Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:55, 28 February 2020

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-09-17. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Libertarianism Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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 #Putting "right-libertarianism" in perspective - size, anti-statisms, term use 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 {{ping}}) 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)

JLMadrigal, as explained by Czar, that was exactly why I removed the template in the first place. Also, Aquillion and Pfhorrest 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. North8000 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

North8000, that's surely not what Misplaced Pages:Consensus actually says. See for instance Consensus on Misplaced Pages 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 Pfhorrest 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)

@Davide King:, do you agree with @Czar: 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)

JLMadrigal, I still think things are fine as they are, especially now that North8000 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 North8000's issues are with Libertarianism in the United States ( 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.North8000 (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)

North8000, 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. JLMadrigal, 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 Misplaced Pages which appears to be the case here. Maybe our alternatives with some chance:

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.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Pfhorrest. 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 (Beyond My Ken, Doug Weller, Grnrchst, Rreagan007 and Velociraptor888); and that was at a time when the article had some problems, like content fork, which I believe has been fixed (so others like The Four Deuces and Work permit, 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 Aquillion 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 ncreas 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, North8000 (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

North8000, 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. North8000 (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 @Czar: mentioned above,

JLMadrigal @ 13:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

JLMadrigal, 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 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. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

North8000, 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:

JLMadrigal @ 12:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

JLMadrigal, 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)

JLMadrigal, 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 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

(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 {{ping}}) 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 " 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 (#One last shot) 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 {{ping}}) czar 12:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I've actually done that. I still get non-American libertarianism related results, especially top ones on JSTOR. Either way, JLMadrigal's proposal is misleading, for Czar 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 @Czar:,

Davide has not convincingly disproven this. JLMadrigal @ 01:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

JLMadrigal, the modern quaifier is actually necessary since it's indeed used and as correctly stated by Czar a significant number of sources do . 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 Czar 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 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. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

So the hatnote referred to by @Czar: before the lede to the Libertarian movement page (THIS article slightly modified) will need to be something like: This article is about the type of libertarianism supporting free markets and private property. For traditional libertarian ideology, see Left-libertarianism. For the libertarian movement in Spain, see Anarchism in Spain. and since

The article in question will probably need to be libertarianism (for now) - until and unless a new title is determined for that page.

@North8000:, 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)

North8000, 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 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? JLMadrigal, 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 Pfhorrest (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. JLMadrigal, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.North8000 (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. North8000 (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

North8000, I hope Pfhorrest 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 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. North8000 (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)

North8000, but this article shouldn't be covering that because it's specifically about the 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 Pfhorrest 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 The Four Deuces. 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 philosophyNorth8000 (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

North8000, 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. North8000 (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 Pfhorrest wrote. North8000, 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)

@Pfhorrest: and @Davide King: 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. North8000 (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

North8000, I still think this Four Deuce's comment is the crux of the matter. Full quote:

Libertarianism in the United States also already writes things like these:

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. North8000 (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 @Doug Weller: and @Czar:'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)

JLMadrigal, the required edits such as this was already explained by Pfhorrest 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 he concept of dividing libertarianism into left and right in line with Marxist ideology even mean? Pfhorrest 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. 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 Aquillion, 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 Pfhorrest 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 Pfhorrest'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. 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 Pfhorrest did pigeonhole the libertarian movement as "right of center". You write that 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)

Proposed pragmatic compromise

It doesn't look like a solution is emerging. I'm proposing this compromise to get this over with.

• Add this to the very beginning of the lead: "Some political scientists and writers classify the strands of libertarianism into two groups; "right libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism". Under this classification system right-libertarianism " (and then continue with the current lead, starting with the third word of the current lead).
• Decide that we're eventually going to develop a section that goes a bit more into the right/left division as a taxonomy system. As a minimum, it would be a handful of sentences. Other than fulfilling this outline, it would just be developed by whoever is interested in working on it.

I've figuring that Davide will say this goes too far and JLMadrigal will say it doesn't go far enough. Pfhorrest will probably note the imperfection of discussing right/left taxonomy in the "right" article (vs. a merged right/left one). Maybe we we can agree to do this anyway and put this issue to bed at this article. And we agree that we take a long break (at least a year) from revisiting this issue regarding this article. During that period other larger scale reorganization plans on libertarian articles could still be discussed, possibly including this article, but nothing that is focused on or driven by this article. This is just an agreement between the main participants; nothing more, nothing less. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support North8000 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support As a bare minimum, the lede paragraph will need to be modified as above, and would suffice for removal of the template, IMO. Otherwise, this WP:coatrack article is unsalvageable. Readers deserve to immediately know that the term is not widespread, and the current lede paragraph leads one to believe that it is. I'm also anxiously waiting to see Czar's revised article/format for some concrete long-term options for coherency regarding this and other articles touching on the libertarian/anarchist movement and history. JLMadrigal @ 12:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Conditionally Support with the modification that the beginning of the lead read: "Some political scientists and writers, mainly on the 'left,' classify the strands of libertarianism into two groups; 'right libertarianism' and 'left-libertarianism'. Under this classification system right-libertarianism ... " (and then continue with the current lead). We need to be up front and honest that this is primarily a lefty pejorative term. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Meh This is not particularly objectionable but I also don't think it's at all necessary. PhilLiberty's modified proposal above is definitely objectionable though. (As are Madrigal's comments; the term is widespread among sources discussing the varieties of libertarianism, of which this is one, and no more-widespread term for the same has been offered here in all these months). And if this is implemented, then for consistency is also needs to be implemented at Left-libertarianism, and if it is rejected there it also needs to be removed here. These articles are a part of a larger structure, not isolates just by themselves. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Also as for It doesn't look like a solution is emerging, maybe that's because there is no problem, as one process after another has repeatedly concluded for months and months on end. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. 100% what Pfhorrest said. Thank you so much for your comment, I'm really tired of all this discussion. Pfhorrest and I have been more than forthcoming in improving the article and make it more clear with the new lead, the Definition section, etc; and that was a compromise already, one that was actually good. However, I find it not only unnecessary but objectionable too, for that simply isn't a good way to start this article and the lead and the Definition section abundantly make it clear. Furthermore, the article isn't about the taxonomy, so that simply shouldn't be the first thing said and I agree with Pfhorrest's argument about Refers. Finally, I think it should be clear by now that both JLMadrigal and PhilLiberty are libertarian biased and are tryig to push a POV and they seem the ones to have most problems with the article whilst their reason for it amount to not liking it or making up arguments like it being pejorative or not used at all label.--Davide King (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

If this fails, my next thought would to proceed with a well-structured methodical RFC process as described previously. The first stage would be to decide if the status quo regarding this is OK. Defining the alternative is left to a later stage, albeit the minimum change in that range would be outlined in the initial RFC. Davide, could you reconsider supporting or not opposing this proposal as a pragmatic compromise? North8000 (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

North8000, what proposal are you actually referring to? The proposal above simply isn't a good way to start a Right-libertarianism article and I think both the lead and the Definition section do a good and better job at explaining that. What's yours and JLMadrigal's compromise? Merely saying you won't push for a deletion or name change isn't really a compromise, for there was no consensus for that in the first place. Pfhorrest's and mine compromise actually involved improving the article; and that was despite some legitimate Aquillion's concerns here. And why would we need yet another request for comments? I agree with Pfhorrest's comment here that there is no problem, as one process after another has repeatedly concluded for months and months on end and Aquillion's longer comment here.--Davide King (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm referring to the "Proposed pragmatic compromise" above. And, in general, it is stronger attribution of the term to the taxonomy system. Regarding your later question/comment, the folks on one side of the issue are saying that there is a problem that requires fixing. Those on the other side say that the status quo is OK regarding that. If we don't resolve it some other way, then a well structured RFC would be the Misplaced Pages way to decide between those. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm confident that a properly conducted RFC would yield the correct result (that there is nothing seriously wrong with the status quo), so I'm not afraid of that as a consequence of not doing this proposal. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

To add on what Pfhorrest wrote, simply stating of being against the status quo doesn't mean much when in this case, especially that of JLMadrigal and PhilLiberty, is based on their own political biases, showing this again and again; like making the claim the term is a pejorative or one used only by the left, despite users disputing it and disagree with this view already in the page move back in August. I repeat that the above proposal simply isn't a good one or in line with Misplaced Pages's guidelines about the lead section, which I think is fine and clear already the way it is. The so-called taxinomy system should be discussed at Libertarianism and in the Definition sections of both Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism, not in the lead of Right-libertarianism as literally the first thing. Isn't there really anything better than the above so-called pragmatic proposal? Pfhorrest and I already did our part of compromise that improved the article and made it more clear; it's not up to us again for yet another compromise, especially one that both Pfhorrest and I already rejected when JLMadrigal first proposed it.--Davide King (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

For the discussion here (including a potential RFC), "status quo" refers to the existence, topic and naming of the article. The gist of my wording for the proposed compromise is to give much stronger / more prominent coverage to the fact that this term is from the taxonomy system, rather than the implicit claim that it is the common name. And that IS selected as the middle of the road of the alternatives that have been discussed. The particular wording is just my best effort at that. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

North8000, but I (and I guess Pfhorrest too; correct me if wrong) thought that was done and we were past that; that right-libertarianism is the most common, unambiguous name for the topic; and that the article is about a type of libertarianism, whose most common, unambiguous name is right-libertarianism, not merely a term. Conservative liberalism, Democratic socialism, Left-wing populism, Liberal conservatism, Liberal socialism, Libertarian socialism, National conservatism, National liberalism, Right-wing populism and similar two-word philosophies could all be considered as pigeoning or as being a taxonomy system, yet there is no talk of that and the lead simply states what the topic is. I don't see what's so different here and how the current lead doesn't already address it anyway in a better way.--Davide King (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Davide, hate to say it, but none of what you describe was settled or agreed to. North8000 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

North8000, surely the users who rejected a move back in August and a merge in November whilst making clear they saw nothing wrong with the article and the name does count something, especially when that was when the article actually had several issues which I believe have been resolved with the move of content to Libertarianism in the United States; a better, clearer lead; and a Definition section that addresses the issue (so even users who may have had more issues in the past may reconsider their position in light to that). As things stand, it's only you and JLMadrigal who think so. Pfhorrest and I clearly explained to both of you why your proposed lead isn't good or doesn't work. What exactly wasn't settled or agreed to? That right-libertarianism is the most common, unambiguous name for the topic; and that the article is about a type of libertarianism, that is global (not relegated to just the United States) and whose most common, unambiguous name is right-libertarianism, not merely a term? Do you really want to take us back there? Most of the proposed naming alternative are either ambiguous or even less common than right-libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Davide, would you quit it with the "it's only you two" stuff?! The last time the question was asked, 4 and a majority were opposed to the status quo. And Phil Liberty is a slam-dunk-obvious 5th. And you are claiming that "rejecting a particular move" counts as "fine with the status quo". A spirited debate is fine, but please don't try to paint those who think differently that you one this as being problematic in some way. I just though I'd try a compromise. If that fails, I think we'll need a well-structured, well-advertised RFC, structured well enough to actually move this towards a resolution either way. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact you even consider PhilLiberty, who is clearly not only libertarian biased but has actually engaged (and still does) in disrupting behavior for months, edit warring this and the Libertarian capitalism redirect, along with other POV-pushing position on the American Revolution, the Oath Keepers, etc, says it all. Once again, this isn't about votes but about reasoned arguments. You and JLMadrigal failed to convince many other users to think there's a problem and who would likely support the status quo (at least from their previous comments on not seeing any big problem in the first place); Czar oppose it on the basis that the main three Libertarian articles should be deleted and turned into a disambiguation page which hasn't find consensus or support yet; and Гармонический Мир's oppose doesn't really make sense, or is unrelated or not relevant (in either case, I think Гармонический Мир see as an anti-capitalist movement and is generally opposed to other of yours and JLMadrigal's arguments anyway). So there's only you and JLMadrigal left. There's also Aquillion, Pfhorrest and I who find all this discussion still going as absurd and that you should simply move on by now, for you have failed for months and months to convince us otherwhise. I also repeat that many users who rejected the move back in August also clearly stated they found nothing wrong with the article or the name, so yeah; unless they say otherwhise, they seem to be for or fine with the status quo, which has been greatly improved since then, by the way.--Davide King (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Davide, you are misstating what I said into a straw-man argument as if I said a vote counts towards a resolution. I merely said that 5 people have clearly said that the status quo is not OK, and that that is reason for you to stop with your "it's only you two" stuff.North8000 (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not a strawman. I'm saying that merely opposing the status quo doesn't mean much if you don't give a valid reason (Czar is a valid one; oppositon on the status quo based on right-libertarianism being a pejorative or not used term isn't a good one); and even in Czar's case, it's said that he status quo is untenable not because separate articles are wrong (you and JLMadrigal supported a merge or deletion; so there's no agreement as one may oppose the status quo for vastly different reasons and likewise results in vastly different results or outcome). It's actually three people, not five; and it's a draw. I'm not sure about Гармонический Мир's opposition to the status quo because it doesn't seem like a valid reason and because on other points seems to largely agree with Pfhorrest and I. Either way, all the users who rejected a move and merge back in August and November, respectively, stating they found no issue with the article or name, could be considered as soft or hard supporting the status quo, but I hope they can clarify on that. My issue is that you seem to ignore them just because it was about a move or merge, ignoring their comments stating they found no issue with the current name or saw right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism as related by distinct concepts worthy of their own article or otherwhise as an expansion of the main Libertarianism article. So again, I ping the users involved in the move/merge/discussion @Beyond My Ken: @Doug Weller: @Grnrchst: @Rreagan007: @The Four Deuces: @Velociraptor888: @Work permit: to leave a comment on whether they support things as they are, if they find any issue, if the neutrality tag template is warranted, etc.--Davide King (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It easy to be "against" the status quo, but if there is no clear consensus on what the alternative should be then the status quo should stand. While I am personally "against" the status quo, I see no alternative backed by wp:rs that has garnered any such consensus. I also don't find the neutrality tag warranted. While I wish there were a better name to phrase the article, I certainly don't find it so repugnant as to tag it as such. -- Work permit (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Some political scientists and writers classify libertarianism into two groups, namely left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital along socialist–capitalist lines. Under this classification, right-libertarianism is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that strongly supports "capitalist" property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property. Like most forms of libertarianism, it tends to support civil liberties, but also natural law, negative rights and a major reversal of the modern welfare state. Right-libertarianism is distinguished from left-libertarianism, a traditional type of libertarianism that takes an egalitarian approach to natural resources. In contrast to socialist libertarianism, it tends to support ownership of natural resources and the means of production. Unlike left-libertarians, these libertarians make no distinction between capitalism and free markets, and view any attempt to dictate the market process as counterproductive. Right-libertarians are typically referred to simply as "libertarians".

JLMadrigal @ 13:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that strongly supports capitalist property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property. Like most forms of libertarianism, it tends to support civil liberties, but also natural law, negative rights and a major reversal of the modern welfare state should definitely come first and without capitalist in scare quotes. Also, what Right-libertarianism is contrasted with left-libertarianism, a type of libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources. In contrast to socialist libertarianism, it tends to support free-market capitalism. Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians". This is done to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines. doesn't already say anyway? Do you want it to state Right-libertarianism is contrasted by some political scientists and wrters with left-libertarianism? I don't think that's really necessary; we don't literally state that reliable sources say, we simply say what they say. I also have problems with wording such as these libertarians make no distinction between capitalism and free markets which is factually wrong, biased and actually the reverse is true, i.e. left-libertarians do distinguish between capitalism and free markets, arguing that captalism cannot exist without the state and so free-market capitalism is an oxymoron. Whether you agree with that or not, you shouldn't push your own interpretation of it. Nevermind, it was actually correctly discussing right-libertarians, but that Unlike left-libertarians confused me and made me think it was talking about them. Either way, my first two critiques remain.--Davide King (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Why are you so dead set against using

as the first sentence? Is there any way you could rearrange it to suit your "standard" (without moving the sentence)? JLMadrigal @ 02:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

How about

JLMadrigal @ 12:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that your idea for the beginning is better than mine. It goes immediately to the topic. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes. The refs will still need to be cleaned up a bit. I'd like Davide's blessing before removing the tag. ;-) JLMadrigal @ 14:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Why are you so dead set against using as the first sentence?, it's actually very simple why, JLMadrigal. The article is titled Right-libertarianism, not Right libertarianism (taxonomy system), or Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, so the first thing we should tell is what right-libertarianism actually is; and it's not just a term! See my comment above. Is there any way you could rearrange it to suit your "standard" (without moving the sentence)? I told you, it would be like this, do you want it to state Right-libertarianism is contrasted by some political scientists and wrters with left-libertarianism? As I said in that comment, I don't think that's really necessary; we don't literally state that reliable sources say, we simply say what they say. I repeat the current lead already addresses the issue well. Also, what do you mean by refs will still need to be cleaned up a bit? Do you even have actual reliable sources?

North8000, do you mean this as your lead proposal? What would be the differences between yours and JLMadrigal?

JLMadrigal, just because I didn't reply back yet, it doesn't mean you've got a consensus to do this, so I approve of Pfhorrest's revert. I think all of this discussion is really unnecessary, for it's always you two having problems, with the newly worded lead and Definition additions still not being enough for you; to you, it doesn't matter all the other users who didn't find any problem with the article. This is becoming like users wanting to add a neutrality template or continuing discussing on whether the Nazis were really socialists or left-wing. This has been going on for almost a year now, maybe it's time for you both to simply move on, for you're never happy unless you get your own compromises. You continue to not show an understanding of the article, which isn't about a term or a taxonomy system. The so-called libertarian taxonomy system should be discussed in a section of Libertarianism, Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism as it's already pretty much done anyway in all three articles; it certainly isn't lead worthy, especially when the issue is already addressed in better or simpler terms.

Some political scientists and writers classify the strands of libertarianism into two groups; "right libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism". Under this classification system right-libertarianism simply isn't going to be the first thing to appear in the lead section. That's a good start for the lead of a Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, or Libertarian political taxonomy, but that simply isn't the way to start the Right-libertarianism article which is about right-libertarianism; and there wasn't, and there isn't, no consensus for a merge, so please don't try to propose that or going in circles again.--Davide King (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Davide, I know that you (and apparently also Pfhorrest) are averse to numbers - particularly "numerical" ones, but at some point you will need to confront them. As North8000 has documented, the term (and yes a word is the same as a "term") "right-libertarianism" is rarely used to describe this ideology. And as Czar has documented, left-libertarianism is only a tiny part of the libertarian movement. It naturally follows that the term "right-libertarianism" is rarely used to describe the libertarian movement, which is, for all intents and purposes, the topic of this article. The existing documentation in the article demonstrates that the purpose of the term "right-libertarianism" is to differentiate it from traditional libertarianism (which my reverted edit explained). It also demonstrates that the 'hijacked' term "libertarian" now is synonymous with the libertarian movement that the few who use the term "right-libertarianism" describe. JLMadrigal @ 04:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

JLMadrigal, time and time again you have shown no understanding of the topic. Right-libertarianism isn't about what you're thinking of; it's not all libertarianism in the United States or even the libertarian movement; and it isn't even only related to the United States as it has a global perspective, although it's a big part of it, hence why it's a separate article from Libertarianism in the United States, which is about libertarianism only in the United States and which also include left-libertarianism and other libertarian types/movements/philosophies/whatever you want to call them. You also misunderstood Czar. Yes, right-libertarianism isn't used to describe the libertarian movement, but that's because the libertarian movement you're referring to and talking about is Libertarianism in the United States, where libertarianism is much closer in meaning to right-libertarianism rather than anarchism or libertarian socialism as elsewhere; but they aren't the same thing and Right-libertarianism is about a global movement and right-libertarianism is the most common name used to differenciate from the other libertarian global movement, left-libertarianism, who also call itself libertarianism but you don't say that because it ruins your arguments. All of this is literally explained right in the second paragraph. In short, the following articles are about the following:

Libertarianism, the political philosophy that has several core tenets and even some heritage in common between all types of libertarianism; just like with all other articles about ideologies such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, etc.

Libertarianism in the United States, the history, origin and development of libertarianism in the United States.

Left-libertarianism, the type of libertarianism supporting social equality and rejecting the private ownership of land and natural resources.

Right-libertarianism, the type of libertarianism supporting the private ownership of land and natural resources as well as capitalist hierarchies.

All populists are populists, but some are charcterized as left-wing and others as right-wing; the same is done for libertarians, whether they personally agree or disagree with that. Just like Nazis were fascists and far-right, whether right-wingers disagree with that. It's already been noted and said that right-libertarianism, as defined above, is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States, but Right-libertarianism is about the philosophy globally and elsewhere it isn't such the dominant form, hence why it isn't been seen as an issue by many other users and it seems to be still only you two, who again seems to act like it's only Pfhorrest and I opposing your proposal; many other users have spoken and found no issue with it or at least not such a big issue as you make it sound or turn out like to be. I hope and think Pfhorrest can give you a better and clearer answer because I'm not so satisfied with mine as you probably still didn't get my point.--Davide King (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Quote one libertarian, labeled "right-libertarian", saying that he is in support of these "capitalist hierarchies". JLMadrigal @ 13:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

he 'rightist' libertarian is not opposed to inequality, straight from the horse's mouth in For a New Liberty (1978), p. 57. They're fine with inequality as long as it's done without “coercion”, “force” or “fraud”. I probably shouldn't have written “capitalist” hierarchies as we've different views on that, but my pont doesn't change; left-libertartian oppose inequality while right-libertarians aren't opposed to even large sum of inequality as long as it was caused without “coercion”, “force” or “fraud”.--Davide King (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

hierarchy - "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority." - Oxford

"Inequality" is another animal. Hierarchy is vertical dominance over another (state control). Inequality is a comparison of two separate and independent entities.

A quote in the existing article states, "Herbert Kitschelt and Anthony J. McGann contrast right-libertarianism—"a strategy that combines pro-market positions with opposition to hierarchical authority..."

You see, Davide, libertarians of the variety described in this article subscribe to the view that a level playing field results in a reduction in monopolies, that is, a movement away from artificial inequalities. They tend to view sovereign individuals (including employers and employees, landlords and tenants, &c) as parties in a unanimous trade. They dislike hierarchies.

JLMadrigal @ 02:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It could be because I'm tired of all this, but I'm not satisfied of my replies and I feel like Pfhorrest can get to my point in simpler and clearer ways, so I hope Pfhorrest can reply you too and also leave a comment on our latest discussion and development here to both you and North8000. Either way, I think that's still part of the problem or something that you don't get or understand. Other libertarians clearly reject the view of employers and employees, landlords and tenants as parties in a unanimous trade and see that relationship as a hierarchy, which is an inequality as there's a difference in balance of power that reduces the freedom of all other individuals who don't own capital or land and so in pratice are forced by the situation to work for somebody else. If you see that relationship as full voluntary, of course right-libertarians don't support hirerachies. However, that's not the POV of many other libertarians. I think this goes to show your lack of knowledge about other types of libertarianism other than your own. You seem to take it as given that the relationship isn't a hierarchy, but I digress.

Either way, let me change to Right-libertarianism, the type of libertarianism supporting the private ownership of land and natural resources. This still doesn't change the fact this article should exist as you merely seem to disagree with its definition; and whether you personally disagree with that, right libertarianism is the term used to describe the thing in broad terms, rather than just American terms. It seems to be that both you and North8000 consider this article to be only through American lens (in that case, I understand your arguments; and neither me nor Pfhorrest denied that in the United States this type is simply called libertarianism) when in reality the article is through global/broader lens; and Pfhorrest and I have seen it through this way the whole time, not through European leans, but through global/broader lens, hence why the article discusses this issue in the second paragraph of the lead section and in the Definition section. Libertarianism in the United States is the one through American lens which is closer to your arguments, but which is also broader than right-libertarianism.

Since the 1950s, libertarianism in the United States has been associated almost exclusively with right-libertarianism, which combines an antistatist commitment to individual freedom with strong support for private property rights and free markets; or in other words, right-libertarianism is the global term used to refer to this type of libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been around much lately, I'm just really busy with real life and also really tired of this too. We just keep coming back around to the same arguments that have already been refuted countless times, countless attempts to educate users like Madrigal about the broader world and history of libertarianism, and it's just really wearing me down. (I want to reference some Misplaced Pages essay about how the last man still arguing is not the de facto consensus on Misplaced Pages, but I can't be bothered to find it right now). As usual I agree with pretty much everything Davide has said here and I'm grateful that he's still here holding down the fort. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

That is precisely the lens to which we have been referring, which makes this a WP:coatrack article (an article that seeks to define one through the lens of another). The onus is on you to cite your claim that "right-libertarians" actually advocate hierarchies, and that such a POV is not a view through a lens, but a reality. JLMadrigal @ 13:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

That really isn't. I was merely describing the POV of other libertarians. As I said, ignore my capitalist hirerachies wording; the current hatnote makes no mention of it anyway. The thing is that, tacitly or not, they accept capitalist hirerachies caused by the private ownership of capital and land; and they aren't opposed to inequality, provided it occured without “coercion”, “force”, “fraud” or “theft”. See Historically, libertarians including Herbert Spencer and Max Stirner supported the protection of an individual's freedom from powers of government and private ownership. In contrast, modern American libertarians support freedoms on the basis of their agreement with private property rights. The abolishment of public amenities is a common theme in modern American libertarian writings (Francis 1983, pp. 462–463). This isn't coatracking but is what reliable sources define the ideology to be like; and either way, there's no mention or discussion of that in the article, nowhere it's said that they support hierarchies and so I don't even understand the point of this discussion. We simply have different POVs on this. I was just disputing you writing "right-libertarianism" is rarely used to describe this ideology, which may well be true in the United States but not elsewhere or globally, hence the article isn't titled Right-libertarianism in the United States.--Davide King (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I mean, I think we should keep the two articles separate. However, we should mention the distinction between the two branches, of course. Velociraptor888 18:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Velociraptor888 thanks for chiming in! We do currently mention the distinction in both articles, the contention currently is whether what we have now is enough. What do you think about that? --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• To be honest, I’d probably be okay with the status quo. Although I wouldn’t be too bothered by changing it. Velociraptor888 22:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Velociraptor888, thanks for your comments! The problems with proposed change such as Some political scientists and writers classify the strands of libertarianism into two groups; "right libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism". Under this classification system right-libertarianism is a political philosophy is that it's either unnecessary (it's already explained in the lead and in the Definition section) or simply isn't the way to start a Right-libertarianism article; that would be a good start for an article titled Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism or a section at Libertarianism that describes both, their distinction and all (which it already does). I have seen no other political article starting this way. is a term used by some political scientists and writers to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital along socialist–capitalist lines. Under this classification, right-libertarianism is a political philosophy also have problems related to Refers and the fact that the topic of the article isn't about the term but rather a type of libertarianism, whose most common used name (outside of libertarianism) is right-libertarianism (same thing for Left-libertarianism). To simplify, Right-libertarianism is about American-style libertarianism while Left-libertarianism is about European-style libertarianism. So why are they both titled as they are? Because that's the term used to refer to the actual topic and because while American and European in character, respectively, both aren't exclusively or necessarely American or European. Right-libertarianism has expanded outside the United States; likewise, left-libertarianism is also present in the United States and many other countries.
• The problem JLMadrigal and North8000 seems to have is that, as Americans, the concept of right-libertarianism in the United States is simply called libertarianism (then again, the same apply to left-libertarianism, where outside of the United States is also simply called libertarianism, but both North and especially JLMadrigal have shown concern about that, nor have they replied to Pfhorrest's proposal here to keep it consistent with Left-libertarianism). I could understand their concerns if we didn't already have an article specifically dedicated to the type of libertarianism they're actually referring to (Libertarianism in the United States). However, not all libertarianism in the United States is right-libertarianism and vice versa, hence why they're separate articles. Another reason is that Libertarianism in the United States is exclusvely about what the title says (just like many other Ideology in the country's name article) while both Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism are written in broad/global terms. I have proposed many times to merge Libertarianism in South Africa and Libertarianism in the United Kingdom (since both are mainly about this type of libertarianism) here to make it even more clear that the topic is global and so the name isn't really a problem because it seems to be a problem only in the United States, where right-libertarianism is the dominant type of libertarianism, or at least more dominant than left-libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It isn't just two people (again, pleas quit that) and it isn't just A problem, it's several people seeing several problems with the status quo. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

See my comment here. It isn't five people either as you wrongly claimed there. As I wrote above, merely opposing the status quo doesn't mean much when the arguments are based on POV-pushing like in the case of PhilLiberty. Only Czar made a good case for it. Both you and JLMadrigal opposition to the status quo is based on something that isn't even true, namely that right-libertarianism isn't really used, isn't the common name, or even is a pejorative, etc., when this was already discussed to death and many users gave you good reponses for why your argument isn't really true or fails; not only that, but even your proposed compromise is either unnecessary (as it's already discussed in the lead and Definition sections) or violates Refers. Either way, you and JLMadrigal seem to be doing policiy shopping to keep this discussion going on and on (if this attempt fails, find another way to try to force the same change), with you already trying to get yet another request for comments. I still think and believe that Aquillion made the strongest case for the status quo.

We have Conservative liberalism and Social liberalism, Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism, etc. to discuss various types or forms of Liberalism, Populism, etc., I don't understand why the same shouldn't apply to Libertarianism too. Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism are the most common names chosen to describe these two types of libertarianism; only the term and article's name are based on the taxonomy system (not the topic itself and the topic of the articles aren't about the terms, but the type of libertarianism) to disambiguate between the two and this is already discussed at length. As I wrote in my above comment, we may as well call them American-style libertarianism or Libertarianism (United States) or European-style libertarianism or Libertarianism (Europe), but these are made-up terms and aren't fully accurate because both have expanded beyond the United States and Europe. Hence, left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are the best and most common, unambiguous global names for the two articles as also pointed out by Pfhorrest many times.

Finally, what do you and JLMadrigal even want or propose now? Your so-called pragmatic compromise violates Refers and perhaps other guidelines about the lead section, so what now? Will you go back to propose a deletion, a merge, a name change? Yet another request for comments where the same things will be said and discussed about?--Davide King (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion is to see if the proposed pragmatic compromise might fly despite your objections. Basically, as I framed it, but with Madigral's first sentence instead of mine. Maybe I should recap that. Some minor changes which would put this to bed. And IMO, it represents major sacrifices on the non-status-quo side and minor sacrifices by the status quo side. So it might appeal to the latter on that basis. After that a well-structured well-advertised well-explained RFC to deal with the first step of the process, which will be to decide whether or not the status quo is OK regarding this. North8000 (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Recap of modified proposed pragmatic compromise

I'm proposing this pragmatic compromise to get this over with. Compared to my original, this substitutes Madigral's beginning in lieu of mine

• Begin the lead substantially like this, with minor tweaks as needed:

Right-libertarianism is a term used by some political scientists and writers to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital along socialist–capitalist lines. Under this classification, right-libertarianism is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that strongly supports property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property. Like most forms of libertarianism, it tends to support civil liberties, but also natural law, negative rights and a major reversal of the modern welfare state. Right-libertarianism 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. Unlike left-libertarians, these libertarians make no distinction between capitalism and free markets, and view any attempt to dictate the market process as counterproductive. Right-libertarians are typically referred to simply as "libertarians".

• Decide that we're eventually going to develop a section that goes a bit more into the right/left division as a taxonomy system. As a minimum, it would be a handful of sentences. Other than fulfilling this outline, it would just be developed by whoever is interested in working on it.

• And we agree that we take a long break (at least two years) from revisiting this issue regarding this article. During that period other larger scale reorganization plans on libertarian articles could still be discussed, possibly including this article, but nothing that is focused on or driven by this article.

Like most compromises, it's assumed that nobody will be totally happy with this. Maybe we we can agree to do this anyway and put this issue to bed at this article. IMO it represent big compromises by the "anti-status quo" side and small compromises by the "status quo" side and IMO the results of the multi-stage methodical RFC process are likely to be more substantial changes. @Pfhorrest: and @Davide King: if we can get one of you two (and preferably both of you) to go with this, I think that would be enough to go with this and put this to bed. Then we could work together and have a lot of fun elsewhere in libertarianism articles, which, seeing the people involved here and the limited nature of the issue, I feel confident would actually happen. What do you two think? Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This still doesn't solve the Refers issue and the fact that the article is about a topic (type of libertarianism) and not about a term. Besides, the Definition section already states right at the start People described as being "left-libertarian" or "right-libertarian" generally tend to call themselves simply "libertarians" and refer to their philosophy as "libertarianism". As a result, some political scientists and writers classify the forms of libertarianism into two groups, namely left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital. Also, the lead already reads This is done to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines. The first thing that should be written is what the topic is, exactly as it is now; the taxonomy system is already discussed both shortly in the lead and more in detail in the Definition section (like it's already done on Libertarianism and Left-libertarianism). Finally, with all due respect, I'm not sure that can really be considered a big compromise on your part, for you and JLMadrigal have repeatedly tried to either delete or rename this article, but failed each time to get a consensus for any of that (hence why this ongoing and endless discussion to me resembles of both policy shopping and snowball clause.--Davide King (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

You mis-stated my own history here. Also, please quit the crap of trying to mis-characterize those disagreeing with you as exhibiting wiki-problematic behavior. You are just going to piss people off and create drama. I am happy for your presence in libertarian articles, look forward to working with you, but would like to get that one type of thing out of the conversations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The topic of this article, "right-libertarianism", is a term that is used in limited cases, so the article needs to treat it as such, and clarify the background of its use (the taxonomy) from the very beginning. The terms "right" and "capitalism" are often used as scare words by opponents to label a philosophy as something that it isn't (and in this case diametrically opposes). The WP:refers issue is relevant for the opposite reason as that stated above. As explained under that topic, the sentence, "Computer architecture refers to the theory behind the design of a computer." is a linguistic redundancy because computer architecture is the theory behind the design of a computer, and "IS" is cleaner than "refers to". In the case of "right-libertarianism", however, the term is used by some taxonomists to distinguish it from something. The citations in the article already document this, but you have to click on the hyperlinks. While from the POV of a few taxonomists "right-libertarianism" describes the philosophy, such is not the case for both the target group AND the vast majority of those who describe the target group - including WP:reliable sources as cited above by several editors. Numbers talk. JLMadrigal @ 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:REFERS isn't about whether or not some name is the correct name for something, it's about whether the article is about a thing or about a name for the thing. This article is not about a name, it's about the thing that that is a name of. It's use-mention distinction. An article about "cats", the word, would discuss things like how it has four letters; but an article about cats, the animals, would discuss things like how they have four legs. This article isn't predominantly talking about the words "right-libertarianism", it's talking about a kind of libertarianism, that is referred to by those words. It's also referred to by other words, sure, and there could be (and obviously has been) an argument about which words are the best ones to refer to it by in Misplaced Pages, but that has nothing to do with whether the article is about the words, or about the thing they refer to, which is what WP:REFERS is all about. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

But @Pfhorrest:,without even considering that maybe it should be an article about the term, there is an in-between possibility. From wp: not a dictionary: "In other cases, a word or phrase is still at first blush about a topic other than the word or phrase itself/ but the word or phrase is a "lens" or concept through which the topic or closely related set of topics are grouped or seen. When this occurs, the article often focuses on the "lens" and may not be the main coverage of the topics which are viewed through it. World music, Political correctness, Homosexual agenda, Lake Michigan-Huron...illustrate this." IMO, this article is such a case. Everything in this article is covered in other libertarian articles except for the right-left taxonomy system itself. So the lens must, as a minimum, be strongly acknowledged. Which is all that this proposed compromise does. North8000 (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles