Talk:Right-libertarianism/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Well, if we're really talking big picture

We seem to be talking bigger and bigger picture here, which is cool but also could paralyze change which might need to be incremental to go anywhere. I've been thinking about the big-picture for about 7 years and here's what I think a goo big picture might be:

  • Top level article Libertarianism Shorten the sections on individual philosophical strands of libertarianism a bit
  • Individual articles on all of the individual philosophical strands of libertarianism that have real specific names
  • Take all of the vague two-word-libertarian-term articles and merge each into a couple sentences on the term in Libertarianism. Most are just two word sequences with variable meanings rather than a distinct topic.
  • A new section in Libertarianism on current actual practice / prevalence of libertarianism where it has a presence worth covering. Where are the libertarians? Does that one strand have 100 or 100,000,000 followers? This aspect is massively undercovered in Wikipedia.
  • An article on the massive vague form of libertarianism that is centered in the US. The one we've been discussing here.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

That sounds generally acceptable to me, except that if we have separate articles on each different strand of libertarianism, we'll need to settle on names for each of then, which brings us right back around to the current dilemma. What is the name for the kind of libertarianism commonly just called "libertarianism" in the US, if not "right-libertarianism"? Does "left-libertarianism" encompass libertarian socialism or not? If we just cover all of those things in the main article on libertarianism, then we don't have to give each one a canonical name, we can just refer to them descriptively and mention their various names and the disagreements about them in natural prose. Also, we already have the article Libertarianism in the United States, if that addresses your last point at all. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Since the US-centered form is more of a big vague phenomena rather that a specific philosophical strand, I was treating it as a separate case. Maybe libertarianism in the United States could be a place to cover it, although it's not limited to the US nor it it the only form in the US. I'm not expert enough on the term libertarian socialism enough to know whether it really has a consistent meaning / is a distinct topic vs. just one of the two word sequences which would be deprecated into a couple sentences about the term. North8000 (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I think U.S. libertarianism is two things: one is an ideology that developed out of 19th century anarchism, particularly individualist anarchism but also Georgism, and the use as a term for a voting demographic that supports less government intrusion both in economics and morality. Do you agree, or do you believe that Rothbard, Hess and Nolan were unaware of the prior use of the terms libertarian and anarchism when they adopted them? And do you think that when pollsters identify libertarian voters they are necessarily aware of the ideology that Rothbard et al developed? TFD (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with all five of your suggestions, North8000, and would add that individual strands, such as Georgism, can also be expanded to include sub strands (i.e. Spencer MacCallum's lease system for MTIPs). But that is another matter. The Libertarianism in the United States article could touch on the common libertarian typology (as should Libertarianism), but I believe the bulk of the typology article should be taken from this article, and expanded to include poll results. Also, any redirect from the former Right-libertarianism search term must include a disambiguation for at least the two most common definitions of the term. JLMadrigal @ 13:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: I agree with your definition; the only thing I would add which I believe should be talked about is early American anarchism and anarcho-communists and individualist anarchists, especially their debate/issues which took place and amounted to accusing the other of being authoritarian and not libertarian, whose man who coined the word itself lived here and I think also pubblished a book about it. @North8000: Libertarianism in the United States doesn't refer to and shouldn't be about libertarian as a political ideology; indeed, the title is Libertarianism in the United States, not Libertarians in the United States, or Libertarian (United States). Libertarianism in the United States should be structured similarly to the Conservatism in the United States, Liberalism in the United States, Modern liberalism in the United States and Progressivism in the United States articles, describing the actual ideology and its evolution and movement(s), not to a voter demographics, which I wouldn't be opposed to create an article about it, if Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism remains (which should remain especially per the reasons argued concisely here by @Pfhorrest:).
As I stated elsewhere:

I also don't understand why [JLMadrigal] and @North8000: keep mentioning those so-called one fourth of Americans identifying as libertarians. I don't dispute that, but I don't see how that's relevant to the Right-libertarianism article, which I repeat is about a specific form of libertarianism that expanded worldwide since the 1970s and not just Libertarianism in the United States, or even what each responder understood libertarian to mean, or whether the responder was left-libertarian, right-libertarian, or any other type of libertarian. Indeed, there's literally a phrase in Libertarianism#American libertarianism stating: "However, a 2014 Pew Poll found that 23% of Americans who identify as libertarians have no idea what the word means". Source: Kiley, Jocelyn (25 August 2014). "In Search of Libertarians". Pew Research Center. "14% say the term libertarian describes them well; 77% of those know the definition (11% of total), while 23% do not (3% of total).--Davide King (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

One thing accomplished in the extensive work above (which started with an open book on the topic) above is agreeing that the form that is common in (but not limited to) the US is the topic of this article, although we saw it through differing lenses. I was just going with the group consensus, which was a change from my original stance. My most preferred idea is Pfhorrest's which to merge this article and the Left-Libertarian articles into a small section in Libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@North8000: What the topic of this article is about (and I believe should be about) is that of the libertarian philosophy that support the private ownership of both land and capital as opposed to left-libertarianism. The topic you're talking about and referring to should be in Libertarianism in the United States article. Conservatism, Liberalism, Modern liberalism and Progressism in the United States articles don't refer just to some voter demographics, or Conservative, Liberal or Progressive (political typology); they talk about the actual philosophy and movement. Your proposal would be the fork one since right-libertarianism is related to "the form that is common in (but not limited to) the US" but isn't the same thing, hence why two articles.
Libertarianism in the United States include:
  • Right-libertarianism as defined here and also right-libertarianism defined as culturally conservative libertarians such as with Paleolibertarianism.
  • What could be termed centrist or mainstream libertarianism, i.e. fiscal conservatives and cultural liberals who identify as libertarian.
  • Left-libertarianism as defined in the form of left-wing market anarchism and other pro-market but anti-capitalist and left-wing positions and I would also include in the American left-libertarianism the anarchist and libertarian socialist movements.
Do you disagree with any of this?--Davide King (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Velociraptor888's comment that left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are "[t]wo different, distinct, and notable concepts" and thus worthy of two articles. I also agree with Pfhorrest's comment that "The onus is not on me to prove that things are fine how they are, the onus is on you to show that any change is required". You need reliable sources that back your challenge to the Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism articles as they are, not simply arguments, no matter how well they be argued or even have some truth to them.--Davide King (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
This diagram perfectly explains and summaries how/the way I see it.--Davide King (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
David, reliable sources discuss topics, not Wikipedia articles. There is no such criteria for fixing something in Wikipedia as the barrier/gauntlet that you are describing. Further, you have mis-stated the background to describe this as "MY" challenge. I have merely been trying to facilitate a discussion between a bunch of people who are just trying to come up the the best answer. Further I don't think that there is any bias at play here, except that most people have learned this topic through very different lenses. North8000 (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@North8000: Apologies for that, but I didn't "mis-stated the background" and I didn't meant it to describe this as your challenge. I was merely saying that if you want to change something about this, you need to show reliable sources that support it. I don't understand what you meant by "reliable sources discuss topics, not Wikipedia articles"; could please clarify that? Sources:
  1. Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 4. "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Rothbard and Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition".
  2. Marshall, Peter (2008). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial. p. 565. "The problem with the term 'libertarian' is that it is now also used by the Right. [...] In its moderate form, right libertarianism embraces laissez-faire liberals like Robert Nozick who call for a minimal State, and in its extreme form, anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman who entirely repudiate the role of the State and look to the market as a means of ensuring social order".
  3. Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh University Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0-7486-3495-8. "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism). There is a complex debate within this tradition between those like Robert Nozick, who advocate a 'minimal state', and those like Rothbard who want to do away with the state altogether and allow all transactions to be governed by the market alone. From an anarchist perspective, however, both positions—the minimal state (minarchist) and the no-state ('anarchist') positions—neglect the problem of economic domination; in other words, they neglect the hierarchies, oppressions, and forms of exploitation that would inevitably arise in a laissez-faire 'free' market. [...] Anarchism, therefore, has no truck with this right-wing libertarianism, not only because it neglects economic inequality and domination, but also because in practice (and theory) it is highly inconsistent and contradictory. The individual freedom invoked by right-wing libertarians is only a narrow economic freedom within the constraints of a capitalist market, which, as anarchists show, is no freedom at all."
How aren't they "discuss[ing] topics"? I would compare it to Populism, which also has Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism. Just like populists disagree of who exactly is "the people" and "the elite" and what they would do about it, libertarians disagree on what liberty means and what it means to be "free". Do you think Left-wing populism and Right-populism should be deleted or merged too? Just because people may not identify as left-libertarian or right-libertarian, it doen't mean left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism don't exist; indeed, it's a good thing that they do, because they are two vastly different topics, although they may have some general overlaps, just like left-wing populism and right-wing populism do.
Why don't you start creating Libertarian (U.S. political typology)? We could also create Libertarian schools of thought to include "all of the individual philosophical strands of libertarianism that have real specific names" and the "two-word-libertarian-term articles" as structured in Anarchist schools of thought, List of communist ideologies or Types of socialism. Could also please reply to this comment left by The Four Deuces? It can help me to understand better your thoughts about it.--Davide King (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth I thought Davide King's edits that North8000 reverted were appropriate within the scope of this article that North is talking about us having previously discussed. There is significant overlap between the scopes of both Right-libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States, because right-libertarianism is the most popular form of libertarianism in the United States and the United States is the place where right-libertarianism is most popular, so it is debatable what content is best included in one article or the other or duplicated between them, and I thought Davide's changes in that respect were warranted per his edit summaries.
(Note however that just because there is that significant overlap in scope does not mean they should be merged or one deleted or anything like that; right-libertarianism is not exclusive to the United States nor is US libertarianism exclusively right-libertarianism, so they are still distinctly different scopes. Compare, for analogy, Roman Catholicism and Romance languages: you'll find a lot of overlap between Catholics and Latinos, but they're still different topics). --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pfhorrest: Thank you a lot for writing in much more clear terms such a thing; it's exactly what I think too.--Davide King (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

How far we did and didn't get

Now we have more folks and bigger ideas involved (Cool!). In all of the work we did so far above, there are some things that we did accomplish and a lot of things that we didn't accomplish. What we did accomplish is something that I don't think that anyone would fundamentally object to, although everyone would probably word it in different ways. It was:

The "cover it?" question aside, there seems to be agreement on what the topic-in-question is. Vaguely speaking, it's the current content of the article, or the form(s) of libertarianism that don't object to capitalism. I think that we have a strong consensus to cover this topic conditional on not-titling it "right-libertarianism". Without that condition, I think that we have either a weak consensus to cover it, or "no consensus yet"

So now, with the new participants and new ideas, where do we go from here? North8000 (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @North8000: Maybe I missed something, but I'm not sure "we have a strong consensus to cover this topic conditional on not-titling it "right-libertarianism"; you meant to say that there's no consensus to title it Right-libertarianism, or did I misunderstood your wording? In that case, we had a requested move that, while it wasn't necessarely about endorsing Right-libertarianism, it also stated there was nothing wrong with it.--Davide King (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Some relevant comments from that discussion:
  1. Oppose. I'm not convinced that "right-libertarian(ism)" is mainly used by opponents. I hear the terms "right-libertarian" and "left-libertarian" used together quite frequently, and never in any kind of pejorative way. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose move - Right libertarianism is the WP:COMMONNAME for this political ideology. I have never heard of "Libertarian capitalism", and I've been around the block a time or two. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Because there's nothing pejorative, contradictory, or otherwise wrong about the title "right-libertarianism", that's a perfectly cromulent description of the position that is anti-state but pro-capitalist. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose the premise for the move is objectively false as a quick search on Google Books shows. GScholar gives about 366 hits for the proposed change[1] and about 508 for the current title.[2] Where's the guideline/policy reason to support the move? Doug Weller talk 18:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
--Davide King (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you copied that material from the archives into here....it's not from any discussion that I'm referring to. On your question I'll expand on "I think that we have a strong consensus to cover this topic conditional on not-titling it "right-libertarianism". Without that condition, I think that we have either a weak consensus to cover it, or "no consensus yet"
Basically, I was summarizing the discussion on "should that topic have an article?". And, on that question, there were some who said, in essence "Yes, as long as it's not called "Right-Libertarian". (Only) if you include them (and thus that condition) there is a consensus that the topic should have an article. If you don't include them/that condition, then it's there is no decision yet on that question
So what has been decided so far is VERY limited. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @North8000: I thought it was relevant, if you believe this page should be either deleted or moved. Beyond My Ken, who I believe to be a very expert user, explicity said that was "the WP:COMMONNAME for this political ideology." Could you please link me that discussion so I can reply you about that? Maybe those users who opposed the move should also be invited to be part of that discussion. Why shouldn't it be called right-libertarianism if it's the common name, whether we like it not? Why shouldn't there be an article on the libertarian political philosophy that supports the private ownership of capital and land, and I would add as well as the whole elimination of the welfare state, either into a minimal state or in its abolition (indeed, the difference between classical liberals and such libertarians is that the first support a minimal welfare state and give the state more functions that these libertarians would support)?--Davide King (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Гармонический Мир I think there're enough sources that describes it. Indeed, anarcho-capitalism and paleolibertarianism are schools of right-libertarianism. Economic liberalism only concerns the economic theory; Libertarianism should concerns the philosophies that are referred to or called themeselves libertarians, as it is now; and Libertarianism in the United States should include both right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism as they developed in the United States only.--Davide King (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • My main stance on this topic is just that Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism need to receive parallel treatment because they are parts of the same conceptual distinction. If we have an article about different forms of left-libertarianism generally, we need to also have an article about different types of right-libertarianism generally, even if there are more specific subtypes of each. If both are merged together into one article or a subsection of Libertarianism, that is also acceptable to me as far as parallel treatment is concerned, though I'm not fixed on that as opposed to leaving them separate and I think David King makes good arguments for why they warrant their own articles. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree with Velociraptor888's reason that these are clearly "[t]wo different, distinct, and notable concepts" and thus worthy of two articles. A Libertarian political spectrum section could be created and added in Libertarianism in the United States to describe it and maybe a short version of it could be added in Libertarianism; I don't think Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism warrants another article; Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism are enough. Anarchism and Marxism was a nice article too, but it got redirected; I think the same could be done in this case, i.e. creating a Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, or Libertarian(ism) political spectrum, section and use Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism as a redirect there, rather than a new, full article.--Davide King (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@North8000: I agree that we did have consensus to cover this topic (but not consensus, among you and I and Madrigal and TFD at least, on whether the title needed changing, though as Davide points out, there was a slightly-earlier consensus among more varied users that the current title was fine). But I think maybe there was less meeting of minds as to what the scope of that topic actually was. Please see my reply at the end of the section above for more on that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pfhorrest: For the way they talked about it, I think these users who opposed to move would generally agree or be close to our understanding rather than North800, but I can't be 100% sure unless they wrote about it themselves. I'm sorry to say this and I could be wrong of course, but I dsiagree with North8000 who sees "neutral knowledgeable people there just trying to figure out the best thing to do". JLMadrigal clearly has a bias against left-libertarianism and in favor of the Nolan Chart, as can be seen from exchanges you've had with JLMadrigal. North8000 sees Right-libertarianism as Libertarianism in the United States whereas you, I think you, The Four Deuces and I see it as Rothbard-Hess-Nozick et all school (The Four Deuces calls it pro-capitalism libertarianism but I would say pro-capitalist libertarianism is exactly how I'd describe right-libertarianism, although some left-libertarian schools are non-socialist and thus closer to right-libertarianism but still distinguished to be defined within left-libertarianism), i.e. the current topic of the article (that's why the current should be either deleted, along with other stuff, as I did, or it needs to be re-written, perhaps structured in sub-sections like Libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Shortening my answer below, I don't see "Right-libertarianism as Libertarianism in the United States", I see "right libertarianism" as a a term that is problematic and which has no consistent meaning. North8000 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

What's your definition of right-libertarianism?

@The Four Deuces: @Pfhorrest: @North8000: and all other users that have been involved: Could we please give a short definition of Right-libertarianism and what you understand the topic to be? I'd define it as the "libertarian political philosophy that supports, or finds it legitimate, the private ownership of both land and capital; laissez-faire capitalism and the total elimination of the welfare state, advocating in its place either a minimal state or no state at all". I also re-post this:

  1. Right-libertarianism as defined here and also right-libertarianism defined as culturally conservative libertarians such as with Paleoconservatism.
  2. What could be termed centrist or mainstream libertarianism, i.e. fiscal conservatives and cultural liberals who identify as libertarian.
  3. Left-libertarianism as defined in the form of left-wing market anarchism and other pro-market but anti-capitalist and left-wing positions; and I would also include in the American left-libertarianism the anarchist and libertarian socialist movements.

@North8000: You seem to understand right-libertariansim as "[w]hat could be termed centrist or mainstream libertarianism, i.e. fiscal conservatives and cultural liberals who identify as libertarian." @JLMadrigal: instead seems to understand it as "culturally conservative libertarians". @The Four Deuces: @Pfhorrest: and I seem to understand it in the first term (with The Four Deuces, Pfhorrest and I seem to disagree only on left-libertarianism), i.e. the Rothbard-Hess-Nozick et all school.

Or did I misunderstood any of you?--Davide King (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • A clear, that is strictly scientific, definition of "right-libertarianism", in my opinion, cannot be given. Just as there is no clear definition of "right-wing" politics. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, that's not according to Wikipedia, which defines Left-wing politics as "support[ing] social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy" and Right-wing politics as "hold[ing] that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition", which I agree with. One clear definition of right-libertarianism is that of the philosophy which "strongly support[s] private property rights and defend[s] market distribution of natural resources and private property" as well as reducing the state to less than what liberalism supports. Besides, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Many dictionaries refer to communism or socialism as the state or government ownership of the means of production, which is why you see many users using them to either reduce communism to socialist states or socialism to fascism, but we don't use that when describing communism or socialism.--Davide King (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Davide King, there are leftists who advocate hierarchy (for example, Stalinists). And there are rightists who support the social equality. That is, I repeat that a clear definitions of "left-" and "right-wing" politics can't be given (the same applies to "left"- and "right"-libertarianism). Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think that mean much, especially if they support the citizen-immigrant hierarchy; there's a right-wing which is more "social" (in Italy, we literally call that destra sociale), but it's more similar to 19th-century conservative paternalism than anything that can be properly called anti-capitalism or left-wing. They're merely opposed to laissez-faire capitalism and they fully support private property or in their more reactionary thinking a return or rebuilding of the guild system more akin to feudalism.--Davide King (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Davide King: I generally agree with your definition. I would more succinctly describe it as "pro-capitalist anti-statism", but conversation here has shown that there is ambiguity between people of what "capitalism" means. I would define capitalism as "(an economic system tending toward) class division in the ownership of the means of production", discounting any system where there is a stable, wide and equitable distribution, but still private ownership, of land and capital, as not capitalist. And by "pro" I really mean "not against"; being merely okay with, even if not actively pushing for, such an unequal class division in ownership is still capitalist in my book. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pfhorrest: I completely agree with your "pro-capitalism statism" definition, or in other words also anti-state capitalism (which could mean both opposition to state capitalism and the capitalism doctrine which oppose the state and government interventions). I would describe left-libertarianism as "anti-capitalist libertarianism", which would include free-market anti-capitalism (left-wing market anarchism), free-market socialism (mutualism) and then other many libertarian socialists schools of thought that support some form of decentralised planning, the abolition of markets and commodity exchange, etc. (anarcho-communism, anarcho-collectvism, anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian Marxism, etc.). It may seem too broad, but the left-wing has always been considered very broad; and I would say it's not surprising since the left advocates for change and thus it's normal to have differences while still remain committed to the support of social equality and liberty in opposition to authority, inequalities and social hierarchies (what the right stands for), whether the right support the status quo and it's more a matter of what to keep and what to reform, without any huge change. Peter Marshall (2008) even includes and ecompasses, apart "from the decentralist who wishes to limit and devolve State power, to the syndicalist who wants to abolish it altogether, [...] the Fabians and the social democrats who wish to socialize the economy but who still see a limited role for the State".--Davide King (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Answering your question, I think that "right libertarianism" is just a two word sequence that has no consistent definition. A few have used that two word sequence in the context of their varying "definitions of the moment" in trying to organize discussions about libertarian strands and philosophies. Further, the term is an oxymoron to the majority of all people who identify as libertarians. North8000 (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @North8000: I'd say one consistent definition as provided by The Four Deuces and Pfhorrest is "pro-capitalist libertarianism" and "pro-capitalist anti-statism". The same argument could be used regarding left-libertarian as it's an oxymoron to "the majority of all people who identify as libertarians". Indeed, only in the United States they identify as left-libertarians, specifically to distinguish themselves from pro-capitalist anti-statism, which is the most popular conception of libertarianism in the United States. Nazis identify as National Socialists and don't use Nazism but rather National Socialism; should we also move that to National Socialism because Nazis see it as pejorative? The bottom line is that right-libertarianism is the common name and that we can add a Definition section to clarify this issue, how people labelled as right-libertarians indentify themselves just as libertarians, etc. These are my thoughts on the names proposed:
  1. Right-libertarianism — common name (Google Scholar results 38.500; left libertarianism is at 32.700)
  2. Libertarianism (common U.S. meaning) — more approprate as a proposal for Libertarianism in the United States, which is prefered due to not having disambiguation and consistency with similar articles such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Modern liberalism and Progressivism in the United States (Google Scholar results 44.900, but conflated as they're about what's talked in Libertarianism in the United States)
  3. Libertarianism (U.S. usage) — as above (Google Scholar 10.200)
  4. Libertarianism (common U.S. usage) — as above (Google Scholar 28.600)
  5. Modern libertarianism — biased as modern libertarianism include much more than that (Google Scholar 32.700)
  6. Libertarian capitalism — the less worse title, but still less common than right-libertarianism, although it could be a separate article discussing laissez-faire capitalism (Google Scholar 32.700)
  7. Contemporary libertarianism — biased as contemporany libertarianism include much more than that (Google Scholar 30.900)
  8. Mainstream libertarianism — biased as it's only the mainstream in the United States (Google Scholar 14.400)
  9. American libertarianism — already redirects to Libertarianism in the United States and rightfully so; still, the article should be about this form internationally and nore just in the United States (Google Scholar 35.600)
  10. American-style libertarianism — not the worst option; indeed the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties is what I'd describe as American-style libertarianism since the parties themselves were based off the American Libertarian Party; still biased as American libertarianism also includes left-libertarianism (Google Scholar 3.810 as American-style libertarianism and 16.300 as American style libertarianism)
  11. Negative-rights libertarianism — it seems to overlap with Natural-rights libertarianism (Google Scholar 3.960 as negative-rights libertarianism; 23.000 as negative rights libertarianism)
  12. Laissez-faire libertarianism — it'd be like calling socialism Social-ownership socialism, or calling communism Common-ownership communism (Google Scholar 19.500)
  13. Free-market libertarianism — see above (Google Scholar 26.100)
  14. Center-north libertarianism — found not a single use of this term (Google Scholar 107; not one that actually refers to it)
  15. Libertarian (political typology) — the article isn't about a voter demographic; it should be a separate article and titled Libertarian (U.S. political typology) to clarify it what type of libertarin it refers to (Google Scholar 18.000)
  16. Libertarian — should just redirect to Libertarianism; we also already have Libertarianism (disambiguation), if you want this proposed page to be similar to a disambiguation page that explains the terms (Google Scholar 166.000; false results as it can refers to anything related to libertarianism).
All in all, all these terms are mainly related to Libertarianism in the United States (hence why some of them may have much higher results when searching on Google) and not refer to the specific concept of right-libertarianism (not all Libertarianism in the United States is right-libertarianism). So I'd give only right-libertarianism "good idea" and all the rest "bad idea". And surprise, surprise, right-libertarianism has the most results on Google Scholar, even more than names that referred to libertarianism in broad terms.
One more reason to have Right-libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States is that the mainstream American libertarians are really more in line with classical liberalism (fiscal conservatives and culturally liberals) whereas right-libertarianism oppose certain tenets of it as stated in this sourced section:

While influenced by classical liberal thought, with some viewing right-libertarianism as an outgrowth or as a variant of it,[1] there are significant differences. Edwin van de Haar argues that "confusingly, in the United States the term libertarianism is sometimes also used for or by classical liberals. But this erroneously masks the differences between them".[2] Classical liberalism refuses to give priority to liberty over order and therefore does not exhibit the hostility to the state which is the defining feature of libertarianism.[3] Subsequently, right-libertarians believe classical liberals favor too much state involvement,[4] arguing that they do not have enough respect for individual property rights and lack sufficient trust in the workings of the free market and its spontaneous order leading to support of a much larger state.[4] Right-libertarians also disagree with classical liberals as being too supportive of central banks and monetarist policies.[5]

References

  1. ^ Goodman, John C. (20 December 2005). "What Is Classical Liberalism?". National Center for Policy Analysis. Retrieved 26 June 2019. Archived 9 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine.
  2. ^ van de Haar 2015, p. 71.
  3. ^ Heywood 2004, p. 337.
  4. ^ a b van de Haar 2015, p. 42.
  5. ^ van de Haar 2015, p. 43.
In many ways, right-libertarianism is a more radical version of liberalism and mainstream American libertarianism as theroetically it advocates the abolition of the state, as in the case of anarcho-capitalism.--Davide King (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Further to my "dog article" analogy, the two word sequence "big dog" gets over 2 Billion google hits, most of them about dogs. But it has no consistent meaning and is not used as a way to organize articles on dogs in Wikipedia.
  • @North8000: Google searches aren't really any meaningful way to determine that; indeed, most of the names proposed hits more on Google than right-libertarianism, yet right-libertarianism has the most in Google Scholar. There're no Google Scholar results that talk about "big dog" as a concept; there're instead results (more than any other proposed name) that talk about right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism as two different concepts, hence why the different name in the first place. The Four Deuces Pfhorrest and I seem to have found some common definition (pro-capitalist libertarianism; capitalist anti-statism; anti-state capitalism; The Four Deuces still divides it between pro-capitalism libertarianism, i.e. "an ideology that developed out of 19th century libertarianism"; and left-libertarianism, which he considers it "a form of pro-capitalist libertarianism"). I'd suggest to make political analogies instead; we're talking about politics, so that would be more appropriate and could help, if you can find any.
I don't understand why you see libertarian articles as merely terms when they're clearly a distinct strand, or tradition, of libertarianism; having very short articles about the term and its usage would just cause confusion, like they're all similar but different terms to refer to the same thing when it's not exactly the same thing. Conservative liberalism and liberal conservatism aren't just some fancy terms; they're used to describe a real thing too. So are left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism; just because they may not have a literally, word by word common definition, it doesn't mean they're nothing but terms. That's why we have definition, or etymology, section in Libertarianism and Left-libertarianism that explicity talks and refers to this issue. Perhaps we should have one here too.
Left anarchism and right-wing anarchism, now that's what something that needs to be merged look like; I couldn't find anything on Google Scholar and in this case they're both seen and used mainly as pejoratives whereas left-libertarianism and right-libertarians have been used in neutral terms to describe two different things and they're only used pejoratively in real life by left-libertarians and right-libertarians to describe the other as not true libertarianism. Another example is Right-wing liberalism; only conservative liberalism has actually been called or describe as right-wing, so much so that it's a synonym rather than a specific concept.
On the other hand, right-libertarianism includes for sure both Nozikian minarchism and anarcho-capitalism; left-libertarianism include the original libertarianism (left-libertarianism has been specifically used to refer to it and distinguish it from right-libertarianism), free-market anti-capitalism, Georgism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school; one thing that unites all these different schools and traditions, and hence why they're called left-, is that they oppose the private ownership of land (regarding that of capital, some want to abolish it and socialise it, others may prefer to use usufruct, i.e. use and possession property norms, rather than perpetual ownership unless traded or gifted otherwhise; etc.) and they all support, or are concerned to achieve, egalitarianism and reduce, or eliminate, social hierarchies. Right-libertarians in this sense agree with right-wing politics in arguing, or believing, that inequalities are natural results of competition in market economies.--Davide King (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "It is popular to label libertarianism as a right-wing doctrine. But this is mistaken. For one, on social (rather than economic) issues, libertarianism implies what are commonly considered left-wing views." (SEP)
Note here the Nolan distinction between economic and social issues. On Economic issues, you may recall, libertarians fall to the right. On social issues they fall to the left. The distinction is two-dimensional.
Dividing libertarians along purely economic positions adds to the already overwhelming confusion of trying to locate them on a one-dimensional political scale.
JLMadrigal @ 01:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Right libertarianism is a term invented retrospectively to distinuish the so-called "left-libertarian" school of VAllentyne et al from the members of the Rothbard-Nolan-Hess school of libertarianism who didn't accept their minor differences. However, I disagree with your approach. We need to identify topics first an assign article names second. Whether one thinks Mars is a god or a planet, everyone should agree that there are two topics, whatever we call them. TFD (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree that there are a variety of differences among libertarians. This is clearly evidenced by polls. But I don't see views regarding the proper interpretation of capitalism as a clear line of separation. Even the SEP article describes libertarian differences on appropriation as a "continuum". JLMadrigal @ 13:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @JLMadrigal: The word right- in right-libertarianism doesn't necessarily mean that it's a right-wing ideology, merely that it's the right-wing within the libertarian political spectrum (whatever your thoughts on the political spectrum, it's still used as a reference and the Nolan Chart is biased in favor of libertarianism), or simply to the right of left-libertarianism. What @The Four Deuces: has said is true, although there're also sources which use the term left-libertarianism to refer to socialist libertarianism to differenciate it from right-libertarianism; and I agree with his approach. The Four Deuces, @Pfhorrest: and I seem to have a general agreement on right-libertarianism referring to the school first developed by Rothbard and others; and I believe the common term for this is right-libertarianism. You seem to disagree but have provided nothing in your support.--Davide King (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have provided plenty, Davide. Scroll up. JLMadrigal @ 13:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @JLMadrigal: Well, you have just provided that SEP article, which also divide libertarianism into left-libertarianism (not including libertarian socialis, however; perhaps because it's mainly talking about and referring to libertarianism in the United States) and right-libertarianism. I also agree with @Pfhorrest:'s comment below and I repeat that right- doesn't mean it's necessarely on the right-wing of the left–right political spectrum.--Davide King (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @JLMadrigal: as I've explained several times before, nobody here is trying to reduce libertarianism to a place on a one-dimensional spectrum. There are multiple different two-dimensional spectra. Besides the Nolan diamond of economic liberty X personal liberty, another common one is a The Political Compass which has a vertical dimension of liberty-authority and a horizontal dimension of socialism-capitalism, so everyone along the liberty side is libertarian but along that side are a whole contimuum of different kinds of libertarians from left to right. That's the kind of framework from which terms like "right-libertarian" and "left-libertarian" come, and yes you can be anywhere along that continuum and not just to one side or the other (I'm somewhere around the middle of it myself), but there is still a left side and a right side. And there are many other multi-dimensional political spectrums too; the choice isn't just between one-dimensional left-right or else the Nolan chart. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Land and capital are two entirely separate things. Liberals have always advocated private ownership of capital but disagreed over the nature of land ownership. Land is not capital. Margaret Thatcher for example forced aristocratic and municipal corporations (and remember that corporations are people with rights) to sell their land to their tenants. Major corporations such as Microsoft, Goldman Sachs, GE do not have much of their assets invested in land. So left libertarians believe that the state can tax land, while right libertarians disagree. Communists, fascists, liberals conservatives, Christian Democrats, socialists, greens and Trump supporters all agree in the right of the state to tax land, so there is nothing left-wing about left libertarianism unless by left-wing you mean someone who does not agree in entirety with the few thousand ardent supporters of Rothbard, Hess and Nolan. TFD (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You're right, but I don't think left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism mean necessarely the left-wing and the right-wing, respectively, merely that one is to the left/right of the other. If "someone who does not agree in entirety with the few thousand ardent supporters of Rothbard, Hess and Nolan" use the term left-libertarianism in this way, that's still something. Other sources also include in left-libertarianism 19th-century libertarianism, anarchism, Georgism, left-wing market anarchism and socialist libertarianism; right-libertarianism is mainly related to laissez-faire, Nozick minarchism and anarcho-capitalism, or more specifically the libertarian philosophies that reject either egalitarianism or the common/unowned ownership of natural resources. Left-libertarianism can support the common ownership of capital, the socialisation of capital, or otherwhise the workers themselves owning capital, rather than a private individual owning capital and employing workers who don't own it.--Davide King (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Sorry for my bad English) Yes, Georgist views can be called left-wing only with exaggeration (and to say that agorism is a left-wing ideology does not make sense at all). Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Гармонический Мир: If I had to put different libertarian philosophies on a political spectrum, I would put anarchism on the far-left, libertarian socialism on the left-wing and Georgism on the centre-left, yet still within the broad left-libertaranism; the left-wing include both the far-left and the centre-left. I would put right-libertarianism closer to the centre than to the right-wing, but to the right of all other libertarian philosopies, hence the name division.--Davide King (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In politics, "right" implies identification with the political right (economic liberty and social regimentation), and "left" implies identification with the political left (social liberty and economic regimentation). The libertarians described in the article identify with neither the political right nor the political left. JLMadrigal @ 02:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That is not the only definition of left/right used in all of politics. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. The original Italian fascists, for example (trying to avoid Godwin here), are broadly considered right-wing, but in no way supported economic liberty. Anarchists conversely in no way favor "economic regimentation" (or any kind of "regimentation", by which I assume you mean state interference) but are still generally considered left-wing. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @JLMadrigal: That's a really libertarian biased way to see it; that's exactly what some libertarians say so they aren't put in neither the left nor the right. Ironically, that would put them in the centre, which is exactly near where I would put right-libertarianism, since they take the "social liberty" from the left and the "economic libery" from the right (which are biased and wrong, by the way). Besides, fascists too claimed to be "neither left or right", or even "beyond left and right", yet they're rightfully put in the far-right. You're so biased in favor of capitalism that you cannot possibly think or imagine that the left doesn't necessarely mean what you call "economic regimentation", which is actually what many leftists see capitalism to be (since it denies their access to the means of production); you cannot possibly think that maybe, just maybe, socialists see capitalism the same way you see socialism, i.e. authoritarian and "economic regimentation"; and that they're also opposed to the Soviet Union state-capitalist model. I suggest you to check the sourced Wikipedia's definition of both Left-wing politics and Right-wing politics.
@Pfhorrest: already succintely explained this in even better terms in previous discussions. I wrote all this above right at the same time of Pfhorrest (edit conflict), so I thank you @Pfhorrest: for clarifying it here too again.--Davide King (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Гармонический Мир I agree with that, although I would say they're more complementary; libetarian and authoritarian fit well with the Wikipedia definition of left-wing and right-wing politics. The problem is that a libertarian—authoritarian spectrum should be added; it makes no sense to have anarchists and Stalinists on the far-left; Stalinists would be much closer to the centre since they may equally support many left-wing values such as equality (left) and authority (right). They aren't just because liberal democracy is wrongly put at the centre and so Stalinists, just because they reject it, are far-left. The centre should be either social democracy of liberalism; and the left should include only anti-capitalism, whether revolutionary (far-left; anarchism/communism), evolutionary, reformist or gradualist (left-wing; socialism), or parliamentarian (centre-left; classical social democracy). Anyway, I repeat my proposal to remove the History, Symbolism, Notable people and publications associated with right-libertarianism, Contention over placement on the political spectrum and Right-libertarianism and Objectivism as I did here and move them to Libertarianism in the United States (they're more appropriate, were already there too and refer to American libertarianism in general rather than right-libertarianism). So the structure of Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism would be similar in having Definition, Philosophy and Schools of thought sections.--Davide King (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I still agree with those edits too. —Pfhorrest (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The need to centralize the discussion

Since this discussion is taking place in several pages, I would suggest centralizing it in the Libertarianism's talk page. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • If we want to start really working on the big picture of the whole structure of libertarianism articles,that would probably be a better venue. But so far what I see there is a bunch a templates which are just to jam up (plus a possible poison pill) the extensive discussion on this article which was close to an conclusion. And this article is the most controversial article/article title. Ironically, I also like the idea in the "jamming up" templates..  :-) North8000 (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that Talk:Libertarianism is the better place for discussion, since the fate of this article impacts the overall structure of libertarianism-related articles. If we were only discussing small changes to this article, that would be appropriate here, but renaming or repurposing or redefining the scope of this article impacts more than just this article. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
My opinion is that Libertarianism should be a disambiguation page, with links to Libertarianism(capitalist) and Libertarianism(socialist). The objection that Right-libertarianism gets more hits in a search engine than other names is misleading, since "Libertarianism" gets an order of magnetude more hits, and the vast majority of these refer to the capitalist form of libertarianism. Also, several people have tried to claim that the capitalist version of libertarianism is a distinctly US thing. It is not. There are libertarian capitalists in Latin America, Europe, India, and all over the world. Maybe that applied 50 years ago, but not today. My opinion is that the use of a pejorative article name is, ipso facto, POV, especially when there are clear alternatives. PhilLiberty (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
PhilLiberty, If we keep all or most of this article, which do you think would be the best title choices from those listed above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right-libertarianism#Results I would prefer to avoid having "capitalism" in the title due to the nuanced interpretation of the term pushed by "anticapitalist" schools (which thus tends to be confused with cronyism and privilege). JLMadrigal @ 00:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
This link lists the choices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right-libertarianism#Towards_bringing_the_main_question_to_a_conclusion The previous link shows the weighted scores. JLMadrigal @ 00:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@PhilLiberty: There's already a disambiguation page for that, i.e. Libertarianism (disambiguation); and you can't just remove 150 years and counting of libertarian history just because it's not your flavour. You're free to create Libertarian capitalism from the scratch rather than redirect it here, but this is page is going to stay as Right-libertarianism is the common name. @JLMadrigal: Most of your proposed titles are either made up or not notable. Right-libertarianism is the common name and we have to accept that. I already clarified in the lead that the name origins from its comparisions with left-libertarianism and I also proposed to remove the History and People section, among others, because they don't identify as right-libertarian and make the page structurally close to Left-libertarianism. I believe to have been more than forthcoming, but you two keep insisting with saying things like "the nuanced interpretation of the term pushed by "anticapitalist" schools (which thus tends to be confused with cronyism and privilege)" when both @Pfhorrest: and I already explained you why.--Davide King (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
"Right-libertarianism is the common" is too vague to respond to, but I would disagree with most of the possible meanings. For example "common amongst some authors & philosophers who live in places where it doesn't exist"  :-) But if we were to reduce this article down to one being about the term and it's usage, that might be a good compromise.North8000 (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@North8000: It's not me who just said or think that; it's what was established in that attempt to move the page. I also remind you the football example @Pfhorrest: made, which I agree with; Google Scholar seems to confirm that. Whether you think it's something that doesn't exist, I think sources disagree with that. As I proposed before, I think we should remove the History, People, etc. sections to leave just Definition, Philosophy, Schools of thought and Criticism. It would be better and closer to what you propose, describe the term, its usage, etc. as you prefer. I'm very open minded and I have no problem changing my mind or accept a consensus, but I don't think this is the case and it seems more of a I don't like it for JLMadrigal and PhilLiberty while in your case I can at least understand your reasons and concerns and I hope my proposal can get us closer to a compromise.--Davide King (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Seems like a move in the right direction. BTW the ESSAY you linked to at I don't like it links to a list of rationales (to avoid) that are baseless except for personal opinion. JLMadigral has made very thorough arguments for their positions, and PhilLiberty has also made arguments for theirs. IMO you implying otherwise by linking to that is out of line. BTW I'm not defending PhilLiberty's out-of-process attempted big changes. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
So are you okay with this? I have to respectively disagree with that; JLMadrigal hasn't shown a clear understanding of the topic, dismissing left-libertarianism and the anti-capitalist school. The list of name proposed my JLMadrigal wasn't one based on reliable sources and some were simply made up and even less known than right-libertarianism. Likewise, PhilLiberty has made questionable POV-pushing edits. Both didn't give me a serious reason to change my mind (which, I repeat, I'm very open to change) and seems to be biased and doesn't seem to be able to get neutral like you. That's why I hope other users, especially the ones that rejected that July move, also state their thoughts on the matter.--Davide King (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
North, I'm pretty sure Davide meant to write "...is the common name", not "...is the common".
Also just wanted to note that I am still here reading, just haven't had time or energy to write, but I agree with pretty much everything Davide has been saying (and his edits today, too). --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Question on scope of usage

I have a question for those who have seen the term used. In a few places in the article they talk about it as being distinct from classical liberalism. Do the common usages/meanings of the term "right-libertarian(ism)" term exclude classical liberalism? North8000 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, "classical liberal" in the United States is frequently used to mean the same thing as what's called simply "liberal" elsewhere (where "liberal" hasn't changed meaning to what it now means in the United States), which sense of "liberal" is generally considered synonymous with right-libertarianism by those people elsewhere, while "libertarian" in the sense meant by the founding right-libertarians was intentionally adopted because they couldn't just call themselves "liberals" without ambiguity in the US. So, all signs I'm aware of point to them being closely related, overlapping terms and philosophies. (But not perfectly coextensive, as plenty of left-libertarians also consider themselves a continuation of classical liberalism, e.g. those who interpret the Lockean proviso to be an argument against land ownership). --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Would you say that pro-capitalism and pro-private property are defining parts of classical liberalism ideology, or that it merely tacitly accepts them as the norm?North8000 (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It depends on what you mean by classical liberalism. Do you mean the 19th century and more broadly all the pre-20th century liberals or simply 20th and 21st people who call themselves classical liberals? As argued by Pfhorrest, left-libertarians and socialist libertarians could just as easily being classified as classical liberals in the first definition. So I would say that it's right-libertarianism that pro-capitalism and pro-capitalist private property rights are defining parts of right-libertarian ideology. In general, liberalism seems to merely tacitly accepts them as the norm which is the right-libertarian criticism.--Davide King (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I was trying to figure out if the big vague US libertarian phenonema would fall under what those people would call right libertarianism. Because they just tacitly accept capitalism and land ownership as the norm, rather than considering themselves to be in favor of those things. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it depends largely on whether the individual in question would oppose or accept a rejection of those norms. I expect some US self-identified libertarians would accept a rejection of those norms (I was one and I did, and actually came up with the idea to reject them independently, as an attempt at perfecting libertarianism as I then understood it, addressing complaints against it without abandoning its principles, before finding out that was already a thing), but a lot would oppose such a rejection, and that response determines whether the individual in question is left- or right-libertarian. Since, I expect, most US libertarians would oppose it, most US libertarians are tacitly right-libertarian, but not all of them, and many have probably not even considered teh question. This is what Davide has been saying about Right-libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States being overlapping but not coextensive topics. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
In the longer term that may need clarification (or else coverage of the varying usages of the term) Because the biggest form of libertarianism in the US (the 80 million person one) has pretty much a one-sentence philosophy. "more freedom, smaller and less intrusive government" and doesn't consider anything else to be a part of their libertarian philosophy. North8000 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
There's already a page for the biggest form of libertarianism in the US (the 80 million person one), it's at Libertarianism in the United States. Maybe we should work on improving that, like creating a Philosophy or similar section that discusses that. Whether you think that's too broad or vague, all libertarians agree with more freedom, smaller and less intrusive government, they merely disagree on what exactly that means or entails. All ideology pages are like that, so I don't understand what's so special about the libertarianism you're referring to.--Davide King (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
My comment was about who does and doesn't call that right libertarian by people who use that term. North8000 (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Many reliable and academic sources do that. The ones listed by you were either talking in general and broad terms to what we have at Libertarianism in the United States, or were libertarian themselves. I already wrote that I would like both articles to also talk about their relationship with the New Left and New Right, respectively. See The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis and The Populist Radical Right: A Reader.--Davide King (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Further analysis on to what extent "right libertarian" is term is/isn't used in wp:reliable sources to refer to the topic of this article

I started from the research I did/ listed at the libertarianism article and then counted / added term usage numbers in wp:reliable sources. Recapping, I sampled by googling libertarianism (BTW googling "right-libertarian just returned Wikipedia and it's mirrors), leaving out Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors although I missed 1-2 and caught them later) and went up to 20 sources. I then checked that they were referring to what this article is calling "right libertarianism". In the next wave of work I counted references to it only in wp:rs's. Here are the results:

Results: I sampled 828 times that the subject of this article was referred to by & in wp:reliable sources:

  • WP:RS's used single-word "libertarian" and "libertarianism" to refer to it 828 times
  • WP:RS's used "Right-libertarian" and "Right libertarianism" to refer to it ZERO times

I think that ZERO times out of 828 for wp:reliable sources to refer to the topic of this article is pretty much a slam dunk. And such is the relevant question for article naming.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Almost all of those sources are specifically about this kind of libertarianism (if not outright biased towards it, like Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party), not about libertarianism generally, and so would have no reason to use terms differentiating this kind of libertarianism from others, which are what we need here because "Libertarianism" itself is an ambiguous title.:
Once again, see Association football for analogy. I'm sure you will find that the vast, vast preponderance of sources about soccer just call it "football", but because "football" is an ambiguous title in a full encyclopedic context, we need a less ambiguous term to specify that kind of football apart from others, and the common name for that in reliable sources is "association football". --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually the common name in wp:RS's is "football". It's my understanding that the term "association football" was created to differentiate it from rugby football, and created where it is played. Imagine instead if somebody from overseas (where it is not the norm) named it from their lens with a name that is an oxymoron and also insulting to it's proponents. How about "old time football"? or "volleyball ball football"  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
That sounds like you're agreeing with me. The common name in sources discussing that sport is "football", but we can't use that name because that's also the common name for different sports, so we use the most common name used for distinguishing those sports from each other. I'm saying we need to apply that same methodology to articles about things called "libertarianism", and that that methodology yields "right-libertarianism" for this kind.
As for things being named from overseas, "soccer" has exactly that problem when it comes to sports, which is why the article isn't called that. (It does derive from "association football", nevertheless). But you've yet to establish that that is the case with "right-libertarianism", and so far as I can see it seems not to be the case; something like "rightbertarianism" maybe would be, if anybody said that, but they don't. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any way out besides a compromise solution; e.g of making it an article about the term To the arguments that I already made, I'd like to add a couple more. First, 3/4 of the content of this article is duplication of material from other articles. Second, upon closer look at the sources, this article is a card-house of wp:or. Placement of items in this article implies that they are under the rarely used and controversial term "right libertarianism" but I looked a lot at the sources and not only do they not support that assertion, even a whole lot of the sources for the article don't even use the term "right libertarian" or "right libertarianism" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Davide King has suggested removing a lot of content from this article for some of those reasons, but when he tried he was reverted. I approved of his edits that got reverted, but didn't reinstate them so as not to start an edit war. Maybe the two of you can come to some agreement on what should be removed, if you both think some of the contents here should go? --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@North8000: Re: a whole lot of the sources for the article don't even use the term "right libertarian" or "right libertarianism". This issue also exists at Libertarianism, where many (a majority?) of the sources are about "Anarchism". - Ryk72 talk 23:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
An important thing to remember on that subject is that Wikipedia articles are generally meant to be about topics, not about terms. If there are sources clearly discussing the same topic under different names, they are still applicable sources for the article in question. See for example the situation with Moral universalism, Moral objectivism, and Moral absolutism, which have overlapping uses but are distinct topics (i.e. to some people "moral objectivism" means the same thing as "moral universalism", but to others it means a narrower form of robust moral realism; likewise to some people "moral absolutism" might mean one or the other of those topics, but to others it means something narrower than either of them. If a source is talking about "moral absolutism" but clearly just means the topic we have named "moral universalism" and not the narrower topic we have named "moral absolutism", it's applicable to the former article, not the latter, despite the terminology used). --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
So, merge to Anarchism? - Ryk72 talk 02:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
If it were 100 years ago, maybe. But at least today, to my understanding, libertarianism is broader than anarchism, with libertarian positions that are less anti-state (minarchists) and less anti-capital (right-libertarians), while all still remaining more anti-state than the usual status quo. Davide King can probably qualify the present and historical relationship here more appropriately, as could Czar who is currently developing the article Definition of anarchism and libertarianism. My point is only that a source can be nominally about one or the other but so long as it's clear it's talking about the area where they overlap it could be used as a source for either. (Such as, for analogy, if a source about "moral objectivism" in the sense of robust moral realism, which is narrower than mere moral universalism, is discussing some argument against moral relativism, which is thus only an argument for "moral objectivism" in the sense of moral universalism, that would be an appropriate source for the article on moral universalism, even though the source is more generally about robust moral realism, because it's talking at that point about the area where the two intersect, making it appropriate for either). --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I've been a sort of attempted referee at the here for about 8 years, including back when we had the huge range war at the libertarianism article. When things get rougher here, it's not the usual "trouble" article situation where the some real-world contest/battle ends up being played out as a battle at the article. There is no such "battle" in play here. Instead, we have a more complex challenge. Many terms that will or might be used to cover the topic have fundamentally different meanings (particularly in the context of discussing libertarianism) in major blocks of the english-speaking world. Theses words include libertarianism, libertarian, liberal, right, left, and to a lesser extent anarchism. Also the fundamental nature of libertarianism (which respect to effective coverage) is different in major blocks of the english-speaking world. In Europe, it can be well described as a set of philosophies. In the US, not, because the bulk of what it is in the US is a very large vague phenomena. The simplest concept of a distinct topic that exists, described but not defined by terminology breaks down for libertarian articles. Policy also allows for articles which are about terms, as well as putting variable-meaning terms "in their place". When trying to write articles that inform rather than confuses readers, when using the terms that have variable meanings, editors should not go on a quest (using policies or otherwise) to establish that their meaning of a variable-meaning term is THE meaning to be assumed or used. This will confuse half of the readers each time that it is done. Instead, we should provide information about the variable-meanings of these terms and, where possible, provide information without reliance on those terms to do so.
IMO there is one simplifying factor in the current debate regarding the Right-Libertarian article. All admit that it is a taxonomic term that seeks to divide libertarianism into two groups. That means that everything that is "being divided" is already covered in other libertarianism articles, the only thing that is not a duplication is the term and the taxonomic process itself, and the usage of the term. Controversies referred to in the article such as whether "right-libertarian includes xxxxx" aren't really controversies, they are simply variable usages of the term which the article can cover. The "put the term in it's place" would be something along the lines of defining it's areas of usage rather that writing that implies that it is universal. North8000 (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
As the articles are currently structured, most of the content here is not replicated in the main article Libertarianism, which only has one small paragraph about right-libertarianism and then refers to here for further detail. Likewise with Left-libertarianism, which has slightly more coverage in Libertarianism but is still only three paragraphs and then a main-article link to that topic's own article.
I would find it acceptable if all of the content about both left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism were merged into Libertarianism, and these two article titles both redirected to a subsection of that article discussing the taxonomy. (I really don't think there's enough to say about just the terms themselves to warrant whole articles on their own just for that). That's why I put the merger proposal templates up. But if we do that it has to be symmetrical; it creates biased coverage of the two halves of the larger topic to merge one side but not the other (which is why I had the merge templates direct to the main article talk for discussions).
And that merge proposal so far seems very unpopular. If we don't do a merger like that, which seems to be the general consensus, then we need to have symmetrical coverage of both sub-topics, so that the main article can give due weight to them both (by referring both to their own articles) and not be biased in favor of one or the other (by giving in-article coverage of one and referring to a different article for the other). Which means this article needs to remain similar to what it is now. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that merger. My concern is that the term "left libertarianism" probably has slightly more legitimacy and usage than "right libertarianism" and was concerned that merging "left libertarian" would be harder to make fly. BTW I said that this is mostly duplication of material in other libertarian articles, not just the libertarianism article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with everything that Pfhorrest has said, especially in relation to this. Many times we have sources calling Marxism–Leninism communism, but that doesn't make Communism the Marxism–Leninism; and Communism is discussed in broad terms. I still don't see what's wrong with Right-libertarianism, other than not liking the name. As I stated, we could have created a section in both Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism that talks about their relation to the libertarian right and New Right; and the libertarian left and the New Left, respectively; or creating a History section for both from the scratch that talks about the birth/separation of left and right libertarianism in the United States, the Movement of the Libertarian Left, etc.). Right-libertarianism could be expanded with In South Africa and In the United Kingdom section by merging Libertarianism in South Africa and Libertarianism in the United Kingdom since they seem to be referring to this, but no; we had to discuss for months about the name when the main issue was caused by the fork content from Libertarianism in the United States rather than the name itself, which was supported by many users and sources vis-à-vis other names. I also disagree that [t]here is no such "battle" in play here; it may be true for you, Pfhorrest and I, but it certainly wasn't for PhilLiberty and JLMadrigal, whose comments and refusal to understand other libertarian positions clearly showed a POV. We should discuss how to improve these two articles and how to add more information to further legitimise having their own articles since there's no consensus for a new name or merge.--Davide King (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
When I said that there is no such battle in play here, I didn't mean that there aren't disagreements here; I meant that it is not the usual situation of a real-world being reflected in Wikipedia.North8000 (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

the fundamental nature of libertarianism (which respect to effective coverage) is different in major blocks of the english-speaking world. In Europe, it can be well described as a set of philosophies. In the US, not, because the bulk of what it is in the US is a very large vague phenomena. The simplest concept of a distinct topic that exists, described but not defined by terminology breaks down for libertarian articles.

Sounds like this is describing a disambiguation page: If the term doesn't have one usage that outweighs all others, the term has no primary topic and should be disambiguated between all its uses. That doesn't preclude redirecting "left-/right-libertarianism" to a subsection of another article. And the article formerly known as "libertarianism" would still need to be re-scoped and re-titled. czar 19:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Could be, but what I had in mind is that the toolbox that is useful for writing about libertarianism in Europe (in essence where the main coverage is writing about philosophies/ideologies) is far less useful when trying to cover a large vague phenomena such as the bulk of libertarianism in the US. North8000 (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
North8000, I think there's clearly a topic and there's already Libertarianism (disambiguation). The Definition of anarchism and libertarianism discusses this: Despite these imprecise boundaries and some similarities, socialism and individualism within anarchism have a bifurcated tradition, the former associated with the history of socialism and the latter with classical liberalism and conservatism (also known as "right-libertarianism"). Even their shared belief in anti-statism does not provide a common identity, as both traditions differ in their interpretation state-rejection in spite of the common terms. (Franks 2013, p. 388) There's overlap between Right-libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States, but Right-libertarianism is simply a part of that and not all libertarianism in the United States is right-libertarian. You seem to conflate the two, ignoring that the term isn't really controversial besides ideological POV-pushing for simply not liking the name.--Davide King (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Google Scholar turns up a thousand sources using the term, roughly, with (at a glance) most of the sources using it roughly the way it is here; this includes both recent sources and ones dating back decades. There's some room to discuss how we should use it or how much prominence it should have in various articles, but I don't think it's reasonable or credible to argue that the term lacks widespread usage or that it can't support an article. As a note, many of the sources using it do seem to be using it in European contexts, which might explain some of the confusion above. But it's pretty indisputably a real term, so trying to argue that it isn't used is just wasting everyone's time. It's an established academic term with extensive usage. --Aquillion (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing that the term is never used and, "not a distinct topic" has not been a a central argument. What my work above was was a random sampling of "what do wp:reliable sources call it?" and the result was "right-libertarian" and "right-libertarian" were used ZERO times out of the 828 times that wp:RS's referred to the topic of this article. This is very relevant from a naming policy standpoint. Of course the term has been used (with varying definitions) by some people seeking to create taxonomies for libertarianism. I think that it's time for a compromise and I think that letting the article exist and with it's current name but making it an article about the term is a good and doable compromise. I'd also support Pfhorrest's idea of merging both articles into libertarianism but I don't think that anybody is going to make that happen. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Fist of all, Aquillion, thank you so much for your comment; that's pretty much what I've been saying the whole time. North8000, what your sample above really showed is simply that right-libertarians don't actually call thesmelves as such; they simply call thesmelves as libertarians and their ideology as libertarianism. But the same counts for left-libertarians (except for a few American left-libertarians who use the term left- or left-wing as a qualifier). But that isn't everything. Nazis called themselves National Socialists and their ideology National Socialism, but we use Nazis and Nazism because that's the name used in reliable sources and in the case of libertarianism it's the most common name used to distinguish various forms of libertarianism that, unlike what you may personally think, are actual philosophies themselves or terms used to refer to distinguish different libertarianisms; and not mere terms or two-words libertarianisms. That's why we have Libertarianism, Libertarianism in the United States, Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism in the first place; to describe different forms of libertarianism and not push a POV in either direction about true libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'm strongly for covering all facets and types and not pushing any type over another. And my efforts are towards doing that in an organized manner that is not confusing to readers, and this is my motivation in this debate that we're in. My work that I did is not about what they call themselves, it was about what WP:Reliable Sources do and don't call it. And this is relevant from a naming policy standpoint. And having an article that purports to cover that which is probably numerically 90% of libertarians with a name which is an oxymoron in 2/3 of the English-speaking world, and a name for their 50% political opponents is not a way to cover the topic in an unconfusing manner. Further, the topic itself is invented by a minority taxonomy scheme; actually variable schemes. Finally, trying to cover/define by an ideological lens is not very useful for a huge vague movement, and using a lens from a small minority viewpoint; those trying to create a taxononomy that differentiates this type from certain other groups makes it further confusing. Another example of this is someone from the tropics defining European libertarians as "people who live in heated dwellings" because that differentiates them from tropical libertarians. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
North, I share your concern for putting user experience first, but as I've said before, consider what experience users will actually have with the setup in place already. Let's imagine a typical member of the set of Americans who consider themselves libertarians, which seems to be your main concern. They want to read about libertarianism (as they understand it) on Wikipedia. So they search for it and find the article at the title Libertarianism, where they find out that there's a variety of types of anti-state political views all broadly characterized as libertarianism. They may be surprised to see that there's some varieties that associate more with socialism than with capitalism, but that surprise is a good user experience: they came to Wikipedia and they learned something. One thing they learn is that these sub-types of libertarianism that associate more with socialism or capitalism are called "left" and "right" versions of libertarianism respectively. The article they find covers a lot of things that are true of the political view they probably came to read about (that they now know is distinguished from other kinds as "right-libertarianism"), and where there are things that may be in dispute between that view and other kinds of libertarianism, the article makes note of that, and refers them to sub-articles about those different types: Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism.
Consider again the football analogy. A Brit wants to read about the kind of game he called "football", which is the most common type of game called "football" and maybe the only one he knows about, so he searches for "football" and finds an article informing him that there are a lot of related games all called football, and the type he is familiar with is called "association football" to distinguish it from the others. The article he finds discusses a lot of things that are true of the kind of football he came to read about, and distinguishes it from others, and then it refers him to the sub-article Association football for more detail on that specific kind.
That is a good user experience, and that is what we have right now. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
To add to what Pfhorrest said, with whom I wholeheartedly agree again, most of the sources you actually put up are talking about or referring to what we have in Libertarianism in the United States, hence why there's no mention of right-libertarian.--Davide King (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Pfhorrest, those are some good arguments, echoed by Davide. Beside the other offered compromises, another related one is to attribute usage of the term to those who use it but even minor changes towards that have bee reverted. I do think that somebody coming to Wikipedia to learn about US style libertarianism will get confused, but the naming of this article is not a major cause of that problem. I thought that maybe with the large amount of work everyone put into that that we should finish it off via crafting a resolution, even just a compromise one. But I'm getting worn out on this one and we're starting to repeat ourselves. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
North8000, if you're worried that somebody coming to Wikipedia to learn about US style libertarianism will get confused, I don't think it's a big issue, or a problem big enough for us to change what we have now. That's exactly what Libertarianism in the United States is about. I'm sure an American searching Liberalism and Conservatism would imagine to find what we actually have at Modern liberalism in the United States and Conservatism in the United States. Same for Progressivism and Progressivism in the United States.--Davide King (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I knew that. The main confusion part is little reference to the most prevalent type (the giant vague one) which can be fixed. North8000 (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
But I think that could be said about any ideology, so why all this talk only for libertarianism?--Davide King (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Because what I'm talking about is more of a giant vague phenomena than a defined ideology. About 60-80 million people identifying as libertarians. In general supporting more freedom and less government, and for most of them their "ideology" is not more defined than that one sentence. North8000 (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Then that's a whole another thing and has nothing to do with libertarianism. As stated by The Four Deuces, that's a political typology. You're free to create Libertarian (U.S. political typology). Either way, I don't understand why we should have an article about that. I'm sure there're just an equally number of liberals and conservatives in the United States. I think the issue we're having is one based on a misunderstanding. What you're actually referring to is another topic that could be discussed in a new article, so the problem could be easily solved. Pfhorrest, what do you think about it? Is North8000 been referring to a political typology, something much different than what both you, others and I referred to, which has caused issues to solutions?--Davide King (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
It sounds to me like he’s either talking about Libertarianism generally or maybe Libertarianism in the United States more specifically, in either of which cases the articles in question sound like they already have names he should agree with. —Pfhorrest (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Folks, I think that you mis-understand my main short term priorities / motivations. The Libertarian articles have been lonely for years. Now some excellent editors (like y'all) show up. So now there is a team to make really good articles. But I think that there are many things about the largest libertarian phenomena in the world (that in the US) that you do not understand due to the lens that you see it through. And so my #1 goal is to pass along a few extra hopefully helpful insights to y'all. My #2 priority is to have a good process operating. A majority of the people who have participated on this topic in the last few months have said that the status quo is a problem. Some have faded out of the debate. And Davide has been reverting some small very much needed compromise edits. Basically ones that acknowledge that the term is not universal (a massive understatement, being used zero out of 828 times by wp:reliable sources in a random sampling) and used only be some. The implied "universal" is an extreme, unsupported position. So I do have a problem with the current process here. And so giving some support for efforts to resolve this (vs. just grinding everyone down to just leave the status quo in place) is in line with that goal. And so some compromise (such as wording that attributes usage instead of implying universality) represents good process. I feel that all of the above (including / especially the new good / active editors, possibly with their perspectives broadened a bit to at least acknowledge the unknown) will lead to good liberetarian articles and a fund active editing process at them. Beyond the above, I'm not currently arguing for any other article changes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

But I think that there are many things about the largest libertarian phenomena in the world (that in the US) that you do not understand due to the lens that you see it through. North8000, what's exactly is missing? And there's already a page about the largest libertarian phenomena in the world (that in the US), although I would say that mere numbers aren't everything and that the anarchists and libertarian socialists all over the world and their centenary history triumphs that. I also disagree that the term is not universal (a massive understatement, being used zero out of 828 times by wp:reliable sources in a random sampling), for your sample was biased (most of sources referred to libertarianism in the United States or were libertarian themselves). I agree with what Aquillion wrote here. You and JLMadrigal simply don't seem to have the same understanding and knowledge that me and other users who reject your arguments have, conflating it with libertarianism in the United States and reducing sources that discusses it to nothing much. I'm all for compromise, but not when it's plain wrong. Could you please link me these users who actually said the status quo is a problem? Why all the users who first rejected the move in July and now the merge in November and said there was nothing wrong with the title aren't counted? I think there's a consensus to keep the status quo. You're free to edit the articles if you feel there's something that could be clarified; you can create Libertarian (U.S. political typology) or simply add a section in Libertarianism in the United States that discusses it; there's already Libertarianism § Contemporary libertarianism in the United States that discusses polls.--Davide King (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm getting worn out. But to respond on a few quick points: The June RFC was about renaming it specifically to Libertarian Capitalism, not about whether or not the status quo was OK or other current questions. The compromise was about removing the claim of universality using attribution type wording. The sampling was actually biased in favor of "right-libertarian" because it was a googling of that term, but even then (after discounting non-wp:RS's such as wikipedia, its mirrors and a blog) it was still used used 0 of 828 times when the topic of this article was referred to. I think I put a lot of useful information in my last post but it seems like you just skimmed it. It might be useful to read it closely. I'm getting worn out on this and might just mostly step back unless I have something new to add. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
North8000, it may be true that [t]he June RFC was about renaming it specifically to Libertarian Capitalism, not about whether or not the status quo was OK or other current questions, but these are some relevant comments that specifically saw nothing wrong with the status quo:
  1. Oppose. I'm not convinced that "right-libertarian(ism)" is mainly used by opponents. I hear the terms "right-libertarian" and "left-libertarian" used together quite frequently, and never in any kind of pejorative way. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose move - Right libertarianism is the WP:COMMONNAME for this political ideology. I have never heard of "Libertarian capitalism", and I've been around the block a time or two. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Because there's nothing pejorative, contradictory, or otherwise wrong about the title "right-libertarianism", that's a perfectly cromulent description of the position that is anti-state but pro-capitalist. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose the premise for the move is objectively false as a quick search on Google Books shows. GScholar gives about 366 hits for the proposed change[3] and about 508 for the current title.[4] Where's the guideline/policy reason to support the move? Doug Weller talk 18:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
And I repeat you that a Google search isn't the most accurate way to determinate something; Google Scholar is better and both Aquillion and I have shown you its results. This certainly wasn't an encyclopedic way to start the article, but it can be added to the Definition section if you think it would be an improvement, maybe clarifying they simply call themselves libertarians and refer to libertarianism, if it can make it better in your opinion.--Davide King (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll try doing that is some subtler areas. North8000 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
North8000, I just did that here. Let me know what you think, if it's fine, etc.--Davide King (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Davide King: Nice! Just the kind of stuff needed!North8000 (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I also approve of these edits and am glad to see some mutually agreeable progress happening at last. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
While there are 1K hits for "right-libertarian" in Google Scholar, there are 174K hits for "libertarian" in the same search engine, and the term is used in the same way as the other reliable sources cited by North8000, so the most common term for the view in question is indisputably "libertarian". In your edits, this fact needs to be made abundantly clear from the beginning so as to avoid giving the impression that so-called "right-libertarianism" is a clear division of the libertarian movement - as the current edits imply. Dividing the movement into two distinct camps is problematic enough as it is. JLMadrigal @ 11:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
That's because in that case it refers to broad Libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States. Whether you see Right-libertarianism as the true libertarianism is just your personal opinion. I already added 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,[27][28] namely left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism,[1][2][3][4][5] to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital.[29], what more do you want? There simply isn't no consensus to delete or rename this page as you wish so. The thing is that indeed there's a clear division of the libertarian movement (not just in the United States; we're talking about broad libertarianism) between what reliable sources characterise as left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not a question of what this group of libertarians calls itself, but what most people call them. Apparently you don't want to admit that the term "right-libertarianism" is not a universal description of them. Far from it. As @North8000: has pointed out, my edits which you reverted (as well as his) are good edits, because almost all of the current references to the term (including yours) imply its universality. The fact that only 1/174 of references to modern libertarianism employ the term, "right-libertarian" is, I would say, rather significant. JLMadrigal @ 16:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
JLMadrigal, you fail to understand the American and rest of the world distinction. Libertarianism in the United States is indeed just called libertarianism, but that's just a form of it and it doesn't represent all libertarianism. You fail to realise that reliable sources support this, or simiar dual or more categorisations, whether you like it or not; and we have these articles specifically to discuss several strands of libertarianism and not say which one is the true and only libertarianism. Your edit here basically made it worthless; and you haven't seen any encyclopedic article starting that way, have you? Because if it was true that [right-libertarianism] is [just] a term used by some sources rather than an established academic concept, it should indeed be deleted; but that isn't the case and there's no consensus to delete it or to not even discuss it anywhere. Reliable sources support the current naming; you simply want Wikipedia to delete any mention of right-libertarianism or right-libertarian, or reduce it just to a term used by some sources which simply isn't true.
Once again, you seem to be confusing American libertarianism as a whole with right-libertarianism; while there's some significant overlap, they still aren't exacty the same thing, hence why we have two separate articles in the first place. I don't see the same passion in you to make the same point for left-wing or socialist libertarians. Both Pfhorrest and I have already explained that the sources at the top of this discussion mainly refers to or discuss what we have at Libertarianism in the United States, or are libertarian themselves (most libertarians of any type call themselves simply libertarians). As argued by Aquillion, I don't think it's reasonable or credible to argue that the term lacks widespread usage or that it can't support an article. Aquillion again made a good point here:

I'm just not seeing many people agreeing with you that there's a problem here. You've been arguing variations on this point for (as far as I can see) months, without getting anywhere. If you think you have a proposal that could reach a consensus, start an RFC; but otherwise, maybe it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other disputes. As it is, it seems to me fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept which the current article covers fairly excellently. --Aquillion (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If you think you have a proposal that could reach a consensus, start an RfC, but maybe it is time to move on.--Davide King (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Apparently you agree with Pfhorrest that "Numerical numbers are worthless." JLMadrigal @ 22:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Where did I say that? --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Pfhorrest, turns out it was a famous quote from David himself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism#North's_general_thoughts You have my sincere apology. JLMadrigal @ 01:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think polls should be used to determinate this, especially when one of these polls also showed how a certain number of people labelling themselves libertarian don't even know what the word means. It was also in relation to you (yeah, I remembered well; it was you), who judged what libertarianism was the libertarianism by party numbers, being completely unaware that the majority of libertarians are anarchists or libertarian socialists who reject party politics, besides being a method completely made up and independent of Wikipedia procedures.--Davide King (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
My actual rebuttal bears repeating, "The number of contemporary “anti-capitalist” libertarians in the world seems to be a tiny fraction of libertarians of the American variety. 4.5 million people voted for the Libertarian candidate for President, Gary Johnson, in the 2016 election. This number does not include apolitical libertarians of the American variety. In contrast, Spain, has the greatest number of anti-capitalist libertarians, estimated at about 30,000. Therefor, a generous estimate for all left-libertarians worldwide would put the number well below 1 million. In terms of numbers, it is safe to say that the American variety of libertarianism is mainstream." I'd be happy to see some "numerical numbers" to the contrary. JLMadrigal @ 19:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
To me, that doesn't seem to be following Wikipedia guidelines or reliable sources; that's pure and simple orginal research, so I can't simply show you some "numerical numbers" to the contrary since yours are either made up, based on guessing, or simply original research. Besides, that's not following Wikipedia guidelines. I repeat that these so-called numerical numbers are worthless, besides being original research, because the centenary long, worldwide history and literature of “anti-capitalist” libertarians speaks for itself and your denialism doesn't help. Maybe Pfhorrest can tell you and explain you better than I could, if you don't believe me.--Davide King (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You are trying to apply rules for article space to the talk page. If you do that 99% of everything on talk pages would be in violation of Wikipedia policies. A talk page discussion of the huge difference in numbers just reinforces / provides a backdrop for the more official numbers.....prevalence in wp:RS's, which was 0 out of 828 and a similar proportion in google scholar. I think it's time for a compromise. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

North8000, what does that even mean exactly? I was just saying that in my humble opinion that was original research; I didn't write it should be deleted because it's original research, I even mentioned Pfhorrest for thoughts and to discuss it. JLMadrigal is free to write and think that's a good way to solve the issue or find the libertarianism, but I'm also free to think and write down how that's original research and doesn't work towards fixing the issue. Both you and JLMadrgal seems to see Libertarianism in the United States as the largest libertarian phenomena in the world (that in the US), completely disregarding the centenary, long history of socialist libertarianism which still continues to this day.
What compromise? As far as I can see, JLMadrigal's only compromise is to either delete or rename the article, basically making it about what we already have at Paleolibertarianism and removing any right-libertarian in libertarian-related article; there's no consensus for any of that. Likewise, there's no consensus to turn this page into a short article about the term (it's already short now anyway). Why do you keep ignoring Aquillion's comments and all other users who saw nothing wrong with the article as well as sources on Google Scholar that discuss the concept? You may think Pfhorrest, other users and I may see this through European lens, but to me it seems more like Pfhorrest, other users and I see this through neutral lens (aknowledging both the anti-capitalist and socialist libertarian and the modern, mid-20th century American libertarian tradition) whereas you and JLMadrigal see this only or mainly through American lens; JLMadrigal through what we have at Libertarianism in the United States and you through the American libertarian political typology (17–23% of the American electorate). I think the Definition section does a good job at explaining the term, what more do you want?
Pfhorrest and I already explainend you why the sources you listed simply say libertarian or libertarianism; and Pfhorrest also clearly explained for why the article is named Right-libertarianism which is the most common name to describe this type of libertarianism; and it's useful to have two sub-articles like Left-libertarianism and Right-libertariaism to better discuss the two most common forms of libertarianism since both the main article Libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States are in broader terms (just like any other main ideology article) and I have no problem with that. The Association football analogy is the most clear example of the methodology we should be using. Maybe we should work towards improving both articles instead; imagine how many improvements could have been made in all these months when it's [not] reasonable or credible to argue that the term lacks widespread usage or that it can't support an article, that it's [a] pretty indisputably real term, so trying to argue that it isn't used is just wasting everyone's time. It's an established academic term with extensive usage and that it's fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept, whether we like it or not. I could've understood if there was no article specifically about American-style libertarianism, but we have it.--Davide King (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it boils down to this. In terms of what it is called by wp:rs's in general, the term has microscopic usage. When writers and intellectuals are writing trying to create a taxonomy, in that set of limited cases, it is the prevalent term used. The compromise is leave the name as is, and adjust the wording to be consistent with what I just wrote. Remove any implied claim of universality of the term. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Amen. We're not trying to censor anything. You (David) and Pfhorrest are doing that by implying universality. On the contrary, we want to expand on the CONTEXT of the USE of the TERM. JLMadrigal @ 02:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
So if you’re all fine with the article existing, and being named as it is, and we now have that passage Davide added furthermore elaborating on the history of terminology (in both sub-articles and the main Libertarianism article), shouldn’t everyone be happy now? We can’t reasonably preface every use of the phrase “right-libertarian” with a repeat of that explanation, and we can’t reasonably drop the “right-“ where it’s needed without creating ambiguity, so I don’t see what more you could reasonably want now. —Pfhorrest (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Good Lord! Let me try this: How would you paraphrase what North8000 just stated in encyclopedic terms (without leaving anything out). If you can do that, we're almost done. JLMadrigal @ 11:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
JLMadrigal and North8000, could you please clarify on how Pfhorrest and I are implying universality? There isn't a single mention of that anywhere in the text; it already reads This position is contrasted with that of left-libertarianism which combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources, to which it is often compared, hence the name. and 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,[27][28] namely left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism,[1][2][3][4][5] to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital.[29] So I agree with what Pfhorrest just wrote and ask what more do you want us to do about it?
There's also the issue that Aquillion, Pfhorrest and I disagree that the term has microscopic usage. If you want it to read like this (Some political scientists and writers classify the forms of libertarianism into two groups; "right libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism" to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital. Under this classification system right-libertarianism,[1][2][3][4] or right-wing libertarianism), that simply isn't going to pass. That wording would imply a support for either Right-libertarianism to be merged into Libertarianism, or for an article titled Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, but there's no clear support or consensus for either and I see no need for any of that. The current wording and Definition section make it abundantly clear. To quote Pfhorrest, we can't reasonably preface every use of right-libertarian with a repeat of that explanation; and we can't reasonably drop right- where it's needed without creating ambiguity.--Davide King (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
You mis-stated what I said. But other than to note that as a response, I think there's no need to dig into that (no biggee). I think for me a good compromise would short-term be a few more tweaks similar to the one you did. And to vaguely agree on the longer term. Longer term, this would include more coverage of the variances in the usage of the term, and reduction of duplication from other articles. The coverage of the listed forms of libertarianism is already included in the individual articles on those forms and also mentioned in the top level article. Regarding those specific forms, the news/info here is which ones fall under the common meanings of the term right-libertarianism.North8000 (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
How does "Some political scientists and writers classify the forms of libertarianism into two groups; "right libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism" to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital. Under this classification system right-libertarianism,[1][2][3][4] or right-wing libertarianism)..." "imply a support for Right-libertarianism to be merged into Libertarianism"? And even if it did, it still wouldn't disqualify it as an edit. JLMadrigal @ 16:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
North8000, how did I mis-stated what you said? Could you actually make a sandbox on how you would want the article to look like and show me some examples of changes (put them in bold) you would suggest? You want to remove the Schools of thought section? I would disagree with that. Both Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism have such a section to describe various philosophies that have been labelled left-libertarian or right-libertarian, or as part of either left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism.
JLMadrigal, that simply isn't a good way to start the article; it's basically saying that it's a made-up term when Aquillion, Pfhorrest, other users, reliable sources and I clearly disagree with that. That would be a good way to start a Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism article or subsection, not a good way to start an article titled Right-libertariaism which is and should be more than that. The fact we're having this lengthy discussion and that there's no consensus for that disqualifies it. We should first say what right-libertarianism actually is and then talk about the name's origins, which is exactly what the first paragraphs and the Definition section do.--Davide King (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Why is "Some political scientists and writers classify the forms of libertarianism into two groups; "right libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism" to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital. Under this classification system right-libertarianism,[1][2][3][4] or right-wing libertarianism..." any worse for a lede to an article about "right-libertarianism" - since the term IS used for differentiation? And who made you the one to decide what right-libertarianism "actually is"? Do we need to submit our edits to you for approval? JLMadrigal @ 20:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I told you why. Because first of all we should say what right-libertarianism actually is and right after it already states This position is contrasted to left-libertarianism, a political philosophy that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources, to which it is often compared, hence the name. This is expanded more in the Definition section. What more do you want? I didn't decide anything, reliable sources and other users did that through consensus. You're the one who actually need to get consensus to change that because for years it was like this and it was decided to keep it and not rename it. You also need to realise that this isn't just a term but a concept/topic too that is described in reliable and academic sources, so it's notable enough; and the best or most common name for this is right-libertarianism. There's already Libertarianism in the United States, why all these issues?--Davide King (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1) Because it is not a common name for the ideology (as documented above),
2) Because it is confusing to the layman (it has nothing to do with the political right), and
3) Because 1 and 2 are not adequately explained in the current article.
JLMadrigal @ 04:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It is the common name for disambiguating it from other kinds of libertarianism, which we need to do. And it does have to do with the political right inasmuch as capitalism is usually reckoned to be on the right of socialism (even amongst laymen), so capitalist forms of libertarianism are more right than socialist forms of libertarianism. And both of those are quite well documented in the article already, as Davide just described. —Pfhorrest (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Great! Now put that all in the article and we're almost there:
1) While right-libertarianism is not the common name for this view, it is used for disambiguating it from other kinds of libertarianism.
2) While right-libertarianism does not fit on the political right - which would imply national/ religious identity, abortion and immigration restrictions, conformity, and the like - it may be considered right inasmuch as capitalism is usually reckoned to be on the right of socialism. In that sense, it is more right than socialist forms of libertarianism.
JLMadrigal @ 21:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@JLMadrigal: did you see the edits I made just minutes before you posted this, discussed below? What do you think of them? --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I saw them, and they are a big step in the right direction. Thanks. Can we incorporate the above edits regarding disambiguation and the differentiated use of the term "right"? JLMadrigal @ 23:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
While right-libertarianism does not fit on the political right - which would imply national/ religious identity, abortion and immigration restrictions, conformity, and the like, that shows your bias as there're indeed libertarians or libertarianisms that may support any of that, according to its proponents even on libertarian arguments. While both you and I may actually agree (finally) that there's nothing libertarian about any of that, we can't deny it's a thing too; indeed, that's the right-wing of right-libertarianism while you reduced all right-libertarianism to them, when as told my Pfhorrest, it does have to do with the political right inasmuch as capitalism is usually reckoned to be on the right of socialism (even amongst laymen), so capitalist forms of libertarianism are more right than socialist forms of libertarianism. Just wanted to clarify this.--Davide King (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
That would describe libertarian conservatism which is more accurately defined as "right-libertarianism". That's the whole point. What this article describes as "right-libertarianism" is not libertarian conservatism. If it were, there would be no issue with the use of the prefix "right" as most people employ it. JLMadrigal @ 04:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Libertarian conservatism is within right-libertarianism, but as you said not all right-libertarianism is libertarian conservative. I was just saying that libertarian conservatism is the right-wing of right-libertarianism; and that your statement simply wasn't true because there're these libertarians who support that. Just like left-libertarianism include both libertarian socialism, Georgism (which can be adopted by libertarians in general too) and the Steiner–Vallentyne school. Right-libertarianism isn't just American-style libertarianism as it also includes these conservative-types and other libertarians.--Davide King (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Currently the article doesn't yet sufficiently clarify these strange ambiguities about the term. If "libertarian conservatism is the right-wing of right-libertarianism", the reader deserves to know about such a distinction, no? A rejection of "capitalism" is typically seen as far left. In general terms, acceptance of "capitalism" doesn't by itself put a person on the "right". JLMadrigal @ 05:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
"Left" and "right" are relative to a given Overton window. In many parts of the West today, sure, the Overton window is squarely centered on some form of capitalism. But whatever Overton window one looks through, capitalism is to the right of socialism, and vice versa socialism is to the left of capitalism, so between two broad varieties of libertarianism, one supporting capitalism and one supporting socialism, the capitalist one is on the right of kinds of libertarianism, even if it's still center in some Overton window or another. We can't privilege any Overton window without biasing the article.
In any case, I just added a dab hat distinguishing this from libertarian conservatism. I could swear that was already there before, and if it was I don't know why or when it got removed. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Nice. Can we work the Overton window explanation into the article as well? It's worth covering for the purpose of disambiguation. JLMadrigal @ 13:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I would be okay with that, or maybe a more general section or paragraph about its placement in relation to left-right politics more generally, mirrored with a similar section in Left-libertarianism (which would probably help clarify a lot for readers, like I gather you are, who associate "left" with "(economic) authoritarian", which isn't what left-libertarianism is about). However I'm not sure I'm up to writing a well-sourced passage on that topic. @Davide King: do you have any sources handy that talk about the placement of socialism and capitalism on a left-right spectrum, the difference between that distinction and the distinction between command economies and free markets, and Overton windows, that you might be able to throw together into a few sentences we could use in both articles (and possible the section of Libertarianism that links to them)? --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Pfhorrest, I think we can create a Political spectrum section at Libertarianism similar at Libertarianism in the United States and then make a short summary of that to add at Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism Definition sections. Maybe we should clarify that the terms don't actually refer just to the left-wing and the right-wing. For instance, free-market/libertarian socialism is the left of libertarianism and socialist libertarianism the left-wing of left-libertarianism, with more radical anarchism and libertarian socialism occupying the far-left (which JLMadrigal incorrectly link as socialism and the rest as all capitalism when writing [a] rejection of "capitalism" is typically seen as far left), Georgism/geolibertarianism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school representing the centre-left, but being seen still within left-libertarianism; and mainstream American-style libertarianism occupying the centre-right and libertarian conservatism on the right-wing, with anarcho-capitalism and paleolibertarianism on the far-right. To clarify, this is within the libertarian political spectrum and not the political spectrum as a whole.--Davide King (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

An attempt at improving neutrality

I've just made some edits to the lede paragraph in an attempt to improve neutrality and hopefully satisfy everyone. The things I've tried to prioritize:

  • Right-libertarianism is often just called "libertarianism" by its adherents
  • Right-libertarianism is a kind of libertarianism, and what that generally means
  • What right-libertarianism has in common with other kinds of libertarianism, and where it differs from them
  • How the term "libertarianism" is used differently in different times and places, and where and when it has meant right-libertarianism

I hope this helps some. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

One thing is that I think it should say is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism and there's no need for stating right before that or often just libertarianism to its adherents. It's already stated next and it definitely shouldn't be bolded because it makes it look like Libertarianism redirects there. Another thing is that we should also mention libertarian socialism, or socialist libertarianism, since in that case left-libertarianism is used to refer to a specific, but by no means the, form of left-libertarianism, i.e. the Steiner–Vallentyne school.--Davide King (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I've just made some minor grammatical changes to your edits implementing these suggestions, but want to discuss the more substantial ones.
I think the "a type of libertarianism, an anti-authoritarian political philosophy" phrasing I had before is better than "a political philosophy and type of libertarianism" because it immediately tells us that this is a sub-topic of Libertarianism, and tells us what libertarianism in general is. So libertarianism is an anti-authoritarian political philosophy, and this article is about a subtype of it that supports capitalism etc.
I'm not sure that bold is reserved only for redirects, but since both this and left-libertarianism are sub-articles of Libertarianism, are often just called "libertarianism" by their adherents, and might be what people looking for "libertarianism" are after, it seemed appropriate to have that as an alternate name in the lede. Compare again Association football, which begins with "Association football, more commonly known as football or soccer, ...", even though Football doesn't redirect there. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, for all related or similar articles I have always seen them starting as is a political philosophy, is a political ideology, is a political philosophy and variant of, etc. I think the wikilink to Libertarianism already does that job and I'm not sure libertarianism actually is an anti-authoritarian political philosophy. It certainly is for anarchism and libertarian socialism, although even in the case of anarchism there're issues with that (namely that anti-authoritarianism is a conclusion of anarchist thought, not an a priori statement) and many of these libertarians supporting capitalist social relations have no problem with authority and hierarchy caused by it. Indeed, it seems to be that [a]narchist libertarians and modern economic libertarians share opposition to the state as their only commonality (McLaughlin 2007, pp. 165–166). As for the bolded part, in that case it makes more sense to have a wikilink to click on rather than something bolded that leads nowhere.--Davide King (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Just for a spot check, Anarcho-syndicalism describes that as a "theory of anarchism" first, so describing sub-types of political philosophies, ideologies, etc as what they are sub-types of first is not unprecedented.
I'm not married to the "an anti-authoritarian political ideology" description of libertarianism (though I do think all kinds of libertarians think of themselves in such terms, whether they start from there or conclude there, whether they realize the implications of their other positions on that or not, libertarianism stands in contrast to authoritarianism). I'd be fine with using whatever the standing short description of libertarianism is, which is currently "Political ideology of maximal individual freedom". I'm not married to that as a description of libertarianism either, if you think it's got problems and should be changed. I just think it's good to say off the bat that right-libertarianism is a kind of libertarianism (which in turn is a [fill in the blank] political ideology) that supports capitalism etc. Using parentheses instead of commas and some extra verbiage here in case the comma-demarcated parenthetical remark is throwing off your parsing of it, but I think commas and more concise phrasing are better for article text.
Since it sounds like you think a wikilinked version of the "often called just libertarianism by its adherents" phrasing is fine, I'll re-add that now. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Anarcho-syndicalism seems to be the exception; and right-libertarianism, just like left-libertariaism, remains a poitical philosophy and not just a type of libertarianism. I don't think it's really necessary to state what libertariaism is or having often called just libertarianism by its adherents when it's already stated Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians". There's no need to add that because there's aready a type of libertarianism for that, where one can click on it to find out more (that's wikilink's purpose, no?). It's just seem to be unusual and unnecessary. We don't say in the lead that Nazis refer to themslves as National Socialists. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article and there's already a Definition/Etymology section to discuss that deeply. I think a type of libertarianism and Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians" is more than enough. It also seems to reduce the importance of reliable sources that use right-libertarianism and call or refer to them as right-libertarians. Right-libertarianism is clearly a thing and not just a term or disambiguation name. The sources who use right-libertarianism already made the disambiguaton for us, not viceversa, so that right-libertarianism, rather than libertarianism, is the common name to describe it.--Davide King (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
"Right-libertarianism is clearly a thing and not just a term or disambiguation name." The 2nd citation in the article indicates otherwise; "It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition". JLMadrigal @ 17:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it reduced the importance of the the reliable sources that use "right-libertarianism", or makes it seem like it's just a term or not the common name, and I wouldn't want to do that as you know. Also, calling it a type of libertarianism, and then calling libertarianism a political philosophy, directly implies that it is a political philosophy itself. But that said, I'm not married to using that phrasing, it just seems like a reasonable bone to throw to avoid issues like this from coming up again in the future when right-libertarian readers come across the article, who might read the first sentence or two and immediately become defensive, as seems to have happened here a few times over the past year. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
JLMadrigal, do you realise that the right-libertarianism is used to refer to a concept and isn't just a term or word? As a term, it's already a disambiguation name, but not as concept, which is what the article is about. Well, Pfhorrest, I agree that calling it a type of libertarianism, and then calling libertarianism a political philosophy, directly implies that it is a political philosophy itself; that's why I don't think it's needed to describe libertarianism (wikilinking to Libertarianism when writing it's a type of libertarianism is more than enough), especially when as you can see we have problem to define it. I just think that is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism is more than enough and there's no need of bolding Libertarianism; we already say in the lead that its aderents simply call themselves "libertarians" and in the Definition section that they call it simply "libertarianism". I also don't think we should let us be too influenced by what "right-libertarians" may persoally say or think about it; what matters is what reliable sources say about it and they have to accept that, whether they like it or not. As of now, I think our edits made a good job in clarifying and describing the concept and various name issues. Either way, I hope @Aquillion: and @The Four Deuces: also state their opinion and thoughts on the lead.--Davide King (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure the sources for Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians". say so explicitly. I think something of that nature might be worth saying, but we should probably think more about how to word it and / or find sources that explicitly say "right-libertarians call themselves X" more specifically so we can use their wording. (Newman in particular, at a glance, says that right-libertarian is used to distinguish people who call themselves anarchists, not libertarians, at least at a glance.) Also, an important point in all of those sources is that right-libertarianism is relatively new as a movement - The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Rothbard and Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. So I feel that if we want to touch on where the term comes from in the lead, we also need to touch on that history briefly. Rothbard explicitly stated that he was proud of having "captured" the term libertarian from the left ("One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over."), and that context for how and why the distinguishing term became necessary should be at least lightly touched on. It doesn't need a massive amount of text in the lead, but a sentence explaining the 'capture' and how capitalists started calling themselves libertarians in a way that clashed with previous usage is necessary for the underlying language issue to make sense. Something like (very roughly, this isn't a literal suggestion) "around Rothbard's time, anarcho-capitalist movements started calling themselves libertarian, which led to the rise of the term right-libertarianism to distinguish them." This captures the essence of what they call themselves, but also provides at least some explanation for why. We might also highlight Rothbard's "captured" quote in the lead (just one or two words quoting the word "captured", not the whole quote) - it is an important quote about the history of the term, which establishes, more or less, what one of the main people involved in the language clash thought of the issue. --Aquillion (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Aquillion, I actually agree with pretty much everything you've said, but JLMadrigal and North8000 seemed to deny the use of right-libertarianism like when writing prevalence in wp:RS's, which was 0 out of 828 and a similar proportion in google scholar (most of these sources either referred to what we have a Libertarianism in the United States or were libertarian themselves). JLMadrigal seems to be biased towards this libertarianism, making argument such as this or similar denigratory comments towards anything but its own libertarianism. So honestly, I'm getting tired of this discussion when what you stated here is correct, but maybe we're finally going to reach an end. Therefore, Pfhorrest and I made this compromise (Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians"). I've no problem with that, although I agree with your perplexity and I hope you can find sources that explicitly say that. I also agree on touching more on the origins, which is what I did here (just one thing; was it in the 1950s or 1960s the Rothbard popularised "libertarian" for that? I think it was the 1960s but I want to be sure). It felt like it was missing something there and I think your proposal was really good. And since I'm here, I think we should also have a section about right-libertarianism and the New Right and likewise left-libertarianism and the New Left in the other article. Perhaps also its relation to the radical right (see The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis and The Populist Radical Right: A Reader) and the far-right, if there're any reliable sources about it. Finally, I think we should merge (if they aren't deleted) Libertarianism in South Africa and Libertarianism in the United Kingdom because they use libertarianism in American terms and seem to be mainly related to right-libertarianism. I think it would be helpful also because so users won't be seeing Right-libertarianism as a POV fork from Libertarianism in the United States. I think that since the 1970s, right-libertarian ideas expanded worldwide and I believe this should be discussed more deeply. What do you think?--Davide King (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I think these proposals sounds good and the changes you've made to all three articles (especially the new Political Spectrum section at Libertarianism) are all good too. Thanks! --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
We need to capsulize and clarify in the lede sentence 1) that "right-libertarianism" is an assigned TERM used to differentiate, and 2) that the prefix "right" can be misleading (due to the overton window effect). It can be expanded upon in the body, but must be out in the open from the defining sentence onward. I'd also like to see some good numbers in the body for perspective and clarity. JLMadrigal @ 13:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe take what Davide put in in the beginning of the definitions section and also put it early in the lead.North8000 (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The thing is that right-libertarianism isn't just a assigned term used to differenciate but also a concept. You also need a reliable source that says it's misleading because several reliable sources also place it in the right-wing as part of the New Right. So it seems to me that it's misleading only to right-libertarians who don't want to be associated with the right. I don't know what more you want or what more Pfhorrest and I can do; I think it's pretty clear now and the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, we can't put the Definition section there because that's supposed to be a deepening. I think type of libertarianism that strongly supports capitalist property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property.[7] Like most forms of libertarianism, it generally tends to support civil liberties,[1] but also natural law,[8] negative rights[9] and a major reversal of the modern welfare state.[10] Right-libertarianism is contrasted with left-libertarianism, a type of libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources.[11] In contrast to socialist libertarianism,[4] right-libertarianism tends to support free-market capitalism.[1] Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians".[2][3][5]

Being the most common type of libertarianism in the United States,[4] right-libertarianism has become the most common referent of "libertarianism" there since the late 20th century while historically and elsewhere[12][13][14][15][16][17] it continues to be widely used to refer to anti-state forms of socialism such as anarchism[18][19][20][21] and more generally libertarian communism/libertarian Marxism and libertarian socialism.[12][22] Around the time of Murray Rothbard, who popularized the term "libertarian" in the United States during the 1960s, anarcho-capitalist movements started calling themselves "libertarian", leading to the rise of the term "right-libertarian" to distinguish them. Rothbard himself aknowledged the co-opting of the term and boasted of its "capture [...] from the enemy".[12] makes it abundantely clear. That is despite Aquillion's legitimate concerns that we actually need sources explicitly saying that right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians". I don't know what more you want.--Davide King (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
For me it would be to copy the first (small) paragraph of the definitions section into a spot early in the lead. IMO such is much more important to the overall perspective than much of the other more detailed info in the lead. North8000 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean this part? 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,[29][30] namely left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism,[1][2][3][4][5] to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital.[31] It seems to be more appropriate for a Definition or Political spectrum section. I think the lead now does a better job in saying that in shorter words.--Davide King (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Davide, Yes, that's the part that I mean. And no I don't agree that what's currently in the lead replaces the function that I intended. What I propose (which was written by you :-) ) somewhat establishes that the term has limited, not universal use. Otherwise, most of how the article is written is an implied claim of universal use. For me, having that early in the lead would be enough for a trial compromise for the main current dispute. Not that I don't think that the article still needs evolution, but we could try handling that as editors working together. There are a lot of good people involved. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Here are a few sources addressing the confusion caused by the term:
* https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/case-libertarian
* https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/336992-the-case-for-libertarianism-in-american-politics
* https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/
* https://reason.com/2018/10/25/why-you-are-not-a-conservative/
JLMadrigal @ 14:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
They don't actually address anything. These are all referring to Libertarianism in the United States and address the difference between Libertarianism in the United States on one hand and Conservatism in the United States and Modern liberalism in the United States on the other.--Davide King (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Putting "right-libertarianism" in perspective - size, anti-statisms, term use

We seem to be making some progress, inching toward neutrality. But the following points still haven't adequately been addressed:

  1. The size of the movement (relative to traditional "libertarianism") needs to be quantified.
  2. So-called right and left libertarians are both antiauthoritarian, but differ on what a reduction in the state will produce: While the socialist variety believe that collective ownership of property is possible without an enforcement mechanism, the group in question sees such a view as oxymoronic, and would prefer to simply reduce or eliminate centralized enforcement which, they believe, will result in order - as guided by Adam Smith's "invisible hand". A discussion of the Overton window - as mentioned by Pfhorrest - would be helpful to readers. Insertion and discussion of the Nolan chart would go a long way toward describing the perspective of this group - since it is their trademark.
  3. "Right-libertarianism" is a differentiating term. The first paragraph should start as follows,

The term "Right-libertarianism", or "right-wing libertarianism", is used to differentiate a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that strongly supports property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property from that of the more traditional socialist philosophy of libertarianism. While the "right" prefix typically implies endorsement of conservative social policies, this type of libertarianism does not lean to the right of center on the traditional scale.

JLMadrigal @ 16:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you mean by "the movement" and "traditional 'libertarianism'" in your first point.
A mention of the Nolan chart and its alternatives could be appropriate for the general discussion of the placement of types of libertarianism on the left-right political spectrum. Davide has begun a section about that at Libertarianism; I think some adaptation of whatever that turns into should also be added to this article and Left-libertarianism, and that some mention of the Overton window is still needed there.
Your suggestion for the start of the first paragraph is unworkable, though, and just brings us back to the main conflict here. This is an article about the thing that "right-libertarianism" refers to, not about the term "right-libertarianism". It is appropriate, as we have done, to discuss the terminology used to refer to the topic, but most of the rest of the article is just talking about the topic, using that terminology. This also speaks to North8000's comments above: we've established that "right-libertarianism" is the common name used for referring to this kind of libertarianism in contrast to other kinds, so aside from mentioning that (like all varieties of libertarianism) adherents just call themselves "libertarians", we can then proceed to just use the term "right-libertarianism" to refer to right-libertarianism throughout the rest of the article that's all about that specific kind of libertarianism in contrast to other kinds, instead of always reducing the use to mere mention. (See Use-mention distinction and WP:REFERS if necessary for clarification of this point). --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
That isn't a good way to start an article because the page is about the concept called right-libertarianism and not about the term. As a reply to what North just wrote above, both you and North seems to make confusion between the term and the concept which goes by the same name, but I think the article is pretty clear now and the Definition section is there for a reason, so there's no need to move part of it to the lead. Furthermore, you need reliable sources to address points which you believe haven't been adeguately addressed. For instance, what would you write about the overton window? And there's already a Political spectrum section in both Libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States, I don't think there's a need to duplicate that here too; the Definition section already explains that succintly. And several reliable sources actually describe or define it in relation to right-wing politics, especially the New Right, notwithstanding these libertarians' claims and rejection.--Davide King (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The Nolan chart is necessary here for several reasons:
  1. It defines this philosophy clearly, concisely, and pictorially.
  2. It helps to demonstrate why the term is commonly rejected by adherents
  3. It contrasts this philosophy with the socialist/capitalist dichotomy view.
JLMadrigal @ 14:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
There's already this which is much better and clear as it puts Libertarian capitalism on the right relative to Libertarian socialism, hence the use of right-libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI, the Nolan chart is of immense usefulness in defining the main form of libertarianism in the US. So immense and so widely used that it goes beyond just describing it, it actually creates and leads it. Far far more so than the detailed philosophies that this article seems to imagine as being the definition/ guide. North8000 (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You actually need reliable sources that use the Nolan chart when describing Right-libertarianism; in the sources we use, they never mention that and the Nolan chart isn't really relevant outside libertarianism in the United States. It's more relevant to talk about in the Politcial spectrum section at Libertarianism in the United States.--Davide King (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
So, according to Davide King, the chart that perfectly capsulizes, describes, and defines the ideology in question can't be used in the article about the ideology in question because, according to him, no "reliable sources" use it. JLMadrigal @ 17:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I think this one is appropriate: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Critical_definition What do you think, North? JLMadrigal @ 17:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
[T]he chart that perfectly capsulizes, describes, and defines the ideology in question[citation needed] My bad for actually following Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'm always free to be corrected if wrong and provided with reliable sources to lear something new. Aquillion, could you find any sources that describe right-libertarianism and actually use the Nolan chart? If the Nolan chart and the ones from RationalWiki aren't notable enough to be discussed or appear at Political spectrum, I don't understand why they should be discussed here, rather then Libertarianism in the United States or not at all.--Davide King (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The Nolan chart is discussed at Political_spectrum#Nolan:_economic_freedom,_personal_freedom. I do think it's worth including that here as an illustration of how right-libertarians think of themselves, in a section in this article that discusses right-libertarian's place within the political spectrum, which I do think is still worth including. Even if I don't think the Nolan chart and the placement of right-libertarianism as "centrist"/not-right is correct, myself, I think it is encyclopedically notable that many right-libertarians think of themselves that way. We should neutrally discuss that disagreement in the article, even though the disagreement isn't enough to warrant not calling the topic "right-libertarianism" or anything like that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This article whole is either about a term that is only used by a very small sect of people (people trying to create a certain taxonomy), or the bulk of libertarian world as viewed by that very small sect of people. And by it's definitional scheme, it purports to include the by far largest form of libertarianism, the large one-sentence-ideology US form. And while that taxonomy scheme may be useful in those limited circles to differentiate from rarer forms of libertarianism, it's pretty worthless and irrelevant for defining the largest form. Requests like Davide's saying that sources on the big topic can't be used unless the sources mention the small-minority name for the big topic is faulty. That's like saying that a New Guinea writer has defined Europeans as the "non-cannibal" people, and that saying in order to use a source about Europeans in the "non-cannibal people" article, the source has to specifically mention that it the info is about "non-cannibal people". (BTW I'm using "cannibal" in the sense of something that is a minority situation, not in the negative sense. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

North8000, the article is about a concept, not the term; how many times do Pfhorrest and I have to repeat that? I reiterate Aquillion's always relevant comments such as writing that it seems to me fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept which the current article covers fairly excellently and that trying to argue that it isn't used is just wasting everyone's time. It's an established academic term with extensive usage.--Davide King (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
In that respect I think we are agreeing but using two different words for it. Yes, it's (only) a concept of dividing the universe of libertarianism into two different groups according to a particular method. So lets make it clear that it is an article about that (division) concept. Perhaps if merge the Left & Right Libertatian articles and fully develop the coverage of the concept that such would settle everything. North8000 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with North that sources discussing what is clearly right-libertarianism just under the name of "libertarianism" should be usable as sources for claims in the body of the article. Just like most sources about association football are going to be talking about it just under the name "football". It's only for the sake of determining the most common unambiguous name that the prevalence of sources using the ambiguous name is irrelevant. For the actual content of the article, sources using only the ambiguous name are fine, so long as it's not ambiguous in context which referent of that name they're talking about. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

JLMadrigal, North8000 and Pfhorrest, I have added this. Can we finally remove the tag now? We already had a merge proposal and there was no consensus for that.--Davide King (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Davide. I'm fine with removing the tag, but then I never thought we needed it to begin with. The new section you added looks fine to me, though I'm a little unclear on the phrasing "right-libertarians are considered north of right". Is that supposed to be saying that "the kind of libertarians who use the Nolan chart (who are, generally, right-libertarians like Nolan himself) think that only those north of right deserve to be called 'right-libertarians'"? That sounds like an interpretation of that sentence that makes it true, but it doesn't seem like the superficial interpretation of it, which would be that "all actual right-libertarians are north-of-right on this chart, and people center-north on this chart aren't actually right-libertarians", which seems to be what many right-libertarians think, but isn't actually true. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Pfhorrest, I so agree with that. I will wait for other users replies first, but I think I can definitely remove the tag at Libertarianism since JLMadrigal rejected the use of right- and it doesn't warrant it. I think I have fixed that wording. Let me know what you think.--Davide King (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Nope. You are still reverting my edits - including the suggestion by North8000 to clarify the use of the term by moving one of YOUR edits to the lede. It may not be elegant, but it is necessary. If you leave my last edit intact, I will, although reluctantly, allow the removal of the template (pending approval by North8000 and a couple of forthcoming additions). I think it is a more than generous compromise. JLMadrigal @ 13:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
That or something similar early in the lead would be an OK compromise for me.North8000 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
It's only necessary if you want to make it sound like right-libertarianism isn't a real thing, but just a made-up term used to distinguish various forms of libertarianism. It's just unusual to start the lead that way and Right-libertarianism is contrasted with left-libertarianism, a type of libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources.[11] In contrast to socialist libertarianism,[4] right-libertarianism tends to support free-market capitalism.[1] Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians".[2][3][5] already makes it abundantely clear. Also, Pfhorrest seemed to agree that it was better to have it in the Definition section. I think there're enough reliable sources that support the concept, rather than just a term used to distinguish various forms of libertariaism, that's there's no need to repeat that in the lead; that's what the Definition section is for. You also wrote here that the article [...] does not use the WP:COMMONNAME for this philosophy but I thought we agree that it's actually the common name, whether you like it or not, as explained by Pfhorrest. You also made other questionable edits like: It is used to quantify typical libertarian views that support both free markets and social liberties, and reject the economic restrictions of the left and the personal restrictions of the right. It should be made clear that's according to the chart.--Davide King (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The common name is "libertarianism". The differentiating term used by taxonomists is "right-libertarianism". "Already" and "repeat" means that it has already been stated (i.e. The prior reference is made ABOVE the latter). "It" refers to the subject of the sentence (i.e. the Nolan chart) JLMadrigal @ 16:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I really thought we were making progress, but now we're just going in circles again. So I guess I'll just repeat myself again: "right-libertarianism" is the most common unambiguous name, and we can't use ambiguous name, just like with "association football" (most common unambiguous) and "football" (much more common, but ambiguous). And I strongly oppose Madrigal's recent edits to the lede, for reasons elaborated at WP:REFERS, as Davide has already mentioned. I took North's suggestion to be different from that anyway, not putting that passage first thing but just further up in the lede, but even then we shouldn't be repeating the same passage twice in the same article, especially so close to each other. I might be amenable to moving some more of the "definition" stuff up into the lead, depending on the specific proposal, but I don't see the necessity since we already have a short version of the same point there (as lede's are supposed to be), and in any case Madrigal's edits are not acceptable. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Finding a path to consensus

So, we've reached a stalemate. The article cannot exist in its current form. I'm starting to be swayed to Pfhorrest's idea of some type of merge. I'd like to take a North8000-style poll to see what direction we need to take. Here are the top four options discussed. Please rate each from 0 to 2, and sign below. I'll ping the editors who have put the most time and effort into resolving this dispute:

@North8000: @Pfhorrest: @Work permit: @The Four Deuces: @Гармонический Мир: @PhilLiberty: @Davide King:

At this point, I give 1 - 4 each a "2" JLMadrigal @ 14:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Please don't do it this way. Make it a neutrally-phrased RfC so it gets outside participation and make each of the four options its own section for editors to argue for/against. By giving four simultaneous options, each in its own subsection, you can judge the idea that has the most complete consensus. Alternatively, make it a single survey and everyone chooses a top option and why. But doing votes from 0–2 on four options is generally not how we make decisions on WP. czar 16:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Very well. JLMadrigal @ 17:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring by Davide King

Davide King is engaging in edit warring, and keeps prematurely removing the dispute template from the article. Something needs to be done. He has been banned from editing before, and it seems necessary to have him banned again. JLMadrigal @ 13:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Davide, I think that you should self-revert. There clearly is an open issue on this. North8000 (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I clearly respected the three revert rule whereas you had no respect for the work Pfhorrest and I did by going in circles. Pfhorrest also seemed to agree that the template was no longer necessary and Aquillion's comment that I'm just not seeing many people agreeing with you that there's a problem here. You've been arguing variations on this point for (as far as I can see) months, without getting anywhere. If you think you have a proposal that could reach a consensus, start an RFC; but otherwise, maybe it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other disputes. As it is, it seems to me fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept which the current article covers fairly excellently; and it's been there since August 2019. You keep denying that it's a concept and a real term, so trying to argue that it isn't used is just wasting everyone's time. It's an established academic term with extensive usage (as stated by Aquillion). Pfhorrest also argued that [t]hings are fine enough as they are. This RFC is really unnecessary, something which I wholeheartly agree with. So it's not just me doing unilaterally things.--Davide King (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
You don't even have a majority - much less a consensus. And your other reverts in the body are borderline revert violations (which is sufficient according to Wikipedia:Edit warring guidelines). Even so, the removal of a template is not a typical edit, and is handled differently. JLMadrigal @ 14:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
As explained by Pfhorrest long time ago, Wikipedia isn't a democracy. You also fail to acknowledge all the users who rejected a move back in August and also clearly stated they saw nothing wrong with the title as well as the users who rejected the merge in November and clearly saw them as two different topics warranting their own article. It's only you who seem to have a problem with it and North8000 has been making much of the same arguments all these years without success, so I don't understand where you're coming from. Your argument and reasoning just doesn't sound convincing and this discussion and dispute should have been done, over a long time ago. Pfhorrest and I already did our best in clarifying the lead and I removed fork content from Libertarianism in the United States, I don't understand what more you want. You simply don't want to be an article titled like this, notwithstanding all the sources and other users disagreeing with you, which you continue to ignore withour reasons. Pfhorrest and I clearly explained you why these edits you did were either wrong or misleading; and I believe both Pfhorrest and I did better, concise edits that addressed some of your compliants better than you ever did.--Davide King (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
This complaint about Davide seems in bad faith to me, like Madrigal is just trying to WP:WIN. I approve of the removal of the template. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in complaints against individuals as much as resolving the matter. There certainly is an unresolved dispute of the nature described by the template. I value Davide as a libertarian editor, even if I don't like some of his "attack the editor" / wikilawyering conversational tactics employed here in the debate process. I mean this only in a low-key friendly-critique way. Also that he continues to over-repeat one of Aquillion's comments which I took issue with and which Aquillion dropped. I have no wish to get Davide in trouble. @Davide King: can you please self-revert the removal of the template? This simply acknowledges the reality that the neutrality dispute does indeed exist. North8000 (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

North8000, I'm very passionate and have no issue with anyone, but I take issue with "attack the editor" / wikilawyering conversational tactics employed here in the debate process, for I don't believe that to be true. I'm the one who feels attacked by JLMadrigal's remarks above, especially considering my block was based mainly on my naivety and misunderstanding, not on edit warring, personal attacks, vandalism or sockpuppetry. As I said, I'm very passionate, but I'm also tired of this endless debate which I find unnecessary and unhelpful, for reliable sources support the article and that's all that matters; and I'm tired of both Pfhorrest and I having to repeat the same thing over and over again, especially when JLMadrigal, unlike you, continues to show a bias and not understanding of the topic, nor that of other libertarians. I also thought the name issue was finally over, that the article was going to stay; what was the point of all the additions to lead then? And I believe it still is, notwithstanding JLMadrigal's faiilure to realise that.
This isn't just a division concept, but a specific libertarian political philosophy and the common name used to distinguish it from other forms of libertarianism is right-libertarianism. I also don't see anything wrong in pointing out that you should be giving a rationale rather than merely writing Support or Oppose, or at least that's how I thought it works, if you were referring to that. As for me repeating that comment, which I found better describing JLMadrigal's stance rather than yours, it's because both you and JLMadrigal continue to ignore all the other users who didn't see anything wrong with the article and its name, or opposed a merge, etc. Just because Aquillion and all other users didn't respond anymore, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be counted, for they're probably just as tired as me of this endless dispute when an actual reading of reliable sources (not just a random sample) would end any discussion as stated in that comment. You also don't seem to realise that what we have now was already a good compromise, for now we risk having Libertarianism (disambiguation) be moved to Libertarianism and have no main Libertarianism article.
Finally, I dispute that the neutrality dispute [still] does indeed exist, nor do I think the request for comments is necessary, for I thought we finally agreed to have an article titled like this and both Pfhorrest and mine's additions helped clarify the topic (JLMadrigal's proposal for the lead simply wasn't good; the lead is supposed to be a summary and I think it does a good job and explaining the naming issue clearly; I don't know what more you want us to add, that's better suited as it's now in the Definition section); a merging proposal was already rejected; and other users, including both Pfhorrest and I, saw it not just as term but as a specific concept and there was no consensus for the political typology, for that tally was made-up and against our guidelines, as correctly pointed out by Pfhorrest. All of this can be fixed without deleting or merging this page; we can add informations to the Definition section, merge Libertarianism in South Africa and Libertarianism in the United Kingdom, or even simply creating this damned typology or disambiguation page as clarification without deleting or merging this or that article. I have no problem in self-reverting if other users also see the tag as still necessary. Pfhorrest seems to agree with me and Aquillion may too.--Davide King (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Putting one sentence that you wrote at the beginning of the article probably would put this whole thing to bed but you reverted even that compromise. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I meant those critiques in a mild way. Starting to say that editors disagreeing with you are mis-behaving or "just don't get it" or are being obstinate. Also, incorrectly trying to say that a point made on a talk page is invalid if the person does not find and supply sources that make that same point is not correct. Wp:ver applies to the presence of materiel in article space, not to points made in conversation on the talk page. Finally, there obviously still is a dispute and so repetitive removal of the tag is not proper. Your reason for the removal is basically "there is no dispute because my side is right and the other side is wrong". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
North8000, Pfhorrest explained it here better than I could and the thing is that there's no consensus to add that to the lead and that the current lead makes it clear and in a concise way the categorisation issue. I have put This is done to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines on all three articles' lead section, what more do you want me to write that hasn't already been said in shorter terms? We already have Definition of anarchism and libertarianism that discusses all that in more detail. 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 seems to be the perfect way to start a Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism article, but this ain't so; this is about right-libertarianism, so the lead should talk about right-libertarianism and the Definition about that (I think now it does a good job); and a merge was already rejected in November or there was no consensus for that; for why they may be discussed and mentioned together, they're still two different libertarian political philosophies worthy of having their own article. Maybe Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism could be a short disambiguation page that literally reads like that and then lists Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism, but otherwhise the two articles are fine as they are now and should be kept.
Where did I ever wrote that editors disagreeing with [me] are mis-behaving or "just don't get it" or are being obstinate? That seems to be your own original research of my words and either way both Pfhorrest and I seems to agree that JLMadrigal is being obstinate for going [back] in circles again. I'm all for compromise, but it has to be based on reality and reliable sources, not original research or synthesis. So while one doesn't have to provide sources on talk page, at some point one will have to, if it wants to add something to the article. This is clearly original research and not something that can be verfied. You write Wp:ver applies to the presence of materiel [sic] in article space, not to points made in conversation on the talk page, but that's exactly my point! One is free to make such argument, but then one shouldn't be surprised when that isn't added to the article for being original research or not verifiable. I support the removal of the template not because there is no dispute because my side is right and the other side is wrong, but because there doesn't seem to be consensus to have it in the first place! Arguing that right-libertarianism isn't a real thing or doesn't have widespread usage is just wasting everyone's time. Pfhorrest and I both seemed to think the naming issue was done.--Davide King (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
You're all for compromise? Then provide a lead sentence comparable to this one (which you wrote), and I for one will strongly consider opposing the merge. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right-libertarianism&oldid=936341235 We're bending over backwards for you, Davide. JLMadrigal @ 05:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
JLMadrigal, how nice of you for completely ignoring both mine and Pfhorrest's concerns and reasons to that edit! Also nice of you ignoring all the work Pfhorrest and I did to the lead; it looks like you're never satisfied unless your favorite edit is put in, notwithstanding why it's wrong starting that way, or there's no longer any mention of right-libertarianism in Wikipedia. I redirect you to what Pfhorrest wrote here, something to which you never even replied to, by the way.
How nice of you to turn this around me and make it all my fault! We have a Definition section for a reason and that's where that edit should be; the lead should be a short summary and as of now it describes concisely what right-libertarianism is and why it's called like that and how [t]his is done to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines, which is all in the lead for you and everyone else to read.
That is notwithstanding Aquillion's legitimate concerns here that I'm not sure the sources for Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians". say so explicitly. I think something of that nature might be worth saying, but we should probably think more about how to word it and / or find sources that explicitly say "right-libertarians call themselves X" more specifically so we can use their wording, yet I kept that wording there as part of a compromise when Pfhorrest and I worked together to make the current lead to clarify some concerns.--Davide King (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right-libertarianism/Archive_5&oldid=942025427"