Davide King (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It could be more than a typical disambiguation page. The article would focus on the usage of the term along with its background and inconsistencies. Perhaps a "disambiguation article" would be a more accurate description. JLMadrigal   @  00:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, both for the reasons above (well-cited content worth covering here) and because this in particular makes little sense. Disambiguate where?  To Libertarianism?  It makes no logical sense to disambiguate from a more specific title to a more general one; this suggestion would essentially just be deletion, which isn't warranted. --Aquillion (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Before this warrants becoming its own dab page, redirect to the existing libertarianism dab page, which should already repeat the same theoretical contents. czar  22:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

4) Rename this article Libertarian and rework it to reflect the typology

 * Oppose what is this i dont even —Pfhorrest (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Libertarianism (or libertarism) is historically anti-capitalist (left-wing) movement. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Libertarian isn't a typology but a supporter of libertarianism and as such should rightful remain a redirect to Libertarianism. We have Libertarianism (disambiguation) and we can have Libertarian (disambiguation), Libertarian (political typology) or Libertarian (U.S. political typology) without the need to change the article as it now. Furthermore, the millions of people which North8000 seems to be especially concerned to be discussed and talked about and who self-identify as libertarian in the United States already have their own article at Libertarianism in the United States. Again, I remind and  that you should give a rationale like,  and I did above. Merely saying Support or Oppose doesn't mean much; the result won't be based on the numbers of Support and Oppose.--Davide King (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. As discussed above, several polls have been conducted to determine how average people use the term to describe themselves. The revised article would retain much of the current article since many self-described "libertarians" identify with the described philosophy. Another possibility not yet discussed is to merge this article with Economic liberalism (retaining that title) which is the heart and soul of this anti-state philosophy. JLMadrigal   @  01:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral Has plusses and minuses.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Has all the problems with merging into Libertarianism (this article has plenty of well-sourced content to support the idea that it is a distinct concept) and would additionally create a bizarre duality between Libertarian and Libertarianism - it doesn't really make any sense to have those two terms be separate articles. Polls are absolutely not a good reason to modify articles.  They require secondary coverage to interpret, and beyond that academic and popular usage can differ - and we have to cover the academic usage, we can't erase it the way this would suggest. --Aquillion (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agreed that this singular form goes against our standard naming conventions in that the terms for an adherent of an ideology point to the full ideology's article, not something else (anarchist, democrat, fascist). However, as I propose below, if the American libertarianism article was retitled to Libertarian movement, as it once was, I think that would resolve your core issue with the "POV" in the title "right-libertarianism". (not watching, please )  czar  22:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Folks should list all that they support.  I support #1, #2 and #3. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What the hell did happen? This has no reason to exist, for there's no stalemate and it's only you and North8000 who continues to deny reliable sources who discuss the concept, call it right-libertarian and all the users who had no problem with the title, supported it, said it was the common name, opposed a merge, etc. and simply walked away for they're probably just tired as me for a dispute that amounts to I don't like it. All the work and I did to improve the article means nothing now! You didn't even have the decency to add the status quo option. I'm sorry, but all of this is absurd and unnecessary. I reiterate 's comments that not [...] many people [agree] with you that there's a problem here [...] [and that] it seems [...] fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept which the current article covers fairly excellently and that I'm just not seeing many people agreeing with you that there's a problem here. You've been arguing variations on this point for (as far as I can see) months, without getting anywhere.  If you think you have a proposal that could reach a consensus, start an RFC; but otherwise, maybe it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other disputes. For what it's worth, I have read North8000 making the same arguments for years without success, I don't understand what changed now. The current request for comments has no proposal that could reach a consensus and no reason to exist.--Davide King (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide, you have been reverting even the smallest compromise changes that would have settled it. Merely giving more /earlier visibility to info on where the term is used.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See this. I'm tired of having to repeat the same thing over and over again. That was no compromise, that was going in circles again. I don't understand what more you want! The lead makes it clear and concise.--Davide King (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * [Y]ou have been reverting even the smallest compromise changes That's also a lie, considering all the work and I did to improve the article and lead, but apparently that means nothing now, unless this article is fully deleted; you and JLMadrigal simply don't want an article titled just Right-libertarianism, despite all the sources discussing the topic as concept and not just as a term; and calling it right-libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, all of these four proposals (except for the status quo) were already either rejected or reached no consensus in that made-up tally criticised by both and I.--Davide King (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I have also removed duplication at Libertarianism from both Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism, so that information is only on the latter two articles and further supports them as separate ones.--Davide King (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Since right/left libertarianism implies a dichotomy, the concepts need to be treated together (in the main article). One cannot be adequately differentiated from the other without an understanding of the opposing view. Separate articles only exacerbate the confusion. While I support 1 - 4, number 2 (merging left/right libertarianism into the main article) seems to have the most support, and be the quickest solution. JLMadrigal   @  20:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's not what we did at Populism with Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism, which I also support and see as an example, for populism is just as broad and compless as libertarianism. It's very simple, we already have Definition of anarchism and libertarianism and a section at Libertarianism that talks about it and concisely discusses it, there's no need to create an additional article or to merge the two.--Davide King (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * wrote I think this [merge this article into Libertarianism] is the best option of the four, and has the most support. Comparing the various concepts side-by-side (in one article) would help the reader differentiate them and better understand their incompatibilities. However, as correctly pointed out by Czar, that would mean turning Libertarianism into Libertarianism (disambiguation), for there wouldn't be a primary topic. As far as I understand it, Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism were also created exactly to avoid that and I support this compromise. I also disagree that this has the most support, for that would require also merging Left-libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * JLMadrigal wrote Comparing the various "libertarian" concepts side-by-side (in one article) would be a big improvement and help the reader differentiate them and better understand their incompatibilities. A standalone Left-right libertarianism article would be OK if the main page feels cluttered. However, while they may be discussed and mentioned together, they're still two different libertarian political philosophies worthy of having their own article as things are now. Maybe Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism could be a short disambiguation page that reads what you wanted to add to the lead here and then lists Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism, for they would still have their own article.--Davide King (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * JLMadrigal wrote It could be more than a typical disambiguation page [referring to reduce Right-libertarianism to a disambiguation page about the term]. The article would focus on the usage of the term along with its background and inconsistencies. Perhaps a "disambiguation article" would be a more accurate description. However, Right-libertarianism isn't just a term and this has been pointed out again and again by, and I, among other users. Denial of that doesn't help us.--Davide King (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * JLMadrigal wrote As discussed above, several polls have been conducted to determine how average people use the term to describe themselves. The revised article would retain much of the current article since many self-described "libertarians" identify with the described philosophy. Another possibility not yet discussed is to merge this article with Economic liberalism (retaining that title) which is the heart and soul of this anti-state philosophy. However, this could be easily discussed at Libertarianism in the United States (it already is) or we could simply create Libertarian (U.S. political typology) without changing anything, for Right-libertarianism is and would be a different article and thing, although there's some overlap; then again, there's also some overlap with left-libertarianism, otherwhise they wouldn't all be considered part of libertarianism if there wasn't anything in common, but that's beside the point.--Davide King (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * wrote Oppose [No change (status quo)] The term is used to differentiate economic liberalism from socialism by those familiar with socialist concepts, but the term is actually used to differentiate various forms of libertarianism. [It] is uncommon as used by both outsiders and proponents to describe it, and is confusing to most people who use the standard left-right (liberal-conservative) dichotomy as well as those who see left-right descriptors as antiquated and problematic, but that's not according to what reliable, especially academic, sources say and isn't a convincing or even good enough reason to basically delete the current well-sourced article. It's also based on your personal belief that you see the left–right political spectrum or similar political dichotomy as antiquated and problematic and it's already been explained to death to you that's within the libertarian political spectrum. I agree always more with that this is a case of snowball clause.--Davide King (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * and, you want to get rid of Right-libertarianism without showing concern or worring about its conseguences, namely having Libertarianism be turned into Libertarianism (disambiguation), which both of you and I would oppose (finally something we all three agree). For you fail to realise that the creation of Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism rested on this compromise, which I continue to support. I repeat that [a]s of this writing, Libertarianism is at 177,680 bytes, Left-libertarianism at 118,679 bytes and Right-libertarianism at 70,722 bytes; and there's no longer any duplication in each article. Besides warranting their own article, spacing may be a further reason to oppose the merge.--Davide King (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Гармонический Мир wrote Oppose [No change (status quo)] due to the fact that the concept of "left-" and "right-wing" politics is not scientific., could you please clarify this? I think we already discussed this during the merge in November. What matters is what reliable sources, especially academic ones as in this case, say and they clearly discuss this concept, not our own original research, synthesis or mere opinion. To me, that sounds to be your own personal opinion, not actually supported by what said reliable sources say.--Davide King (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are right that we have already discussed this question. To what I said then, I can add that in reality the "leftists" almost don't differ from the "rightists". Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , that certainly doesn't seem true from all the reliable sources that discuss about it and use left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism exactly to describe different forms of libertarianism because, well, they're indeed different while sharing some overlap and common tenets to fit within libertarianism, so I don't think you have a convincing rationale to oppose the status quo. Or do you mean that the Steiner–Vallentyne school is no different from right-libertarinism? That may well be true from a socialist point of view, but we refer to what reliable sources say and they have put it within left-libertarianism. Likewise, Georgism or geolibertarianism can be socialist or capitalist, having been adopted by socialist and capitalist supporters as well as by different libertarians, but both the Steiner–Vallentyne school and Georgism/geolibertarianism are generally considered left-libertarian due their egalitarianism and egalitarian concerns, even if you may think they aren't really left-wing or see them as not left enough as other left-libertarian philosophies. As I stated before, they could be considered either as the right-wing of left-libertarianism or as the left-wing or right-libertarianism. However, reliable sources refer to them as part of left-libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , not only from the "socialist" (What do you mean by that?), but also from the post-left anarchist point of view, there is almost no difference between "leftists" and "rightists". Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I mean socialist libertarianism (which is also part of left-libertarianism, indeed the majority of it, outside the United States) and I use left-libertarian and right-libertarian the way they're discussed at Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism, respectively, so I don't really understand how they're the same thing and I don't get how you don't see any difference; what do you mean by these terms instead? And why did you mention the post-left? Post-left anarchists are opposed to competition and market exchanges, how there's no difference between them?--Davide King (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , post-left anarchists consider "leftism" a kind of statist (authoritarian) politics (see, for example, Anarchy After Leftism by Bob Black). Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I still don't get what this has to do with the articles we're discussing. Post-left are a minority within anarchism and while you and I may personally agree with it and their criticism, I don't think that's really a good or convincing rationale to oppose the status quo. Maybe you should change or reword that.--Davide King (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , "Post-left are a minority within anarchism" — this is not entirely true. In fact, most anarchists (I mean anti-capitalist anarchists) are not members of any "leftist" organizations. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to try to draft a mutually agreeable RFC designed to get more participation and structurally designed to move this towards a resolution
I'm going to try to draft a mutually agreeable RFC designed to get more participation and structurally designed to move this towards a resolution. We've not garnered participation because this is too lengthy TLDR and complicated for folks to dive into. Intended parameters are: Sincerely <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Aquillion's thought, the initial RFC would be to accept or reject the status quo with respect to the issue in question. It would briefly mention the range of options should the status quo be rejected.
 * An RFC statement that explains the dispute and explains the confusing areas. I'll start it, but it will need to be approved by at least 4 of the current 5 active participants here before using
 * Ask anyone of the 5 active folks interested to prepare a thorough medium-length succinct presentation of their argument. Keep the initial one down to about 400 words. Have it ready so that it can be put in within 1-2 days of the RFC going up.
 * At the RFC ask folks to wait a few days before expressing an opinion until they can see and read those arguments.
 * Advertise it at the 3-4 libertarianism articles that have had multiple mentions here, at project libertarianism, plus the normal RFC bot advertising. Ping anyone who has participated in this discussion in the last few months
 * I'm sorry, but have you actually read what  just wrote above? I already thought that the first RfC was really unnecessary and I think this one is too. Reliable sources simply don't support any proposal to make this article about a term or a disambiguation page. I think it's pretty clear now. I don't think there's even a real dispute, it's just you and JLMadrigal rejecting reliable sources and having a POV-pushing issue with the name that isn't based on reality or convincing. For all intents and purpose, go ahead, but let me be clear in stating that I find all of this unnecessary, for if you actually include all the users who saw nothing wrong with the title, rejected a move or merge in August and November, there's consensus for the status quo, especially now that in my opinion the article has been greatly improved and legitimised by clarifying and improving the lead, creating a Definition section and removing all the content fork from Libertarianism in the United States.--Davide King (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As usual, I agree with what Davide says here. I do think a simple RFC about "is there any major problem with the article as it is?" is better than the RFC that Madrigal just made, but the addition of option 0) Status Quo pretty much makes that included within this RFC.
 * In any case, I don't think any such RFC (or AFD as Aquillon suggests) stands a WP:SNOWBALL, given that besides the users still active here,, , and opposed a move back in August, and additionally  and  opposed the merger proposal back in November, and I count only one additional support for each (not counting PhilLiberty) besides those people and those still active here now. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What you describe is what I have in mind. But with enough concise explanation to elicit participation. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about this, then I have problems with some of your wording. This large vague US phenonema is numerically the largest form of what is self-identified as libertarianism, this doesn't really much when you write next that [t]he "self-identified" qualifier is used because some would argue that the nearly same thing exists in Europe as European "liberalism", so they aren't really libertarians. They're liberals who took the word libertarian. It could be, and has been, argued that Amercan conservatives, liberals, libertarians and progressives are all liberals and simply variants of liberalism. In wp:reliable sources as a whole, the term overwhelmingly used (over 99% of the time) for these is "libertarian" or "libertarianism", that's because the sources you're actually referring to are either news or libertarian themselves. Many news refer to socialism as state ownership of the means of production and to communism as what we actually describe at Marxism–Leninism, yet that's not the way we describe our Socialism and Communism articles just because news writes so or common people think so, do we? I think the same thing applies here in this case. One is that "right libertarian" names somebody by the name of their political opponents and so that the term is an oxymoron or a pejorative at worst or confusing at best isn't really a good argument or reason to change (see also Nazi); indeed, this was literally the reason why it was proposed a move back in August and it was rejected. It's only you and JLMadrigal who think this. Another is that the article is merely grouping duplication of material from other articles according to a particular taxonomy system, what duplication? This may have been well true when it had content fork from Libertarianism in the United States and Libertarianism had a Philosophy section that was a duplication of both articles, but there's no more; and whatever problem it may have had in the past, I think it's been fixed by now. [W]ith very weak coverage of the fact that the grouping exists only in the eyes of that taxonomy system, you and JLMadrigal seems to think of and reduce all academic sources that actually says right-libertarianism to nothing important, like it doesn't support the article like it is now. Once again, it seems to be only you and JLMadrigal that think so. I repeat that the article is about the type of libertarianism supporting capitalism and private ownership of natural resources and that only the name and term is within the taxonomy system you keep talking about, but not the concept and content itself.--Davide King (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The intent is to state the "complaints" not make the argument for or against them. The "oxymoron/pejorative/confusing" sentence was an attempt to combine 3 complaints into one sentence. Perhaps combining them makes it appear as an argument for change. I'll fix that. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have actually proposed months ago moving articles from Communist regimes to Marxist–Leninist regimes for similar reasons and I think that still has more legitimacy than this, for Marxist–Leninist regimes is actually used in reliable academic sources, although it's not the most common one; and Marxism–Leninism was the actual ideology, not simply some vague communism. One issue was that may have excluded some countries, but all these countries were still following Marxism–Leninism or some national variation thereof anyway; or that Lenin and the Bolshevik described the pre-Stalin regime as being state-capitalist and in either case it was under the Russian Civil War, rather than a communist regime per se. So I don't see why your proposals woud be an improvement (one reading left-libertarian or right-libertarian, or left-libertarianism or right-libertarianism, would expect to be redirected to an article that discuss only that, not both). It doesn't really help to clarify, it only makes things even more confusing; and I think both articles are very clear now and again it seems only you and JLMadrigal who don't think so (maybe you're simply wrong and other users clearly understand what the article is talking about or referring to and have no issue with it.--Davide King (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I repeat that Right-libertarianism is and should also be about this form of American-born libertarianism that has spread beyond North America via think tanks and political parties [...] [s]ince the resurgence of neoliberalism in the 1970s known as right-libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * and to all. The intended topic of the article for those support the status quo is a pretty important point to solidify and state. Above you have said two things regarding this (leaving out the "spread via") "form of American-born libertarianism that has spread beyond North America" and "the type of libertarianism supporting capitalism and private ownership of natural resources".  For folks supporting that status quo, how would you describe the topic of the article?  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * --Davide King (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For an article about the term there are no dilemmas. It would simply acknowledge that its definitions vary. The instance covered by Davide's "form of American-born libertarianism"  would exclude forms born outside the US with pro-capitalism, pro-private ownership of resources ideologies. Definitions along the lines of having a "pro-capitalism, pro-private ownership of resources" ideology would exclude the giant vague US form which has no such ideology. (albiet tacitly accepting such as the norm) Maybe the answer is "forms which advocate or tacitly accept capitalism and private ownership of resources"?  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , how would it exclude that? Maybe I didn't explain myself good, but Right-libertarianism is and should be about that American-born libertarianism (i.e. it would include forms born outside the US with pro-capitalism, pro-private ownership of resources ideologies; I said American-born libertarianism to make clear the type of libertarianism I'm talking about, I didn't mean to exclude forms outside the United States) that has expanded worldwide since the 1970s (that's why I proposed merging Libertarianism in South Africa and Libertarianism in the United Kingdom here since they're mainly about that) while Libertarianism in the United States would be about what you think is excluded but isn't, i.e. only libertarianism in the United States (pretty much like Conservatism in the United States, Liberalism in the United States et all). That's why I never thought the name to be an issue because it wasn't about libertarianism in the United States, but a specific form of libertarianism born in the United States and assocated with people like Rothbard and Nozick, so right-libertarianism wouldn't be a problem because outside the United States it's more used and known, hence why the two are separated.--Davide King (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First to go off topic in a hopefully helpful way. There is a big divide/difference between the giant vague US libertarian phenomena and Rothbard and Nozick strands.  Regarding coverage, Rothbard and Nozick are fully developed philosophies and are more fully cover-able as such.   Regarding coverage, they are more like the European and left-libertarian strands. The giant US phenomena is basically a one-sentence ideology "more freedom, less government" not a fully developed philosophy, and trying to cover it as such is not effective.   But I digress. The question is "how would the status quo folks define the topic of the article" and so other than to ask for a clear answer, my  viewpoint is not relevant. Would "forms of libertarianism which advocate or tacitly accept capitalism and private ownership of resources" be a good answer? <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's way too much activity on this talk page lately for me to keep up, but at a first glance that looks like an acceptable definition to me. The inclusion of "tacitly accept" is an important point; maybe most self-identified libertarians in the US haven't thought through their philosophy more than one sentence like you say, but I'd wager that if you asked them "so the government should stop enforcing private ownership of things and let everyone be free to use whatever they want?" a huge proportion of them would answer with a resounding "NO!", because they have in mind a particular idea of what does and doesn't constitute "government" or "freedom", and that idea is what makes their kind of libertarianism "right" rather than "left". --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , then what's the problem? To me, it seems that the bigger problem is Libertarianism in the United States, especially since you wrote that Rothbard and Nozick are fully developed philosophies and are more fully cover-able as such, which is exactly what Right-libertarianism is or should be covering. Libertarianism in the United States may indeed be [a] giant [...] phenomena [...] basically a one-sentence ideology "more freedom, less government"[,] not a fully developed philosophy, and trying to cover it as such is not effective, but I think there're reliable sources that do that; and there're indeed what may be called libertarian philosophies in the United States, which we cover. Anyway, I think that forms of libertarianism which advocate or tacitly accept capitalism and private ownership of resources would suffice.--Davide King (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Review of RFC draft
I really didn't have it ( User:North8000/sandbox1 ) ready enough to ask for feedback, but did it in-wiki in case anyone was wondering what I'm doing. Buy happy to start now. To keep the below bullets brief, I wanted to get into one area. It should state what the arguments are, but not get into arguing for or against those arguments. Structural this debate is about folks on one side saying that about 6 problems exist, and the folks form the other side saying that those problems either do not exist or that the are too minor to be making big changes over. So that portion of such such a statement inevitably going to be mostly a list of the claimed problems.

Recapping the content-related items from this overall section it:
 * 1) The initial RFC would be to accept or reject the status quo with respect to the issue in question.
 * 2) It would briefly mention the range of options should the status quo be rejected. I think that describing the "minimum action" is central and most important to the structure of this.
 * 3) An RFC statement that explains the dispute without attempting to make or recap the arguments for either side. Since the two sides are basically "there are problems big enough to warrant significant action" and "there are not" this part will inherently need more words to descibe the "there are problems".
 * 4) An RFC that explains the confusing areas in order to garner more participation
 * 5) It does not contain anything that is clearly in error
 * 6) It is unbiased

And either when I'm ready or now request feedback on whether it complies with the above.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Please don't let my possible-RFC interfere with current efforts. It is designed to decisively move (only) one small step forward. The proposals being discussed accomplish more than that. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Workshop
I was waiting to finish an article I was writing before proposing the below, but if this is going to RfC now anyway, wanted to workshop a proposed path first. Would these steps (each subject to discussion) be a path out of the current cross-article issues?


 * 1) RfC: What is the primary topic for "libertarianism"?
 * Above, y'all discussed the ambiguity of the term "libertarianism"—are international readers getting the scope they expect when they view the term? Right now, libertarianism reads like a hodgepodge accounting of everything ever called "libertarianism" rather than a discrete/continuous concept. So what scope is appropriate for the page listed at "libertarianism": The entire, unrelated history of anything ever called "libertarian"? The movement broadly construed as economic libertarianism (or American/American-style libertarianism or right-libertarianism)? Or is there no real primary topic, and thus should it become a dab page, linking to our various, existing articles on concepts called libertarianism?
 * 1) Based on that discussion's conclusion, we would start move discussions accordingly.
 * For instance, if we decide that "libertarianism" should be a dab page, disambiguating between its types,
 * libertarianism (disambiguation) moves to libertarianism
 * and we'd start a discussion on where to move/name the Article-that-Currently-Exists-as-"libertarianism" (ACEL)
 * libertarianism >> ?
 * (For instance, if the dab page now handles the various offshoots of libertarianism, such as "left-libertarianism" writ large, the article currently titled at libertarianism (ACEL) could drop the pretense of being a catch-all, and just focus on the concept of economic/American/right-libertarianism/name TBD. This isn't a matter of common name but how to disambiguate when it's not the primary topic.)
 * 1) Based on that conclusion and where the major content ends up, we would redirect/merge both left- and right-libertarianism to the sections that best define the term, but this appears to be a more direct route of solving the core issues than the merger suggestions above.

Thoughts on these steps as a general approach? Open for workshopping. I don't know how these discussions will go but the point is to establish what successive RfCs/questions to run rather than predicting their conclusions. I think this is more cohesive than just running the question on "right-libertarianism" alone. czar 18:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I applaud your efforts but the above just makes the task 10 times bigger. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s a necessary consequence as this article is currently part of a larger structure of articles so radically changing this impacts all the others too.
 * I still think the simplest solution besides leaving things how they are (which is fine and needs to be an option in that RFC) is to merge left- and right- libertarianism into an article about the differences between them, or a section at the main Libertarian article about the same. —Pfhorrest (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can just get behind that idea and settle this. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We just had a merge proposal not long ago (November 2019) that was either rejected or there was no consensus to change things as they are, so I don't understand why it's even mentioned again. I'm sorry, but I repeat all of this amount to not liking having an article titled Right-libertarianism that discusses American-style libertarianism worldwide; and I have just read North8000 making pretty much the same argument without any success for years, so what has changed? Both JLMadrigal and PhilLiberty are clearly biased in favor of this libertarianism (they just object to the name) and have shown to willingness to understand the concept/topic. I don't think there's a warrant for a request of comment, for the consensus (including all the users who had no problem with the title, supported it, said it was the common name, opposed a merge, etc. and simply walked away for they're probably just tired as me for a dispute that amounts to not liking the name and a continual denial of reliable sources using it, both clearly calling it right-libertarianism or discuissing/referring it as a topic) is to keep the status quo and work to improve the article. I could just as easily propose to make Libertarianism be only about anarchism and socialism; and move all these non-anarchist/socialist libertarian pages to Economic liberalism, for that's all they are after co-opting, hiajacking and stealing the term (notwistanding their propertarian views), but obviously these libertarians would reject them. As can be seen for North8000's lack of concerns for all other libertarian articles (I applaud your efforts but the above just makes the task 10 times bigger, to which correctly ponted out [t]hat’s a necessary consequence as this article is currently part of a larger structure of articles so radically changing this impacts all the others too), they simply don't want an article titled right-libertarianism, despite reliable sources calling it that way and discussing the concept and not just a term.--Davide King (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this underscores my point. We first need agreement on whether "libertarianism" needs disambiguation (per the above, it seems clear that it does). Then we need agreement on how to scope and move the article-that-currently-exists-as-"libertarianism" (ACEL), whether that means merging with "right-libertarianism" or any number of other options. Hence why I've proposed the above sequence. But I don't see the sense of the status quo in keeping largely duplicative articles split. czar  00:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's Libertarianism (disambiguation).--Davide King (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What I'm proposing is a discussion that may end up with the suggestion to move:
 * Libertarianism (disambiguation) → libertarianism (e.g., the disambiguation page renamed as just "libertarianism", linking to all relevant—and mostly distinct—types of libertarianism)
 * Libertarianism → ? (somewhere else TBD, where—depending on its title/scope—could be more focused as an article)
 * czar 03:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I applaud your effort, but now you made it even bigger....basically elimination of the main libertarianism article. With the complexity of libertarianism having so many strands and variations in meaning, but them having some things in common (giving the term a single meaning in that sense)I think that the current libertarianism article is just what it needs to be.....a disambiguation article even though Wikipedia does not recognize such a category.  It covers the things in common and provides an introduction and disambiguation where they differ.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps comparison glossaries (that differentiate the terminology as used by the respective parties) could be added to the main article? JLMadrigal   @  13:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's why we had Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism separate articles in the first place! So as to avoid turning Libertarianism into a disambiguation page that isn't really helpful. We had a good compromise which was ruined by your proposals and unnecessary opposition., you continue to fail in understanding that left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism aren't just two terms to distinguish various forms of libertarianism but two different concepts too.--Davide King (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The Economic liberalism page could absorb much of the content of this page and touch on the term "right-libertarianism" as used by some taxonomists. Right-libertarianism could redirect to the expanded Economic liberalism page. JLMadrigal  @  15:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Economic liberalism greatly needs much help and improvement but simply absorb[ing] much of the content of this page isn't the way to go, for they're two concepts warranting their own article, notwithstanding your failure in understanding the topic and going back in circles by saying [right-libertarianism] [is a term] used by some taxonomists. That would also mean making Libertarianism only about the 19th century movement, anarchism, libertarian socialism and the broader libertarian left, for right-libertarianism, American-style libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are nothing but economic and political liberalism taken to the extreme by stealing another name, neither anarchism nor libertarianism. However, I would prefer for things to stay just as they are.--Davide King (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ????????? JLMadrigal   @  01:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What you don't get about what I wrote?--Davide King (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

One last shot

 * Okay, that went off-topic fast. I think I have a good sense of what needs to change here, but I fear that if y'all keep going as you are, this esoteric discussion will be labeled as "intractable" and you will find no resolution. There are many issues of writing and scope that need to be resolved before naming is even on the table. I'm going to unwatch this discussion (please  for replies) but I'd like to leave one last offer that I think both makes sense and compromises between everything I've managed to read:
 * Rename "Libertarianism in the United States" to "Libertarian movement": This is what the article used to be called and is better matched to its current scope as its common name. The lede discusses the topic as a movement and there is no other movement by that name with which it can be confused. (This resolves the ACEL problem mentioned above.)
 * Merge/centralize all sourced commentary on terminology to Definition of anarchism and libertarianism. Or even better, merge it to the talk page, and I'll take care of sorting it out. Right now, several libertarianism articles purport to explain a topic when, in reading, they are really just thinly veiled screeds about terminology and loosely modified overviews of the ledes of related articles. The solution is to centralize all of that terminology commentary to one place, where it can be laid out rationally, so that we can see what actual need remains for separate articles on every term.
 * Redirect Left- and Right- to a subsection of the Definition article. A single section on terminology differences in the Definition article would be a natural redirect target for both Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism, not because it will reiterate every nuance possibly construed by those terms, but because it can succinctly hash out the differences and link out to the appropriate articles to learn more, rather than transcluding paragraphs of text.
 * Accordingly, the content from Left- and Right-libertarianism that doesn't belong in the Definition article can be merged to anarchism and libertarian movement, respectively.
 * More controversially, but I think necessarily, move Libertarianism (disambiguation) to "Libertarianism" for the lack of primary topic. Despite the above defenses of the ACEL "disambiguation article", the current article is incoherent. The reader is much better served by being directed to the type of libertarianism about which they want to read about rather than lumping them all together and implying that wholly disparate ideas have any real ideological unity.
 * That's what I propose. I'm off to work on other topics and slowly chip away at related articles that I started, but if for some reason y'all see this to be the magic bullet I think that it is, ping me and we can discuss. (not watching, please )  czar  22:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. I believe that the structural change outlined above by is the best offering to date to resolve the terminology issue and clarify the multiciplicity of viewpoints on the topics of libertarianism and anarchism. The topics of libertarianism and anarchism are incoherent in their current incarnations and need much clarification - particularly due to the fact that many terms have conflicting definitions. I also suggest inclusion of a comparative glossary on the Definition of anarchism and libertarianism page (and the Libertarian movement page) in the Relation with property and capitalism section along the following lines:


 * {| class="wikitable"

! Term !! As used by socialist !! As used by economic liberal
 * "capitalism" || wage slavery || free markets
 * "means of production" || factory monopolies || market incentives
 * "property rights" || feudalism || economic liberation
 * "equality" || no hierarchies || opportunity for all
 * "libertarian" || socialist || free minds, free markets
 * "right" || monopolist || nationalist
 * "left" || anticapitalist || anti free market
 * "anarchy" || without authority || without state
 * }
 * "libertarian" || socialist || free minds, free markets
 * "right" || monopolist || nationalist
 * "left" || anticapitalist || anti free market
 * "anarchy" || without authority || without state
 * }
 * "anarchy" || without authority || without state
 * }
 * }


 * JLMadrigal  @  15:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I collapsed the table just so we can stay on topic. Happy to discuss the table if you have sourcing, but it's a discussion for a different talk page. czar  15:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be difficult to find original sources for use of the terms by the parties involved. Finding "reliable sources" that make reference to them may be a bit more painstaking. But this is secondary and doesn't require discussion here. JLMadrigal   @  15:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, vaguely speaking A big fix that looks complicated in an area that has big problems. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, vaguely speaking While I appreciate the thought and good faith effort put into this idea, I don't think it's really the best solution. I love the article on Definition of anarchism and libertarianism he's developing. But surely "Libertarianism in the United States" is the more appropriate title for that article, parallel to all the other "[ideology] in [country]" articles we have all over the encyclopedia (and surely the early, socialist, libertarians referred to themselves as a "libertarian movement" too, no?) I think the best structure is pretty much the one we have already: a Libertarianism article that is about the broad anti-state anti-authority principles held in common between all varieties of libertarianism, and about the history of such varieties and their relationships to other views (perhaps featuring a summary section of the Definition article Czar is working on), and then about the differences between varieties of libertarianism, including summaries of this Right-libertarianism article and the Left-libertarianism article. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose moving "Libertarianism (disambiguation)" to "Libertarianism" too. In my opinion, a better idea would be moving "Left-libertarianism" to "Libertarianism". Historically libertarianism (or libertarism) is anti-capitalist movement and prefix "left-" seems to be excessive. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Some replies, just based on the ping: No, I haven't seen evidence of this. There was an anarchist movement that is more commonly just called "anarchism" but in terms of the phrase "libertarian movement", there's a reason that phrase has redirected to Libertarianism in the United States for years—it's a synonym. There needs to be some leeway given to the idea that "right-libertarianism" is more commonly known as just "libertarianism", even if that word is confused with other applications. "Libertarian movement" is a more than fair compromise that gives appropriate context. Anyway, a discussion for another talk page.  I think it's safe to say this is never going to happen. Historical usage is only one factor in the Article titles policy, but the sources show a heavier claim for right-libertarianism's association with the word (and yes, I'm aware of the term's co-opted history—it doesn't change how it's presently known). Honestly, the concession of the term's contested (international, not just American) usage should be sufficient compromise to use the disambiguation page as the primary topic, where readers can link out to read more about the various concepts each called "libertarianism".
 * Alas, this is why I titled this subsection as I did. In my experience, the core issue at play is the primary topic at libertarianism, an article which truly reads more like a coat rack for an argument over terminology than a cohesive introduction to the topic (and indeed, what topic?) Until it's resolved—and I see it being resolved along the lines I've proposed—I do not expect this conversation to go anywhere besides some bloody dispute resolution (ANI/Arbcom). I'd ask you both to reconsider but perhaps this was this discussion's destiny all along. (not watching, please )  czar  03:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Outline of Merge
, before we begin a merge (which only has one opponent), I would like to offer you the first mover advantage (since it was your suggestion). What are your thoughts on the structure of the finished product. Have you already begun a sandbox or outline? How do you envision Libertarianism with this article and left-libertarianism merged into it? JLMadrigal  @  13:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How about a phase 1 of a brief lead explaining the right/left libertarian taxonomy concept and then just putting in the entire current articles as two halves (lower the heading levels by one). Title: "Left and right libertarianism"    Phase 2 would be to move the most-key material from the two old leads into the new lead. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * [A] merge [...] which only has one opponent, that's a lie. and  oppose the merge and would support it only with Left-libertarianism too, something which  rejected; and even then, Pfhorrest, for example, doesn't find it necessary (I agree). I find all of this illegittimate as long as it doesn't count also all the users who saw nothing wrong with the title and rejected both a move in August and a merge in November. Besides, Libertarianism is at 177,680 bytes, Left-libertarianism at 118,679 bytes and Right-libertarianism at 70,722 bytes, which would make it at about 365,000 bytes, so they may be split due spacing issues anyway. How about you both calm down and don't keep opening new sections and, you know, actually wait for other users' responses too?--Davide King (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , have you even read what actually wrote here in response to what you called the compromise wording changes here? A compromise still has to respect the lead guidelines; and I'm all for compromise, that just ain't a good one for reasons perfectly explained by Pfhorrest in that comment.--Davide King (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If we were going to do a merge, the way North describes it is how I would go about it. But we would need to get consensus between all three articles first, and that looks unlikely since the exact same proposal was just rejected two months ago. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever weighing in on a proposal to merge the right/left articles.  I think I weighed in against merging them both into the libertarianism article, but it wasn't because I didn't like the idea because the large effort to convince the folks at the left-libertarian article would be a poison pill against efforts to get something done. Made harder by the fact that I think that the left-libertarianism term has more acceptance and usage than the right libertarian term.  As this has evolved (and tu7rned into a bigger job here) I now would support either of those options.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever weighing in on a proposal to merge the right/left articles, hence why I wrote [...] oppose the merge and would support it only with Left-libertarianism too, something which [you] rejected, . Once again, just because you think the left-libertarianism term has more acceptance and usage than the right libertarian term, it doesn't mean we should merge the latter but kept the first one, for they aren't about a term but two distinct, albeit related, concepts within libertarianism. The same argument could be said about left-libertarianism, that it isn't really used outside the United States, that all so-called left-libertarians simply call themselves libertarians because there libertarian has pretty much kept the original, 19th-century meaning.--Davide King (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree with everything wrote below and is exactly what I have always thought about this whole thing since the beginning. To be fair and clear, I think this discussion was helpful and somewhat necessary, leading in my opinion to a greet improvement, but I don't support any of your or JLMadrigal four proposal and I don't think it warrants any major change from what we have now.--Davide King (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying I was against including left-libertarianism in a merge. I was just guessing that it would be a harder thing to gain acceptance for because the term has more acceptance and less problems. For one thin, amongst it's main proponents, where they live, the term isn't a confusing oxy-moron.
 * , I'm sure libertarian socialism is an oxymoron for many people, but that isn't a good reason to change the status quo. This just further proves that the problem with the name is based on POV-pushing and not reality or reliable sources. Simply put, right-libertarianism is the best, most common unambigious name for this concept, whether we like it or not (I personally accept it and have no problem with it).--Davide King (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You need to seriously slow down. The RFC is showing a 3-1 majority that there's no problem at all; as things are, I don't see how it could be reasonably interpreted as supporting something as drastic as merge.  By my reading you need a majority on point one before you can even consider any of the other options (which are contingent on the first point in the RFC agreeing that there is a problem that needs to be solved.) As I said above, you've been focused on this article for months arguing about 'solutions' to an issue that, as far as I can tell, only two people can see; at this point it's long past the point where you ought to WP:DROPTHESTICK.  Your suggestions (especially the merge) are awful and would take a currently extremely well-written article that accurately summarizes the topic and would effectively delete it for no reason, as far as I can tell, beyond your personal disagreement with the way the term is used in academia and your preference to focus on an alternative US usage.  There are not good reasons to make the sorts of drastic and unnecessary changes you keep proposing here. I have mostly tried to avoid wasting time on this page because I feel the discussion is pointless, going in circles, and has no hope of accomplishing anything meaningful because the initial step of demonstrating a problem to be solved has never been accomplished; but if you're going to start talking enthusiastically about a merge, then no.  Slow down.  Start by articulating the problem you actually think needs to be solved and get a consensus that it exists; right now, at least to me, this looks like a big ball of WP:IDONTLIKEIT coupled with numerous suggestions to effectively delete this article via merges that couldn't realistically support most of its content.  If you think this article isn't a "real thing", that it's somehow redundant or that sources can't support it, go to WP:AFD and let's get this over with (assuming you will finally WP:DROPTHESTICK after the AFD inevitably fails.)  Honestly, that's what should have been done from the start rather than wasting all this time on circular discussions.  --Aquillion (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Amongst the currently active participants, I think that is an obvious oppose on the status quo making it 3-2 they just didn't make the procedural marking.  If you would include recently active but now faded out, I think PhilLiberty is an obvious oppose on the status quo. I don't think it's clear what TFD would say on that specific question. Also, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * PhilLiberty is even more biased than JLMadrigal and has actually engaged in disrupting behavior, edit warring, personal attacks and insults while causing similar issues and POV-pushing other articles (like the American Revolution being a secession or making similar POV-pushing edits like this). Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't a democracy, so even if you exclude the ones who support the status quo, it still wouldn't result in what you want, for you need a valid rationale for the changes and that simply hasn't been given. Rational arguments and reliable sources are what matters, whether a majority or minority of users think so. You also obviously didn't include the users who rejected a move in August and a merge in November who didn't see anything wrong with the current title.--Davide King (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

While there would need to be a consensus to merge the left and right libertarianism articles into a new article, no consensus is required for first creating a new article merging the left and right libertarianism articles. This will give us an example to showcase for support before sunsetting the old ones. Let's proceed with a new article as outlined by with a nod by  (and myself) (and maybe ). JLMadrigal  @  03:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Title: "Left and right libertarianism" (or "Left-right libertarianism")
 * Phase 1: A brief lead explaining the right/left libertarian taxonomy concept and then just putting in the entire current articles as two halves (lower the heading levels by one).
 * Phase 2: Move the most-key material from the two old leads into the new lead.
 * I think the article "Libertarianism" is enough. No need for a new article. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The new article will be sunsetted if the editors of the Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism articles don't like it. If they do, there will be two articles where there were three. I recall that in November you said that the Right-libertarianism article was unnecessary. I think a separate article on "right-libertarianism" is not needed, it repeats the information that is already in these six articles. JLMadrigal   @  04:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this does not contradict the fact that No need for a new article. Why create a new article if we can create a section (or sections) in the article "Libertarianism"? Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If I read Гармонический Мир correctly, he supports a merger of both Left- and Right-libertarian articles to Libertarianism, but not a merger of them to a new article comparing and contrasting the two.
 * In any case, creating a new merged article or a merged section at Libertarianism following the procedure North suggested above and I agreed with, but without simultaneously getting rid of the two separate Right- and Left-libertarianism articles, would constitute a WP:CONTENTFORK, and so would be against Wikipedia policy. We could create such an article in a sandbox somewhere just to show what it would look like, but since we're basically just talking about gluing two existing articles together, I don't think that's really necessary unless we've already agreed that we're going to proceed with that. Which agreement I doubt is forthcoming, given the results in November. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much to for anticipating me, with whom I agree again and is correct about it. I think this's just yet another attempt at sneakling deleting Right-libertarianism so that no such article continues to exist. I'm inclusive and I wouldn't be opposed to create an article that specifically discuss both, the libertarian political spectrum, etc. as long as Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism remains as they are; and only if it's written from the scratch rather than simply merging the content of both articles, which would actually mean or require a deletion too. So I think we should wait to search and find more sources to support it as a seperate, new article. As things stands, I agree with  that for now it can easily just be a section in the main article and a short summary in both sub-articles, which is pretty much as it already is anyway. We also have Definition of anarchism and libertarianism that literally discusses that; if we can expand it and get enough information about it, we may also split some sections of it into Anarchism and socialism and Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism; but as things stand, the status quo is the better solution, for opposition to it seems to be based more on POV and not liking it, especially in JLMadrigal and PhilLiberty's case, rather than a genuine rationale supported by Wikipedia guidelines or reliable sources (this is just one of the many examples). JLMadrgal continues to show a failure to understand that there are two distinct concepts that warrant their own article and not just terms.--Davide King (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, you understood me correctly. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Another of several good ideas to move forward out of this quandary.  BTW anyone who has been arguing to the only-the-status-quo would be conflicting with themselves if they called it a content fork.  The rejected compromises would have moved it towards covering that it is / as a taxonomy system. The new article would cover the taxonomy system.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We can put a disclaimer at the beginning stating that a merge - or potential merge - is in process.
 * Phase 3: Cover the taxonomy system. Introduce a comparative glossary for nuanced uses of terms such as "capitalism", "means of production", "property rights", "equality", and of course, "libertarian", "right", and "left"
 * It is impossible to understand the use of the term "right-libertarianism" without looking at Economic liberalism through the lens of so-called "left-libertarianism". They need to be compared side by side.
 * And speaking of WP:CONTENTFORKs, This article is currently not only a WP:CONTENTFORK - since, as Гармонический Мир has pointed out, it mostly duplicates Economic liberalism and several other articles - but it is a POV fork because it paints Economic liberalism from a foreign lens.
 * BTW, I'm not asking for "permission".
 * JLMadrigal  @  15:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , you seem to continue to fail to realise that Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism aren't about a taxonomy system or anything like that; they're about a type of libertarianism and political philosophy. If you want an article about the libertarian taxonomy system, I don't think that's really necessary (for now) or that we have enough reliable sources to support an article; a section would be enough. Besides, I remind you that we have Definition of anarchism and libertarianism that already discusses that. Only the terms are taxonomic, but they themselves are used to refer to a concept; they're also the best naming, even if not the most common or popular. They're still more common and popular than all other proposed ones and they also avoid using parenthesis (see Natural disambiguation). You also continue to fail to realise why these so-called compromises were either wrong or unneeded (see Refers), besides not following Wikipedia guidelines about the lead section ( perfectly explained this in a message I repeatedly linked to you, but to which neither you nor JLMadrigal never even replied).
 * While there's some overlap with Economic liberalism, they aren't exactly the same thing, hence why they're two separate articles; Right-libertarianism isn't just about economic. [I]t is a POV fork because it paints Economic liberalism from a foreign lens, funny you say that, for American libertarians hijacked the word to mean exactly that. There's also no actual duplication or anything like that; or in other words, all right-libertarians are economic liberals, but not all economic liberals are right-libertarians. It is impossible to understand the use of the term "right-libertarianism", this seems to be your own opinion and POV. Only you and North8000 seems to have a problem with it, a problem that in my opinion is based on not liking it or simply not showing a convincing rationale. I also don't get what exactly your Phase 3 proposal would actually mean or even looked like. And you don't need "permission", you need to get consensus.--Davide King (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have already articles about the various strands of libertarianism, and then divide them in half and cover them through the lens of that particular taxonomy system, of course the strands being covered are real and exist outside of that taxonomy system, so please don't pretend that I'm making that straw-man argument. But the particular division, the naming of it and the classification lens that it is covered through are all inventions of that particular taxonomy system. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You say cover them through the lens of that particular taxonomy system, I say cover them through the lens of what reliable, especially academic, sources say; you say the particular division, the naming of it and the classification lens that it is covered through are all inventions of that particular taxonomy system, I say that's still not a convincing reason to basically delete this article and that if we can get enough sources to write from the scratch a new article about it, without the need of duplication, or deleting or merging them both or even just one of the two, I'm all for it.--Davide King (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a comparative glossary. While this one has not been perfected, here is the gist: JLMadrigal  @  12:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are so many problems with this table I don't even know where to begin. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How about starting with one of the listed terms and stating how YOU think each of the groups interprets it. JLMadrigal   @  15:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

POV title notice template
There's nothing to gain from edit warring over whether to add a POV title notice to the article. I understand that there is disagreement over the title of this article but (1) I thought it was already resolved (previously discussed above at the bottom of that adding some text would make the article title issue moot), (2) there are already discussions in place whose resolution would solve any potential objection to the article's title, and (3) for what it's worth, the last, fullest discussion on this title didn't call out title POV as a concern. Notices/tags are ultimately quite impotent, so depending on what you want, there are other ways to do it. If it's acknowledgement that there is a POV issue, better to take a straw poll on the talk page. If it is to advertise a discussion, better to leave a simple, neutral note on related talk pages and noticeboards. I.e., resolve the actual issue, not the proxy of whether to show a notice template.

From my read, there is no consensus on this talk page that the current content split is a "POV title" issue, so adding back the maintenance notice/tag would be rather pointy. You could, if you wanted, enumerate the POV issues with the title for discussion so we have a more formal consensus on this question of whether to add POV title alone, but I think it would be an otiose diversion when there are more promising proposals for this article's content already on the table. (not watching, please )  czar  18:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pending a resolution (or reasonable committment by these editors to the above resolution), I won't press the matter for a few days. JLMadrigal   @  19:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , as explained by, that was exactly why I removed the template in the first place. Also, and  seemed to agree with me on that and so there was no consensus in keeping it in the first place, besides being misleading per reasons explained above.--Davide King (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Vaguely speaking, "consensus" is the wikipedia word for "super-majority". Trying to say that you need a super-majpority to say that there is a dispute is incorrect at best. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's surely not what Consensus actually says. See for instance Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote; and Czar clearly explained it above. That's also not what I wrote or meant. The thing is I'm not even sure there's a real dispute, for a page move was clearly rejected in August and a merge was already rejected in November (the users who opposed either or both didn't seem to have any problem with the title or the article itself; and that was way before and I did several edits that in my opinion definetly made it better and clarified it, even if you think it still isn't enough). So I'm honestly astonished that this is still going on and nothing seems to have actually changed, that's why I still believe any request for comments to be unnecessary, for you can simply voice your thoughts on the talk page and then if you can get other users to agree with your position, then that's when it should be discussed. As things have stand for months and months, it's still only you and JLMadrgal seem to have a problem with the current title and apparently even see it as POV. Either way, that template is/was misleading. Like Czar wrote, I thought that was long solved, but apparently you and JLMadrigal are going back in circle again.--Davide King (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you agree with that "there are more promising proposals for this article's content already on the table"? If so, let's get started.  JLMadrigal   @  23:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)  JLMadrigal   @  21:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I still think things are fine as they are, especially now that aknowledged that Rothbard and Nozick are fully developed philosophies and are more fully cover-able as such, which is exactly what Right-libertarianism is or should be about and covering. So it seems, as I thought, that 's issues are with Libertarianism in the United States ([a] giant [...] phenomena [...] basically a one-sentence ideology "more freedom, less government"[,] not a fully developed philosophy, and trying to cover it as such is not effective) rather than with this.--Davide King (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That does not follow from what I said.   I even mentioned that I was digressing.  I was just trying to provide insight that trying to think that one can cover such as a philosophy is itslef a lens.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick each have their own articles - which cover their philosophies independently, and there are conflicts between them. They can't just be lumped together, Davide. Libertarian Movement, the last and, IMO much better, title for the Libertarianism in the United States article, covers the topic of this article, and would make for an excellent merge. While "right-libertarianism" is indeed a term (which needs to be covered as such), it is inappropriate title for this article for the variety of reasons stated by a multiplicity of editors in this forum, and, IMO, also a POV issue as well - being a lens term. JLMadrigal   @  16:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I still think your main issues are with Libertarianism in the United States because I already explained you that Right-libertarianism doesn't and shouldn't exclude forms born outside the US with pro-capitalism, pro-private ownership of resources ideologies. Just like Libertarianism and Left-libertarianism, Right-libertarianism has an international outlook (including both American, European et all POVs) whereas Libertarianism in the United States is, or at least should be, only and specifically about the United States., you fail to realise that the term is used to refer to a type of libertarianism that include both. One can be both an anarcho-capitalist and a right-libertarian, just like one can be a liberal and a social liberal, or a liberal and a classical liberal, etc. It isn't mutually exclusive.--Davide King (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Where I think we're at and what some possible options are
IMO the RFC had some structural issues but let's see what we can learn from it. This isn't a close, but in the RFC a majority said the status quote is bad, a minority said it's fine, and there was no consensus either way. Of the proposed changes, the one with the most support / least opposition was to merge the right and left articles but there was not a consensus for that specific result. There are some larger scale big fix complex proposals on the table. Unfortunately those always go nowhere in Wikipedia which appears to be the case here. Maybe our alternatives with some chance: Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Compromise. Increase the coverage and prominence of coverage of the taxonomy roots of the term.
 * 2) My proposed RFC as described and linked above. Would decisively decide (only) the accept-reject-the-status-quo vs at least the specified minimum changes.
 * 3) See if we could move forward on one of the discussed merger ideas.
 * The status quo option is currently only 3-to-4, and the "againsts" all cite different reasons, so there doesn't seem to be any consensus or even majority that there is a specific problem with the status quo, just a variety of individual opinions that this or that different thing is a problem with it. Two of those opinions that object to "left and right" terminology in general are prima facie non-starters as that terminology is used all across Wikipedia in all kinds of different articles, so it's clearly not something there is widespread consensus to object to in general like that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, I completely agree with . Not only that, but I also think the support for status quo is still a majority when you include the users who rejected the move and merge in August and November, respectivey, whilst writing they had no problem with the article (,, , and ); and that was at a time when the article had some problems, like content fork, which I believe has been fixed (so others like  and , among others, could support the article now). They're probably astonished that this is still going on, notwistanding all that; or simply got tired of it like  and think it's time to drop the stick. Either way, I'm willing for a compromise to avoid deletion of Libertarian articles. However, I support [i]ncreas[ing] the coverage and prominence of coverage of the taxonomy roots of the term; I just don't think this compromise is a really good one and I think it should be done in the Definition section.--Davide King (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

My intent was only to say that it is unresolved and to identify realistic paths forward. IMO #1 is the best idea. Some relatively minor changes that would probably put this whole thing to bed. BTW I hope that my euphemism means the same thing across the pond or I could be starting up another similar debate! :-) :-) Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , what would you add? I still think it's fine, that the lead should first tell us what right-libertarianism is and what it does refer too while the Definition section is about the taxonomy, of which there's also already a concise summary in the lead that says it better than anything else proposed so far. I wouldn't know what to add more, so perhaps create a sandbox about it so I can get an idea. Why not simply adding a Political typology section (at Libertarianism or Libertarianism in the United States) that discusses what you want, i.e. that big vague libertarianism? I wouldn't be opposed if you created a Libertarian (political typology) article while keeping this article and trying to improve it with time.--Davide King (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  I'll draft a proposed compromise for this article.  But, everybody, don't let my effort preclude exploring other ideas. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Straw poll regarding the title Libertarian movement
Currently "Libertarian movement" redirects to Libertarianism in the United States. IMO, Libertarian movement should not only direct users to THIS page, since the term refers to the Libertarian movement in general as it is commonly used today (which this article describes), but Libertarian movement would make a much better and more understandable TITLE for this page. Right-libertarianism would also redirect to the new title. It is consistent with current naming conventions since Libertarian Movement (Costa Rica) and Libertarian Movement (Italy) (among others that don't yet have articles) are regional subsets of this distinct brand of libertarianism. The Libertarianism in the United States article currently focuses on the US (which it didn't before it was renamed). "Right-libertarianism" will always be a controvercial term, a fact that readers need to know. As mentioned above, The status quo is untenable ... because "left-" and "right-" are currently used as WP:Coatracks JLMadrigal   @  13:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , just because a few parties have that name, it doesn't mean we should redirect it here. Libertarianism in the United States [...] currently focuses on the US (which it didn't before it was renamed) because Libertarianism or Libertarian movement was only about what we now have Libertarianism in the United States. This was lamented by many users and so now we have Libertarianism that is about the broad, international movement and Libertarianism in the United States that is specifically about the American political philosophy and movement. Furthermore, the term "Right-libertarianism" will always be [controversial] only if you see through biased libertarian lens; you also continue to ignore the many users and sources that disagree with that as well as the rejection of a move back in August, with the majority of users clearly stating they didn't see any particular problem or controversy with the current naming, so simply changing the name proposal with a new one doesn't necessarely mean that it's better than the current naming. Finally, I don't know about you, but on Google Scholar and JSTOR I get results relating to Libertarianism and not just one type of it, therefore Libertarian movement should redirect to Libertarianism, just like Libertarians already redirects there too.--Davide King (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really weighing in. IMO the big vague form of libertarianism (which really is more of a movement or phenomena than a philosophy) that is most prevalent in the US but does exist elsewhere probably should have an article, and Libertarian movement is probably a good title for it. At first I had NPOV misgivings about this title; a concern that it sort of gives "dibs" on the term "libertarian" to one particular form of it. But with the "movement" qualifier in there, I think that it is less of an issue. The big vague US form is probably the only one that is best described as a movement vs. a political philosophy. And the fact that it's only talking about a subset of libertarianism could also be reinforced early in the article.

If this Right libertarian article continues to exist, under either it current form or a compromise form, it's scope would inevitably include fully developed philosophies advocating capitalism and private ownership of land. I would argue that these are a different thing than the large vague movement, and so redirecting that term to this article is IMHO not a good idea. Further, there is lots to cover about libertarianism in the US besides the large vague movement and so they are not synonymous. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , you wrote the big vague form of libertarianism (which really is more of a movement or phenomena than a philosophy) that is most prevalent in the US but does exist elsewhere probably, but that's exactly what Right-libertarianism is about! The name itself is based on that so as to distinguish from the other most known or common libertarianism, which elsewhere is more commonly identified with anarchism, libertarian socialism and the libertarian left in general. Right-libertarianism is about the type of libertarianism advocating capitalism and private ownership of land that is predominantly American in background but that since the 1970s has expanded elsewhere and so it should have an international outlook. Libertarianism in the United States is about the American movement but also discusses American libertarian philosophies, so including both capital L libertarianism, right-libertarianism, left-libertarianism and others, so it's here you should have a section about political typology and the libertarianism you're referring to.
 * Either way, I agree that they are not synonymous, hence why are two separate articles. At first I had NPOV misgivings about this title; a concern that it sort of gives "dibs" on the term "libertarian" to one particular form of it. But with the "movement" qualifier in there, I think that it is less of an issue, but the issue is that Google Scholar and JSTOR use it in the general meaning, including both anarchism (especially the Spanish movement, but also left-libertarianism) and libertarianism in the United States, so it should redirect to Libertarianism; and I believe that it sort of gives "dibs" on the term "libertarian" to one particular form of it is the reason why a majority of users would object to it. Besides, as stated above, I believe to have shown that it's used in broader terms, just like the name implies.--Davide King (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide, you contradict yourself:

the big vague form of libertarianism (which really is more of a movement or phenomena than a philosophy) that is most prevalent in the US but does exist elsewhere probably, but that's exactly what Right-libertarianism is about! Either way, I agree that they are not synonymous, hence why are two separate articles.
 * JLMadrigal  @  12:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you clearly misunderstood that, if you think so. Libertarianism in the United States is broader than Right-libertarianism, although the latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States compared to left-libertarianism. Libertarianism in the United States is supposed to be the American version of the main Libertarianism article which is international in outlook while the first is American-specific in outlook like similar titled articles. Libertarianism in the United States discusses its anarchist and socialist origins, just like libertarianism elsewhere; and it's about more than just Rothbard, Nozick and right-libertarianism, including left-libertarianism. Do you see now why they're separate articles in the first place and why what I wrote and meant wasn't really a contradiction?--Davide King (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We're talking about using Libertarian movement as a title for this page - not combining this page with Libertarianism in the United States. Sheesh! JLMadrigal   @  14:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think that's going to happen for the simple fact that it [...] gives "dibs" on the term "libertarian" to one particular form of it and this discussion should be over already, for I have shown that reliable sources use it to refer to what we have at Libertarianism in broader terms and not to a single, specific form of it; and reliable sources triumph your own personal opinion.--Davide King (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * (I was pinged above.) If this refers to the Google Scholar/JSTOR searches above, if you add quotation marks to those searches to specifically search for "libertarian movement" and not all mentions of +libertarian +movement, the overwhelming majority refer to the modern, American, market, right-libertarianism. Only a few refer to the "libertarian movement" in Spain, which is used interchangeably with the anarchist/anarchosyndicalist movement. This is the type of usage that is rectified with a hatnote, but the primary topic should be straightforwardly not left-libertarianism. (not watching, please )  czar  21:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless you can show that User:Czar's search is wrong, I agree entirely with his comments on method and his conclusion. Doug Weller  talk 09:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * fwiw, I'll add that, if preferable, adding the qualifier "modern" (i.e., "modern libertarian movement"), as a significant number of sources do, will make the title unambiguous. This all said, while I do think "[modern] libertarian movement" is the proper title for the concept that is currently spread between multiple articles (Libertarianism in the United States, right-libertarianism, libertarianism), I gave a rationale above for why "right-libertarianism" should point to a different article's section on terminology, even if most of its contents are merged elsewhere. I'm also working on a draft that might be helpful for this discussion, but it needs more time. (not watching, please  )  czar  12:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've actually done that. I still get non-American libertarianism related results, especially top ones on JSTOR. Either way, 's proposal is misleading, for actually proposed moving Libertarianism in the United States (not Right-libertarianism as JLMadrigal seems to imply) to Libertarian movement, therefore this discussion has no reason to exist, at least here.--Davide King (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think "modern" is necessary since, as mentioned by ,
 * if you ... specifically search for "libertarian movement" and not all mentions of +libertarian +movement, the overwhelming majority refer to the modern, American, market, right-libertarianism.
 * Davide has not convincingly disproven this. JLMadrigal   @  01:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the modern quaifier is actually necessary since it's indeed used and as correctly stated by a significant number of sources do [so]. Well, I think that the mention of non-American libertarianism in the top, most relevant results doesn't make it so easy. I think it warrants Libertarian movement being a disambiguation page that links to Anarchism in Spain and Libertarianism in the United States, although I still think Libertarian movement could just link to Libertarianism since it discusses both and Libertarian movement (disambiguation) or Libertarian movements linking to Anarchism in Spain and Libertarianism in the United States.
 * Either way, I think this is based on a misunderstanding because wrote here "Libertarianism in the United States" makes this sound like the American subset of a Libertarianism when the lede introduces the concept foremost as a movement that happens to be predominantly American in background, but that wasn't my intention, since I mostly wrote the current lead. Libertarianism in the United States is supposed to be about exactly what the name is implying, just like all other similar named articles such as Conservatism in the United States, Liberalism in the United States et al. Right-libertarianism is supposed to be the [libertarian] movement that happens to be predominantly American in background but that has expanded worldwide since the 1970s, so it's no longer about in the United States only; and right-libertarianism is used in reliable sources and is the most common unambiguous name, notwithstanding JLMadrigal's denial.--Davide King (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The Libertarianism in the US article should probably stay. There's a lot more in there than the large vague predominant phenomena. History, evolution of the term, other forms present in the US (for example complete complete philosophies) So, this info is outside of the main movement, and too detailed to caver in any of the other articles. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So the hatnote referred to by before the lede to the Libertarian movement page (THIS article slightly modified) will need to be something like:  and since "right-libertarianism" should point to a different article's section on terminology
 * The article in question will probably need to be libertarianism (for now) - until and unless a new title is determined for that page.
 * , While I agree that Libertarianism in the United States should stay, I don't see a conflict between the content of THIS article and the libertarian movement - other than Davide's coatrack edit rampage of adding "right-" to every occurance of "libertarian" and "capitalist" to every occurance of "free market". Both the "vague" libertarian movement and the detailed libertarian philosophy which is the catalyst for the modern libertarian movement can be discussed here. JLMadrigal   @  14:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , so do you agree with my understanding that Libertarianism in the United States should be about libertarianism in the United States (i.e. as it is now) and Right-libertarianism about the [libertarian] movement that happens to be predominantly American in background but that has expanded worldwide since the 1970s, so it's no longer about in the United States only?, first you suggest I should get blocked again and now you accuse me of coatrack edit rampage of adding "right-" to every occurance of "libertarian" and "capitalist" to every occurance of "free market", you clearly have something against me, for (I hope you can comment again because I'm getting tired of JLMadrigal's biases and now sneakly attempting to have this page renamed Libertarian movement when Czar was clearly referring to Libertarianism in the United States, not this one) and I told you many, many times why is that; and now you're basically saying the main libertarian article should be about your own type of libertarianism? I don't think so. For one, the proposal was to move Libertarianism in the United States, not this article, to Libertarian movement, but that proposal itself was based on the misunderstanding that it was anything other than libertarianism  the United States, hence the current naming. And yes, other libertarians than your own support private property and free markets. They simply give them a different meaning (ironically the original one too), like one shouldn't receive income for the simple virtue of owning something, especially when it was acquired through the state or the labour of others; that one should make continuous use of property to own it; or that there're should simply be free access so that everyone actually have property and so there's no more the have and the have nots.--Davide King (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S., why should the hatnote reads for the traditional libertarian ideology, see Left-libertarianism? The traditional libertarian ideology is still called libertarianism. You only care about right-libertarianism being called as such; you don't care about the same being applied to left-libertarianism; you only care about right-libertarianism having the right- prexfx, you don't care about left-libertarianism having the left- prefix when they too simply call themselves libertarians or refer to ther ideology as libertarian or libertarianism without any prefix. You're only concerned about right-libertarianism and basically want to make sure that right-libertarianism isn't called as such anymore, despite having many sources and other users against you on this. That is your double standard and bias in favour of your own brand of libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm too busy to properly keep up here, but thanks Davide for carrying on in my absence and I agree with pretty much everything you've said. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide, answering your question, for those who use the "right libertarian" term, I don't know which strands they use it for. I've seldom heard the term except in Wikipedia. Answers from even the proponents of the term here have significantly varied which reinforces the fact that IMO it is not a consistent distinct topic.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reading this article, I read it again, I can see that it does not describe or cover the big vague form of US libertarianism. (though it does cover some US libertarian philosophies)  I know that this is hard to believe, because you are seeing it through about 3 lenses.  One is by trying to define it by it's differences from unusual forms. Like if your article on people in Greece defined them as the ones who don't do bull fights and don't own snow shovels, and don't practice cannibalism.  The second is by trying to define it as fully developed philosophies.   Third,  it takes things a range of things  tacitly accepted as the norm and pretends that those are things advocated by that movement. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I hope can reply you to this too. I don't think that's really hard to understand actually. The sources we use it clearly refer to Rothbardian and Nozickian libertarianism as right-libertarianism, including the other philosophies that are listed. Again, I ask you, since you didn't reply about it, do you agree with my understanding that Libertarianism in the United States should be about libertarianism in the United States (i.e. as it is now) and Right-libertarianism about the [libertarian] movement that happens to be predominantly American in background but that has expanded worldwide since the 1970s, so it's no longer about in the United States only? The thing is that's the way is distiguished in reliable sources, that's how it's defined and they all agree or support the private ownership of land and capitalism. Whether they do tacitly accept that as the norm or make a passionate endorsement of capitalism, it's not something that is pretended to be advocated by the movement but rather that's what reliable sources say about the difference between different forms of libertarianism. All main ideologies articles are like this; they don't have just a main article, they usually have one or more subarticles that better describe the different forms of that ideology; and especially in the case of libertarianism, where the two forms largely agree with a series of concepts but have drastically different conclusions, I think it's useful to have these two articles.--Davide King (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't debating anything in my last posts, just trying to be helpful to you. Answering your questions, IMO  Libertarianism in the United States should be about everything to do with libertarianism in the United states.  History, philosophies, the current giant vague movement, etc.  I don't have an opinion on what forms of libertarianism should be covered in this article.  I DO have an an opinion on what this article does NOT currently cover, and that is the giant vague US movement. This article is limited to talking only about the philosophies of full scope philosophies. Talking only philosophy is not coverage of it, and it is not a full scope philosophy.   <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * North, could you please link us to an article somewhere else that is just about "the giant vague US movement", so we can get a better picture what you're talking about there? Because I'm not clear what you mean if not just "all libertarianism as practiced in the US", which it seems you don't if you think Libertarianism in the United States doesn't cover it yet. And I presume you don't mean the Libertarian Party (United States) since we have an article on that already too. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , but this article shouldn't be covering that because it's specifically about the [libertarian] movement that happens to be predominantly American in background but that has expanded worldwide since the 1970s, so it's no longer about in the United States only; and the current naming shouldn't even be so controversial as outside the United States is more used and there shouldn't really be any controversy about it. I join in asking you what exactly you mean by that. Do you mean the polls that we already mention at Libertarianism in the United States? In that case, it really isn't a political ideology but rather a political typology and certainly not the only one either. It's very simple, you can create a section at Libertarianism in the United States that discusses this, or you can create an article titled Libertarian (U.S. political typology) if it's big enough to be a new article and not just a section. See this relevant comment by . That seems to be what you're actually referring to.--Davide King (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that you both misunderstood me, and it was my fault.  I'll try to do better, here goes:
 * I wasn't debating anything in my last posts, just trying to be helpful to you. Answering your questions, IMO  Libertarianism in the United States should be about everything to do with libertarianism in the United states.  History, philosophies, the current giant vague movement, etc. It's a pretty good article.  It does cover the giant vague movement, albeit probably insufficiently.  I don't have an opinion on what forms of libertarianism should be covered in this Right-libertarianism article.  I DO have an opinion that this article does NOT currently cover giant vague US movement. This article is limited to talking only about the philosophies of full scope philosophies. Talking only philosophy is not coverage of the giant vague movement, and the giant vague movement is not a full scope philosophy<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , still, could you tell us what you mean by that giant, vague movement? Because to me it seems to be the political typology The Four Deuces talked about in the comment I linked. Especially since you wrote Libertarianism in the United States should be about everything to do with libertarianism in the United states. History, philosophies, the current giant vague movement, etc. It's a pretty good article. It does cover the giant vague movement, albeit probably insufficiently, then please tell us what's missing and what could be added so we can improve that. As I said, this article doesn't and shouldn't be covering that giant, vague movement, which is better covered at Libertarianism in the United States. Could you please clarify what you mean by This article is limited to talking only about the philosophies of full scope philosophies? In the Schools of thought section, we list philosophies that have been commonly referred to as being right-libertarian or part of it, just like we do at Left-libertarianism, do you have a problem with this and why? What do you think could be improved about it?--Davide King (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO nothing in my last post was about significant problems. I was just discussing.  I do think that there is something that you don't understand (about 1 of your three "lenses"  :-) which I think that you would find interesting and useful if I were able to convey it, which so far I have been unable to do. There's a saying here that if your tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  Probably near 99% of European libertarianism and maybe  40% of US libertarianism is best described as fully developed philosophies, and where the philosopher/author who developed them is a large part of any coverage. So your tool/ hammer for writing libertarian articles is to discuss philosophies which works well for the 99%/40%.  The other 1%/60% is not well covered by that tool. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still unclear what you mean, and just curious for better understanding in this conversation going forward, about the "the big vague form of libertarianism". I am of course, as an American myself, quite familiar with there being lots of people with vaguely libertarian-leaning political inclinations but no rigorous philosophical grounding beneath them (though it's usually clear from their expressed opinions that they've picked up their ideas indirectly from people in the Nolan/Rothbard/Nozick strand that is the topic of this article Right-libertarianism). But I'm not really sure what it is about that that is its own topic, rather than just a bunch of people who are casually (right-)libertarian, in the same way that there are lots of people who are casually any-other-political-orientation without really knowing the rigorous philosophical grounding or history behind those views. I'm not trying to be combative here, I'm just genuinely unsure what you mean.
 * For comparison, I'm aware of a big vaguely left-leaning political bloc in the US many of whom are unversed on the details of the philosophy or history underlying things in that direction, who generally vote Green or often bite the bullet and vote Democrat (in much the way that the vague libertarians you might be talking about might generally vote Libertarian or often bite the bullet and vote Republican), but I don't see what about those people particularly needs wikipedia coverage, apart from articles like Progressivism or Leftism or Social liberalism, or Modern liberalism in the United States. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 100% what wrote., I still don't understand what exactly you mean by that and though the lens, esepcially because I can clearly see it and I'm familar with lots of people with vaguely libertarian-leaning political inclinations but no rigorous philosophical grounding beneath them, despite not being American. So I see what you're referring to as what Pfhorrest wrote and we're American and European, respectively. I remember you discussed a draft to discuss this (I found it here) and I wouldn't have a problem creating a Political typology section at Libertarianism in the United States that include the copy editing of the first two paragraphs of the draft, if that could help to clarify whilst keeping things as they are and working to improve them from there.--Davide King (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

and thanks for those posts. Again, I'm bringing this up here to hopefully be helpful rather than to say that there is any big problem. Pfhorrest, you doubtless mostly understand what I'm getting at although you might be missing one distinction. If someone in the US says that they are a conservative, and you asked them what their political viewpoints are, an average person could list conservative viewpoints on 10 or 20 topics. Ask that of a typical US person identifying as a libertarian, they'd cover that aspect of their politics as just "more freedom, less government" or as a corner of the Nolan chart ("fiscally conservative, socially liberal"). BTW they would also overwhelmingly vote Democrat or Republican rather than Libertarian party. Regarding article development, my main note would be advice to David to take it easy on adding more philosophy stuff to the US libertarian article. Finally, as the two strongest proponents of the status quo here, you two probably need to be the ones to decide whether or not to included the large vague US libertarianism in this article. While tacitly accepting capitalism and private ownership of resources, those are just differentiators from the European meaning of the term, not defining elements of the big vague US form. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I still think this Four Deuce's comment is the crux of the matter. Full quote:
 * IOW it is the quarter of the Nolan chart that is socially liberal and economically conservative (as those terms are used in the U.S.) Maybe "Libertarian (political typology)?" In any case, this article is more about ideology than typology. The same thing could be said about the liberal typology. Democratic socialists for example are not liberals and don't base their opinions on liberal ideology but nonetheless score higher than actual liberals in the Pew typology. If as you say most libertarian voters can't name any libertarian philosophers, there's little need to mention them.
 * Libertarianism in the United States also already writes things like these:

According to common meanings of conservatism and liberalism in the United States, libertarianism has been described as conservative on economic issues (economic liberalism) and liberal on personal freedom (civil libertarianism),[9] often associated with a foreign policy of non-interventionism.[10][11] Some libertarians are present within the Libertarian, Republican (see Libertarian Republicans) and Democratic (see Libertarian Democrats) parties while others are independent. Through twenty polls on this topic spanning thirteen years, Gallup found that voters who are libertarian on the political spectrum ranged from 17–23% of the American electorate.[43] However, a 2014 Pew Poll found that 23% of Americans who identify as libertarians have no idea what libertarian actually means.[44] In the 21st century, libertarian groups have been successful in advocating tax cuts and regulatory reform. While some argue that the American public as a whole shifted away from libertarianism following the fall of the Soviet Union, citing the success of multinational organizations such as NAFTA and the increasingly interdependent global financial system,[119] others argue that libertarian ideas have moved so far into the mainstream that many Americans who do not identify as libertarian now hold libertarian views.[120] Circa 2006 polls find that the views and voting habits of between 10 and 20 percent (increasing) of voting age Americans may be classified as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal, or libertarian".[121][122] This is based on pollsters and researchers defining libertarian views as fiscally conservative and culturally liberal (based on the common United States meanings of the terms) and against government intervention in economic affairs and for expansion of personal freedoms.[121] Through 20 polls on this topic spanning 13 years, Gallup found that voters who are libertarian on the political spectrum ranged from 17–23% of the electorate.[43] While libertarians make up a larger portion of the electorate than the much-discussed "soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads", this is not widely recognized as most of these vote for Democratic and Republican party candidates, leading some libertarians to believe that dividing people's political leanings into "conservative", "liberal" and "confused" is not valid.[123]

In the United States, libertarians may emphasize economic and constitutional rather than religious and personal policies, or personal and international rather than economic policies[124] [...].
 * I still think that's the closest thing to what you're referring to, if not the thing itself. In response to your question, I think that's more appropriate for Libertarianism in the United States rather than here. However, I don't understand what exactly you're referring to when you wrote to take it easy on adding more philosophy stuff to the US libertarian article? I didn't, did I? If you're referring to the political typology stuff, that really isn't philosophical.--Davide King (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree with all of the above with a few caveats, one of them being to note that in a few places it uses the European/world meaning of liberal to discuss US politics. That is fine, but needs noting. In the US "liberal" pretty strongly means/includes advocating expansion of the welfare state. Regarding "take it easy on adding more philosophy stuff to the US libertarian article"  I think that everything you've done there is fine, but I wouldn't take that general "tip" of the article towards philosophical much further.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for POV check
Since the required edits above are not being made, I have nominated this page to be POV checked. No evidence has been produced to disprove and 's above demonstration that, according to reliable sources, the libertarian movement overwhelmingly refers to the philosophy described in this article. While self-identified "left-libertarians" do exist, they are a tiny minority. Using the title "right-libertarianism" to describe all other libertarians constitutes a WP:coatrack article. JLMadrigal  @  02:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the required edits such as this was already explained by here why it wasn't helpful, if not outright wrong. You also seem to be the only one to dispute its neutrality and now you're back to PhilLiberty's argument by writing it's used by detractors from mainstream libertarianism, something which was already rejected in the move back in August. This is about a global libertarian movement and as such there's no neutrality issue, for only in the United States and by libertarians like you it seems to be so since as argued by Jennifer Carlson right-libertarianism is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States, something that Pfhorrest and I have been trying to make you understand to death such as here, but apparently with no use. You also misunderstood Czar and Doug Weller as they were talking about and referring to Libertarianism in the United States, not to what we have here which is global and broader than that.--Davide King (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A WP:coatrack article is a POV used to "to make a point about something else." The concept of dividing libertarianism into left and right in line with Marxist ideology originates from a POV of self-identified "left-libertarians" that attempts to make a clear distinction between free markets and "laissez-faire capitalism" and between "personal property" and other types of property - a nuanced interpretation that is not made by or even intelligible to the target group (whose WP:commonname is simply "libertarian"). JLMadrigal   @  00:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This comment just further reveals all your political biases. What does [t]he concept of dividing libertarianism into left and right in line with Marxist ideology even mean? already clearly explained you why is that and how the political spectrum works and is about, whether you personally like it or not. We already have Free market which isn't about only capitalism. [A]ttempts to make a clear distinction between free markets and "laissez-faire capitalism", are you implying that free markets are all about capitalism? Whether you like it or not, there isn't just one type property or even property rights which you seem to reduce again all and only to capitalism. This seems to disagree with you. Either way, it's simply wrong to say that's it's just a POV of self-identified "left-libertarians" and the target group (whose WP:commonname is simply "libertarian") apply to so-called left-libertarians as well, but apparently for you that doesn't apply to them.--Davide King (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Marx's Labor theory of value, for example, makes the value of something dependent on the labor used to produce it. Mainstream libertarians reject this archaic view, and concur with modern economists that value (as reflected in price) is determined by supply and demand. The heterodox ("left") view of capitalism views it as a class struggle between labour and capital - a concept that is foreign to mainstream libertarianism and its intellectual basis economic liberalism. Under caste systems and mercantilism - which ALL libertarians oppose - such distinctions may have some value. JLMadrigal   @  07:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, what does this even has to do with it? Marx's labour theory of value, which he never called as such anyway and is more rtelated to the Ricardians, is commonly misunderstood. By the way, Marx wasn't certainly the first one to talk about or discuss class struggle and the conflict between labour and capital; liberals did that. Again, you act like your own brand of libertarianism is the be-all and end-all. As correctly pointed out by, your own brand of mainstream libertarianism is relatively new as a movement (notwithstanding the fact you may say or think it's always esisted like capitalism). I hope can give you a better reply.--Davide King (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm still too swamped and exhausted to keep up here lately, but as usual I agree with pretty much everything Davide has been saying. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The terms "right" and "capitalism" are politically charged. In common use, "right" refers to the political right (national identity, conservatism, &c) which is antithetical to all libertarians except for libertarian conservatives - which this article doesn't describe. "Capitalism" as used by libertarians (except for a small minority) is synonymous with free markets. JLMadrigal   @  12:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The terms "right" and "capitalism" are politically charged, that seems to be your own personal, (right-)libertarian opinion. That's not according to our own sourced articles and isn't something new either (see Sinistrisme). The terms communism and socialism are the political charged ones, with the first used to refer to Marxist–Leninist regimes and the second used to refer from fascism to social liberalism to actual socialism, hence why I wanted to use Marxism–Leninism in place of communism because that's what the source itself's referring to (basically the same argument as 's analogy here), but no consensus was reached and I moved on; maybe you should do the same. You may disagree with the terms, but that's what reliables source and political scientists use. Both Pfhorrest and I told you many times that right- is used in relation to the libertarian political spectrum (whether you disagree with that doesn't matter, Rothbard himself identified with the left too, but what matters are reliable sources, not primary sources), although reliable sources indeed see it as part of the New Right, whether you agree with it or not. Finally, let me explain to you that Libertarian conservatism is mainly an American phenomen while Right-libertarianism is gobal, hence the distinction.--Davide King (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I had not heard of sinistrisme before. Thanks for linking that, it's an interesting concept, and yes very applicable here. (TL;DR for Madrigal et al: economic liberalism was once left, yes, but in the wake of socialism it is now comparatively right). --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Aside from not being commonly used by reliable sources, the term "right" when used in this context is misleading and divisive. When used by economic collectivists, it essentially refers to anyone who is not economically collectivist, and flags "capitalism" as a form of "wage slavery" - a concept that is foreign to everyone except for economic collectivists ("socialists"). But even worse, it completely overlooks the non-collectivist view of personal (as opposed to economic) liberties held by mainstream libertarians (the group described in this article) which is antithetical to the "right". JLMadrigal  @  12:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Aside from not being commonly used by reliable sources, except the article has sources that use the term. [T]he term "right" when used in this context is misleading and divisive, that seems to be your only POV and isn't even something knew as shown by sinistrisme. Furthermore, what matters is what reliable sources say. While what those libertarians say or think is important, ultimately it's non-primary sources that are the ones that matters in relation to that. Furthermore, I think the template is misleading as you seem to be the only one to have a problem with it and that your arguments amount to (right-)libertarian talking points. Those libertarians you describe as economically collectivist, besides disagreeing with the term (see Economic individualism), could just as easily argue that capitalism really is collectivist, for the capitalist appropriate the value created by the workers with their labour, whether you disagree with it; besides, by your own libertarian homestead principle it could be argued that the workers themselves, rather than the capitalist, should be the rightful owners, for they mixed their labour in creating the factories, etc. that are owned by the capitalist by the simple virtue of owning capital or property (see Unearned income). So as you can see, it isn't as black and white as you may describe it.--Davide King (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah this continued focus on "collectivism" vs "individualism" just shows that you (Madrigal) still don't understand the issues in discussion here. For example there are individualist anarchists who, being anarchists, are still socialists. "Socialism" doesn't mean "collectivism". --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This underlines my point. To pigeonhole the libertarian movement as "right of center" is not only incorrect but incoherent. It is impossible to nail down the concept of "right-libertarianism" for the very reasons you mention. The only ammo you have against modern libertarianism is nuanced terminology used by those who WP:coatrack the movement - such as you.  JLMadrigal   @  15:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

How does that underlines your point? Not me nor did pigeonhole the libertarian movement as "right of center". You write that [i]t is impossible to nail down the concept of "right-libertarianism" for the very reasons you mention, except there're sources that do exactly that and we have them in the article. You need to realise that so-called modern libertarianism isn't just your own brand of libertarianism or American libertarianism. I also reitarate you that this article is global in scope and is about a specific type of libertarianism in the United States that has expanded in other countries and has been called or referred to as right-libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)