Talk:Right-libertarianism/Archive 8

The Topic Sentence
Eyes on the ball please. The topic sentence. It must include one or more of the following terms (or something very similar): "disambiguate" "differentiate" "grouping" "used by". Can we at least settle on one of these, so we can begin fixing the topic sentence? JLMadrigal  @  17:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All of those sound like they’re meant for a aentence describing a term. The topic of this article is not a term, so that is not appropriate. Look at the body of the article. Is it mostly discussing a term, or a political philosophy? —Pfhorrest (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The term (the title of the article) is used to describe a group of philosophies meant by the term (the meat of the article). Compare it with the articles linked above. Can you come up with a better word to resolve this topic sentence issue? JLMadrigal   @  18:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the term is used to describe the philosophies. The article is about those philosophies, not about the term used for them. It's appropriate to make note of the terminological issues pertaining to the philosophies, but that's not the principal topic of the article, so the topic sentence should not focus on the term, but on what it refers to.
 * This really seems like you just need to WP:WIN here. The very first sentence after the topic sentence is already talking about terminology. You can't get any more prominent than that in an article that is not principally about terminology, which this one is not.
 * Look at Unicorn, which begins with "The unicorn is a legendary creature...". Do you think that that implies that unicorns are real? There's a better argument for that article being about a word (since there is really nothing more to unicorns than the words said about them) than for this one, yet it's not. -Pfhorrest (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point but if you analyze it I think it supports a change rather that that status quo. It immediately identifies it as what the topic is .... a mythical creature. The parallel case would be to immediately identify it as name for a grouping of strands of libetarianism by certain taxonomists. Without that, the wording implies that it is much more than that. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But right-libertarianism isn't a name for a grouping of strands of libertarianism, it is that grouping of strands. Likewise, a unicorn isn't a name for a legendary creature, it is the legendary creature. Right-libertarianism isn't a name for a class or type or grouping or whatever of libertarianism, it is that class or type or grouping or whatever of libertarianism. "Right-libertarianism" (with quotes; read use-mention distinction, please) is the most common unambiguous name for that class or type or grouping or whatever, but this article isn't about the name, it's about the thing it names. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The following articles each begin with "is a term used by" in the topic sentence and then go on to describe the topic. Central New York Region goes on to describe the region, Hafiz (Quran) goes on to describe the people, Patayan goes on to describe the cultures, Alternative R&B goes on to describe the characteristics of that style of music, Constantinian shift goes on to describe the historical context of the shift, &c. This is just a random sample of hundreds of articles. So beginning the article this way doesn't necessitate having the article exclusively about the term itself. JLMadrigal   @  02:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I just wrote that my issue isn't with starting an article like that; it's starting this specific article, which isn't merely about the term as concisely explained by, that is the issue, so please stop making such examples. You also didn't reply to the example which is relevant and close (politics, not merely any article about terms), Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism (with Populism being a similar broad concept like Libertarianism). That's a similar categorization and there's no word about that, unlike here; the populist left/right, the libertarian left/right, the authoritarian left/right, etc. are political concepts and not merely terms to categorise them. Indeed, all two-words articles (Conservative liberalism, Democratic socialism, Liberal conservatism, etc.) are some sort of categorization but they all refer to political philosophy. Even in your given examples, we still have World music which first establishes what it is and only the final paragraph (here it's the second phrase) talks about the term. I have to agree with Pfhorrest that this really seems like you just want to WP:WIN here. Not only that, but you still attack me or act like both Pfhorrest and I didn't do anything to come close to you, change wording for compromise (The very first sentence after the topic sentence is already talking about terminology. You can't get any more prominent than that), etc. but it's never enough until you get exactly what you want (i.e. WIN), all the while making fun of me as the editor-in-chief.--Davide King (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, I never said you were the same | David King. I was just pointing out that setting an admitted Marxist-Leninist loose on a page dealing with economic liberalism would be counterproductive, at best. There was no personal attack, since you are not a Marxist-Leninist, right? So please stop making these accusations and let's fix the blasted topic sentence, OK comrade? JLMadrigal   @  12:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * North wrote that [i]t immediately identifies it as what the topic is .... [sic] a mythical creature but that's exactly what we do here when we write type of libertarianism (do you even deny that the term itself refers to a type of libertarianism?). Other than this, I think has been pretty clear and concise (I hope you can comment more like now because you make my points more concise and clear, so thank you); and gave the best argument, all things considered. I think the issue is that you don't recognise this and so you think merely in terms of the term.--Davide King (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My answer would be that it isn't a type of libertarianism, it is a grouping of types of libertarianism. "Type" singular would require the the real world uses that grouping and naming, which it doesn't.   And the Wiki-arbiter for that is use in reliable sources. And my study I did shows that it isn't to the tune of zero usage in over 1000 wp:RS instances.   What you are referring to as usage in reliable sources is going to the people that are creating meta-groupings and naming them....a self-fufilling prophecy (rather than a test) and not the Wikipedia standard.North8000 (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I say it indeed is a type of libertarianism as all of this grouping share the common tenets of natural resources being originally unowned and hence they may be appropriated at-will by private parties without the consent of, or owing to, others, among other things. Do you disagree with type? Then maybe theory would be matter? Either way, the crux of the matter is that right-libertarianism isn't a name for a grouping of strands of libertarianism, it is that grouping of strands; and also that's not the same results I got when I searched on Google Scholar or JSTOR. Most of the sources you searched were still referring to right-libertarianism but simply called it libertarianism because, as written many times and as written in reliable sources, right-libertarianism is the dominant version of libertarianism in the United States. I'm curious about what or how would reply to this latter point you raised, so I hope it cane clarified to you too.--Davide King (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're addressed North pretty well already Davide, and thanks for your continued vigilance here. (My life is kinda falling apart as a side-effect of coronavirus-induced economic panic, so I might not have much presence here for a while). North, I think your concern about the name being created by taxonomists is completely unfounded. Of course taxonomists are the people who create names for categories of things. Do you complain that we (the encyclopedia) don't call chimpanzees "monkeys" despite common usage, just because some biological taxonomists decided that "monkey" refers to a specific group of animals that does not include chimps? Of course not. Nobody has ever disputed that in common parlance the topic of this article is referred to as just "libertarianism". The problem is that other things are called by that same name. So we turn to reliable sources that discuss those different things, and see what they call them to differentiate them. That thing that they call this to differentiate it from other things called "libertarianism" is, so far as I can tell, unanimously, "right-libertarianism". What other term have you found in any reliable sources for the topic of this article as distinguished from other topics also commonly called "libertarianism"? Anything at all? --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you and I'm sorry about that, let's hope things goes back to normality as soon as possible; your presence is really helpful and I think here you outlined my point as well. To add to what has been already written by Pfhorrest, compare Populism (Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism), a more appropriate and relevant comparison. In the latter, it doesn't stop us from starting the article by establishing what it actually refers to, i.e. a political ideology which combines right-wing politics and populist rhetoric and themes, even as we write that [c]lassification of right-wing populism into a single political family has proved difficult and it is not certain whether a meaningful category exists, or merely a cluster of categories since the parties differ in ideology, organization and leadership rhetoric. Unlike traditional parties, they also do not belong to international organizations of like-minded parties, and they do not use similar terms to describe themselves.; and this latter part is written in Definition, not in the lead as we do here.--Davide King (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I reiterate the current model here since neither of you (JLMadrigal and North8000) replied to that. I think years ago the reverse was true, i.e. Libertarianism was only about American libertarianism and right-libertarianism; and so back then it was criticised and I think the compromise was the current model. JLMadrigal complains that Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism implies a split, but that's exactly what it was before the current model as it gave sole priority to American and right-libertarianism in the main libertarian article while now it actually doesn't treat them as separate things; and the left–right categorisation is mainly about libertarian theory and the means, not the ends which both agree (this is done for pretty much any political ideology); that's why for all their differences, they're both within some common tradition and sharing common tenets that make them part of libertarianism. I think Pfhorrest made a similar example in that we may as well have Left-libertarianism be called International libertarianism and Right-libertarianism be called American libertarianism, but the common name used are left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism; and there would be other problematic issues because Amercian libertarianism is no longer relegated to the United States and indeed Right-libertarianism is about the expansion of that outside it since the 1970s while Libertarianism in the United States is broader like Libertarianism in that it also includes left-libertarianism and other types that do not fit either.--Davide King (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

In response to this, you haven't been really clear when you wrote that and it really looked like you were insinuating that was me. What did that even have anything to do with what we were discussing about; that wasn't even a Wikipedia user. Either way, that still makes no sense. Are you implying that only libertarians like you should edit and discuss this article? That isn't how it works; Wikipedia works by reliable sources and it doesn't matter what are one's political views as long as one is able to discuss neutrally which you haven't showed. Still, you also called for me to be blocked for merely following the gentlemen's agreement of keeping a stable version when engaged in disputes. You continue to repeat lies like the term implying right-wing politics and fail to understand that Georgism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school aren't anti-capitalist yet they're considered within left-libertarianism; so no, right-libertarianism isn't all the non-anti-capitalist schools as you wrongly implied. Finally, you keep writing things like let's fix the blasted topic sentence but you had almost a year now to get consensus for your proposals and you failed each time. There're still many users who find no issue at all; and even those who find an issue, it may not be the same issue as yours and thus may not require the same change, so we don't even have a consensus on having this big issue you complain about, one that hasn't been convincingly argued (yeah, I'm actually willing to change my mind, but neither of you gave me no reason for doing so). For all its problems, the status quo still remains the best solution, especially when it includes better wording that gives more weight to the term and comes closer to you.--Davide King (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Soooooooo,

yeah, I'm actually willing to change my mind, but neither of you gave me no reason for doing so
 * I would hope this to be the case. Now, what kind of reason would make you amenable to "dropping the stick" and at least letting us fix the topic sentence (making it meet the minimum qualifications for compromise, as stated by North8000 above)? Give us an alternative lede sentence to discuss. Pretty please? JLMadrigal   @  19:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not so simple, it countes for you too, i.e. you too should be willing to change your mind, not just me; and you're the one proposing change, so it's up to you to get consensus, something which you failed to get in all these months. That is notwithstanding all the effort and work both Pfhorrest and I did to meet your demands and compromise wording that would get closer to you as it already is now. So yeah, I think you're just trying to win an argument and have shown a disrupting and non-neutral tendency (again, see right-libertarianism implying right-wing politics which isn't true; and wrongly implying that right-libertarianism includes all but the the anti-capitalist schools when left-libertarianism includes Georgism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school; but even if your latter point was true, if reliable sources do make this separating along socialist and capitalist lines, then we report it and wouldn't change a thing). Finally, these always relevant Aquillion's comments.

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) 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)
 * So I believe it's you who has to drop the stick as you repeatedly failed to get consensus, not me who's merely arguing that things are fine as they are, especially now that Pfhorrest and I made compromise edits that gave more weight to the term and other issues you raised. Now, North may raise issues with there is no issue as for North and JLMadrigal there's this issue of taxonomy, etc. (Aquillion's comments were previous your lead proposal changes); that this is the issue especially for you two, but I believe it's based on false premises or misunderstanding and I redirect you to this comment by Pfhorrest.--Davide King (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So, according to you, even though, as I illustrated, it is common practice in Wikipedia articles to use "is a term used by" in the topic sentence, and, as you now admit, most of these articles are not "about the term", it is still not permissible to do so in this article because some other somewhat similarly structured articles currently do not do so. And while we've been trying for months to clarify the stated and well-cited purpose of the term as disambiguation in the topic sentence, you won't even offer an alternative topic sentence, AND claim that you are "willing to change my (your) mind". Wow! You really don't want this clarification in the topic sentence do you? Who is "POV pushing" (WP:COATRACKING) here? JLMadrigal   @  10:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you really make no sense. I was just saying that not all articles follow that example; and even if they did, while I appreciate consistency, it doesn't mean we should do it too. It should be on a case-by-case analysis and in this case the main topic is a type of libertarianism, whose common unambiguous name is right-libertarianism. Also you still didn't reply about the current model structure (i.e. what each article is about), nor you did reply about my much more pertinent and relevant example (since it's about politics) of Populism (Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism). The bottom line is that your concern about the name being created by taxonomists is completely unfounded as argued by and the current lead is already perfectly fine as it writes The term "right-libertarianism" is used to distinguish this class of views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism; that The very first sentence after the topic sentence is already talking about terminology. You can't get any more prominent than that; and that the article should merely be about the term for us to start the article the way you want, but I don't think that's supported by sources, for right-libertarianism isn't a name for a grouping of strands of libertarianism, it is that grouping of strands and so it is more than just a term, it's a political/philosphical concept. Again, please re-read this relevant comment by Pfhorrest.--Davide King (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't offer an alternative topic sentence because I didn't find one yet as I think the current one is perfectly fine. The whole dispute right now is literally whether the first two phrases should be inverted, but I don't think there should really be any discussion, for the main topic as reflected in the main body is a type or whatever you want to call it of libertarianism, not merely a term. You would have to make the main topic about the term for the lead to reflect that as well. I'm honestly baffled that this discussion is still going on, for your issues and objections are based on false premises or misunderstanding. I still believe hit the nail in the coffin here:

I think your concern about the name being created by taxonomists is completely unfounded. Of course taxonomists are the people who create names for categories of things. Do you complain that we (the encyclopedia) don't call chimpanzees "monkeys" despite common usage, just because some biological taxonomists decided that "monkey" refers to a specific group of animals that does not include chimps? Of course not.
 * Right-libertarianism is the dominant tendency compared to left-libertarianism (I'd say the dominant one is closer to classical liberalism) of libertarianism in the United States that has expanded to many other countries since the 1970s (most libertarian parties follow this tendency). Do you deny this? On the other hand, left-libertarianism is the dominant tendency in Europe and many other countries. These are the main topics, not terms.--Davide King (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I wrote this somewhere but I couldn't find it. My main issue isn't with starting any article with is a term used, although we may simply italicise the term itself and write is used or literally writing what it means and refers to, but I digress. The bottom line is that I have issue with this article starting that way, for the main topic isn't just a term; and the current lead is perfectly fine and you can't get more pertinent than that, it's literally in the second sentence. Now I was going to take you a more relevant and pertinent example, i.e. one related to politics and not literally any article whose main topic is a term and of which I have no issue with, Social fascism; but it actually discusses it as a theory and I was sure it would have been about the term or at least it would have started like that. Either way, we shouldn't look at other articles, especially of completely different and unreleated topics; we should concentrate on this one.--Davide King (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I like the lede now. The italicized disambiguation part addresses my concerns. The lede now makes it clear that "right libertarianism" is a taxonomical label rather than a term someone is likely to use as identification. I still think "libertarian capitalism" is more accurate, but "right libertarian" is more commonly used, albeit mainly by opponents. PhilLiberty (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that's a huge endorsement for the new status quo, and I'm quite happy to hear it! --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to hear that from you among all but I'm happy nonetheless. Thank you. I don't understand how JLMadrigal and North8000 don't feel the same way; I think we made it pretty clear, exactly as you wrote.--Davide King (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Main topic
These are the main topics:
 * 1) Libertarianism is pretty much like all other main ideologies articles (Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, etc.) in that it's written in broad and general terms, including both left-, right- and other types of libertarianism.
 * 2) Libertarianism in the United States is the same thing (i.e. written in broad and general terms, including both left-, right- and other types of libertarianism), just limited to its origins, history and development in the United States (as in similar related articles).
 * 3) Right-libertarianism is basically about the dominant tendency compared to left-libertarianism (I'd say the dominant one is closer to classical liberalism) of libertarianism in the United States that has expanded to many other countries since the 1970s (most libertarian parties follow this tendency).
 * 4) Left-libertarianism is basically about the dominant tendency in Europe and many other countries.

Do you see how both Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism's main topic is a philosophy/tendency/theory/type of libertarianism or whatever you want to call it rather than merely a term? Only the name has been given by taxonomists/sources which makes it the most common, unambiguous name, but the philosophy, etc. remains the same no matter how it's called, it doesn't change; the article is about the philosophy/type, etc., not the term; hence why both articles have also known as; because whether one's called right-libertarianism, libertarian capitalism and right-wing libertarianism, or left-libertarianism, egalitarian libertarianism, left-wing libertarianism and social libertarianism, that doesn't change they all refer to the same respective thing; the main topic (the philosophy/type, etc.) remains the main topic, not the term itself, for which there're others, while the philosophy/type is only one/stay the same irrespective of the name. Just like Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism and similar other secondary articles like Classical liberalism, Conservative liberalism, Democratic socialism, Left-wing nationalism, Liberal conservatism, National conservatism, National liberalism, Social conservatism, Social liberalism, etc.

I think all these are much more relevant and pertinent examples (politics and philosophy) than articles, whose main topic is a term, which unsurprisingly begin stating is a term, of which I have no problem because in that case the term is the main topic, unlike here.--Davide King (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We're mostly going in circles here and I don't want to just keep repeating stuff. But if you are seeking a structural discussion to help sort this out there is one comment I have on that. It's not just an issue of naming for some real world entity.   The "entity" itself exists very little in the real world, it is a grouping of libertarian philosophies made by a small group of people, using criteria selected by that small group of people, using a name created only by that small group of people, and with the grouping and naming being used by only that small group of people. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that is already addressed in 's latest comment here, especially the latest part, which you never replied back.--Davide King (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Life's too short for having me look up blocks of text written by other people taken out of context. If you have something to say say it.  :-)  But one last time I looked that one up.    It's not even applicable to what  I just wrote.  The problem isn't limited to the small group's name for "it", the bigger problem is that the "it" is itself a creation by the small group. (their particular selection of a particular group of strands of libertarianism)  North8000 (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hovering over the link doesn't show the relevant text for you?
 * Anyway, that is exactly applicable to this. Chimps aren't monkeys, because "monkeys" are defined as all Simiformes excluding superfamily Hominoidea, meaning basically the entire parvorder Platyrrhini and the superfamily Cercopithecoidea, and chimps don't fall inside of that paraphyletic taxon. But it's just some tiny group of taxonomists who created that grouping of animals that way, and uses it like that. All of the animals exist, but the grouping of animals is the invention of some taxonomists. Does that mean we shouldn't follow their usage here in Wikipedia? --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A better comparison is the article on the Constantinian shift:

Constantinian shift is a term used by some theologians and historians of antiquity to describe the political and theological aspects and outcomes of the 4th-century process of Constantine's integration of the imperial government with the Catholic Church that began with the First Council of Nicaea.[1] The term was popularized by the Mennonite theologian John H. Yoder.[2]
 * The article goes on to describe the historical context and theological implications of the shift. The article is not "about the term" - whatever that means.
 * Incidentally, in answer to the claim that a Marxist-Leninist editing a page dealing with economic liberalism would not be counterproductive, imagine an imam of a caliphate editing an article on Roman Catholicism without developing into a wp:coatrack article (like this one). Not likely.
 * JLMadrigal  @  02:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think a better comparison would be an article within the same topic (i.e. politics) such as Social fascism.--Davide King (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how

Constantinian shift is the political and theological aspects and outcomes of the 4th-century process of Constantine's integration of the imperial government with the Catholic Church that began with the First Council of Nicaea.[1] The term, popularized by the Mennonite theologian John H. Yoder,[2] is used by some theologians and historians of antiquity.
 * would be much different. However, you forgot to mention that [t]he claim that there ever was a Constantinian shift has been disputed; Peter Leithart argues that there was a "brief, ambiguous 'Constantinian moment' in the fourth century", but that there was "no permanent, epochal 'Constantinian shift'".[3] That's why it doesn't start this way. However, this isn't the same thing here. Right-libertarianism may mainly disputed by a few libertarians since academics (by the way, we already write and aknowledge this, i.e. that those libertarians, like other libertarians, simply call themselves libertarians and refer to it simply as libertariannism) and other reliable sources describes it as a thing per 's comment.--Davide King (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Chimpanzee is another example. We don’t write that it’s a term created by taxonomists; we write that it’s a species of great ape. --Davide King (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to hear 's reply to you below, but I think it's a sufficiently accepted and notable grouping; certainly I disagree with your comment that they're categorised by such useless things like hair diameter (there're clear enough differences that sets the two grouping apart without being two completely different, unreleted theories of philosophy; i.e. they're both still within the libertarian family). If you disagree based on that old research of yours, then I have to repeat my belief that your research was flawled and many of those sources were American libertarian themselves. Either way, one major issue for your proposal is that the leads needs to reflect the main body and vice versa; and your proposal doesn't reflect that.--Davide King (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * David, on your last sentence, the article already has huge structural problems with the lead being a summary of what's in the body and I figured we could deal with that later. That would be tripping over ants to let that stop some type of a pragmatic compromise. North8000 (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Then I think we ought to deal with that now. There can't be any pragmatic compromise for the lead otherwise (although there's already been a few, but that stil wasn't enough) because in my opinion the main topic of the article should be describing the libertarian theory, not the term or categorisation as you argue. We are just going to be in circle and wasting our times. I'm not going to support the article starting as either of you have proposed; and you aren't going to accept the current lead. Still, if PhilLiberty, of all people, could support this lead, I don't see why at least one of you two couldn't either. You disagree that left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are a sufficiently well-accepted, widely used grouping and as the common name for it as you put it. I have to agree to disagree with you on this.--Davide King (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

, when you wrote "All of the animals exist, but the grouping of animals is the invention of some taxonomists. Does that mean we shouldn't follow their usage here in Wikipedia?", that question goes to the heart of one of the main issues here. My answer would be that if the grouping and naming is widely used, (e.g. "primates") that the answer is not only "yes" but that it can be used as a way to cover and organize coverage of those critters in Wikipedia. E.G treat "primate" as a well-accepted, widely used grouping and as the common name for it. If not (for example, if a few taxonomists categorized primates by average hair diameter, and called the resultant groups "right-primates" for >.010" dia. and "left-primates" for those < .010") then their method and naming should be given a few sentences in the  "primate" article, clearly identified as being a grouping and naming method, and certainly not be used as a way to cover primates or organize coverage of primates in Wikipedia. And there should certainly be no wording or positioning that implies that those groupings and namings are the commonly used ones. North8000 (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * that question goes to the heart of one of the main issues here Yes, I made that analogy specifically to address that issue that you raised.
 * The point of the analogy is that to the common person, who is not well-educated in the taxonomy of primates, "primate", "simian", "monkey", and "ape" are all more or less the same thing, and so a chimpanzee counts as a monkey to them. But "monkeys" aren't "all primates", not even "all simians", not even all Simiformes, a taxon that common people aren't even aware of; "monkey" isn't even a sensible (monophyletic) grouping to begin with, it's just the combination of the two otherwise unrelated extant subgroups of Simiformes that aren't apes. (Old World monkeys are more closely related to apes than the are to the other, New World monkeys). But in the most common usage, none of that is accounted for, and "chimps are monkeys" sounds perfectly true. Only among taxonomists and other well-educated people who pay attention to taxonomies like that are these kinds of distinctions made.
 * The same is true of types of libertarianism. Your average man on the street doesn't know about different libertarian taxonomies. Even your average libertarian doesn't know about different libertarian taxonomies, any more than your average human (an ape) knows about the difference between monkeys and apes. But that's not an excuse to ignore the taxonomies created by academics in this, an academic resource, the encyclopedia. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * First, one sidebar, since ideologies have less inherent structure than e.g. animal life, here I've been referring to that group as "taxonomists engaged in creating such meta-groupings of libertarianism." IMO unlike with libertarianism,animal taxonomists are more discovering groupings than creating them) Now, following along the lines that you wrote, the animal terms where there is an inherent structural, widely defined basis for the grouping (e.g ancestry) are treated as subjects in the normal manner in Wikipedia. For the one that is not, (monkey) the first sentence of the lead of wikipedia article is "Monkey is a common name that may refer to...." and then the first section of the article is titled   '"Historical and modern terminology"'  "According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word "monkey" may originate in a German version of...."  i.e. covering the term aspect.  Would you not agree that we have at least somewhat similar situation here?  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I hope can reply about that, but even if you were right, that would support the lead starting Right-libertarianism is a term that refers to a political philosophy and type of libertarianism [...] rather than your Right-libertarianism is a term used by [...]; even Monkey still first establishes the topic, i.e. what the term actually means or refer to (cf. groups or species of mammals vis-à-vis political philosophy and type of libertarianism). Just like the current lead, Monkey first establishes the topic and what the term actually refers to and then the second sentence starts with "The term" exactly as here. I think in that case common name refers to Common name rather than to Common name. Then again, why not straight telling what right-libertarianism actually means and is used for? Sources refer to it as a version of libertarianism or one major camp[s] of libertarian thought, not as a mere term. Only the term itself is taxonomised, not the topic.--Davide King (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How about

Right-libertarianism is a term used to [...]
 * JLMadrigal  @  03:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be better than your other proposals as it would at least first establish the topic, but I think it's unnecessary. We can simply say straightly what it actually means and refers to; and it still doesn't solve the issue of not being a term as sources refer to it as version of libertarianism or one major camp[s] of libertarian thought, i.e. as a political philosophy and type of libertarianism, not a term itself. In political-related articles, we usually start by saying is a political ideology, is a political philosophy and variant of [...], etc. I don't see how is that different here. Right-libertarianism isn't treated as a term (see example).--Davide King (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WTF is the difference between a "term" and a "word"? JLMadrigal   @  11:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe starting with Davide's "Right-libertarianism is a term that refers to a political philosophy and type of libertarianism" we have something? BTW, regarding the sources argument, in the context of our current debate/ the current question,  I would not call those sources, I would call them creators. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that would be redundant, and not touch on the issue. "Right-libertarianism" is, first and foremost, a disambiguator. This is what needs to be in the topic sentence. JLMadrigal   @  12:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How aren't those sources? North, it seems to be that you see right-libertarianism as a only grouping that include all these schools of thought we list, but it's mainly a political philosophy and type of libertarianism. The Schools of thought section is merely listing philosophy that has been described as being right-libertarian or within that philosophy. Furthermore, you seem to deny that right-libertarianism represents a political philosophy and type of libertarianism, but that's exactly how sources, or creators as you writes, describes it. JLMadrigal, only the term is disambiguating because libertarianism is much broader than those libertarians who support private ownership of natural resources, etc. They simply made us a favour in deciding how to call secondary sub-pages like Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism by disambiguating the terms for us, but that's all. Those aren't just words, those are terms that have a meaning and their meaning is political philosophy and type of libertarianism; again, Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism is a similar grouping, yet we explicty write that it's an ideology, not a term that refers to an ideology, or a type of libertarianism as in this case. See all other poitical-related articles. We explicity say it's a political philosophy, ideology, or variant and type of another ideology, so why should this be different when sources still refer to it as a philosophy and type of libertarianism, not merely a categorisation or term. Only the name is.--Davide King (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism can be considered as a disambiguator too, just like Individualist anarchism and Social anarchism, yet we don't write those are terms; we write that they're ideologies in the case of the former and branches in the case of the latter.--Davide King (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But in this case, Davide, the term is highly controversial, so its nuanced use needs to be clarified in the topic sentence. JLMadrigal   @  12:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If there really was any controversy, I'm pretty sure the sources/taxonomists would say it anyway. Yet they don't say right-libertarianism is a version of libertarianism, although some consider it controversial, there's no mention of controversy; and if there was, you'd bet they'd report it. So it seems to be that the controversy is only with a few individuals and libertarians, but that doesn't matter; reliable sources do and they don't report any controversy, so you should be thankful we even say right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians" when correctly pointed out that sources don't explicity say that, yet I kept it on as compromise (you even disagree on my above compromise). If PhilLiberty, of all people, can accept the current lead, why you can't? You're simply wrong in seeing it just as a term or disambiguator; it clearly refers to political philosophy and that's what we should say as the first thing.--Davide King (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "No controversy?" You need to get out more, Davide. JLMadrigal   @  13:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, what matters are reliable sources; not what a few Internet users or libertarians may think so, of which I'm fully aware. For example, communist states weren't really called as such by its proponents, yet that's the use we make as reported in reliable sources, so no matter how those communists may moan about self-described socialist states following Marxism–Leninism being called communist states rather than they way they call them, i.e. socialist states, we're going to have Communist state as the article name and referring to them as such.--Davide King (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Since I mentioned Communist state, notice how we first establish what the topic is and only later discuss the term? You should be thankful the term here is discussed right after the first sentence.--Davide King (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There, I was arguing that the article name should be Marxist–Leninist state because they were all following some form of Marxism–Leninism rather than just communism, that Marxist–Leninist state many not be the most common name but that it was still widely used, that it was more neutral (a middle way between communist state as advocated by Westerns and socialist state as advocated by its proponents), etc., yet there was no consensus and I duly dropped the stick. I think you should be doing the same in this case.--Davide King (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Davide, answering your question, "reliable source" means different things in wikipedia dialog, and the dialog itself can be vague and sloppy:
 * 1) The main wikipedia meaning is essentially that it is published, with a layer of editorial review
 * 2) "Reliable source" can also be shorthand for a source that meets Wikipedia's other wp:verifiability and wp:notability sourcing rules for the particular use. E.G seconday, independent etc.
 * 3) The third meaning often used in wikipedia is a real world meaning but not a wikipedia meaning, which is having the expertise and objectivity regarding the topic at hand to provide reliable information on the topic at hand.

Libertarianism is a phenonema in society. A bundle of philosophies, philosophers, political ideologies, political parties, widely or narrowly used terminology, organizations, works, groupings namings,created by writers, aspect of individuals, publications. And both present and history on those. My point is that in this case, sources that comply with #2 (and meet the ideals of #3) are basically (secondary source)  coverers of that conglomeration, not creators of the individual pieces of it. So philosophies, works and groupings and namings created by philosophers and writers are things to be be covered, not coverers. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But I think philosophies, works and groupings and namings [sic] created by philosophers and writers, which you support covering, is exactly what we cover here. The only reason it may cover coverers is because I thought you wanted the article to state who does the covering.--Davide King (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what we cover here. My best attempt would be to say that we're covering a certain bundle of libertarian philosophies/ideologies.    I don't think I've ever said anything even near what is in the your last sentence. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we cover a political philosophy and type of libertarianism as described in the sources we use, one that, tacitly or not, endorses capitalism and the private ownership of natural resources while the other either supports egalitarianism and some form of socialisation of resources such as land, or is outright anti-capitalist and socialist. Only the Schools of thought section is about ideologies that are referred to as right-libertarian or associated with right-libertarianism. As for my last sentence, that's why I wrote I thought and if you don't want the article to be about the coverers, then what do you suggest? I don't want it to be about the coverers either. The term refers to a political philosophy and type of libertarianism and this is what we should be covering. The same is done for populism. I wrote right at the top of this section the main topic of each libertarian article. Do you dispute any of that? If so, why; and what's your solution?--Davide King (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If I could get exactly what I feel is best, it would be to delete the right and left libertarianism articles and add a small section in the Libertarianism article describing  those two terms as merely terms,  and the grouping work and groupings related to them, and usage of the terms.  Everything else in those two articles is just duplication of what is covered elsewhere.  At the other end of my spectrum would be the "minimal pragmatic compromise" more prominently identifying that aspect, including in the first sentence.  If your "Right-libertarianism is a term that refers to a political philosophy and type of libertarianism" to star the article was a proposal, that might be just enough to put this to bed. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then you should have done what wrote months ago, i.e. requesting a deletion and get done with it. Even my latest proposal isn't supported by JLMadrigal; and I still believe that would be redundant, but for different reasons as argued by JLMadrigal; i.e. we should straight say that it's a political philosophy and type of libertarianism, not merely a term (the main topic isn't about right-libertarianism as a word; it's about philosophy; and again, the terms are used to mean philosophy). The issue with your proposal is that those aren't merely terms; they represent two different approaches to libertarian philosophy and theory. I also don't see the duplication issue you're talking about and referring to. That may have indeed be true months ago when it included content fork from Libertarianism in the United States and where Philosophy was duplicated at Libertarianism, but that's been changed and in my opinion fixed.--Davide King (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As others have alluded to, I think that the first fundamental question and stage of the RFC is whether or not the Status quo is OK with respect to the issues being raised. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"is a term used by some (mostly anti-capitalist)"
Please, stop spreading lies like the term being used mostly by anti-capitalists. Besides not having no actual majority consensus for this wording, that edit was problematic for many other reasons. Again, you also removed the mention of capitalist property rights; this may sound new to you, but property rights isn't synonymous with capitalism or the property rights you yourself may advocate. You also added that the categorisation is done along socialist-capitalist lines but that's not the only side of the story.

As we write at Libertarianism, it's usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines because not everyone actually divide it into socialist–capitalist. Ironically, you're taking the side of some left-libertarians who would consider all capitalist libertarianism to be right-libertarianism; this is evident when you changed the wording to write that [it] is distinguished from left-libertarianism, a traditional socialist type of libertarianism that takes an egalitarian approach to natural resources, because it tends to support ownership of natural resources and the means of production but that's not even according the given source we use, which makes no mention of means of production but only of of natural resources (which is exacty an example of non-anticapitalist left-libertarianism); also what does traditional even mean?

There's no traditional socialist or anarchist, there's only a socialist or anarchist. Again, given source makes no mention of it; you really seem to have issue with sources; you take it as given that sources aready agree with you and your position, but that's actually the contrary. In short, that's not according to reliable sources which include Georgism and other non-anticaptalist but nonetheless egalitarian and social schools of thought within the libertarian left, so please drop that.--Davide King (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You also removed also known as [...] or right-wing libertarianism which is supported by sources and is the same thing we do at Left-libertarianism too. You also kept PhilLiberty's wording of (or the more objective libertarian capitalism[4]) which isn't supported by sources and is propably weasel.--Davide King (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide, you're welcome to make small changes and adding additional references on the page, but stop edit warring by reverting the topic sentence which now has a majority consensus (North8000, PhilLiberty, and myself). JLMadrigal   @  21:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy and "majority consensus" (if that's even a thing) is not WP:CONSENSUS. That aside, you completely disregard all the other editors who have over the past months (a year now maybe?) said there is nothing wrong with the article, who just didn't stick around to keep repeating that to you. If anything, you and PhilLiberty are the ones who have been edit warring, continually trying to push for changes that many other people have said are either unconstructive or at least unnecessary. Consensus doesn't mean whoever sticks around arguing until everyone else is exhausted and leaves wins. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Pfhorrest, people from both sides have faded out. I toned it down a bit.    I think that this minimal change, a pragmatic compromise by all parties concerned, might put this to bed. IMO the RFC's that an impasse would lead to would likely lead to much bigger changes than this.  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Bring on the RFC if that's the only thing that's going to settle this. I said before, I'm not afraid of the outcome of that. Davide, maybe you could go ahead and work with North to craft one to just get this over with already.
 * I think the first pass of an RFC should be to see if there is consensus that there is anything wrong with the status quo, meaning:
 * This article exists
 * It is named "Right-libertarianism"
 * It is about a type of philosophy that is called that, not just about that name
 * The current lede gives appropriate weight to terminological issues in light of that
 * If the consensus is that those are not all true, then we RFC about each of those separate points, one at a time, in that order.
 * --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm glad to hear you back. I was just about to tag you because I'm curious about your response to this and the successive comments through today. JLMadrigal, that wasn't the only reason I reverted your edit; it's because of what I wrote in this very section and which your revert kept intact. Anyway, Pfhorrest just laid it down; that's no consensus or even majority. Not only that but the “majority” is for status quo per this. Either way, even if it was 3–2 in your favor, that's still not a consensus or really a majority, for your arguments are based on lies (as demostrated above in this section) in that it isn't just or mostly used by anti-capitalists; you're the one to make a full and great separation between socialist and capitalist libertarianism (which, ironically enough, is supported by socialist left-libertarians, who would consider non-anti-capitalist left-libertarianism as merely the left-wing of right-libertarianism) which isn't reflected by sources.--Davide King (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not really back full-time, I don't even have time to write a proper full response here. It just looked like things were about to get really heated again so I just chimed in that the proposed change is still not okay. Thank you for holding down the fort meanwhile. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My main problem with all this, besides going always in circles and now reaching almost a year, for why we shouldn't discuss all this yet again is that, as pointed out by Pfhorrest, if we actually include all the other editors who have over the past months (a year now maybe?) said there is nothing wrong with the article, who just didn't stick around to keep repeating that to you or that even if they found one or more issue, they either thought it wasn't big enough to warrant change or didn't like any other proposal (status quo is the lesser evil); if we consider all that, I think there's already a slight edge for the status quo. For even those who may had problems with it, they didn't find it such a big issue and probably don't understand why we're still discussing the same thing, other than a few people not liking the name and not understanding the concept itself, as shown by the flawed, if not outright false, It's only used by anti-capitalists/opponents argument.--Davide King (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One more reason for why you should drop the stick is that no given source actually mentions the word term or even writes that right-libertarianism and/or left-libertarianism are terms. Simply put, starting the article writing that [right-libertarianism] is a term used is simply wrong, false. They describe a concept, a theory within libertarianism; and that's the topic we're going to cover, not just the terminology which is mainly there to make the reader clear for why it's called as such, etc. With all due respect, but opposition to the status quo now really sounds to be petty, for the next sentence literally clarifies that already and is about the term. If even your version keeps this (Under this classification, right-libertarianism is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism), then why not start the article directing saying that first and then explain the classification. Because the bottom line is that the topic is philosophy, only the name is a categorisation; and we cover the first one, that's the main topic (all the stuff about the terminology, I added it as a compromise and to make it more clear to the reader why). Whether you agree or not, your pragmatic compromise is based on an inversion of the first two sentences; and there're better arguments for why the status quo is better; it firstly establishes the topic and your inversion is kind of false because sources don't say it's a term or even a categorisation, they describe the theory, the type, whatever you call it.--Davide King (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The term anti-capitalist is ambiguous. To most people it refers to a radical fringe dedicated to the immediate abolition of capitalism. For Ludwig von Mises, it meant anyone who didn't subscribe to the abolition of all government regulation and welfare programs. That gives us a range less than 5% of the population to over 95%, depending on what we mean. TFD (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Work on RFC
I've been working on the RFC. What I have is a draft at: User:North8000/sandbox1. I'm requesting feedback on it in two areas:


 * If anybody feels that it is biased, and in what way
 * If anybody feels that there is something inaccurate in there and if so which items is inaccurate and in what way

I think that we need to make an effort to get broad participation but avoid any selective canvassing. (BTW the feedback request service has been broken for months and no fix is being discussed.) I think a way to do this would be (feedback on this also requested):


 * Being an official RFC gets it listed as one
 * Put a request at promising project pages. Like the project libertarianism and project politics.
 * Put a request at the talk page of everyone who has contributed to the current discussion on this which goes back about 8 months.
 * Put a request at the most promising and potentially involved libertarianism articles.  I'm thinking Libertarianism,  Libertarianism in the United States and Left-libertarianism
 * Nobody put out individual invites which would be selective

Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have very limited time lately and probably won't get a chance to check this out until Monday. If you could ping me here Monday morning to remind me about that in case it slips my mind meanwhile I'd appreciate it (unless other discussion is already happening here by then, which will be enough to remind me). --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I forgot about this until most of my time today was gone already, but some brief comments; assume everything looks fine unless I mention otherwise:
 * Another difference is that in Europe it refers only to various specific and generally well developed political philosophies whereas in the US it also includes a large vague phenomena generally advocating more freedom and less government, or as one quadrant of the "Nolan chart". I'm not sure how factually balanced this is. Is the US "libertarian" movement really more vague than the European "libertarian" movement? I honestly don't know. There are definitely people in the US movement with a very precise idea of what they mean by "libertarianism", and also a lot more people just vaguely following their use of the word. (The US sense documentably originates from particular academics 50 years ago intentionally adopting it as a name for a precise thing, knowing its prior different usage; today's common US usages descends from them). I haven't seen anything to suggest that the situation in Europe isn't any different, with academics using the word in their own precise way and other people vaguely following their use of the word. I'm not really sure how any of that is relevant, either.
 * The issue is most present at and described for this article, but the Libertarianism in the United States article has also become involved, and Left-libertarianism could become involved. I think it's also worth mentioning the article Libertarianism again here too, as this and Left-libertarianism are sub-pages of that, so substantial changes to either of them would involve that as well.
 * I think it would be good to include in the pro-status-quo section something like my earlier phrasing of the status quo, affirming that:
 * This article exists
 * It is named "Right-libertarianism"
 * It is about a type of philosophy that is called that, not just about that name
 * The current lede gives appropriate weight to terminological issues in light of that
 * Otherwise, looks like a good start to me. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. When I put the "vague US phenomena" stuff in the background section I was trying to be helpful to European participants who might not have encountered that.  I'll dial that back and if you still disagree I'll take it out.   Regarding the other item, I was trying really hard to just state the concerns and the position on the concerns while avoiding stating any of the arguments either way.  The first three items seem like a more thorough description of the status quo and I'll try just doing that.  I think that your fourth points out a shortcoming in my draft which I'll incorporate more generally in the pro-status quo section. I'll also incorporate your Libertarianism suggestion.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest adding the following bold words for a minimum change to the topic sentence to clarify the terminological nuance in the anti status quo section.:

"Some political scientists and writers classify the strands of libertarianism into two groups; "right libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism" in order to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property, capital, and markets." JLMadrigal  @  19:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do. My idea was to try to just an example scope of the minimum change; I think that your change makes it better explained. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did as I described above. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Quotes
I subscribe to the views in this article, though I disagree with the label. I see Right libertarians as people who hold some combination of libertarian and conservative positions and/or values. Among my circle the description in the article is plumb-line libertarianism. This is not unsurprising since i disagree with a lot of political labels on Wikipedia. I’m commenting because you cite Anthony Gregory here, and he holds essentially the same views as I do. He does not consider himself to be right libertarian. Citing his view is therefore somewhat contradictory to the article isn’t it? --2601:642:4A80:E6F0:A0B4:FD0C:37E3:FB9B (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We had huge debates on this which faded out and were never resolved. "Right libertarian" is a European word for common-meaning-libertarain in the US which is very different from what "libertarian" means in Europe.  This article is confusingly written as if the European term was the term. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Natural resources
This article needs a separate section on natural resources. --95.24.70.229 (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)