text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael A. Smith

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Michael A. Smith
A guy who spat in Jane Fonda's face. Not notable, and the information in that article is in Jane Fonda anyways. --Conti|✉ 20:14, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. I mean, how low a bar do we want to set on this sort of thing? Throwing purple dye at Tony Blair? Throwing slurry over Robert Kilroy-Silk? Or spraying Kilroy in the face with water? Average Earthman 20:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * agreed, delete. UkPaolo 20:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. His fifteen minutes never started.  Gamaliel 20:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anything worth saying has been said on Fonda's page. -- BD2412  talk  21:05, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
 * Since it is already merged, delete and remove all inwikis to this article, to avoid its re-creation. --Sn0wflake 23:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as the content is already on Jane Fonda. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as duplicate content. Megan1967 10:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Abusive language (law)

The use of abusive language to another person is illegal in a small number of U.S. states. Offenders are typically charged with this offense in conjunction with other crimes, such as aggressive driving or assault. In 1989 the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that abusive language was protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Abusive language (law)


text:
Inches (album)

Inches is an album by Les Savy Fav. Initial pressings of the CD came with a DVD featuring live performances, music videos and photos.

The album is a collection of singles from 1995–2004, containing many songs that were previously available on vinyl only. Among the tracks is "The Sweat Descends," which later became a single and was placed on several Best of 2004 rankings. "Meet Me in the Dollar Bin" is a song about one-hit wonders and bands that fall out of style. The song "Reformat" is recorded in two versions: a live version from a concert with fans providing extra vocals and a six-minute 'radio play' about a submarine captain who is executed by guillotine in a football stadium.

Track listing

 * 1) "Meet Me in the Dollar Bin" – 4:21
 * 2) "Hold On to Your Genre" – 5:16
 * 3) "We'll Make a Lover of You" – 3:43
 * 4) "Fading Vibes" – 3:58
 * 5) "The Sweat Descends" – 4:15
 * 6) "Knowing How the World Works" – 4:49
 * 7) "Hello Halo, Goodbye Glands" – 3:53
 * 8) "Obsessed With The Excess" – 4:05
 * 9) "One Way Widow" – 3:18
 * 10) "Yawn, Yawn, Yawn" – 2:56
 * 11) "No Sleeves" – 4:14
 * 12) "Reprobates Resume" – 3:23
 * 13) "Reformat (Live)" – 6:10
 * 14) "Reformat (Dramatic Reading)" – 2:55
 * 15) "Bringing Us Down" – 3:04
 * 16) "Our Coastal Hymn" – 4:20
 * 17) "Blackouts on Thursday" – 3:27
 * 18) "Rodeo" – 2:20

title: Inches (album)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Paul's Lutheran Church

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Saint Paul's Lutheran Church
Rationale: There is, in fact, no ELCA congregation in St Paul, MN called Saint Pauls Lutheran. (see here). This article was originally created as Saint Paul's Lutheran Cathedral and consisted of nonsense text calling it the "servant cathedral" in St Paul. I edited it to remove such reference and make it sort of generic about a congregation in order to match what was done with the article Central Lutheran Cathedral which was edited and moved to Central Lutheran Church. Then I discovered that there isn't even a congregation with that name in St Paul, MN.

Additionally, there is no such thing as a Lutheran cathedral in the US, so I have also requested the deletion of that category. This article is therefore worthless and should be deleted. EdwinHJ | Talk 20:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * agreed, delete it UkPaolo 21:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's no Saint Paul's Lutheran Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, but there is Saint Paul-Reformation Lutheran Church, which IMHO is notable for the fact that 24% of its congregation identifies as GLBT . If someone were to write an article on that church, this could be a good redirect. But if no such article gets written, then yeah, delete. --Angr/undefined 05:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I am a member of "St Paul-Ref". I started such an article. I would oppose using this page as a redirect to Saint Paul-Reformation Lutheran Church because I wouldn't want its edit history to be combined. EdwinHJ | Talk 17:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Bradford Cathedral

Bradford Cathedral, or the Cathedral Church of St Peter, is an Anglican cathedral in Bradford, West Yorkshire, England, one of three co-equal cathedrals in the Diocese of Leeds alongside Ripon and Wakefield. Its site has been used for Christian worship since the 7th century, when missionaries based in Dewsbury evangelised the area. For many centuries it was the parish church of St Peter and achieved cathedral status in 1919. The cathedral is a Grade I listed building.

Background
The first church on the site was believed to have been built in Anglo-Saxon times and fell into ruin after the Norman Conquest in 1066. A second church was built around 1200. The first mention of the parish of Bradford as distinct from being part of the parish of Dewsbury appears in the register of the Archbishop of York in 1281. Alice de Lacy, widow of Edmund de Lacy, one of the descendants of Ilbert de Lacy, gave a grant to the parish of Bradford that is recorded in the register of the Archbishop Wickwayne. Around 1327, Scottish raiders burnt down most of this stone church.

During the 14th century the church was rebuilt and some of the older masonry may have been used in the reconstruction of the nave. The construction of the third church was completed in 1458. The tower in the Perpendicular style was added to the west end and finished in 1508. A clerestory was added by the end of the 15th century. Proprietary chapels were founded, on the north side of the chancel by the Leventhorpe family, and on the south by the owners of Bolling Hall. In 1854 Robert Mawer carved a new reredos in Caen stone for the church. There is a photograph of it in the church archive. This reredos was lost during the 1950s rebuild by Edward Maufe.

Originally in the Diocese of York, the church was in the Diocese of Ripon before becoming a cathedral in 1919, when the Diocese of Bradford was created; it became one of three co-equal cathedrals of the new Diocese of Leeds upon its creation on 20 April 2014.

The building was extended in the 1950s and 1960s by Edward Maufe. The east end of the cathedral is Maufe's work, as well as the two west wings which contain the Song Room and Cathedral offices. In his east end extension he reused the Morris & Co. stained glass from the old east window. There is Victorian stained glass throughout the building including at the west end, where there is a window showing women of the Bible, and stained glass in the First World War memorial window dating from 1921. The many wall monuments include a sculpture by John Flaxman.

In 1987 the nave and west end were re-ordered to accommodate a growing number of visitors. The roof panelling was cleaned and restored, and new lighting was installed. To enable flexibility of use, the Victorian pews were replaced by chairs. The nave organ was removed to give more light and space at the west end, and a Bradford Computer Organ was installed, complementing the pipe organ in the choir with loudspeakers in the nave, though this is no longer in use.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the cathedral authorities decided to develop a museum of religion in St Peter's House (built in the 19th century as Bradford's main post office). The visitor numbers were much lower than expected, and the project collapsed, leaving the cathedral in debt, from which it was discharged in 2007. St Peter's House is now owned by a South Asian arts group, Kala Sangam.

The cathedral is set in a small conservation area which includes the close to its north. The close provides modern housing for the dean and canons residentiary, the bishop's official residence, Bishopcroft, being in Heaton, approximately 3 mi from the city centre.

The cathedral and its predecessors were built on the shelf of alluvial land that had formed on the outside of the bend where Bradford Beck turns north, but the town grew up on the lower ground on the other side of the beck, so the church was always just outside the centre of town. In the 19th and 20th centuries the cathedral was partly hidden from the centre by buildings, first by the post office just below it, and subsequently by the 1960s developments of Forster Square and Petergate. The latter areas were demolished in 2006, leaving the cathedral more visible than for many years prior to the completion of the Broadway Centre in 2015.

Dean and chapter
As of 21 May 2023:
 * Dean – Andy Bowerman (since 19 June 2022)
 * Canon for Intercultural Mission and the Arts – Ned Lunn (since 31 January 2023)
 * Minor Canon for Worship and Nurture – Pete Gunstone (since 21 May 2023)

Music
Bradford Cathedral has long been a place of music. During term-time, Choral Services are sung as follows: Sunday 10.30 am Choral Eucharist (rotates girls/adults, boys/adults or Cathedral Consort); Sunday 3:30 pm Choral Evensong (adults choir); Monday 5:30 pm Choral Evensong (girls choir); Tuesday 5:30 pm Choral Evensong (boys choir)

The boys and girls of the Choir sing as separate top lines and are drawn from as many as 20 local schools at any time. New entrants spend a couple of terms as a probationer, receiving basic training in singing and musicianship, before progressing to full membership. Full choristers have the opportunity to take up individual, free-of-charge tuition in singing, musicianship, theory or piano on a 1:1 basis each week. The lay clerks of the Choir are highly skilled volunteers, most of whom make their living outside of music. In September 2015 residential choral scholarships were introduced. The Cathedral Consort, a high standard chamber choir consisting of adult sopranos and lay clerks, completes the Choral Foundation.

In addition to the schedule above, the Choir also performs other concerts and services within and outside the diocese. Although foreign tours have been undertaken, the most recent being to Barcelona in 2010 and Bavaria in 2008, touring more recently has been within the UK, with the girls and boys each undertaking a residential tour annually, with or without the choir adults. Tours have been undertaken in recent years to Bristol, Worcester, Edinburgh and Durham.

The girls and men are involved with the annual Yorkshire Cathedrals' Girls' Choirs' Festival and hosted the Festal Evensong in March 2015. The boy choristers had not been involved with the Yorkshire Three Choirs Festival since 1981, but with the recent renaissance of an independent boys' top-line at the cathedral they, along with the lay clerks, were re-included in this annual festival from October 2015. Bradford Cathedral hosted the festival in October 2016.

In July 2012, the Choir recorded two services for the BBC Radio 2 Sunday Half Hour programme, which were broadcast in Autumn 2012, and the girls and men sang live for BBC Radio 4 Sunday Worship in December 2012. The Choir recorded a CD of Evening Canticles, including Humphrey Clucas's 'Bradford Service' in November 2013, and February 2014 saw the Choir recording two programmes of BBC Songs of Praise, airing on 2 March 2014 and Palm Sunday, 13 April 2014. Since 2015, the Choir has performed annually with the European Union Chamber Orchestra, singing Vivaldi's Gloria, Haydn's Little Organ Mass, and Schubert's Mass No. 2 in G major.

A specification of the William Hill pipe organ (1904), with later modifications by Hill, Norman & Beard (1961) and J. W. Walker (1977), can be found on the National Pipe Organ Register. A series of organ recitals takes place on many Wednesday lunchtimes throughout the year at 1.00 pm, attracting many well-known players. An Organ Appeal was launched in February 2013, aiming to raise £250,000 over several years, in order to secure the continued reliability of the instrument, as well as making possible several tonal adjustments. A. J. Carter of Wakefield and Andrew Cooper are working in conjunction to carry out this work on a phased basis over the coming years. The first phase, entailing the substantial upgrading of the console, was carried out in October 2014. The second phase, to clean, revoice and extend the Chancel (Positive) Division, was completed in the first half of 2018.

Organists and Directors of Music

 * John Simpson c. 1820 – 1860
 * Absalom Rawnsley Swaine c. 1861 – 1893
 * Henry Coates 1893–1939
 * Charles Hooper 1939–1963
 * Keith Vernon Rhodes 1963–1981
 * Geoffrey John Weaver 1982–1986
 * Alan Graham Horsey 1986–2002
 * Andrew Teague 2003–2011
 * Alexander Woodrow 2012–2016
 * Alexander Berry 2017–present

Sub Organists and Assistant Directors of Music

 * Martin D. Baker 1982–2004 (Asst. Organist)
 * Jonathan Kingston 1997–2000 (Sub Organist)
 * Paul Bowen 2004–2011 — Paul Bowen held the office of Cathedral Organist from late 2011 to late 2014
 * David Condry 2009–2012
 * Jonathan Eyre 2012–2016
 * Jon Payne 2016–2018
 * Ed Jones 2018–2019
 * Graham Thorpe 2019–present

Monuments of interest

 * Memorial to Abraham Balme main promoter of the Bradford Canal, sculpted by John Flaxman RA.
 * Monument to Abraham Sharp (d.1742) by Peter Scheemakers
 * Monument to Robert Lowry Turner and George Whyte Watson
 * The Bradford City Football Ground Fire Disaster Memorial
 * The Battle of the Steeple / Market Charter plaque
 * Memorial to Joseph Priestley

title: Bradford Cathedral


text:
Richard, Duke of York (disambiguation)

Richard, Duke of York may refer to:

 * Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York (1411–1460), father of Edward IV and Richard III of England
 * Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York (1473–unknown), second son of Edward IV of England, one of the Princes in the Tower
 * William Shakespeare's play Henry VI, Part 3 is fully titled The True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York, and the Death of Good King Henry the Sixth, with the whole Contention between the two houses Lancaster and York, sometimes abbreviated as Richard Duke of York
 * Richard IV of England (Blackadder), a fictional king in the first series of Blackadder, who was Duke of York prior to becoming king

title: Richard, Duke of York (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Trap–bath split

Broad-a in New England
I find this claim particularly troubling:

 * The main exceptions are parts of New England (see Boston accent), where the broad sound can be used in some of the same words as in southern England, such as aunt, ask, bath etc

Is there any evidence that the broad-a exists in natural dialects of New England in words like "ask" and "bath"? It is very contrary to the general knowledge of locals of the area, and such should be deleted if unsourced. 38.32.32.42 (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Listen to Richard Trethewey say "bathroom" in this 1985 episode of This Old House (around 9'55"). He clearly uses the broad a. The same broad a can be heard occasionally from Roger Cook in other episodes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Loose Ends
78.144.82.214 (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.dictionary.com/browse/la-de-da - affected gentility. Also Lardy-dardy, from about 1830.
 * Londoners don't turn cat into cart, or fat into fart; but they do turn pass into parse. Ergo this style was originated by people who had not studied Grammar.
 * The ubiquitous drawled A sound is now also used in words not even containing A. e.g. Showers pronounced Sharze, on Radio 3, Also Flowers -> Flarze.
 * I'd love to see a history of this split. Cooke (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Trap–bath split


text:
Francis Ferg

Francis Milton Ferg (May 10, 1889 in Arden, Manitoba – March 11, 1960 ) was a politician in Manitoba, Canada. He served in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as a Liberal-Progressive from 1953 to 1958.

The son of William Daniel Ferg and Agnes Ogston, Ferg was educated at Manitoba University and the Manitoba Law School, was called to the Manitoba bar in 1919 and worked as a barrister-at-law. He was a captain in the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps (RCASC) in 1918, the final year of World War I, and a member of the Royal Canadian Legion. In 1923, he married Helen Fleming Paterson. Ferg was named a King's Counsel in 1949.

He was elected to the Manitoba legislature in the 1953 provincial election, defeating opponents from the Progressive Conservative Party and Social Credit League in the rural constituency of Cypress. At his nomination speech, Ferg spoke out in favour of the Canadian wheat board and against the liberalization of Manitoba's liquor laws. He served as a backbench supporter of Douglas Campbell's government, and did not run for re-election in 1958.

He became mayor of Glenboro in 1959 and died in Winnipeg the following year at the age of 70.

Two of his sons, Lorne Paterson and Patrick David, also became lawyers and both later became county court judges.

title: Francis Ferg


text:
Trevélez

Trevélez is a village in the province of Granada, Spain. Its population in 2011 was estimated at 823. The river Trevélez flows through the village. They are located in the western part of the Alpujarras region. Two of the highest mountains in Spain, Mulhacén and Alcazaba, are just to the north of the village, a few hours' walk away.

Located at a height of 1486 metres, Trevélez is not the highest recognised municipality in Spain. That honour goes to Valdelinares located in the Sierra de Gúdar range of the Sistema Ibérico, in the province of Teruel, Aragon, Spain. It lies at the confluence of the Río Trevélez with a smaller stream, to the southwest of Mulhacén, the highest peak of the Sierra Nevada and of the Iberian peninsula. The village lies to the west of the Río Trevélez. It is divided into three parts, the Barrios Bajo, Medio and Alto (lower, mid and upper quarters), with 200 metres of altitude difference between the highest and lowest points. The only bridge over the river is in the Barrio Bajo. The Barrio Bajo is a significant tourist centre, while the Barrios Medio and Alto are more typically Alpujarran in style, though tourism is important to the economy of the entire village. To the west, the nearest village is Busquístar; the road through the Bajo Barrio continues to the east and south to Juviles and Torvizcón. There is a regular bus service along this road, linking the village to the regional centres of Lanjarón and Órgiva as well as the provincial capital, Granada.

Trevélez is famous for the quality of its air-cured hams, a speciality throughout the Alpujarras but particularly associated with the village, because the dry climate due to its altitude makes for ideal conditions for storing them.

Trevélez celebrates the day of the Virgen de Las Nieves (Virgin of the Snows - see article in external links) in the summer months. On this day the virgin is carried to the summit of Mulhacén and a mass is celebrated. The traditional belief is that this will keep travellers safe in the Sierra Nevada for another year.

title: Trevélez


text:
KCC

KCC may refer to:

Education

 * Kankakee Community College, a college in Kankakee, Illinois
 * Kansas Christian College (Overland Park), a college in Overland Park, Kansas
 * Kapiolani Community College, a college in Honolulu, Hawaii
 * Kellogg Community College, a college in Battle Creek, Michigan
 * Kensington and Chelsea College, a College in West London, United Kingdom
 * Kentucky Christian College, the former name of Kentucky Christian University
 * Kingsborough Community College, a college in Brooklyn, New York
 * King Charles Club, a dining society at the University of Oxford
 * Kingsthorpe Community College, now known simply as Kingsthorpe College
 * Kirtland Community College, a public college in Roscommon in Northern Michigan
 * Klamath Community College, in Klamath Falls, Oregon
 * Kiangsu-Chekiang College
 * Kiangsu-Chekiang College (Shatin), a secondary school in Shatin, Hong Kong
 * Kiangsu-Chekiang College (Kwai Chung), a secondary school in Kwai Chung, Hong Kong
 * Kiangsu-Chekiang College, International Section, a secondary school in Braemar Hill, North Point, Hong Kong

Organizations

 * KCC Corporation, a Korean chemical manufacturer
 * Kampala City Council, the local government authority in Kampala, Uganda
 * Katoomba Christian Convention, an interdenominational ministry providing Bible preaching
 * Kent County Council
 * Kerala Council of Churches, an ecumenical organization in India
 * Korfbal Combinatie Capelle, a korfball and boules club from Cappelle aan den IJssel, Netherlands
 * Khulna City Corporation, a city corporation in Bangladesh
 * King County Council, the government of King County in the state of Washington, United States of America
 * Korea Communications Commission, a South Korean central government organization

Places

 * KCC Mall, a shopping mall in the Philippines
 * Kandy City Centre, a commercial and a shopping complex in Kandy, Sri Lanka
 * Kigali Convention Centre, a convention centre in Kigali

Science and technology

 * Chloride potassium symporter
 * Korea Computer Center, the leading North Korean government computer research center

Other uses

 * Kampala City Council FC, a Ugandan football (soccer) club
 * Kansas City Chiefs, a National Football League team based in Missouri
 * Kirby: Canvas Curse, a Nintendo DS video game
 * Kowloon Cricket Club, a cricket club and social club in Kowloon, Hong Kong
 * Keung Chit Chit, a Hong Kong singer and song composer

title: KCC


text:
Talk:Broad A

See my comment on the move in Talk:Trap-bath split. AJD 20:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Broad A


text:
ParaHox

The ParaHox gene cluster is an array of homeobox genes (involved in morphogenesis, the regulation of patterns of anatomical development) from the Gsx, Xlox (Pdx) and Cdx gene families.

Regulatory gene cluster
These genes were first shown to be arranged into a physically-linked chromosomal cluster in amphioxus, an invertebrate with a single member of each of the three gene families. All the ParaHox genes in the amphioxus genome are therefore in the ParaHox gene cluster. In contrast, the human genome has six ParaHox genes (GSX1, GSX2, PDX1, CDX1, CDX2, CDX4), of which three genes (GSX1, PDX1 (=IPF1), CDX2) are physically linked to form a human ParaHox gene cluster on chromosome 13. Mouse has a homologous ParaHox gene cluster on chromosome 5. The other three human ParaHox genes are remnants from duplicated ParaHox gene clusters that were generated in the 2R genome duplications at the base of vertebrate evolution. Some vertebrates, notably chondrichthyan fish and coelacanths, have retained an additional ParaHox gene (PDX2).

The ParaHox gene cluster has been proposed to be a paralogue, or evolutionary sister, of the Hox gene cluster; the two gene clusters being descendent from a segmental duplication early in animal evolution, preceding the divergence of cnidarians and bilaterian animals. It has been suggested that an ancient role of the ParaHox gene cluster in bilaterians was the specify or pattern the through-gut, with Gsx patterning the mouth, Xlox (=Pdx) patterning the midgut and Cdx marking the anus. Gene expression and functional data lends tentative support to this hypothesis, although in many animals the roles of the genes have changed in evolution, notably the Gsx gene family which plays a role in brain (not foregut) development in vertebrates.

title: ParaHox


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Todd (Computer Pioneer)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Michael Todd (Computer Pioneer)
This is a vanity article, of no real use to the general public. Mushin 20:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC) Orientation of article changed to focus on its reason for being in the wiki. 1:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * agreed, delete. UkPaolo 20:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete self-promotion CDC   (talk)  16:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, non-notable.  Quale 05:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:Express mail

A 2005 post
Not sure how this content should be merged into this page I got it from Express Mail which I redirected here. Falphin 15:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Express Mail is a trademark of the United States Postal Service. The service provides next-day and second-day delivery to most ::locations within the United States. Express Mail is one of many available courier services.

Question
This could also be titled Express delivery, and then make this a disamg page. Thoughts? Falphin 22:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the bicycle courier sector? Honestly, our title currently reflects what the media calls this service.

lots of issues | leave me a message 12:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge suggestion
I already made a suggestion on what to do with these pages here. Lets' see if we can agree on some progress. Please discuss it there rather than cross-post. The main suggestion was to have Express Mail Service (a page you may have missed) should be merged with this page and expanded to become the main and only article. Incidentally this page and Express Mail(USPS) are virtually identical. Cheers ww2censor 04:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done and removed all tags, except I have moved the POV tag to the USPS Express Mail section as I think this is still biased but have no references either way at the moment. ww2censor 03:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Globalize
This article has a whole section on express mail in the USA: why? Last time I checked this article wasn't about the US post office... Either add sections for a representative cross-section of other countries or delete the bit on US express mail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.80.102 (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You must not have read the article very closely. It covers accelerated Express Mail worldwide, the EMS service of UPU countries AND Express Mail in the US, all of which use the same term. Indeed it can do with some expansion in all areas, but it is global as it stands. Remember this is a merge of 3 different articles that cover different aspects that are called express mail. BTW, we bottom post. ww2censor (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The intro talks mainly about EMS - the international express mail system - with just a brief nod to domestic services. Yet there is a whole section on the USPS. I think the USPS part should be added to the USPS page and deleted from this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.80.226 (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2008

Wikipedia articles are always works in progress. There is no need to delete the USPS section if it is relevant (I feel it is) as long as either (a) the USPS is a typical example of an EMS provider or (b) there is a reasonable expectation that a selection of other countries will eventually be added to the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?
"Express Mail is a very good deal, especially for small businesses that need to ship something in a hurry. Other private express carriers guarantee overnight or 2-day delivery by as early as 8:30 or 10:30 AM, however, many users have found that Express Mail is more reliable and less expensive than the private carriers' services. Many eBay sellers, for example, use Express Mail because the service can be more convenient and cheaper than private carriers. Express Mail also conveys other benefits under specific circumstances; U.S. patent applications and related documents transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office via USPS Express Mail carry the postmark date as the date of patent priority, so long as each document is mailed along with a signed certificate of mailing bearing the Express Mail tracking number of the mailing label."

It seems to me that this paragraph was written by someone who works for USPS. It looks like they're advertising the USPS Express Mail service and bashing other competitor's service. Isn't this not only a violation of WP:NPOV but also a WP:COI?

Express Mail Service (Japan)
Express Mail Service (EMS) redirects here, but it seems that "express mail" and "Express Mail Service" are two separate products. Both services are offered by Japan Post, using different pricing and limitations. Japan Post is also explicitly stating that express mail can't be combined with Express Mail Service. Furthermore, I'm under the impression that there are some countries where express mail is handled by one carrier, whereas Express Mail Service is handled by another carrier. (130.237.226.24 (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Express Mail Service has a special price chart and you can send up to 30 kg to more than 120 countries and territories. When using this service, a special label has to be used.
 * Express mail is an extra service for regular mail and parcels, costing 260, 450 or 1300 yen in addition to the regular airmail price. No special label is used, but the word "express" (or "exprès") has to be written in a red font on the item. The maximum weight is 2 kg for mail, 5 kg for printed matters, 20 kg for parcels or 30 kg for printed matters in a special mail bag (sometimes with other limitations for items sent to certain countries). Unlike Express Mail Service, express mail is available to all countries in the world.

 * This article covers both the global "Express Mail Service" program, and the existence of other "express mail" services offered by the regular postal services of various countries. Near the bottom of the article are sections for special services in various countries, and other comments above have asked for more country sections.  Your comment above suggests that a Japanese section would be a good idea.

 * As for who handles express mail, the limit of this article is services that are sent from/through the regular national mail agency of the sending country (such as USPS in the US, Royal Mail in the UK and Japan Post in Japan), not who transports the mail to its final destination. 77.215.46.17 (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Links
terrible article, plus many links are dead!! 174.60.25.228 (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Request edit
Information to be added or removed: EMS Performance Awards are based on postal operators' performance, including service performance and tracking: gold, silver, or bronze certificate are awarded to EMS Cooperative members depending on their yearly performance.[4] These EMS award winners are recorded in the EMS Cooperative's Hall of Fame.[5]

Explanation of issue: Links are to web pages that no longer exist.

References supporting change: EMS Cooperative members that provide a high-level EMS service to partners in the EMS global network over a full year are eligible for gold, silver and bronze awards.[5] Each year EMS Cooperative members’ customer service performance is measured and the annual EMS Customer Care Awards recognise and reward outstanding EMS service.[6]

"EMS Performance Awards". https://www.ems.post/en/performance-excellence/performance-awards "EMS Customer Care Awards". ems.post. Retrieved March 11, 2019. https://www.ems.post/en/performance-excellence/customer-care-awards

Information to be added or removed: Since its creation, 182 postal administrations have joined the EMS Cooperative, representing over 85% of EMS operators worldwide.

Explanation of issue: The number of members is wrong, currently 181. Suggestion either to specific number and link to wiki page

References supporting change: Suggestion either to specific number or add 'Since its creation, 182 postal administrations have joined the EMS Cooperative, representing over 85% of EMS operators worldwide.

Link to EMS Cooperative homepage which has the latest number of designated operators: https://www.ems.post/en

Information to be added or removed: External links "EMS Track and Trace". track-trace.com. Explanation of issue: This is a link to a business. References supporting change: Request to remove above link or add in addition the UPU/EMS tracking page https://www.ems.post/en/global-network/tracking EMS Unit (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply 18-MAR-2019
Your edit request could not be reviewed because the request is not formatted correctly. In the collapsed section below titled Request edit examples, I have illustrated two: The first shows how the edit request was submitted; the second shows how requests should be submitted in the future.
 * 1) The citation style predominantly used by the Express mail article appears to be Citation Style 1. The citation style used in the edit request consists of bare URL's along with minimal information regarding the sources used. Any requested edit of yours which may be implemented will need to resemble the current style already in use in the article – in this case, CS1. (See WP:CITEVAR.)
 * 2) Because the correct citation style was not used, citation ref tags have not been placed within the requested text indicating which portions of the text the source is referencing. (See WP:INTEGRITY.)

INCORRECT The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[4] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.[6]

In the example above there are three sources which include the title and the author along with the URL. However, these references have not been placed using Citation Style 1, which is the style predominantly used by the Express mail article. Additionally, because CS1 was not used, ref tags have not been placed within the text at the exact positions where the information they reference resides. Instead, numbers placed within brackets are shown (e.g., [4] and [6]). These bracketed numbers do not link to anything on the talk page. Because the numbers are not linked, it is unknown which references are responsible for verifying the information. Using the correct style and the correct positioning of the ref tags, the WikiFormatted text would resemble the following:

CORRECT The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin. Which displays as:
 * The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.[3]

References

^ Sjöblad, Tristan. . Academic Press, 2018, p. 1. ^ Harinath, Paramjit. , Science, 51(78):46. ^ Uemura, Shū. . Academic Press, 2018, p. 2.

In the example above the references have been formatted according to Citation Style 1, which shows the author, the source's name, date, etc. Also, because the correct style was used and placed within the text, the ref tags display in the exact location where the text which they reference resides. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, edit requests such yours are generally expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review.

Kindly rewrite your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example shown in the collapsed section above, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor. Regards, Spintendo  11:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 * BTW, your user name obviously indicates you association with EMS, so it is likely your user name will be blocked because it contravenes our user name policy per WP:CORPNAME. ww2censor (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Express mail


text:
Korea Computer Center

The Korea Computer Center (KCC) is the North Korean government information technology research center. It was founded on 24 October 1990. KCC, which administered the .kp country code top-level domain until 2011, employs more than 1,000 people.

KCC operates eight development and production centers, as well as eleven regional information centers. It runs the KCC Information Technology College and its Information Technology Institute. The KCC has branch offices in China, Germany, Syria and the United Arab Emirates. It has an interest in Linux research and started the development of the Red Star OS distribution localised for North Korea.

KCC is a part of the political establishment and not entirely an IT company per se. Its technological state and general modernity are seen as lagging well behind the rest of the world, even with the general zeitgeist in North Korea. For example, the .kp ccTLD was registered in 2007, but KCC did not manage to get a working registry for three years, despite the support of a European company. KCC has still not implemented a working ccTLD infrastructure, something the North Korean government has had as a goal for several years.

While KCC mainly works on projects within North Korea, it has since 2001 served clients in Europe, China, South Korea, Japan, and the Middle East. It operates Naenara, North Korea's official web portal.

Nosotek is another North Korean IT venture company that develops computer games; two of them were published by News Corporation. Another such company is the Pyongyang Information Center.

In early 2015, the KCC was reorganized, with all functions not related to the development of Red Star OS being transferred to other entities.

Products

 * "Sam heug" search engine
 * "Naenara" web browser
 * "Chosun Jang-Gi", a computer game
 * Kwangmyong, North Korea's closed national intranet
 * "Korean Dishes" (Chosŏn ryori), a food-related website
 * "Hana", a Korean language input method editor
 * "Koryo", English-Korean/Korean-English translation software using an electronic pen
 * "Nunbora", a Korean language voice recognition software
 * "Pulgunbyol" (Red Star OS), a Linux distribution
 * "Cyber Friend", a video conference system
 * "Cyber Star", an electronic education system
 * "SilverStar Paduk", a Go computer game
 * "HMS Player", a media player
 * Samjiyon tablet

title: Korea Computer Center


text:
Sohier, Count of Enghien

Sohier of Enghien (died 21 March 1364), or Solier d'Enghien, was Lord of Enghien in the County of Hainaut from 1346, and Count of Brienne from 1356 until his death in 1364. He was also the titular Duke of Athens.

The second, but eldest surviving son of Walter III of Enghien and Isabella of Brienne, when his mother divided the inheritance of his uncle Walter VI of Brienne among her sons, he received the title of Duke of Athens.

Sohier was captured and beheaded by Albert I, Duke of Bavaria on 21 March 1364, leaving his titles to his son Walter VII.

title: Sohier, Count of Enghien


text:
2002 Australian Open

The 2002 Australian Open was a tennis tournament played on outdoor hard courts at Melbourne Park in Melbourne in Australia. It was the 90th edition of the Australian Open and was held from 14 through 27 January 2002 and attracted an attendance of 518,248.

Andre Agassi and Jennifer Capriati were the defending champions. Agassi, chose to withdraw from the tournament due to wrist injury. Thomas Johansson won his first Grand Slam title, while Capriati successfully defended her title defeating three-time champion Martina Hingis in the final.

Kia Motors began its sponsorship of the Australian Open in this season replacing Ford.

Men's singles
🇸🇪 Thomas Johansson defeated 🇷🇺 Marat Safin, 3–6, 6–4, 6–4, 7–6(7–4)
 * It was Johansson's 1st title of the year, and his 7th overall. It was his 1st (and only) career Grand Slam title.

Women's singles
🇺🇸 Jennifer Capriati defeated Martina Hingis, 4–6, 7–6(9–7), 6–2
 * It was Capriati's 1st title of the year, and her 13th overall. It was her 3rd (and last) career Grand Slam title, and her 2nd Australian Open title.

Men's doubles
Mark Knowles / 🇨🇦 Daniel Nestor defeated 🇫🇷 Michaël Llodra / 🇫🇷 Fabrice Santoro, 7–6, 6–3
 * Note: This is the first time where in men's doubles, a team only needs to win two sets to win a match. Previously, teams required to win three sets to win a match.

Women's doubles
Martina Hingis / 🇷🇺 Anna Kournikova defeated 🇸🇰 Daniela Hantuchová / 🇪🇸 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario, 6–2, 6–7(4–7), 6–1

Mixed doubles
🇸🇰 Daniela Hantuchová / Kevin Ullyett defeated 🇦🇷 Paola Suárez / 🇦🇷 Gastón Etlis, 6–3, 6–2

Boys' singles
🇫🇷 Clément Morel defeated 🇦🇺 Todd Reid, 6–4, 6–4

Girls' singles
🇨🇿 Barbora Strýcová defeated 🇷🇺 Maria Sharapova, 6–0, 7–5

Boys' doubles
🇦🇺 Ryan Henry / 🇦🇺 Todd Reid defeated 🇷🇴 Florin Mergea / 🇷🇴 Horia Tecău, walkover

Girls' doubles
🇦🇷 Gisela Dulko / Angelique Widjaja defeated 🇷🇺 Svetlana Kuznetsova /  Matea Mezak, 6–2, 5–7, 6-4

Men's wheelchair singles
Robin Ammerlaan defeated 🇦🇺 David Hall, 6–2, 6-4

Women's wheelchair singles
Esther Vergeer defeated 🇦🇺 Daniela Di Toro, 6–2, 6–0

Men's singles

 * 1) 🇦🇺 Lleyton Hewitt (first round, lost to Alberto Martín)
 * 2) 🇧🇷 Gustavo Kuerten (first round, lost to Julien Boutter)
 * 3) 🇺🇸 Andre Agassi (withdrew due to wrist injury)
 * 4) 🇷🇺 Yevgeny Kafelnikov (second round, lost to Alex Kim)
 * 5) 🇫🇷 Sébastien Grosjean (second round, lost to Francisco Clavet)
 * 6) 🇬🇧 Tim Henman ''(fourth round, lost to Jonas Björkman)
 * 7) 🇩🇪 Tommy Haas (semifinals, lost to Marat Safin)
 * 8) 🇺🇸 Pete Sampras (fourth round, lost to Marat Safin)
 * 9) 🇷🇺 Marat Safin (finals, lost to Thomas Johansson)
 * 10)  Goran Ivanišević (second round, lost to Jérôme Golmard)
 * 11)  Roger Federer (fourth round, lost to Tommy Haas)
 * 12) 🇦🇷 Guillermo Cañas (third round, lost to Jonas Björkman)
 * 13) 🇺🇸 Andy Roddick (second round, lost to Ivan Ljubičić)
 * 14) 🇪🇸 Àlex Corretja  (First Round, lost to James Blake)
 * 15) 🇫🇷 Arnaud Clément (second round, lost to Gastón Gaudio)
 * 16) 🇸🇪  Thomas Johansson Champion
 * 17) 🇪🇸 Carlos Moyá (second round, lost to Rainer Schüttler)
 * 18) 🇪🇸 Albert Portas (second round, lost to Dominik Hrbatý)
 * 19) 🇺🇸 Jan-Michael Gambill (first round, lost to Wayne Ferreira)
 * 20) 🇫🇷 Fabrice Santoro (first round, lost to Mardy Fish)
 * 21) 🇲🇦 Younes El Aynaoui (third round, lost to Thomas Johansson)
 * 22) 🇲🇦 Hicham Arazi ''(second round, lost to Kristian Pless)
 * 23) 🇪🇨 Nicolás Lapentti (fourth round, lost to Marcelo Ríos)
 * 24) 🇸🇪 Thomas Enqvist (second round, lost to Jonas Björkman)
 * 25) 🇷🇴 Andrei Pavel (third round, lost to Albert Costa)
 * 26) 🇨🇿 Jiří Novák (semifinals, lost to Thomas Johansson)
 * 27)  Sjeng Schalken (first round, lost to Karol Kučera)
 * 28) 🇬🇧 Greg Rusedski (third round, lost to Tim Henman)
 * 29) 🇧🇪 Xavier Malisse (second round, lost to Todd Martin)
 * 30) 🇫🇷 Nicolas Escudé (third round, lost to Pete Sampras)
 * 31) 🇸🇪 Andreas Vinciguerra (second round, lost to Taylor Dent)
 * 32) 🇪🇸 Tommy Robredo (second round, lost to Fernando González)

Women's singles

 * 1) 🇺🇸 Jennifer Capriati (champion)
 * 2) 🇺🇸 Venus Williams ''(quarterfinals, lost to Monica Seles)
 * 3)  Martina Hingis ''(final, lost to Jennifer Capriati)
 * 4) 🇧🇪 Kim Clijsters ''(semifinals, lost to Jennifer Capriati)
 * 5) 🇺🇸 Serena Williams ''(withdrew due to right ankle sprain)
 * 6) 🇧🇪 Justine Henin ''(quarterfinals, lost to Kim Clijsters)
 * 7) 🇫🇷 Amélie Mauresmo ''(quarterfinals, lost to Jennifer Capriati)
 * 8) 🇺🇸 Monica Seles ''(semifinals, lost to Martina Hingis)
 * 9) 🇫🇷 Sandrine Testud ''(first round, lost to Nathalie Dechy)
 * 10) 🇺🇸 Meghann Shaughnessy ''(third round, lost to Marlene Weingärtner)
 * 11) 🇮🇹 Silvia Farina Elia ''(third round, lost to Adriana Serra Zanetti)
 * 12) 🇷🇺 Elena Dementieva ''(fourth round, lost to Justine Henin)
 * 13) 🇧🇬 Magdalena Maleeva ''(fourth round, lost to Venus Williams)
 * 14) 🇪🇸 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario ''(first round, lost to Iva Majoli)
 * 15)  Amanda Coetzer ''(fourth round, lost to Martina Hingis)
 * 16) 🇺🇿 Iroda Tulyaganova ''(third round, lost to Rita Grande)
 * 17) 🇦🇹 Barbara Schett ''(third round, lost to Amanda Coetzer)
 * 18) 🇺🇸 Lisa Raymond ''(third round, lost to Magdalena Maleeva)
 * 19) 🇪🇸 Ángeles Montolio ''(first round, lost to Marlene Weingärtner)
 * 20) 🇮🇹 Rita Grande ''(fourth round, lost to Jennifer Capriati)
 * 21) 🇨🇿 Dája Bedáňová ''(second round, lost to Anabel Medina Garrigues)
 * 22) 🇸🇰 Henrieta Nagyová ''(first round, lost to Amy Frazier)
 * 23) 🇪🇸 Magüi Serna ''(third round, lost to Elena Dementieva)
 * 24) 🇯🇵 Ai Sugiyama ''(third round, lost to Janette Husárová)
 * 25) 🇹🇭 Tamarine Tanasugarn ''(third round, lost to Amélie Mauresmo)
 * 26) 🇪🇸 Cristina Torrens Valero ''(first round, lost to Mariana Díaz Oliva)
 * 27) 🇦🇷 Paola Suárez ''(first round, lost to Martina Müller)
 * 28) 🇱🇺 Anne Kremer ''(second round, lost to Barbara Rittner)
 * 29) 🇷🇺 Tatiana Panova ''(second round, lost to Eleni Daniilidou)
 * 30) 🇷🇺 Elena Likhovtseva ''(first round, lost to Emmanuelle Gagliardi)
 * 31) 🇮🇹 Francesca Schiavone ''(third round, lost to Monica Seles)
 * 32) 🇸🇰 Daniela Hantuchová ''(third round, lost to Venus Williams)
 * 33) 🇷🇺 Lina Krasnoroutskaya ''(first round, lost to Conchita Martínez)

title: 2002 Australian Open


text:
Talk:Criticism of libertarianism

First Paragraph
This is basically the same content as the main libertarian page. I think it could be summarized in a couple sentences. Gregsinclair 07:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Political Criticisms
I have to wonder why criticism of libertarianism is given so much attention as opposed to giving equal views on other mainstream idealogies. Democratic and Republican platforms are certainly more worthy focuses than this.

Labeling these criticisms as conservative and liberal doesn't make much sense. Conservatives and liberals aren't of the same political persuasion depending on what country you're talking about. In some countries a liberal is a libertarian, for example Australian Democratic Liberal party. I think it would make sense to label these Right and Left criticisms. The Right are anti civil liberties, and the left are anti economic freedom and private property. RJII 20:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

75.180.171.187: I don't think it's fair of you to add scare quotes to my comment (on the right to universal health care). I would have no problem with you simply adding a response argument to the social democratic criticism I posted. Unless you make a strong argument for this, I will delete the scare quotes. - ss347

Notes and lead section
Where is the lead section? Also, notes are screwed and incomplete. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This page was made by cut-and-pasting from the "criticism of libertarianism" section of the libertarianism article. The section was long enough to justify a subarticle, but no one did the work to make this a real article with a lead section etc.  Partly my fault.  Would you like to work together to make this decent? Dave (talk) 15:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography, etc
Yet another fascinating example of how virtually an entire bibliography cites Jewish authors. Yes, its true. 99.5% of the world's population either don't have an opinion on libertarianism, or are not capable of rationally criciizing it.

But, onwards. Libertarianism is based on several flawed assumptions:

 * The individual is more important than the state.
 * There is such a thing as "freedom" from "force"
 * Progress is inevitable and post-modernity is a sign of progress.
 * Inalienable rights exist

Why are these not discussed?

 * My best guess is that they're not discussed because we're all part of some Jewish conspiracy to eliminate dissent about libertarianism by quoting Jewish authors criticizing libertarianism. Yeah, that must be it.

 * The Rawls and Partridge arguments address the first issue.
 * The whole conservative criticism section addresses the second issue
 * The third claim isn't a claim libertarians make.
 * All the sections call inaliable rights into question. For example, "critics argue that a democracy can legitimately override the rights of its own constituents"

 * Dave (talk) 20:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC).

Responses to Criticisms
Should we make a section for responses to these criticisms, because most of these have been addressed.

For instance it says "Many primitive tribes around the entire world, historically, did not even believe that land could be owned. Therefore, libertarianism can be criticized as the result of Western European racial and cultural biases, and not applicable to all humanity."

libertarian response "Well, aside from some fragmentary thoughts attributed to the Chinese wise man Lao Tzu, almost all the formal ideas of liberty are Western: individual rights, secure private property, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of trade, separation of powers, equality before the law, and so on. Similarly, all the protections for liberty, such as a written constitution, a bill of rights, an independent judiciary, privatization, and term limits, developed in the West." http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v22n5/liberty-flourished.pdf

"Our generation has forgotten that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves. When all the means of production are vested in a single hand, whether it be nominally that of ‘society’ as a whole or that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us. In the hands of private individuals, what is called economic power can be an instrument of coercion, but it is never control over the whole life of a person. But when economic power is centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery. It has been well said that, in a country where the sole employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation.

Many socialists have the tragic illusion that by depriving private individuals of the power they possess in an individualist system, and transferring this power to society, they thereby extinguish power. What they overlook is that by concentrating power so that it can be used in the service of a single plan, it is not merely transformed, but infinitely heightened. There is, in a competitive society, nobody who can exercise even a fraction of the power which a socialist planning board would posses. To decentralize power is to reduce the absolute amount of power, and the competitive system is the only system designed to minimize the power exercised by man over man. Who can seriously doubt that the power which a millionaire, who may be my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest bureaucrat possesses who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose discretion it depends how I am allowed to live and work?" F hayek - http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf

Or " They argue that advances in economics since Adam Smith show that people's actions are not always rational"

Answer read the link above to see why a planned economy always makes far far worse decisions

Or " The Road to Serfdom, claimed that monopolies are not a natural consequence of capitalism, but rather, the consequence of bribery on the part of corrupt businesses within governments.It does not occur to Hayek that bribery might be a more ingrained human behavior than free competition."

libertarian response It does occur to him. The fact that monopolies occur unfairly using government power is an argument against government power in the economic sector. The more power government has the more benificial bribery and cronyism becomes over competition to ensure long term survival. Hayek wrote "It is also argued that technological changes have made competition impossible in a constantly increasing number of fields and that our only choice is between control of production by private monopolies and direction by the government. The growth of monopoly, however, seems not so much a necessary consequence of the advance of technology as the result of the policies pursued in most countries. Anyone who has observed how aspiring monopolists regularly seek the assistance of the state to make their control effective can have little doubt that there is nothing inevitable about this development. In the United States a highly protectionist policy aided the growth of monopolies. In Germany the growth of cartels has since 1878 been systematically fostered by deliberate policy. It was here that, with the help of the state, the first great experiment in ‘scientific planning’ and ‘conscious organization of industry’ led to the creation of giant monopolies. The suppression of competition was a matter of deliberate policy in Germany, undertaken in the service of an ideal which we now call planning."

Criticism
Added ref to Kanheman where someone said it was needed. Psw808 (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Some of the criticism on this page is horribly pov with no sources. Some if it is even original research, and quoting Friedman from a 2002 Documentary on what von Mises said is HARDLY criticism as it was Milton Friedman telling the story as a JOKE!!!! This all needs to be seriously reworked. I had deleted the sections that were the weakest, most pov, and or original research while leaving citation requests for other areas which are legit...unfortunatly this has been reverted.

Lets discuss please.

 * The Methodological criticism section is a mess, I agree. Not doing any edits cause I want to discuss 'em first.

 * A few criticisms aren't particularly notable: the section you mention, and the section beginning "Others criticize that" (which is mostly redundant with other criticisms). Reduce each offending section to a sentence or two, don't remove it.  Maybe "The divisions among libertarians about how society ought actually to deal with such things as public highways, electrical systems, and sanitation and sewage systems are sometimes used by critics to argue that libertarians are utopians with no real idea how society ought to work," appended to the earlier criticism of utopianism citing Goldberg.  And "Libertarians are sometimes criticized for dogmatism; even Milton Friedman has joked about an incident in which Ludwig von Mises stormed out of a room full of libertarian economists yelling 'You're all a bunch of socialists!'".

 * A large number of criticisms are uncited. They aren't original research; I've heard 'em before, mostly.  But they shouldn't be attributed to 'critics', they should be attributed to specific people or institutions.  I don't have time to dig up sources; if you don't either, just put a Fact tag by them and leave them be.

 * The whole section seems to just be a clump of things that are widely disconnected. It should be divided by subsections.  The stuff about a Western bias should be split off into an Alleged Western bias subsection.  The stuff about deductive reasoning, the basis for rights, and the model of individuals acting in their own self-interests should be split off into a section Criticisms of deontological libertarian ethical arguments or something, because (1) they attack only a subset of libertarians who argue from natural rights or whatever rather than policy consequences, and (2) they attack premises, not methodology per se (presumably they're in the methodology section because of 1).

 * I'm willing to do all this once I get agreement except for searching out citations.Kalkin 01:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

THe only reason why Von Mises made that statement is because the other economists were trying to figure out moral reasons for why the economy should be run as a free market. Before the socialists came along economics was scientific and as such amoral. Socialists introduced morality and emotions which is far easier and more appealing than mathamatics and logic and gained the populist momentum behind them. The purpose of the meeting was to figure out a way to reach the broader public to let them know how free markets will improve their lives etc. Von Mises didnt believe the economy existed to give people jobs or promote justice, he prefered the scientific amoral understanding. I dont think, when accounting for this, that his statement is much of a criticism. Furthermore, I've never heard anyone criticisze libertarians on this ground (also note von Mises was a liberal or classical liberal as libertarian wasnt a word when he made this statement).

some of the other statements really do appear as original research. I'll go find some real quick. (Gibby 03:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

The section starts off good, with legit complaints but then it trails off into a really bad and weak arguement for the remaining paragraphs:

 * Even if private property were a natural human right, it may be impossible to properly support such a philosophy because of the complexities of ownership and inability to determine who owns what. For example, Native Americans can make the argument that much, if not all, of the land in the Americas by right belongs to them; however, the implications of this recognition would tear apart modern society.

 * Likewise, liberterianism does not take into account differing cultural views on the ideas of ownership. Many primitive tribes around the entire world, historically, did not even believe that land could be owned. Therefore, libertarianism can be criticized as the result of Western European racial and cultural biases, and not applicable to all humanity.

Libertarians actually do address this, while these complaints have no citation, libertarianism under free markets do take into account cultural views, as a matter of fact they argue that they offer the only economic mechanism by which diverse people and diverse interests can live together.

 * Others criticize that there are certain problems and issues, such as National Defense and public defense, that a Libertarian society would be unable to handle. Many Libertarians favor maintaining a minimal form of government for such functions, but Libertarians tend to differ on what functions this government should have control over.  Things such as public highways, electrical systems, sanitation and sewage systems, and other things either run by the state or run with a great deal of state assistance and overview, would be problematic to maintain in a Libertarian system.  Some critics are of the position that things such as these show that Libertarians have a few ideas on how an economy should work and almost no ideas on how a real Libertarian society would work in practice.

Differences between libertarians hardly seem to be a criticism. Most libertarians also believe a government has basic functions and services like running the military, printing currency, maintaining stable currency, at least city roadways, running courts, creating laws, protecting property rights...

There are many books that discuss how this can be implemented how market externalities can be avoided with simple policies like disclosure laws. There are two guys who are classified as libertarians in this article who are called libertarians...and they've won nobel prizes...I'd hardly consider that an example of how they knwo nothing of how an economy should run.

 * Some point out that the Libertarian assumption that smaller government is inherently superior to larger government may itself be a questionable assumption, as government on the state and local level can be just as prone to corruption and the abuse of rights as that of government on the federal level. Others would argue that the Libertarian ideal of state and local governments could actually lead to the opposite situation that Libertarians assume it would, as it would make government more subject to local ideas of morality and ethics than a larger, faceless federal system would. Some critics would argue that smaller government can result in even more interwoven corruption and crony style politics than federal government. Not all critics would go this far, but some would question the notion that smaller government is any more resistant to the excesses of government that Libertarians deplore.

they never said smaller government, they say limited government. They are talking about power not size, words have meanings. And empirical evidence has demonstrated that the more limited the government the more superior it is to more powerful government over many areas such as building wealth, reducing poverty, promoting liberty and freedom. Powerful governments do have their advantages....namely making war and big armies.

THe part about smaller government leading to cronyism is...original research.
 * Libertarians are often criticized for being inflexible in their views, arguments, and debating methods - one common characterization is that libertarians immediately resort to calling their opponents "communist" for any disagreement. This attitute is not limited to younger or ill-educated people - in a PBS interview in 2002, Milton Friedman related an incident that occurred at a meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society . During an argument, Ludwig von Mises stood up and stormed out of the room while yelling, "You're all a bunch of socialists," even though the audience including such economists as Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek.

I already discussed this one. It is not important, notable, and hardly can be considered a criticism
 * Lastly, some people criticize the motives of libertarians, saying that they only support libertarian ideas because they serve as a means of justifying and maintaining what these critics perceive to be their position near the top of existing social hierarchies. While this may be true in some cases, this criticism can be considered an ad hominem logical fallacy. Also, the same argument could be made against any set of ideas (i.e., one could claim a poor person's motive for supporting Marxism is because the implications of this philosophy would benefit them personally).

This one is oringal research and or needs facts. Libertarians advocate a limited government with few powers, and no ability to pick winners and losers in society, hardly the kind of position you want to be in if you want to keep your job. Current American politics allows politicians to keep their jobs by securing special interest funding through the picking of winners and losers allowed by our level of economic interference.

Furthermore, this criticism is also applied to communism, socialism, and the third-way.

(Gibby 03:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

 * Most of your responses regarding the merit of criticisms are irrelevant. Wikipedia does not engage in debates, it documents their existence, see WP:NPOV.  Also, I'm not sure what your opinion is with regard to my proposed changes above.  Please clarify.  Some specific comments:

 * You claim "Before the socialists came along economics was scientific and as such amoral." I'm not sure what relevance this has, but anyway it's just false.  Have you read, say, Smith's Wealth of Nations?  It's explicitly a defense of "commercial society."  And people like Von Mises and Hayek were happy to make moral arguments about economics and liberty.  The Road to Serfdom?

 * Hayek wrote this to explain how socialism leads to a degredation of freedom. von Mises comment is not a criticism and should not be treated as such.  It is treated as such as original research.

 * Regarding libertarianism's alleged Eurocentrism, you say "as matter of fact they argue that they offer the only economic mechanism by which diverse people and diverse interests can live together." (1) this is a response the article could include, not a reason to remove the criticism.  (2) it misses the point; the argument is that the libertarian view of property rights considers only western theories and allows only western practices.  Whether or not this is a valid criticism, libertarianism's tolerance for diversity in other areas doesn't matter.  Libertarianism clearly does have fixed views on property rights.

 * There was no citation for its "Eurocentrism" cite it or it will be deleted. This is original research criticism.

 * You say that "Differences between libertarians hardly seem to be a criticism." I agree, it's patently ridiculous, but it's a criticism that gets made and should be documented.  The same thing is said about anarchists, Marxists, liberals, whoever the fuck... but it is in fact said.  The existence of Nobel-prize-winner libertarians isn't a particularly relevant response, though.

 * Not relevent because you are not paying attention. I mentioned their awards because some of the original research claims that they don't know how to run an economy.  This is not even true, because likely, the person writing the criticism here dosnt understand their ideological competitor.

 * Regarding size of government, several things. You say "They are talking about power not size, words have meanings."  Ok, but many practical proposals from libertarians involve shrinking government, as well as or even more than placing direct limits on its power.  Eg decentralization, tax & spending cuts, etc.  You say "empirical evidence has demonstrated..."; ok so cite it as a counter-argument in the article.  You say "THe part about smaller government leading to cronyism is...original research."  No, it's not, I've read it elsewhere.  It needs a citation, though.  For now put.

 * It does need citation. But this paragraph sounds so incredibly original research...whoever wrote the last few paragraphs did a bad job.  They need fixing...bad.

 * You deny the importance of the tendency to call all non-libertarians socialists as a criticism. It's real, though - you've demonstrated it yourself to a degree with your discussion of economics above - and it's annoying.  It's worth a sentence or two.  See for example the deep ecology article, which under criticism includes a short section pointing out that the "deep"/"shallow" binary is arguably insulting to non-deep ecologists.  Not very important, maybe, but worth noting.

 * Its not notable criticism...it sounds like a really stupid point.

 * Regarding the accusation that libertarianism is for rich college kids - its not original research, I'm sure you've heard the stereotype. You say, "libertarians advocate a limited government with few powers, and no ability to pick winners and losers in society, hardly the kind of position you want to be in if you want to keep your job" - but a good position if you've already got what you want independent of government and want to keep it.  Anyway, a counter-argument rather than a reason to delete, again.  You say, "Furthermore, this criticism is also applied to communism, socialism, and the third-way."  Sure, but again, counter-argument, which is why it's already in the article.  (Now for Marxism, say, that's really not a criticism, because Marxists would agree that there are working class and ruling class ideologies, and that Marxism is the former.  This is irrelevant to the topic at hand, though.)

 * It is original research, I've never heard it before. It doesnt even have a citation.  You also said that libertarians favor this position because they want to keep their position in society...that is also original research with no citation.

 * I'm going to go ahead and make a few of the changes on which we seem to agree. If I'm not misreading you, we only differ on how much should be removed.Kalkin 19:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Alot should be removed and or cited. The last few paragraphs are terrible.  (Gibby 22:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

link
This isn't an authoritativee source(its my blog), but may give you some ideas about what to add to the criticism of Libertarianism section: Thanks!-Urthogie 10:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Citations by the bucketful
I wish to bring to your attention the Critiques of libertarianism website. It's not exactly very user-friendly, but it contains well-sourced anti-libertarian arguments by the bucketful. It's the first place to look when you need to find an anti-libertarian citation. -- Nikodemos 05:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Taxes and government services
According to the Libertarianism article, many Libertarians support certain elements of the govrenment, such as infrastructure, schools, courts and police. Many also believe is tax reduction or abolition. A glaring flaw in this premise is that infrastructure, schools, courts, police, and other government-sponsored areas like fire departments and hospitals are all funded through taxes. I have often read and heard criticisms as a result of this since there is no way for these services to be provided without taxation. Does anyone know of any articles which explain how Libertarians handle this issue? Unless there is a tangible plan to handle this apparent conflict, I would think it should be addressed in this article. --Waterspyder 20:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * This probably ought to go in there; I don't see it addressed, really. I'm not sure where it would fit.  Perhaps that and the section within "Methodological criticism" on "Decentralization or size reduction as..." could be split to a new section titled something like "Practical criticism" - though that's an absolutely terrible title - or whatever for criticisms that attack the possibility or results of implementing libertarian ideas with arguments that don't come from any particular ideological perspective. (Alternatively perspectives could be identified for these arguments... I don't know what they'd be though.) Kalkin 20:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Last time I checked it's only extreme libertarians that are against all taxes.--Urthogie 21:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Current state of Methodological Criticism section
Gibby what do you think? Kalkin 20:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted last major edit
I reverted the edit of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_libertarianism&oldid=72284419 as much of it was not at all written in an encylopedic fashion. Some parts of the edit may have been worth keeping, or worth rewriting into something keepable, feel free to do so. --Xyzzyplugh 18:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research tags on the talk page
To help unclutter and deal with the backlog of pages tagged as original research I am replacing the original reasearch tags copied to this talk page with. It doesn't change the meaning of the message being edited but it helps a lot with dealing with the growing back log. The tag should be confined to the article itself. Thank you for your understanding. MartinDK 18:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This criticism page seems a little odd in that the counterarguments to the criticism seem to take up more room than the criticism itself. -

"libertarianism"?
what exactly is this article supposed to be about? it uses the word "libertarianism" to mean what i'd call vulgar libertarianism. in fact, the "libertarianism" it describes is so far to the right that it even contradicts rothbard's principles, for example the sentence "Others argue that current property owners obtained their property unfairly, justifying its redistribution" implies that libertarians would not be concerned about this, which is something rothbard explicitly attacked. i suggest this article either be moved to "criticism of right-libertarianism" or be rewritten to account for left-libertarianism. Bob A 09:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a separate article
I have a better question: Why do we need an article on Criticisms of Libertarianism separate from the article on Libertarianism itself? There is nothing significant that holds it together, and it seems like all worthwhile content should be merged into the article on Libertarianism, the rest just ditched. Rexlunae 23:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

 * There's a lot to say. It can certainly be integrated in the main article but the length of the criticism section will likely become inappropriately large (which is why this article was created in the first place).  Merging the two articles will also likely lead to even worse NPOV wars.

OR Tag Added
I took a look at this article. There is a tonne of stuff that is not sourced at all. It really needs work. --Quirex 17:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Their philosophies solve immediate problems but do not address long-term problems. When pressed with this issue, many libertarians ask why they should care about the future of humanity, or at least past the point that they personally cease to exist."

lol? I am a Libertarian, so I did not edit this out myself (as I am clearly not an objective person here), but this a strawman. That whole section should be deleted or reworked, it completely ignores the dynamism aspect of libertarianism.

Short sightedness
I deleted the paragraph about libertarian short sightedness. It was very POV.Deathhatefear 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

'Free Market' Criticisms
Much of this page is occupied by notions not critical of Libertarianism per se, but of Laissez-faire in general; it seems to me like they're unnecessary here. You say, "Libertarians support the free market," and then the reader can read the free market article and decide if that's good or bad. Am I wrong?

By way of analogy, consider this: you wouldn't discuss the criticisms of communism in an article on the Soviet Union.

Your thoughts? --Xiaphias 09:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The case of the Dutch republic
Libertarianism is almost exclusively discussed in term of 'what we think will happen if..'. What always amazes me is that neither libertarians nor their opponents seem to analyze the experiences we already have had with it. The Dutch republic is a good example, because the country already had a stock market since the early 1600. In fact it crashed in 1637. Its goverment -expecially on the federal level- was very weak already in the 17th century and became even weaker in the 18th. In fact power was almost exclusively in the hands of a handful of capitalist entrepreneurs. In the 17th century they were very innovative and became rich quickly, often through risky and ruthless colonial undertakings. But in the 18th their descendents, even though they controled politics even more than their gogetter forebares, were anything but innovative. In fact they stiffled any change and any progress. They were fat, rich and quite comfy. Change? Why?! John Adams even wrote back home about how not to be a republic like Holland I believe. Why must we go and repeat these mistakes exactly? nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf 75.178.177.135 (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You should also provide historical context for the economic and political realities of when these events occurred. During the 1600s, the Dutch Republic was almost terminally at war with Spain, England or France; a few times both England and France. They all warred against the Dutch due to Dutch Republics economic power. A lot of their economic strength was sapped by continuous warfare in the 18th century as well. It was not necessarily the fact that the government was weak and the merchants were strong, it was the fact that the Dutch were continuously at war with, to coin a modern term that fits those times as well, global superpowers (France, England, etc.). That could happen to any power, no matter what economic system they had, capitalist or not. Smarmos (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Smarmos

Confusing link
On the indented paragraph re: Chile, the little footnote thing 1) says the wrong number, 2) doesn't even take you to that wrong number —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.34.13 (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Church of Satan
One notable criticism of libertarianism has been to point out that the ideology of the Church of Satan, founded by Anton Szandor LaVey, is highly similar to libertarianism. This is maybe a value judgement, but it does strike a chord with some people who are already convinced of the evil nature of libertarianism, and of capitalism in general. ADM (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Biased Sentence
Quote: "An important distinction made by Rawls is between freedom itself and the value of freedom, and libertarians wrongly seek to maximize freedom without consideration of the value of the resulting freedoms. This criticism is based on the notion of the incommensurability of values, where liberty is but one good that must compete with others, rather than all goods being reducible to one simple measure of utility. Libertarians simplistically consider liberty to trump all other goods, without consideration of the commensurability of different goods. Significantly, although Rawls argues for inviolable rights, these are restricted to situations where basic prosperity has been established, rather than being ideological maxims in the manner of libertarians' view of liberty."

The sentence I have marked out is biased against libertarians. Wikipedia should not be biased in this way. --Lordnecronus (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Looks like much of that paragraph is just WP:original research, against wikipedia policy, and can be removed. Only criticism from a WP:reliable source that reflects the source can be used in an article. Even when people have a source it's good to check it (and even many book quotes can be verified through books.google.com) because they often misconstrue what the author actually is saying. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed longtime poor or unsourced WP:OR; why put it back?
Just because one thinks something is true doesn't mean one can just stick it in without a reference. Please read WP:V. For example the just reinserted: "Free trade has many critics, who argue that trade barriers are necessary for economic growth in some or all situations." I've seen a lot of different arguments, but Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to just throw in their favorites - or the only ones they know - but actually use expert opinon.

A lot of POV, WP:OR, redundant material has been up for a while with no references - despite tagging - and it's time for it to go unless someone thinks it's worth referencing. I'm sure far more reliable sources than some of those listed could be found for some of these criticisms.

Carson has a fan type article on wikipedia mostly ref'd by his own writings. He is written about by a few Wp:RS who don't seem to agree with him, but as long as the authoring sides views reflected, there is some hope. I'll give others a chance to decide what they think should be used as reference.

I don't see any evidence Paul Kienitz is anyone of note and Mike Huben's homepage is hardly a WP:RS. That should go immediately as it is clearly not wp:rs. Or do I really have to take it to WP:RSN?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Above quote, "For example the just reinserted: "Free trade has many critics, who argue that trade barriers are necessary for economic growth in some or all situations.""
 * Are you challenging the assertion that there are many critics of (absolute) free trade who argue that trade barriers are conducive to growth? BigK HeX (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 * As for one of the other reinsertions .... your comments stated text was uncited. I believe I found there was a citation for parts, and since that portion of the text did not seem to fall into the reason that was listed for its deletion, I reinserted it.  BigK HeX (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 * A bottom line Wikipedia principles is expressed in first line of WP:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true. Not to mention PROVEIT:  When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. So it may be true that "Many" critics say that, but can you prove that with a reference? The issue of whether it is the most important or widely used criticism of course goes to WP:Original research in you or someone asserting so. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Ummm ... the question was pretty simple. Are YOU seriously challenging the assertion that "there exist many critics of free trade ..etc.etc" as being dubious? BigK HeX (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what your or I think, but what policy says. Obviously I think there may be other criticisms, perhaps more important ones. But I'm not putting what I think first, I'm putting what experts think first. Please review Policies and guidelines. Please also see Template_messages/Sources_of_articles which gives you and idea how important this issue is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Your selective wikilawyering -- while amusing -- is not productive. If you refuse to declare your actual stance on the material you seem to have problem with, there's not much to discuss.  If useless wikilawyering is the extent of your willingness to discuss the free trade criticism matter, I will consider your fact-tag to be addressed. BigK HeX (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Don't forget about WP:IAR. This might be one of those cases where strictly following the rules only removes useful, uncontroversial content. I agree that the passage needs to be referenced, but really just because it would aid in research.  It's not really very controversial that there are critics of free trade, and that those critics argue that trade barriers promote growth.  I don't think that, in this case, it should be deleted just because it isn't cited.  I'd be fine with just leaving a tag on it.  You know it's true, let someone find a source for it. I mean, in the time Carol, Hex, and even I have spent arguing this, a source could have easily been found on Google. MutantPlatypus (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree if someone needs to make a point, source it properly. The current source is the main page of some barely wp:rs publication. I'm sure its easy to find lots of hardcore WP:RS anti-free traders who can give you a laundry list of reasons they are against free trade. It just seemed like one more case of someone lazily sharing their own POV without bothering to source it. Not a "sky is blue" uncontroversial statement but more like a "sky is blue because that's the way the rods in our eyes work." Well, I don't know if that is true and would like to see a ref. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 * WP:IAR may not even be needed, as WP:ASF is pretty clear that generally uncontroversial statements can simply be asserted. So, as mentioned, I find that someone repeatedly invoking WP:PROVEIT, whilst ignoring WP:ASF is a bit selective on the Wikilawyering, and not as helpful. Personally, I think it's fine without a citation, but at worst, it could be tagged, not deleted outright.  BigK HeX (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually this is the first time I've heard of WP:ASF and will add it to my list for times when I do in fact have SKY IS BLUE statements to defend. I struck this because this paragraph (A simple forumation) means obvious facts don't need to site a source but opinions do. It says at end. "A careful selection of reliable sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view." I will go to the page and explain that at least one person mis-understood it as meaning no source is necessary so that can be corrected.

I could quickly find a ref, obviously, but then I might be accused of coming up with a one from a low quality WP:RS which is really just an excerpt from an article by a more notable writer in the higher quality WP:RS - i.e., William Greider in The Nation, here. That's what happens when you let others find your sources. ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

More criticism from the right please.
Anybody else tired that the word conservative has been "hijacked" by libertarians? 184.96.217.200 (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ideologues on the run
This article needs to do more to expose the angry Paultards/Rothbardtards who mine the Internet 25 hours a day for dissenters against their pseudo-philosophy for what the overwhelming majority of them really are: arrogant hypocrites who search without end for some kind of high moral justification for personal greed by hiding behind the doctrine of "non-coercion", and only aiming to create an even worse environment in the end where a small, ultra-rich elite essentially takes over the role of the state in the absence of its coercive presence; in much the same fashion as an ultra-powerful, centralized and dictatorial government controlling every single aspect of the lives of its citizenry, a completely "laissez-faire" society, run by ever-powerful corporate interests, would not hesitate, under the pretext of operating under the "free market", to do the exact same thing for the sake of power, greed and selfishness. In the extreme minimalization or outright absence of virtually any form of government coercion, corporate interests would eventually gain total control of every aspect of society, including land ownership, and thus every "lesser" human being would be invisibly coerced to do exactly as they say and act exclusively in such corporate interests, or otherwise be denied any "natural" rights or opportunities because contrary interests would only serve to reduce profits, and are thus "evil". And if there is no real government to establish standards for private interests of such a size, or to tell them what to do, and if they simply bought out and owned nearly everything over time, who would ever be able to stop them? It's just another reason why libertarianism, along with Marxism, is just plain incompatible with philosophy or common sense in general. Consider this a partisan response to your equally partisan attack on the criticisms thrown against your movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.153.191.120 (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can find the critiques in a reliable source, hopefully one from an academic, scholar or acknowledge expert, preferably publishing in an academic context, please add it. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I would consider that a partisan response. 75.201.241.212 (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This article's name needs to be changed
It should be "Criticisms of libertarianism" not "Criticism of libertarianism". One- this makes more sense. Two- we've got "criticisms" articles instead of "criticism" for Marxism, socialism, anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism. Shouldn't this page conform? byelf2007 (talk) 18 July 2011

Also, "libertarianism" isn't something you capitalize (the exception would be if you make a wikipedia article about "libertarianism" or "libertarianism X". byelf2007 (talk) 31 July 2011

Added editorial commentary
This edit adds unsourced material to the article and thus violates Wikipdia's WP:OR and WP:V policies. It should be reverted. There is no Wikipedia policy that I am aware of which allows Wikipedia editors to provide their own personal editorial commentary on published research, which is exactly what the added text does. — goethean ॐ 14:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The study is correlation and not causation, so it's necessary to have this in (no citation is needed)--if we don't have it, the implication is that the study's conclusion is fact. byelf2007 (talk) 30 August 2011
 * Please cite the Wikipedia policy which overrides WP:V and which dictates that no citation is needed in this case. Thank you. — goethean ॐ 19:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Russell Kirk
Russell Kirk wrote a famous essay on libertarianism. Should be include a section on it? ELH76345 (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

General Welfare Clause of the US constitution
I think someone should add information about the Constitution's "General Welfare Clause" and mention that many critical interpreters and exegetes of the constitution agree that the provision of the general welfare to the people through taxation is clearly a critique of libertarianism in itself. The text reads as follows: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and "general Welfare" of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States";Nashhinton (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Why, exactly, is the US Constitution of any relevance here? This article is about criticisms of a political/economic/moral philosophy that is not confined to any particular country so the fact that a random country's constitution articulates goals at odds with it is not worthy of inclusionMetacrias (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Pragmatic Concerns: Libertarianism in the context of the existing global economy
It's been awhile since I've read up on libertarianism and the many, many critiques of it so I don't have the sources needed to properly reference some critiques that I believe need added - hopefully someone else does. Overall, this article is woefully underdeveloped and poorly written - libertarianism is one of the most heavily criticized and derided economic philosophies still adhered to by some today and this article only touches on a couple basic critiques. One important issue that is missing is how libertarian philosophies could be reconciled with the actual global political and economic system. Metacrias (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Many of these are still poorly cited, non NPOV, and written as statements of fact
Example:
 * "Most other economic and political theories (from neoliberalism to social democracy) suggest that market failures justify government intervention in the economy; that non-intervention can lead to monopolies, monopsonies, oligopolies, cartels, collusion and stifle innovation; that unregulated markets are economically unstable; that a lack of government involvement in the economy will result in certain socially desirable goods being undersupplied or not supplied at all (for example, medical research seeking cures to tropical diseases such as malaria that largely affect extremely poor populations that couldn't afford) among other things. Social democrats criticize libertarianism with arguments holding that even when markets do produce economically efficient outcomes these outcomes aren't necessarily the most desirable as values other than efficiency (for example, equality) may be more important and that redistribution of wealth can improve economic health and the overall level of human development in a given society. Furthermore, advances in economics since Adam Smith have shown that basic assumptions underlying libertarian economic theories (rationality, complete information) do not accurately reflect the real world and thus outcomes of libertarian economic approaches based on these assumptions will not have the theorized effects. Also, virtually all other modern economic philosophies recognize the existence of externalities which libertarian economic theories deny exist."

This "summary" of criticisms should have each individual claim cited as per WP:INCITE. Merely sticking a tag at the end of a large paragraph is not a sufficient citation for a block of claims and makes it harder to verify each individual claim. Then there are claims like "also, virtually all other modern economic philosophies recognize the existence of externalities which libertarian economic theories deny exist", which is an non-NPOV opinion; it should either cite an "indisputable and commonly accepted reference text" or "multiple prominent" libertarian theories denying the existence of externalities given the weight of the statement made (as per WP:WEIGHT) and (for good measue) contrast this by citing contrasting theories arguing for the existence of externalities, as befitting a statement of fact... or attribute it correctly as an opinion from a particular, named critic about what he or she thinks libertarians do or don't deny as compared to what economists say, as per WP:YESPOV "Avoid stating opinions as facts". I will be adding the appropriate tags to the article soon, but would just like to remind all who might read this page of these important requirements for a good article.198.103.184.76 (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And on further review it looks like the sources cited in this paragraph aren't even relevant to the claims made. Funny. 198.103.184.76 (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Pursuant to my earlier post I have now added tags to the paragraphs in question. Remember, when you claim that people say things, you should at least be able to provide a quote of a particular person saying a particular thing.  Avoid "factual statements" and attribute opinions to specific, named critics.  Libertarianism is not so old that any criticism that happens to pop into anybodies head warrants a statement of fact; it may be a deliberate strawman, it may be misinformed, it may be addressed by a prominent libertarian, it may be addressed by one branch of libertarianism but not another, et cetera.  If Libertarians deny the existence of externalities, for example, you should be able to cite a few prominent libertarians actually denying the existence of externalities.198.103.184.76 (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This article only criticizes right-libertarianism and excludes criticism of left-libertarianism
Again: This article only criticizes right-libertarianism and excludes criticism of left-libertarianism Nashhinton (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Until this is resolved, I've added "criticism of left-libertarianism" to the template notifying users about missing information. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete article?
I'm wondering how other editors feel about deleting this article. Presenting criticisms in a dedicated article "is generally discouraged, but it is sometimes used for politics, religion and philosophy topics to avoid confusion that may result if negative viewpoints were interwoven with the description of the primary viewpoint." WP:CRIT also states that "[c]reating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic is generally considered a POV fork. Content forking states that 'Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.'"  Because of these facts, and due to the lack of comprehensive content in this article, I think it would be best to take what little content we have here, move it into the parent Libertarianism article, and delete this one. Is anyone opposed to this course of action? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Zero Marginal Cost Society
I'm reading the book Zero Marginal Cost Society. Jeremy Rifkin tates that "The federal government got into the business of producing electricity in the first place because private utilities were not interested in extending transmission lines into rural areas, arguing that the households were too few, too spread out, and without sufficient purchasing power to afford the service." The electrification of the area by hydropower through the Tennesee Valley Authority did not require an outpowering of tax dollar, but was financed by small loans to rural electricity cooperatives, virtually all of which were paid back. The electrification of the area dramatically increased farm productivity and enabled a 20% increase in the appliances market during the worst years of the depression.

Section 4.2: in regards to the lack of Libertarian presence in government.
Section 4.2 states:

Michael Lind has observed that, of the 195 countries in the world today, none have fully actualized a libertarian society: "If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn't at least one country have tried it? Wouldn't there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?[10]"

The subsection has two main issues.

Firstly, the question is a fallacy. By simple reasoning, one must understand that early on in human history there existed no form of government whatsoever. By this reasoning, any form of government would have been a terrible idea, because it had not been attempted before. The same would be true of medicine, inventions, and even clothing. To counter the argument above, one may note that countries under the Schengen zone have open borders with each other, and generally countries in trade pacts have some degree of free trade, and that though a libertarian state may not exist in a pure unadulterated form, to say that it cannot would ignore the births of every form of government that has ever come to being in its own unique fashion.

Secondly, the section uses a citation by the left-bent website Salon. As this is an article on the critiques of an ideology, I can understand having more leniency to citation sources, as a biased source may at times be needed to explain the opinions of the opposition. However, it seems poor to use such a website for a Wikipedia article.

Due to the nature of this subsection, I propose that it be removed or on a whole replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.192.203 (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, but the legitimacy of the statement is based on the authority of Michael Lind. Though not preferable, there's nothing specifically against using articles. Sometimes an article is the only source for some information.FourLights (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Rename to "Criticism of right-libertarianism"
It's been seen that left-libertarianism is mostly lambasted on anarchist grounds. Hence, I propose this article be made specifically for right-libertarianism's qualms. ManOfDirt (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Criticism of libertarianism