User:North8000/sandbox1

RFC

We're trying to get broader participation in this RFC. Since the terminology on this topic can be confusing, and the debate to date is definitely in TLDR territory (a 10 month perhaps 200,000 word discussion), I am giving extra background in the RFC.

The common meanings of "libertarian/libertarianism" and liberal/liberalism are different in the US vs. Europe. 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. The meaning of the word "right" also varies greatly with context. But the meanings of libertarianism also have a substantial amount of overlap and are treated together in the top level libertarianism article. Also the well-developed individual libertarian philosophies have individual names and articles in Wikipedia. Another possible difference is that in some places it may primarily refer 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". This large vague US phenomena (most sources put it at about 1/4th of the US population and it does not refer to political party affiliation) is numerically the largest form of what is self-identified as libertarianism. With these folks being somewhat called "liberals" in Europe, the common meaning of "libertarian" in Europe is often a different group including (but not limited to) anarchists and those actively opposing capitalism. 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 and Libertarianism could become involved.

I'll do a four stage intro to the dispute and the question, seeking the describe the positions regarding the areas of concern without arguing them or even mentioning all of the arguments.

Step #1 A description of elements of the status quo relevant to the dispute

The article is written with the voice of Wikipedia treating the term and the topic in the normal sense. I.E the voice of Wikipedia (= without attribution type qualifiers) treating it as a generally recognized distinct topic, and that the term is a neutral commonly used name for it.

Step #2 List of related issues of concern to the anti-status-quo side

Various related concerns have been raised. It's important to note that several are considered to be problems only in the context of what is described under #1.

1. That in real life this "topic" is not something that is recognized as a distinct topic. That this grouping is one created by and used by only a small specialized group of people. And that this group is from a particular different strand of libertarians and is creating, defining and naming the topic by it's differences from their own ideology
2. That the title is not a commonly used name
3. That that title is a pejorative for those that it is putting into a group and naming, tagging them with a name which is the name of what is often their political opposition
4. That the title is an oxymoron, naming the created group by a ideology that they are often opposed to
5. That contrary to being given the treatment described under #1 that the title should be covered only as a term
6. That contrary to being given the treatment described under #1, that coverage should acknowledge that it is of a view created by a lens e.g. like World music, Political correctness, Homosexual agenda, Lake Michigan-Huron as described at wp:Not a dictionary

Step #3 Summary of the "pro-status quo" side's position on those issues of concern

The position of the pro-status quo folks on each of the above is that either that the complaint is not valid, or that the issue or any combination of the issues is not significant enough to require significant changes to the article. Also, to the extent that any of the issues exist, they are sufficiently dealt with in the text of the current article.

Step #4 The question

It has been suggested by both sides that we should first decide whether or not the status quo is OK; this also avoids various structural problems. Of course, every article could use some change; this really means whether or not significant changes are called for relative to the raised issues:

Choice #1 With respect to the discussed issues, there are problems with this article that are significant enough to require significant change.*

Choice #2 With respect to the discussed issues, there are not problems with this article that are significant enough require significant change.*

*A decision for "Significant change" would rule out the status quo and then consider a range of changes. The mildest in the range would be to begin the article with something like:

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. Under this classification system right-libertarianism..."

and larger changes such as deletion, merge or renaming would also be considered.

The minimum requirement clarifying topic sentence can also begin with "Right-libertarianism is a term used by some political scientists and writers to classify..."

We should also develop a template message to place on the top of the article to alert viewers to the debate and the RFC once the formal review process is begun.

JLMadrigal @ 14:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)