This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Eyes on the ball please. The topic sentence. It must include one or more of the following terms (or something very similar): "disambiguate" "differentiate" "grouping" "used by". Can we at least settle on one of these, so we can begin fixing the topic sentence? JLMadrigal @ 17:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The very first sentence after the topic sentence is already talking about terminology. You can't get any more prominent than that), etc. but it's never enough until you get exactly what you want (i.e. WIN), all the while making fun of me as the
editor-in-chief.-- Davide King ( talk) 05:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
[i]t immediately identifies it as what the topic is .... [sic] a mythical creaturebut that's exactly what we do here when we write
type of libertarianism(do you even deny that the term itself refers to a type of libertarianism?). Other than this, I think Pfhorrest has been pretty clear and concise (I hope you can comment more like now because you make my points more concise and clear, so thank you); and gave the best argument, all things considered. I think the issue is that you don't recognise this and so you think merely in terms of the term.-- Davide King ( talk) 05:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
right-libertarianism isn't a name for a grouping of strands of libertarianism, it is that grouping of strands; and also that's not the same results I got when I searched on Google Scholar or JSTOR. Most of the sources you searched were still referring to right-libertarianism but simply called it libertarianism because, as written many times and as written in reliable sources, right-libertarianism is the dominant version of libertarianism in the United States. I'm curious about what or how Pfhorrest would reply to this latter point you raised, so I hope it cane clarified to you too.-- Davide King ( talk) 12:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
a political ideology which combines right-wing politics and populist rhetoric and themes, even as we write that
[c]lassification of right-wing populism into a single political family has proved difficult and it is not certain whether a meaningful category exists, or merely a cluster of categories since the parties differ in ideology, organization and leadership rhetoric. Unlike traditional parties, they also do not belong to international organizations of like-minded parties, and they do not use similar terms to describe themselves.; and this latter part is written in Definition, not in the lead as we do here.-- Davide King ( talk) 03:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
In response to
this, you haven't been really clear when you wrote that and it really looked like you were insinuating that was me. What did that even have anything to do with what we were discussing about; that wasn't even a Wikipedia user. Either way, that still makes no sense. Are you implying that only libertarians like you should edit and discuss this article? That isn't how it works; Wikipedia works by reliable sources and it doesn't matter what are one's political views as long as one is able to discuss neutrally which you haven't showed. Still, you also called for me to be
blocked for merely following the gentlemen's agreement of keeping a stable version when engaged in disputes. You continue to repeat lies like the term implying right-wing politics and fail to understand that Georgism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school aren't anti-capitalist yet they're considered within left-libertarianism; so no, right-libertarianism isn't all the non-anti-capitalist schools as you wrongly implied. Finally, you keep writing things like let's fix the blasted topic sentence
but you had almost a year now to get consensus for your proposals and you failed each time. There're still many users who find no issue at all; and even those who find an issue, it may not be the same issue as yours and thus may not require the same change, so we don't even have a consensus on having this big issue you complain about, one that hasn't been convincingly argued (yeah, I'm actually willing to change my mind, but neither of you gave me no reason for doing so). For all its problems, the status quo still remains the best solution, especially when it includes better wording that gives more weight to the term and comes closer to you.--
Davide King (
talk) 13:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
“ | yeah, I'm actually willing to change my mind, but neither of you gave me no reason for doing so | ” |
“ | I'm just not seeing many people agreeing with you that there's a problem here. You've been arguing variations on this point for (as far as I can see) months, without getting anywhere. If you think you have a proposal that could reach a consensus, start an RFC; but otherwise, maybe it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other disputes. As it is, it seems to me fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept which the current article covers fairly excellently. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC) | ” |
“ | All I can say is that that's my interpretation after reading the discussion - one or two editors clearly object to the name or existence of this article, but you've repeatedly failed to get a consensus for that basic issue, which is why all the other discussions have devolved into circular arguments that lead nowhere. You talk about "well-meaning editors trying to tackle a hard-to-resolve issue", but there is no issue, or at least no consensus that there's an issue. If some people don't think we should have an article on Right-libertarianism, they should take it to WP:AFD, where it would inevitably fail. If you've conceded that we should have an article on Right-libertarianism, or at least that you won't be able to get a consensus to remove it, then most of your other arguments fall apart and there's little else to discuss at such length. This discussion has been going on for months, essentially circling the same "is there a major problem with this article" question without getting a consensus for it, so it's time to move on and focus on something else. -- Aquillion ( talk) 15:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | ” |
The term "right-libertarianism" is used to distinguish this class of views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism; that
The very first sentence after the topic sentence is already talking about terminology. You can't get any more prominent than that; and that the article should merely be about the term for us to start the article the way you want, but I don't think that's supported by sources, for
right-libertarianism isn't a name for a grouping of strands of libertarianism, it is that grouping of strandsand so it is more than just a term, it's a political/philosphical concept. Again, please re-read this relevant comment by Pfhorrest.-- Davide King ( talk) 12:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
“ | I think your concern about the name being created by taxonomists is completely unfounded. Of course taxonomists are the people who create names for categories of things. Do you complain that we (the encyclopedia) don't call chimpanzees "monkeys" despite common usage, just because some biological taxonomists decided that "monkey" refers to a specific group of animals that does not include chimps? Of course not. | ” |
is a term used, although we may simply italicise the term itself and write
is usedor literally writing what it means and refers to, but I digress. The bottom line is that I have issue with this article starting that way, for the main topic isn't just a term; and the current lead is perfectly fine and you can't get more pertinent than that, it's literally in the second sentence. Now I was going to take you a more relevant and pertinent example, i.e. one related to politics and not literally any article whose main topic is a term and of which I have no issue with, Social fascism; but it actually discusses it as a theory and I was sure it would have been about the term or at least it would have started like that. Either way, we shouldn't look at other articles, especially of completely different and unreleated topics; we should concentrate on this one.-- Davide King ( talk) 13:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I like the lede now. The italicized disambiguation part addresses my concerns. The lede now makes it clear that "right libertarianism" is a taxonomical label rather than a term someone is likely to use as identification. I still think "libertarian capitalism" is more accurate, but "right libertarian" is more commonly used, albeit mainly by opponents. PhilLiberty ( talk) 06:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
These are the main topics:
Do you see how both Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism's main topic is a philosophy/tendency/theory/type of libertarianism or whatever you want to call it rather than merely a term? Only the name has been given by taxonomists/sources which makes it the most common, unambiguous name, but the philosophy, etc. remains the same no matter how it's called, it doesn't change; the article is about the philosophy/type, etc., not the term; hence why both articles have also known as
; because whether one's called right-libertarianism, libertarian capitalism and right-wing libertarianism, or left-libertarianism, egalitarian libertarianism, left-wing libertarianism and social libertarianism, that doesn't change they all refer to the same respective thing; the main topic (the philosophy/type, etc.) remains the main topic, not the term itself, for which there're others, while the philosophy/type is only one/stay the same irrespective of the name. Just like
Left-wing populism and
Right-wing populism and similar other secondary articles like
Classical liberalism,
Conservative liberalism,
Democratic socialism,
Left-wing nationalism,
Liberal conservatism,
National conservatism,
National liberalism,
Social conservatism,
Social liberalism, etc.
I think all these are much more relevant and pertinent examples (politics and philosophy) than articles, whose main topic is a term, which unsurprisingly begin stating is a term
, of which I have no problem because in that case the term is the main topic, unlike here.--
Davide King (
talk) 13:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
“ | Constantinian shift is a term used by some theologians and historians of antiquity to describe the political and theological aspects and outcomes of the 4th-century process of Constantine's integration of the imperial government with the Catholic Church that began with the First Council of Nicaea.[1] The term was popularized by the Mennonite theologian John H. Yoder.[2] | ” |
“ | Constantinian shift is the political and theological aspects and outcomes of the 4th-century process of Constantine's integration of the imperial government with the Catholic Church that began with the First Council of Nicaea.[1] The term, popularized by the Mennonite theologian John H. Yoder,[2] is used by some theologians and historians of antiquity. | ” |
[t]he claim that there ever was a Constantinian shift has been disputed; Peter Leithart argues that there was a "brief, ambiguous 'Constantinian moment' in the fourth century", but that there was "no permanent, epochal 'Constantinian shift'".[3]That's why it doesn't start this way. However, this isn't the same thing here. Right-libertarianism may mainly disputed by a few libertarians since academics (by the way, we already write and aknowledge this, i.e. that those libertarians, like other libertarians, simply call themselves libertarians and refer to it simply as libertariannism) and other reliable sources describes it as a thing per Pfhorrest's comment.-- Davide King ( talk) 13:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
well-accepted, widely used grouping and as the common name for itas you put it. I have to agree to disagree with you on this.-- Davide King ( talk) 16:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Pfhorrest:, when you wrote "All of the animals exist, but the grouping of animals is the invention of some taxonomists. Does that mean we shouldn't follow their usage here in Wikipedia?", that question goes to the heart of one of the main issues here. My answer would be that if the grouping and naming is widely used, (e.g. "primates") that the answer is not only "yes" but that it can be used as a way to cover and organize coverage of those critters in Wikipedia . E.G treat "primate" as a well-accepted, widely used grouping and as the common name for it. If not (for example, if a few taxonomists categorized primates by average hair diameter, and called the resultant groups "right-primates" for >.010" dia. and "left-primates" for those < .010") then their method and naming should be given a few sentences in the "primate" article, clearly identified as being a grouping and naming method, and certainly not be used as a way to cover primates or organize coverage of primates in Wikipedia. And there should certainly be no wording or positioning that implies that those groupings and namings are the commonly used ones. North8000 ( talk) 13:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
that question goes to the heart of one of the main issues hereYes, I made that analogy specifically to address that issue that you raised.
I hope
Pfhorrest can reply about that, but even if you were right, that would support the lead starting Right-libertarianism is a term that refers to a political philosophy and type of libertarianism [...]
rather than your Right-libertarianism is a term used by [...]
; even
Monkey still first establishes the topic, i.e. what the term actually means or refer to (cf. groups or species of mammals
vis-à-vis political philosophy and type of libertarianism
). Just like the current lead, Monkey first establishes the topic and what the term actually refers to and then the second sentence starts with "The term" exactly as here. I think in that case common name refers to
Common name rather than to
Wikipedia:Common name. Then again, why not straight telling what right-libertarianism actually means and is used for? Sources refer to it as a version of libertarianism
or one major camp[s] of libertarian thought
, not as a mere term. Only the term itself is taxonomised, not the topic.--
Davide King (
talk) 02:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Right-libertarianism is a term used to [...]
version of libertarianismor one
major camp[s] of libertarian thought, i.e. as a political philosophy and type of libertarianism, not a term itself. In political-related articles, we usually start by saying
is a political ideology,
is a political philosophy and variant of [...], etc. I don't see how is that different here. Right-libertarianism isn't treated as a term (see example).-- Davide King ( talk) 04:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe starting with Davide's "Right-libertarianism is a term that refers to a political philosophy and type of libertarianism" we have something? BTW, regarding the sources argument, in the context of our current debate/ the current question, I would not call those sources, I would call them creators. North8000 ( talk) 12:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
a disambiguatortoo, just like Individualist anarchism and Social anarchism, yet we don't write those are terms; we write that they're ideologies in the case of the former and branches in the case of the latter.-- Davide King ( talk) 12:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
right-libertarianism is a version of libertarianism, although some consider it controversial, there's no mention of controversy; and if there was, you'd bet they'd report it. So it seems to be that the controversy is only with a few individuals and libertarians, but that doesn't matter; reliable sources do and they don't report any controversy, so you should be thankful we even say
right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians"when Aquillion correctly pointed out that sources don't explicity say that, yet I kept it on as compromise (you even disagree on my above compromise). If PhilLiberty, of all people, can accept the current lead, why you can't? You're simply wrong in seeing it just as a term or disambiguator; it clearly refers to political philosophy and that's what we should say as the first thing.-- Davide King ( talk) 13:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Davide, answering your question, "reliable source" means different things in wikipedia dialog, and the dialog itself can be vague and sloppy:
Libertarianism is a phenonema in society. A bundle of philosophies, philosophers, political ideologies, political parties, widely or narrowly used terminology, organizations, works, groupings namings,created by writers, aspect of individuals, publications. And both present and history on those. My point is that in this case, sources that comply with #2 (and meet the ideals of #3) are basically (secondary source) coverers of that conglomeration, not creators of the individual pieces of it. So philosophies, works and groupings and namings created by philosophers and writers are things to be be covered, not coverers. North8000 ( talk) 14:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
philosophies, works and groupings and namings [sic] created by philosophers and writers, which you support covering, is exactly what we cover here. The only reason it may cover coverers is because I thought you wanted the article to state who does the covering.-- Davide King ( talk) 15:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I thoughtand if you don't want the article to be about the coverers, then what do you suggest? I don't want it to be about the coverers either. The term refers to a political philosophy and type of libertarianism and this is what we should be covering. The same is done for populism. I wrote right at the top of this section the main topic of each libertarian article. Do you dispute any of that? If so, why; and what's your solution?-- Davide King ( talk) 17:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
merely terms; they represent two different approaches to libertarian philosophy and theory. I also don't see the duplication issue you're talking about and referring to. That may have indeed be true months ago when it included content fork from Libertarianism in the United States and where Philosophy was duplicated at Libertarianism, but that's been changed and in my opinion fixed.-- Davide King ( talk) 14:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Please,
stop spreading lies like the term being used mostly by anti-capitalists. Besides not having no actual majority consensus for this wording
, that edit was problematic for many other reasons. Again, you also removed the mention of capitalist property rights
; this may sound new to you, but property rights isn't synonymous with capitalism or the property rights you yourself may advocate. You also added that the categorisation is done along socialist-capitalist lines
but that's not the only side of the story.
As we write at
Libertarianism, it's usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines
because not everyone actually divide it into socialist–capitalist. Ironically, you're taking the side of some left-libertarians who would consider all capitalist libertarianism to be right-libertarianism; this is evident when you changed the wording to write that [it] is distinguished from left-libertarianism, a traditional socialist type of libertarianism that takes an egalitarian approach to natural resources, because it tends to support ownership of natural resources and the means of production
but that's not even according the given source we use, which makes no mention of means of production but only of of natural resources (which is exacty an example of non-anticapitalist left-libertarianism); also what does traditional even mean?
There's no traditional socialist or anarchist, there's only a socialist or anarchist. Again, given source makes no mention of it; you really seem to have issue with sources; you take it as given that sources aready agree with you and your position, but that's actually the contrary. In short, that's not according to reliable sources which include Georgism and other non-anticaptalist but nonetheless egalitarian and social schools of thought within the libertarian left, so please drop that.-- Davide King ( talk) 14:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
You also removed also known as [...] or right-wing libertarianism
which is supported by sources and is the same thing we do at
Left-libertarianism too. You also kept PhilLiberty's wording of (or the more objective libertarian capitalism[4])
which isn't supported by sources and is propably
weasel.--
Davide King (
talk) 14:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
all the other editors who have over the past months (a year now maybe?) said there is nothing wrong with the article, who just didn't stick around to keep repeating that to youor that even if they found one or more issue, they either thought it wasn't big enough to warrant change or didn't like any other proposal (status quo is the lesser evil); if we consider all that, I think there's already a slight edge for the status quo. For even those who may had problems with it, they didn't find it such a big issue and probably don't understand why we're still discussing the same thing, other than a few people not liking the name and not understanding the concept itself, as shown by the flawed, if not outright false,
It's only used by anti-capitalists/opponentsargument.-- Davide King ( talk) 23:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
[right-libertarianism] is a term usedis simply wrong, false. They describe a concept, a theory within libertarianism; and that's the topic we're going to cover, not just the terminology which is mainly there to make the reader clear for why it's called as such, etc. With all due respect, but opposition to the status quo now really sounds to be petty, for the next sentence literally clarifies that already and is about the term. If even your version keeps this (
Under this classification, right-libertarianism is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism), then why not start the article directing saying that first and then explain the classification. Because the bottom line is that the topic is philosophy, only the name is a categorisation; and we cover the first one, that's the main topic (all the stuff about the terminology, I added it as a compromise and to make it more clear to the reader why). Whether you agree or not, your pragmatic compromise is based on an inversion of the first two sentences; and there're better arguments for why the status quo is better; it firstly establishes the topic and your inversion is kind of false because sources don't say it's a term or even a categorisation, they describe the theory, the type, whatever you call it.-- Davide King ( talk) 00:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I've been working on the RFC. What I have is a draft at: User:North8000/sandbox1. I'm requesting feedback on it in two areas:
I think that we need to make an effort to get broad participation but avoid any selective canvassing. (BTW the feedback request service has been broken for months and no fix is being discussed.) I think a way to do this would be (feedback on this also requested):
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Another difference is that in Europe it refers only to various specific and generally well developed political philosophies whereas in the US it also includes a large vague phenomena generally advocating more freedom and less government, or as one quadrant of the "Nolan chart".I'm not sure how factually balanced this is. Is the US "libertarian" movement really more vague than the European "libertarian" movement? I honestly don't know. There are definitely people in the US movement with a very precise idea of what they mean by "libertarianism", and also a lot more people just vaguely following their use of the word. (The US sense documentably originates from particular academics 50 years ago intentionally adopting it as a name for a precise thing, knowing its prior different usage; today's common US usages descends from them). I haven't seen anything to suggest that the situation in Europe isn't any different, with academics using the word in their own precise way and other people vaguely following their use of the word. I'm not really sure how any of that is relevant, either.
The issue is most present at and described for this article, but the Libertarianism in the United States article has also become involved, and Left-libertarianism could become involved.I think it's also worth mentioning the article Libertarianism again here too, as this and Left-libertarianism are sub-pages of that, so substantial changes to either of them would involve that as well.
I would suggest adding the following bold words for a minimum change to the topic sentence to clarify the terminological nuance in the anti status quo section.:
"Some political scientists and writers classify the strands of libertarianism into two groups; "right libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism" in order to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property, capital, and markets." JLMadrigal @ 19:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Eyes on the ball please. The topic sentence. It must include one or more of the following terms (or something very similar): "disambiguate" "differentiate" "grouping" "used by". Can we at least settle on one of these, so we can begin fixing the topic sentence? JLMadrigal @ 17:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The very first sentence after the topic sentence is already talking about terminology. You can't get any more prominent than that), etc. but it's never enough until you get exactly what you want (i.e. WIN), all the while making fun of me as the
editor-in-chief.-- Davide King ( talk) 05:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
[i]t immediately identifies it as what the topic is .... [sic] a mythical creaturebut that's exactly what we do here when we write
type of libertarianism(do you even deny that the term itself refers to a type of libertarianism?). Other than this, I think Pfhorrest has been pretty clear and concise (I hope you can comment more like now because you make my points more concise and clear, so thank you); and gave the best argument, all things considered. I think the issue is that you don't recognise this and so you think merely in terms of the term.-- Davide King ( talk) 05:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
right-libertarianism isn't a name for a grouping of strands of libertarianism, it is that grouping of strands; and also that's not the same results I got when I searched on Google Scholar or JSTOR. Most of the sources you searched were still referring to right-libertarianism but simply called it libertarianism because, as written many times and as written in reliable sources, right-libertarianism is the dominant version of libertarianism in the United States. I'm curious about what or how Pfhorrest would reply to this latter point you raised, so I hope it cane clarified to you too.-- Davide King ( talk) 12:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
a political ideology which combines right-wing politics and populist rhetoric and themes, even as we write that
[c]lassification of right-wing populism into a single political family has proved difficult and it is not certain whether a meaningful category exists, or merely a cluster of categories since the parties differ in ideology, organization and leadership rhetoric. Unlike traditional parties, they also do not belong to international organizations of like-minded parties, and they do not use similar terms to describe themselves.; and this latter part is written in Definition, not in the lead as we do here.-- Davide King ( talk) 03:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
In response to
this, you haven't been really clear when you wrote that and it really looked like you were insinuating that was me. What did that even have anything to do with what we were discussing about; that wasn't even a Wikipedia user. Either way, that still makes no sense. Are you implying that only libertarians like you should edit and discuss this article? That isn't how it works; Wikipedia works by reliable sources and it doesn't matter what are one's political views as long as one is able to discuss neutrally which you haven't showed. Still, you also called for me to be
blocked for merely following the gentlemen's agreement of keeping a stable version when engaged in disputes. You continue to repeat lies like the term implying right-wing politics and fail to understand that Georgism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school aren't anti-capitalist yet they're considered within left-libertarianism; so no, right-libertarianism isn't all the non-anti-capitalist schools as you wrongly implied. Finally, you keep writing things like let's fix the blasted topic sentence
but you had almost a year now to get consensus for your proposals and you failed each time. There're still many users who find no issue at all; and even those who find an issue, it may not be the same issue as yours and thus may not require the same change, so we don't even have a consensus on having this big issue you complain about, one that hasn't been convincingly argued (yeah, I'm actually willing to change my mind, but neither of you gave me no reason for doing so). For all its problems, the status quo still remains the best solution, especially when it includes better wording that gives more weight to the term and comes closer to you.--
Davide King (
talk) 13:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
“ | yeah, I'm actually willing to change my mind, but neither of you gave me no reason for doing so | ” |
“ | I'm just not seeing many people agreeing with you that there's a problem here. You've been arguing variations on this point for (as far as I can see) months, without getting anywhere. If you think you have a proposal that could reach a consensus, start an RFC; but otherwise, maybe it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other disputes. As it is, it seems to me fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept which the current article covers fairly excellently. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC) | ” |
“ | All I can say is that that's my interpretation after reading the discussion - one or two editors clearly object to the name or existence of this article, but you've repeatedly failed to get a consensus for that basic issue, which is why all the other discussions have devolved into circular arguments that lead nowhere. You talk about "well-meaning editors trying to tackle a hard-to-resolve issue", but there is no issue, or at least no consensus that there's an issue. If some people don't think we should have an article on Right-libertarianism, they should take it to WP:AFD, where it would inevitably fail. If you've conceded that we should have an article on Right-libertarianism, or at least that you won't be able to get a consensus to remove it, then most of your other arguments fall apart and there's little else to discuss at such length. This discussion has been going on for months, essentially circling the same "is there a major problem with this article" question without getting a consensus for it, so it's time to move on and focus on something else. -- Aquillion ( talk) 15:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | ” |
The term "right-libertarianism" is used to distinguish this class of views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism; that
The very first sentence after the topic sentence is already talking about terminology. You can't get any more prominent than that; and that the article should merely be about the term for us to start the article the way you want, but I don't think that's supported by sources, for
right-libertarianism isn't a name for a grouping of strands of libertarianism, it is that grouping of strandsand so it is more than just a term, it's a political/philosphical concept. Again, please re-read this relevant comment by Pfhorrest.-- Davide King ( talk) 12:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
“ | I think your concern about the name being created by taxonomists is completely unfounded. Of course taxonomists are the people who create names for categories of things. Do you complain that we (the encyclopedia) don't call chimpanzees "monkeys" despite common usage, just because some biological taxonomists decided that "monkey" refers to a specific group of animals that does not include chimps? Of course not. | ” |
is a term used, although we may simply italicise the term itself and write
is usedor literally writing what it means and refers to, but I digress. The bottom line is that I have issue with this article starting that way, for the main topic isn't just a term; and the current lead is perfectly fine and you can't get more pertinent than that, it's literally in the second sentence. Now I was going to take you a more relevant and pertinent example, i.e. one related to politics and not literally any article whose main topic is a term and of which I have no issue with, Social fascism; but it actually discusses it as a theory and I was sure it would have been about the term or at least it would have started like that. Either way, we shouldn't look at other articles, especially of completely different and unreleated topics; we should concentrate on this one.-- Davide King ( talk) 13:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I like the lede now. The italicized disambiguation part addresses my concerns. The lede now makes it clear that "right libertarianism" is a taxonomical label rather than a term someone is likely to use as identification. I still think "libertarian capitalism" is more accurate, but "right libertarian" is more commonly used, albeit mainly by opponents. PhilLiberty ( talk) 06:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
These are the main topics:
Do you see how both Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism's main topic is a philosophy/tendency/theory/type of libertarianism or whatever you want to call it rather than merely a term? Only the name has been given by taxonomists/sources which makes it the most common, unambiguous name, but the philosophy, etc. remains the same no matter how it's called, it doesn't change; the article is about the philosophy/type, etc., not the term; hence why both articles have also known as
; because whether one's called right-libertarianism, libertarian capitalism and right-wing libertarianism, or left-libertarianism, egalitarian libertarianism, left-wing libertarianism and social libertarianism, that doesn't change they all refer to the same respective thing; the main topic (the philosophy/type, etc.) remains the main topic, not the term itself, for which there're others, while the philosophy/type is only one/stay the same irrespective of the name. Just like
Left-wing populism and
Right-wing populism and similar other secondary articles like
Classical liberalism,
Conservative liberalism,
Democratic socialism,
Left-wing nationalism,
Liberal conservatism,
National conservatism,
National liberalism,
Social conservatism,
Social liberalism, etc.
I think all these are much more relevant and pertinent examples (politics and philosophy) than articles, whose main topic is a term, which unsurprisingly begin stating is a term
, of which I have no problem because in that case the term is the main topic, unlike here.--
Davide King (
talk) 13:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
“ | Constantinian shift is a term used by some theologians and historians of antiquity to describe the political and theological aspects and outcomes of the 4th-century process of Constantine's integration of the imperial government with the Catholic Church that began with the First Council of Nicaea.[1] The term was popularized by the Mennonite theologian John H. Yoder.[2] | ” |
“ | Constantinian shift is the political and theological aspects and outcomes of the 4th-century process of Constantine's integration of the imperial government with the Catholic Church that began with the First Council of Nicaea.[1] The term, popularized by the Mennonite theologian John H. Yoder,[2] is used by some theologians and historians of antiquity. | ” |
[t]he claim that there ever was a Constantinian shift has been disputed; Peter Leithart argues that there was a "brief, ambiguous 'Constantinian moment' in the fourth century", but that there was "no permanent, epochal 'Constantinian shift'".[3]That's why it doesn't start this way. However, this isn't the same thing here. Right-libertarianism may mainly disputed by a few libertarians since academics (by the way, we already write and aknowledge this, i.e. that those libertarians, like other libertarians, simply call themselves libertarians and refer to it simply as libertariannism) and other reliable sources describes it as a thing per Pfhorrest's comment.-- Davide King ( talk) 13:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
well-accepted, widely used grouping and as the common name for itas you put it. I have to agree to disagree with you on this.-- Davide King ( talk) 16:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Pfhorrest:, when you wrote "All of the animals exist, but the grouping of animals is the invention of some taxonomists. Does that mean we shouldn't follow their usage here in Wikipedia?", that question goes to the heart of one of the main issues here. My answer would be that if the grouping and naming is widely used, (e.g. "primates") that the answer is not only "yes" but that it can be used as a way to cover and organize coverage of those critters in Wikipedia . E.G treat "primate" as a well-accepted, widely used grouping and as the common name for it. If not (for example, if a few taxonomists categorized primates by average hair diameter, and called the resultant groups "right-primates" for >.010" dia. and "left-primates" for those < .010") then their method and naming should be given a few sentences in the "primate" article, clearly identified as being a grouping and naming method, and certainly not be used as a way to cover primates or organize coverage of primates in Wikipedia. And there should certainly be no wording or positioning that implies that those groupings and namings are the commonly used ones. North8000 ( talk) 13:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
that question goes to the heart of one of the main issues hereYes, I made that analogy specifically to address that issue that you raised.
I hope
Pfhorrest can reply about that, but even if you were right, that would support the lead starting Right-libertarianism is a term that refers to a political philosophy and type of libertarianism [...]
rather than your Right-libertarianism is a term used by [...]
; even
Monkey still first establishes the topic, i.e. what the term actually means or refer to (cf. groups or species of mammals
vis-à-vis political philosophy and type of libertarianism
). Just like the current lead, Monkey first establishes the topic and what the term actually refers to and then the second sentence starts with "The term" exactly as here. I think in that case common name refers to
Common name rather than to
Wikipedia:Common name. Then again, why not straight telling what right-libertarianism actually means and is used for? Sources refer to it as a version of libertarianism
or one major camp[s] of libertarian thought
, not as a mere term. Only the term itself is taxonomised, not the topic.--
Davide King (
talk) 02:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Right-libertarianism is a term used to [...]
version of libertarianismor one
major camp[s] of libertarian thought, i.e. as a political philosophy and type of libertarianism, not a term itself. In political-related articles, we usually start by saying
is a political ideology,
is a political philosophy and variant of [...], etc. I don't see how is that different here. Right-libertarianism isn't treated as a term (see example).-- Davide King ( talk) 04:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe starting with Davide's "Right-libertarianism is a term that refers to a political philosophy and type of libertarianism" we have something? BTW, regarding the sources argument, in the context of our current debate/ the current question, I would not call those sources, I would call them creators. North8000 ( talk) 12:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
a disambiguatortoo, just like Individualist anarchism and Social anarchism, yet we don't write those are terms; we write that they're ideologies in the case of the former and branches in the case of the latter.-- Davide King ( talk) 12:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
right-libertarianism is a version of libertarianism, although some consider it controversial, there's no mention of controversy; and if there was, you'd bet they'd report it. So it seems to be that the controversy is only with a few individuals and libertarians, but that doesn't matter; reliable sources do and they don't report any controversy, so you should be thankful we even say
right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians"when Aquillion correctly pointed out that sources don't explicity say that, yet I kept it on as compromise (you even disagree on my above compromise). If PhilLiberty, of all people, can accept the current lead, why you can't? You're simply wrong in seeing it just as a term or disambiguator; it clearly refers to political philosophy and that's what we should say as the first thing.-- Davide King ( talk) 13:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Davide, answering your question, "reliable source" means different things in wikipedia dialog, and the dialog itself can be vague and sloppy:
Libertarianism is a phenonema in society. A bundle of philosophies, philosophers, political ideologies, political parties, widely or narrowly used terminology, organizations, works, groupings namings,created by writers, aspect of individuals, publications. And both present and history on those. My point is that in this case, sources that comply with #2 (and meet the ideals of #3) are basically (secondary source) coverers of that conglomeration, not creators of the individual pieces of it. So philosophies, works and groupings and namings created by philosophers and writers are things to be be covered, not coverers. North8000 ( talk) 14:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
philosophies, works and groupings and namings [sic] created by philosophers and writers, which you support covering, is exactly what we cover here. The only reason it may cover coverers is because I thought you wanted the article to state who does the covering.-- Davide King ( talk) 15:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I thoughtand if you don't want the article to be about the coverers, then what do you suggest? I don't want it to be about the coverers either. The term refers to a political philosophy and type of libertarianism and this is what we should be covering. The same is done for populism. I wrote right at the top of this section the main topic of each libertarian article. Do you dispute any of that? If so, why; and what's your solution?-- Davide King ( talk) 17:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
merely terms; they represent two different approaches to libertarian philosophy and theory. I also don't see the duplication issue you're talking about and referring to. That may have indeed be true months ago when it included content fork from Libertarianism in the United States and where Philosophy was duplicated at Libertarianism, but that's been changed and in my opinion fixed.-- Davide King ( talk) 14:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Please,
stop spreading lies like the term being used mostly by anti-capitalists. Besides not having no actual majority consensus for this wording
, that edit was problematic for many other reasons. Again, you also removed the mention of capitalist property rights
; this may sound new to you, but property rights isn't synonymous with capitalism or the property rights you yourself may advocate. You also added that the categorisation is done along socialist-capitalist lines
but that's not the only side of the story.
As we write at
Libertarianism, it's usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines
because not everyone actually divide it into socialist–capitalist. Ironically, you're taking the side of some left-libertarians who would consider all capitalist libertarianism to be right-libertarianism; this is evident when you changed the wording to write that [it] is distinguished from left-libertarianism, a traditional socialist type of libertarianism that takes an egalitarian approach to natural resources, because it tends to support ownership of natural resources and the means of production
but that's not even according the given source we use, which makes no mention of means of production but only of of natural resources (which is exacty an example of non-anticapitalist left-libertarianism); also what does traditional even mean?
There's no traditional socialist or anarchist, there's only a socialist or anarchist. Again, given source makes no mention of it; you really seem to have issue with sources; you take it as given that sources aready agree with you and your position, but that's actually the contrary. In short, that's not according to reliable sources which include Georgism and other non-anticaptalist but nonetheless egalitarian and social schools of thought within the libertarian left, so please drop that.-- Davide King ( talk) 14:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
You also removed also known as [...] or right-wing libertarianism
which is supported by sources and is the same thing we do at
Left-libertarianism too. You also kept PhilLiberty's wording of (or the more objective libertarian capitalism[4])
which isn't supported by sources and is propably
weasel.--
Davide King (
talk) 14:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
all the other editors who have over the past months (a year now maybe?) said there is nothing wrong with the article, who just didn't stick around to keep repeating that to youor that even if they found one or more issue, they either thought it wasn't big enough to warrant change or didn't like any other proposal (status quo is the lesser evil); if we consider all that, I think there's already a slight edge for the status quo. For even those who may had problems with it, they didn't find it such a big issue and probably don't understand why we're still discussing the same thing, other than a few people not liking the name and not understanding the concept itself, as shown by the flawed, if not outright false,
It's only used by anti-capitalists/opponentsargument.-- Davide King ( talk) 23:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
[right-libertarianism] is a term usedis simply wrong, false. They describe a concept, a theory within libertarianism; and that's the topic we're going to cover, not just the terminology which is mainly there to make the reader clear for why it's called as such, etc. With all due respect, but opposition to the status quo now really sounds to be petty, for the next sentence literally clarifies that already and is about the term. If even your version keeps this (
Under this classification, right-libertarianism is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism), then why not start the article directing saying that first and then explain the classification. Because the bottom line is that the topic is philosophy, only the name is a categorisation; and we cover the first one, that's the main topic (all the stuff about the terminology, I added it as a compromise and to make it more clear to the reader why). Whether you agree or not, your pragmatic compromise is based on an inversion of the first two sentences; and there're better arguments for why the status quo is better; it firstly establishes the topic and your inversion is kind of false because sources don't say it's a term or even a categorisation, they describe the theory, the type, whatever you call it.-- Davide King ( talk) 00:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I've been working on the RFC. What I have is a draft at: User:North8000/sandbox1. I'm requesting feedback on it in two areas:
I think that we need to make an effort to get broad participation but avoid any selective canvassing. (BTW the feedback request service has been broken for months and no fix is being discussed.) I think a way to do this would be (feedback on this also requested):
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Another difference is that in Europe it refers only to various specific and generally well developed political philosophies whereas in the US it also includes a large vague phenomena generally advocating more freedom and less government, or as one quadrant of the "Nolan chart".I'm not sure how factually balanced this is. Is the US "libertarian" movement really more vague than the European "libertarian" movement? I honestly don't know. There are definitely people in the US movement with a very precise idea of what they mean by "libertarianism", and also a lot more people just vaguely following their use of the word. (The US sense documentably originates from particular academics 50 years ago intentionally adopting it as a name for a precise thing, knowing its prior different usage; today's common US usages descends from them). I haven't seen anything to suggest that the situation in Europe isn't any different, with academics using the word in their own precise way and other people vaguely following their use of the word. I'm not really sure how any of that is relevant, either.
The issue is most present at and described for this article, but the Libertarianism in the United States article has also become involved, and Left-libertarianism could become involved.I think it's also worth mentioning the article Libertarianism again here too, as this and Left-libertarianism are sub-pages of that, so substantial changes to either of them would involve that as well.
I would suggest adding the following bold words for a minimum change to the topic sentence to clarify the terminological nuance in the anti status quo section.:
"Some political scientists and writers classify the strands of libertarianism into two groups; "right libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism" in order to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property, capital, and markets." JLMadrigal @ 19:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)