+ |
+ |
||
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This discussion has been made more complex by differences in the meaning of English words in Europe vs. the US. The words "libertarian/libertarianism" and liberal/liberalism have different meanings on the two continents. The common meaning of "libertarian" in the US is closer to the common meaning of "liberal" in Europe than to the common meaning of "libertarian" there. But the meanings of libertarianism also have a substantial amount of overlap and are treated together in top level article. Also, in Europe it refers only to various well developed political philosophies whereas in the US it also includes a large vague phenomena generally simply defined as advocating more freedom and less government, or as one quadrant of the "Nolan chart", noting that the Nolan chart uses the US meaning of "liberal". This large vague US phenonema is numerically the largest form of what is self-identified as libertarianism. The "self-identified" qualifier is used because some would argue that the nearly same thing exists in Europe as European "liberalism". The well-developed political philosophies have individual names and articles in Wikipedia. |
|||
This discussion has been made more complex by differences in the meaning of English words in Europe vs. the US. The words "libertarian/libertarianism" and liberal/liberalism have different meanings on the two continents. |
|||
When writers or political scientists are working to organize a discussion of libertarianism as a whole, many divide and name it into two groups, "left libertarianism" and right libertarianism. These terms are generally used only by people making such an organization effort. Very few of the practitioners referred to self-identify by these terms. In wp:reliable sources as a whole, the term overwhelmingly used (over 99% of the time) for these is "libertarian" or "libertarianism". However, amongst those engaged in creating and naming large scale divisions within the various forms of libertarianism, "left libertarianism" and right libertarianism, are the most common names used by them. With respect to the issues at hand, this article is written as if the normal article situation exists. Namely that "right-libertarian" is a distinct topic that exists outside of any taxonomy system, should have an article, and that "right libertarian" is the most common name for it. A few distinctions for "right libertarian" (from left libertarian) are acceptance of private ownership of land and advocacy or acceptance of capitalism. Those who do not accept the status quo say that there are many different problems with this. One is that "right libertarian" names somebody by the name of their political opponents and so that the term is an oxymoron or a pejorative at worst or confusing at best. Another is that the article is merely grouping duplication of material from other articles according to a particular taxonomy system, with very weak coverage of the fact that the grouping exists only in the eyes of that taxonomy system. Another defining the main topic by it's differences from rare forms is very confusing unless one prominently acknowledges the lens. E.g saying that American libertarianism is the philosophy that promotes capitalism and the private ownership of land. Persons who favor the status quo regarding this say that either these problems do not exist, or that the problems are insufficient to require substantial changes to remedy. |
|||
Should the RFC decide that action is required, the minimum change would be to cover the "it's mostly just a term" and "taxonomy" aspects much more substantially and prominently. (merely) an example of such is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right-libertarianism&type=revision&diff=933071369&oldid=933020532 placed early in the lead. Within the range of possibilities, larger changes would be considered. |
|||
#With respect to the discussed issues, '''are''' problems with this article that are significant enough to require change of at least the "minimum change" described above. |
|||
#With respect to the discussed issues, '''are not''' problems with this article that are significant enough require change of at least the "minimum change" described above. |
Revision as of 11:13, 25 January 2020
This discussion has been made more complex by differences in the meaning of English words in Europe vs. the US. The words "libertarian/libertarianism" and liberal/liberalism have different meanings on the two continents. The common meaning of "libertarian" in the US is closer to the common meaning of "liberal" in Europe than to the common meaning of "libertarian" there. But the meanings of libertarianism also have a substantial amount of overlap and are treated together in top level article. Also, in Europe it refers only to various well developed political philosophies whereas in the US it also includes a large vague phenomena generally simply defined as advocating more freedom and less government, or as one quadrant of the "Nolan chart", noting that the Nolan chart uses the US meaning of "liberal". This large vague US phenonema is numerically the largest form of what is self-identified as libertarianism. The "self-identified" qualifier is used because some would argue that the nearly same thing exists in Europe as European "liberalism". The well-developed political philosophies have individual names and articles in Wikipedia.
When writers or political scientists are working to organize a discussion of libertarianism as a whole, many divide and name it into two groups, "left libertarianism" and right libertarianism. These terms are generally used only by people making such an organization effort. Very few of the practitioners referred to self-identify by these terms. In wp:reliable sources as a whole, the term overwhelmingly used (over 99% of the time) for these is "libertarian" or "libertarianism". However, amongst those engaged in creating and naming large scale divisions within the various forms of libertarianism, "left libertarianism" and right libertarianism, are the most common names used by them. With respect to the issues at hand, this article is written as if the normal article situation exists. Namely that "right-libertarian" is a distinct topic that exists outside of any taxonomy system, should have an article, and that "right libertarian" is the most common name for it. A few distinctions for "right libertarian" (from left libertarian) are acceptance of private ownership of land and advocacy or acceptance of capitalism. Those who do not accept the status quo say that there are many different problems with this. One is that "right libertarian" names somebody by the name of their political opponents and so that the term is an oxymoron or a pejorative at worst or confusing at best. Another is that the article is merely grouping duplication of material from other articles according to a particular taxonomy system, with very weak coverage of the fact that the grouping exists only in the eyes of that taxonomy system. Another defining the main topic by it's differences from rare forms is very confusing unless one prominently acknowledges the lens. E.g saying that American libertarianism is the philosophy that promotes capitalism and the private ownership of land. Persons who favor the status quo regarding this say that either these problems do not exist, or that the problems are insufficient to require substantial changes to remedy.
Should the RFC decide that action is required, the minimum change would be to cover the "it's mostly just a term" and "taxonomy" aspects much more substantially and prominently. (merely) an example of such is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right-libertarianism&type=revision&diff=933071369&oldid=933020532 placed early in the lead. Within the range of possibilities, larger changes would be considered.
- With respect to the discussed issues, are problems with this article that are significant enough to require change of at least the "minimum change" described above.
- With respect to the discussed issues, are not problems with this article that are significant enough require change of at least the "minimum change" described above.