Template talk:Libertarianism US

People
Regarding this, what is the criteria for adding People? We should avoid adding any person just because they are a libertarian (some is not so clear whether they are more conservatives or libertarians, or more relevant to conservative sidebar or this one) and follow books about libertarianism in the United States to establish relevancy and notability; is a person mentioned? That may still not be enough, if it is just a passing mention. As I wrote here, "[Jorgensen] reeks of recentism; this sidebar is not about the Libertarian Party but libertarianism in the United States; Paterson, Wilder Lane and Rand are all more relevant; Milton is already at Conservatism, where he is more relevant, so David is more relevant here and [we should] avoid the same surname's issue; same thing for Paul; Ron is obviously more relevant here; Liberty Fund is conservative." You did not even opened a discussion, you just edit warred when I was merely trying to restore the status quo ante and follow BRD. Same thing was done for adding images without consensus and in spite of the discussion above. , your thoughts and input on the matter would be very helpful. Davide King (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Jorgenson is a recent libertarian celebrity in the US, yes, but she's not new to the movement and she doesn't "reek of presentism" - she ran for a House seat as a Libertarian in the early 90s and was the party's VP nom in the 96 race. Regardless, getting as many votes as she did (2nd most in the party's history), and placing 3rd in a general election, makes her deserving of a spot here. I don't understand why whenever she's brought up, you always mention how the three other listed females are more relevant, as if the template has a limit on female libertarian figures that can be included. Yes, Wilder Lane and Paterson are more important to the movement's history, but I wouldn't say that they're more relevant today than Jorgenson. More people right now probably know Jorgenson's name than Wilder Lane or Paterson (not Ayn Rand, however). Why can't all four be included? (Note also that Howie Hawkins' placement on the Socialism in the US sidebar is not being questioned, and he received considerably less votes than Jorgensen as the Greens' nom this past election.) If you want to play the game of relevance, there are several men listed here that are not as objectively relevant as Jorgenson, but I won't push for their removal. One of those figures is the other in question - David Friedman. Switching gears, he has had a far less profound impact on libertarianism than his father (but again, I'm not saying David should thus be deleted, they can both co-exist). Milton is one of the most consequential figures to libertarianism (lowercase "l") in US history, and it's arguable that there is no other American in the last 50 years (not since Goldwater during the 60s) that has had a greater impact on the philosophy's popularity in the US than Milton. It's telling that when we argue Jorgenson from a Libertarian Party perspective, you say this is not about the party but the philosophy, but when I bring up people like Milton's influence on the philosophy, you argue basically that his involvement in the party wasn't strong enough (or that it was stronger on conservatism, thus making him somehow ineligible—when really it depends on who you ask, conservatives would say his impact on conservatism is greater and libertarians would say otherwise). If figures like Ron Paul, Goldwater, Ayn Rand, and Milton Friedman have all had an almost-equally significant impact on both Conservatism and Libertarianism in America, then their names can and should be included on both sidebars. Right now, Goldwater, Ron Paul and Ayn Rand (who you've pushed for) do in fact exist on both templates and no one is raising issue about that, because it's a reasonable phenomenon that there might be some overlap with the two philosophies. And Milton, more than anyone else, should be another co-inclusion on both templates. (See Sanders' and AOC's co-inclusion in both the US Socialism and Modern Liberalism sidebars as well.) Lastly, there's nothing wrong with a distinction of two of the same surnames (per any other political sidebar). See the US Conservative template for example, where Ron and Rand Paul, Allena and John Foster Dulles, Davide and Charles Koch, and Robert A. and William H. Taft are all listed this way (and see the the numerous last names that are the same on both the Modern Liberalism and Socialism in the US sidebars). Disliking the way something looks stylistically in a sidebar template is not a good enough argument for excluding a deserving figure (or figures). In Conclusion, stop hijacking the "People" section of this sidebar and allow Jorgensen and Milton Friedman to be listed (and, in my opinion, the Kochs as well, but I don't feel as inclined to push hard for them). Thank you. Flyedit32 (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, provide reliable sources that establish relevancy, otherwise this all just a wall text of personal opinions. Milton Friedman is more relevant to conservatism (that is why he is there and in the picture) and what other sidebars do should not be used as an excuse. The sidebars you listed have the same problems where they list a bunch of people and politicians but that does not establish whether they are routinely mentioned in books about the ideology or movement. We should only list 10 people, not 30 or 50. Most of the people you list are conservative or right-libertarians; while they are more notable than left-libertarians, we should not focus only on them and only list the most relevant people from both sides of the movement, not every Libertarian politician or presidential candidate. Just because other sidebars may do this, it does not make it right. We should only list no more than 10 people, at least one from all relevant schools, who are routinely mentioned and discussed in books about the movement. This is how we establish whether they are due. Davide King (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I accidently hit 'enter' too early on my edit. What I meant to type was: For more left-leaning libertarians, Chomsky should be included; and the fact that Davide King is outnumbered means that consensus should be required for why Jorgenson and Milton Friedman should not be included, not for why they should be included. Milton's whole article is filled with references validating inclusion and this very template is even placed in his 'Public policy positions' section, not to mention the number of times he's mentioned in the Libertarianism in the US article - once as a "Prominent consequentialist libertarian", and in the "Intellectual sources" section under "People". The number of sources is overwhelming that supports this claim. See here for just a few:, this ref literally calls him "the 20th century's most influential libertarian": , and lastly, for further reading: Thank you. Flyedit32 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are indeed plenty reliable sources establishing that Milton Friedman is a very influential figure both within the American libertarian community and the American conservative community. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Liberalism Portal link
Why is there a link to the liberalism portal if libertarianism is a separate ideology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.194.182 (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Libertarianism is widely considered to be derived from, but separate from, the wider liberal tradition. Thus, the inclusion of the 'Liberalism portal' is quite appropriate. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Gadsden flag
My point was that this is a template for a movement. How could a movement ever have an "official" anything? That's a strange word choice. ― Tartan357  Talk 23:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and that helps make mine as well - why should we include an image here if a movement (this movement) couldn't "ever have an official anything"? But more so, why should we include the Gadsden banner? I could maybe see something like the flame of liberty or statue of liberty, but the Gadsden coiled snake does not wholly represent the movement today, and has actually at times been associated with its more controversial and fringe elements. Plus, it has also often represented support for the US Military, which could go against aspects of the movement's anti-American imperialism elements. I think it's probably best just not to utilize any image for this template but like I said earlier, it'd be nice to hear from other users on the issue as well before making a change such as this. Flyedit32 (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , honestly, I don't feel too strongly about it. I just reverted because the "unofficial" reasoning didn't make much sense to me and it seemed like a constructive addition. But I welcome others' thoughts here, of course. ― Tartan357  Talk 19:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Wrong template in principle
The template puts conflicting organizations and ideas in the same grouping. For example, the Ludwig Von Mises Institute with the Students for a Democratic Society or Charles Koch and Noam Chomsky.

It's totally misleading the structure of this template; I propose to divide the ideas or people by orientation, e.g., "left-libertarian people" and "right-libertarian people." 93.45.229.98 (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)