text:
Talk:Libertarianism/Page move

'''This proposal is closed after one week of voting. Since about 2/3 of the votes were in favor of retaining the article's current location, the article will not be moved.''' Dave (talk) 13:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal
A recurring debate on Libertarianism is whether or not the title is neutral. The philosophy described in this article is the one most commonly called libertarian, but other, less recently developed philosophies also claim the name (the most notable being libertarian socialism).
 * False. Libertarian socialism does not claim the name libertarianism.  In libertarian socialism, libertarian is an adjective used to differentiate libertarian socialism from other types of socialism.  Libertarian socialists like to think they are more concerned with individual liberties than are other socialists.  That alone does not make them libertarians in any sense of the word.  --Serge 23:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * False, Libertarian Socialism predates Libertarian Capitalism and the Libertarian Capitalist usage of the term “Libertarian”. Slizor 15:14, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to vote on whether the libertarianism article should be located at libertarianism or libertarianism (capitalist) (with libertarianism being some kind of disambiguation page). The former option is more in line with predominant use, but the latter is more neutral with respect to the various "libertarian" philosophies.

 * This is misleading. It's important to clarify that "various 'libertarian' philosophies" does not refer to "various philosophies known as libertarianism"  The only philosophy known anywhere as libertarianism is the one covered by the current libertarianism article. There is one other philosophy that uses libertarian in its name, libertarian socialism, but not even advocates of libertarian socialism refer to it as libertarianism, or themselves as libertarians.  --Serge 23:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Not that I support the move, but in order to make a fair decision it's important to note that this is just plain wrong. libertarianism may be the only political philosophy to go by the unmodified name libertarianism, but at the very least there is also a theory of free will called libertarianism.  Further, the term is also used in the phrase civil libertarianism, which is certainly connected with, but not the same as libertarianism itself.  I believe these examples all appear in the disambiguation text right at the top of the libertarianism article. --Zarvok | Talk 23:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. I did not know that the theory of free will in metaphysics known as libertarianism was referred to as a philosophy.  That's why I said that the philosophy covered in the current libertarianism article is the only philosophy known as libertarianism.  Even if the reference in metaphysics is a philosophy, it's still a very obscure reference to the term, and the standard Wiki approach to such a situation is to have a reference at the top of the page, which this page already has.

 * But I stand by my main point: the reference to "the various 'libertarian' philosophies" is misleading, because it implies that there are quite a number of philosophies known as libertarianism, and not just the main one covered in the current article plus the obscure usage in metaphysics. If there really were "various 'libertarian' philosophies", then I would support the move.  --Serge 00:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I would like to direct everyone's attention to the usage of Libertarian on http://www.politicalcompass.org and also the defintions (although American and vaguely off) provided http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Libertarianism . These are examples of Libertarianism just being a belief in freedom, nothing more. That Libertarian Capitalists in the US have decided to take over the term in a bid to gain sole usage of the term does not mean that it should be reflected on Wikipedia. Slizor 15:14, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dave (talk) 22:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * Since I've never run a vote on something like this before, it didn't occur to me that I should specify when the vote ends. So let's let the vote run for one week, and tally up the votes at 22:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC).  A simple majority will be required to move the page.  Sound good to everyone? Dave (talk) 12:03, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Not really. Simple majority is nowhere near consensus. Since this proposal is to overturn a status quo that has been reaffirmed in the past, it needs to show that there's actually consensus to settle the issue -- otherwise it's just an invitation to fuss over it again later on. --FOo 13:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Based on the voting to date, I doubt you have much to worry over. As I sort of expected, the numbers (although not, IMO, the better reasoning) are against the move thus far. --RL0919 03:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Support the move

 * RL0919 01:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC) I might end up in the minority here, but there are only so many ways to treat this sort of situation with true neutrality, and this is the easiest one to implement in this case.
 * Slizor 12:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC) The term itself is not NPOV and can confuse people who are unaware of this usage of it.
 * I don't understand. Are you saying that the term libertarianism is not NPOV?  How?  Why?  Are you saying that the term can confuse people who are unaware of "this usage" of it?  Which usage is that?  The political philosophy based on individual liberty?  What other usage is there? --Serge 18:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There are several uses of the term, in particular the political tendency that is the opposite of authoritarianism. The term itself is not NPOV because it promotes the idea that Libertarian Capitalism is the "pure" form of Libertarianism and is most based on freedom. Slizor 18:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * It promotes an idea? Wow, that's quite an accomplishment for a term. --Serge 18:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It promotes a certain view which is highly debatable. Slizor 22:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * If a term all by itself promotes a specific idea or view, then that's what the Wiki for that term should address, shouldn't it? The term Communism, for example, promotes the idea and view of, well, Communism, and that's why the Wiki on Communism is about...  Communism.  Why should the libertarianism Wiki be any different?  --Serge 23:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The term "Libertarianism" has different meanings in different countries and different circles. I was unaware that there was any debate about as to what Communism refers to, although there probably would be a debate if Marxists-Leninists tried to claim the entire word for themselves - as Libertarian Capitalists have done in the US. Slizor 00:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * First, if the term "Libertarianism" has significant different meanings in different countries and different circles, then those significant different meanings should have their own pages, and they should all be referenced at the top of the current page. If there is a real need for a disambiguation page, then the disambiguation section at the top of the page will speak for itself.  In its current state, it's relatively minimal, and, by Wiki standards as I understand them, does not warrant a separate disambiguation page. --Serge 01:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why should they be referenced at the top of the page and not just disambiguated? It would make the pages uncontraversal and would satisfy all views - unless there is opposition to the term Libertarian Capitalism? I think a very good example of why there should be a disambiguation page is on the Political Compass website - FAQs q.13 Slizor 15:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * "They" should be referenced at the top of the page and not just disambiguated because of the question of whether "they" even exist. Let's see them at the top of the page first.  If they really exist, then the need for a disambiguation page will be made obvious by the "top heavy" disambiguation section, and there will be no need for this debate.  I, for one, will change my vote to be for the move if this happens.  Right now the "disambiguation section" at the top of the current page is very simple and straighforward.  Once again, what problem would converting it to a separate disambiguation page be solving?
 * All I'm saying is that if you're asking for a disambiguation page for "foo", you should be able to say that foo can mean "X", "Y" or "Z", and show that each of these have their own pages. A form of socialism that simply incorporates the term in its name, and an obscure usage from metaphysics, hardly qualifies.  --Serge 17:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The term itself means something seperate from the lassiez-faire Capitalist doctrine which uses the word. The word means something else - that is why there is the term "libertarian socialism". We should clearly disambiguate between the actual word and the philosophy - call the page "Libertarianism (Philosophy)" if you wish or Ideology. Slizor 15:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Kev 02:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC) A double standard is being applied to this article.  It should either be disambiguated as per this vote, or libertarian socialism should have its own section, or some of the editors of this article need to learn to not insist on including their own POV in other articles.
 * But libertarian socialism is not a kind of libertarianism, it is a kind of socialism, by definition, and it does have its own section under libertarian socialism. --Serge 23:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And Libertarian Capitalism is not a kind of "libertarianism" it is a kind of Capitalism, by definition. Just because the common usage of the word in the US omits the "Capitalism" part does not make it any less Capitalistic. Why Serge must you try to debate people with a different opinion from yours over an issue of the representation of opinions? Slizor 00:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you, but I'm not trying to debate people "with a different opinion from yours over an issue of the representation of opinions." I'm trying to debate what libertarianism means from an NPOV.  My personal opinion is irrelevant as is yours.  Either there are a number of philosophies using the name libertarianism, or there are not.  This is not a matter of opinion, but a point of fact.  The statement,
 * Libertarian socialism is not a kind of libertarianism, it is a kind of socialism, by definition,
 * is not just my opinion, I contend it is a NPOV fact. Do you dispute this?  I've asked repeatedly for bonafide references to uses of the term libertarianism used to mean libertarian socialism, and no one has been able to come up with even one, much less enough to warrant a NPOV disambiguation page.  --Serge 01:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There are numerous references on the Libertarian Socialism page. While I probably would not contend that Libertarian Socialism is a form of socialism I would also require recognition that Libertarian[Capital]ism is a form of Capitalism - in which case a disambiguation page would be required. As Libertarianism stands, on its own, it is a tendency towards freedom - this view should not be dominated by a clear political ideology (as in Libertarian Capitalism is the only truely free system.) All I want is that there is no double standard. Slizor 15:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * There you have it. The only "bonafide references" to the use of the term libertarianism to mean libertarian socialism is on the Wiki page for libertarian socialism.  Come on!  That's NPOV?  What is the NPOV source for the folowing assertion - "Libertarianism ... is a tendency towards freedom"?  Pardon me for thinking you are just making this stuff up as you go. What you need to produce is, for example, an article from the NY Times, the London Times, The Economist, Newsweek, Sports Illustrated, Salon.com, etc., some, any, NPOV source that uses the term libertarianism to mean anything other than what is currently covered on the Wiki page.  Why is that so difficult?  --Serge 17:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * In all this I think we need to remember that the word 'libertarian', which is undeniably part of the phrase 'libertarian socialism', redirects to this page. So the usage of 'libertarianism' is not the only thing to be considered. Now, if we want to consider unlinking the two words ('libertarian' and 'libertarianism'), your argument about the -ism usage would have more force. --RL0919 18:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * So we agree that if there was no redirection from libertarian to this page, then there would be no need for a disambiguation page. Great. --Serge 20:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Not quite. I said your argument would have more force, not that I would agree with it. However, eliminating that redirect could be part of a compromise solution — assuming that compromise is possible. --RL0919 02:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Mea culpa. --Serge 21:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Now let's address the issue of the term libertarian. Can you produce any bonafide NPOV source of usage of the term libertarian that clearly refers to a libertarian socialist?  Unless you can, I don't think it's accurate to say (from Wiki/NPOV perspective) that the meaning of libertarian is politically ambiguous, in that it could mean libertarian socialist.  I do concede that it has the free will meaning in metaphysics, and an adjective form (as in libertarian socialist), but neither of these are political issues that warrant a separate disambiguation page.  The disambiguation section at the top of the current page already covers these points effectively and fairly.   --Serge 20:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * WP:POINT - Nat Krause 07:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Libertarianism may be "the political philosophy based on individual liberty", but "individual liberty" is an extremely vague concept that has been interpreted in numerous different ways by numerous different authors. The term "libertarianism" is only used with a pro-capitalist meaning in the English speaking world (and by a small political party in Costa Rica). I believe this article should concentrate on what all libertarians have in common (which only requires a couple of paragraphs), and the rest should be discussed in articles on the specific kinds of libertarianism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This point would be valid if there were a significant number of "specific kinds of libertarianism". What specifically are they?  Why don't Wikis exist for each of them?  If they do, why are they all not listed at the top of the current page?  All that is there now that qualifies as a "kind of libertarianism" is the obscure one used in metaphysics.  Does that warrant all that you're talking about?  Seems like the reference that is there solves the "problem" quite elegantly.   "Libertarian socialism" is not a type of libertarianism, but a type of socialism.  Civil libertarianism is not a type of libertarianism, per se, either, but really a semantic outcome based on "civil liberties".  I just don't understand what problem a disambiguation page would be solving.  --Serge 23:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * MParise (sorry I don't understand how to do the fancy user name thing...it seems to be about 3:45 p.m. here in Canada) I support a disambiguation page. It's the closest thing to a a non-biased way of dealing with the issue, and frankly those who insist on things staying as they are seem rather biased towards this so-called "mainstream" definition of libertarianism.  The point is that ideas are hard to label and if you start telling people what they can and can't call their ideas, or what ideas are best called certain terms, you inevitably create bizarr power control systems on language.  So for pete's sake, in the name of freedom of thought and expression, level the playing field and create the damn disambiguation page.  I don't see why the popularity of an idea should decide its prominence.

 * If there were many different ideas identified by the term "libertarianism" then this would be a valid point. But this is not the case.  The only "issue" is already handled by the references at the top of the current page, just as it is for countless other Wikis.  No one is telling anyone what they can or can't call their ideas.  Libertarian socialists call their idea libertarian socialism, NOT libertarianism.  Civil libertarianism is never referred to as libertarianism.  Anyone looking up civil liberties or civil liberty would look that up, not libertarianism.  It is an established Wiki practice to provide obscure references (like libertarianism in metaphysics) at the top of a Wiki covering the main usage of the term.  What problem would a disambiguation be solving?  --Serge 23:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It would solve the problem of having the namespace reflect the specific POV of people such as yourself, rather than being neutral among the various usages. Also, I believe there are Discussion and Comments sections on this page for a reason. This section is for people to record their votes in favor the move. --RL0919 06:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * What "various usages"? Any besides those already dealt with in the disambiguation section at the top of the Wiki? --Serge 17:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Those are the ones. If your implication is that the namespace is fine as long as other usages are acknowledged in a brief note at the top of the page, then I disagree. If the other usages were all non-political, I would be OK with that. But as it stands, putting the views of one group under the heading of 'libertarianism' (which, let us not forget, gets redirects from 'libertarian' as well) carries the implication that it is the "real" libertarianism, as opposed to some imposter ideologies that use the word. --RL0919 18:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The other uses of libertarian are non-political. In one case, the context is metaphysics.  In the other, we're talking about a simple adjective that happens to be used in the name of a political ideology (libertarian socialism).  From a NPOV, there is only one political philosophy or ideology that is known as libertarianism, and it is the topic covered in the current page.  From a NPOV, there is only one political philosophy or ideology that is associated with a person referred to as a libertarian, and it is the topic covered in the current page. --Serge 20:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I cannot fathom how you could say that the use of 'libertarian' in the term 'libertarian socialism' is not political. The left-libertarians complaints about right-libertarian usage of the term are prima facie evidence of a political conflict over the usage. --RL0919 01:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. The use of libertarian as an adjective in libertarian socialism is political, just not in the same political sense I had in mind.  Anyway, what I think would really help is some disambiguation page proponent to create a libertarianism (disambiguation) page.  Then we can talk about whether that page should be renamed to libertarianism, and the current page renamed to whatever. --Serge 21:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry about my role in adding discussion to this section. It started as one question...  I guess we could move all of this.  At least the discussion is all indented and the votes are bulletted and easy to identify. --Serge 17:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Definitely. "Libertarianism" means something a bit different outside the States. It seems to be used in this article for a ragbag of individualist, extremist capitalist viewpoints that are being rather favoured by being labelled a philosophy. Grace Note 06:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * N.B.: practice pretending to be neutral more. Practice makes perfect! - Nat Krause 07:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * There's a long history of the term being used to describe various forms of libertarian socialism (especially outside the US) and this should be properly acknowledged. Cadr 12:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The usage as an adjective to describe various forms of socialism is acknowledged in the disambiguation section at the top of the page. --Serge 20:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. Libertarianism should either be a disambiguation page; there are many notions that are accurately describable as "libertarianism" (including other political theories), and it's peculiar that just one of them (and not the most important) should sit in the name space. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * If it is true that "there are many notions that are accurately describable as 'libertarianism' ", then each should have its own page and they should all be referenced in the disambiguation at the top of the current page. As long as this is not the case, the only reasonable NPOV assumption is that they do not exist, and the alleged basis for creating a libertarianism disambiguation page is not established. --Serge 17:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * There are at least five "factions" listed in the box on the right side of the page (which does not include the left-libertarians). Only two of these are actually discussed in the article for more than a sentence, and one doesn't appear to be discussed in the article at all. So although the lefties are the ones that first raised the issue, it would appear that the POV for the article is even narrower than the initial complaint would suggest. --RL0919 18:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The need for disambiguation for a given term stems from usage of that term (alone) in NPOV contexts to mean different things. That is not the case for these factions.  No one with a NPOV uses the term libertarian to mean, specificially, a libertarian socialist, a minarchist, an anarcho-capitalist, a paleolibertarian, neolibertarian, geolibertarian, etc.  From a NPOV, the term libertarian is used exclusively to refer to a person who upholds the principles of the topic covered on this page.  --Serge 20:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Your tone suggests that you have an emotional involvement here, so I don't know if this will do any good, but I'll try. The term "libertarian" not only has a number of uses within political theory, many of which are not represented by the current article, but it also has uses outside politics, the most prominent concerning the notion of free will (libertarianism is the view that there is genuine, contra-causal free will, as oposed to both determinism and compatibilism. It is also used with regard to the more practical issue of freedom of thought and speech, distinguishing itself from, for example, totalitarianism.

Professionally, I use the term about equally in the political and the metaphysical senses (as I teach political philosophy, metaphysics, ethics, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of religion, all of which involve the term in one, or sometimes more than one, of its main senses).

None of these uses is primary, and none has any good claim to occupy the main name space. In such cases, it is usual to make the main name (in this case Libertarianism) into a disambiguation page; the political forms could then either simply each have its own article, or there could also be a general overview (Libertarianism (politics), which led to the different individual articles on specific forms.

Yur claim: "From a NPOV, the term libertarian is used exclusively to refer to a person who upholds the principles of the topic covered on this page" is incorrect not only in general, but also within political theory. Indeed, the current article describes very much what is sometimes known as "economic libertarianism" as opposed to "political libertarianism" (which involves no attachment to capitalism; John Locke is often described as libertarian, for example, but was most certainly not a capitalist — a mercantilist, yes, but in so far as one can discern his view, it's rather contemptuous of much of what we'd call capitalism). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * If your assertions have basis in reality, then it should be easy to expand the current disambiguity section at the top of the page to make your argument for a separate page speak for itself. As it is, it does not.

 * By the way, can you provide a couple of examples of Locke's views that you believe show contempt for what "we" would call capitalism? --Serge 22:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * "If your assertions have basis in reality"? I'll assume that the implication is a result of English not being your first langauge.  However, Wikipedia policy is not to take the messy option of sticking a long list of dablinks at the top of an article, but to create a disambiguation page.  When no usage has priority, the main article space is used as the dab page; that's the case here (as a glance at any decent dictionary, encyclopedia, or introduction to philosophy or politics should indicate).
 * Negative reasons include the fact that, although he writes at length on the notions of property and the institution of money, he never talks about the central practices of capitalism. Positive (but generally more oblique) reasons include the restrictions that he places on the right to private property, his dislike of (large-scale) inheritance, and so on. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you're incorrect that "a glance at any decent dictionary, encyclopedia, or introduction to philosophy or politics" would reveal that no term has priority. For example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn't mention the other forms of libertarianism (what they call "left-libertarianism" is some kind of Georgism, not libertarian socialism).  Other examples are easy to find.  It seems to me that the situation here seems much more analagous to the situation at the article on Apples: while Apple Computer, Apple (band), and Apple [album are all referred to as "apple," and should obviously be included, but not at the Apple space.  Dave (talk) 18:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * The Stanford Encyclopædia is a work in progress, most of it not having yet been written — nevertheless, it's interesting that their article tends rather to back up the pro-move camp. Their article on "Free will" doesn't use the terminology of "libertarianism", though the bibliography includes such works as Randolph Clarke's Libertarian Accounts of Free Will and Scott MacDonald's "Aquinas's Libertarian Account of Free Will" (Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 2, 309–328).
 * The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is similarly unfinished, and as yet has no article under the title "Libertarianism", though it uses the term in articles on political philosophy and free will (re. the problem of evil).
 * Looking at completed, print & on-line reference works:
 * A Dictionary of Philosophy (edd Flew & Priest) has one entry, with the metaphysical form as the first definition, and the political form second (much broader than the rather narrow article here)
 * the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Blackburn) has two entries — "Libertarianism" concerns the metaphysical notion, and "Libertarian (political)" (again, broader than this article)
 * A Dictionary of Political Thought (ed. Scruton) has one entry with three definitions: the general political notion first, then the economic, laissez-faire notion, and finally the metaphysical notion
 * The Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy and Philosophers (ed. Urmson) has one entry, which is limited to the metaphysical notion
 * The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (ed. Honderich) has two entries: the first, "Libertarianism", is on the metaphysical notion, the second ("Liberatianism, political") distinguishes two main versions, both stemming from Locke
 * Dictionary of Philosophy (Runes) has only an entry on the metaphysical theory
 * The Ism Book (Saint-André) has one entry giving (first) the metaphysical notion and (second) the general political notion

Those are the relevant reference works that I have to hand, though I have little doubt that the same pattern would be found in others. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll admit I'm a bit surprised by those sources and am somewhat persuaded; however, I still think that the metaphysical meaning is used only by specialists and that libertarian socialists are clearly a tiny minority. 90+ percent of people typing in "libertarianism" will probably be looking for the current article.  On the other hand, if moving the page is the only way to stop the complaints and if someone (e.g. RL0919) fixes all 600 links, I think creating a disambiguation page could be justified.  Is libertarianism (capitalist) the best title we can come up with? Dave (talk) 04:07, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Asking for a discussion of Locke totally misses the point: adopting an NPOV does not mean "convincing opponents that your view is correct." The fact that an ongoing controversy exists over who should be called "libertarian" is sufficient to show that giving the namespace over to an article reflecting a particular stance on the subject is not NPOV. It is not necessary for Mel or anyone else to convince you that their particular preference on how to apply the term is correct. --RL0919 02:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The point of the "by the way" prefacing my request to Mel Etitis for a discussion of Locke was precisely to indicate that it was beside the point at issue here.  In fact, it would probably be more appropriate to move that discussion over to Talk:John Locke.  Thanks.  But ignoring the "by the way" and insinuating from my out of place request that I am missing the point here is, well, missing the point.
 * Any "ongoing controversy over who should be called 'libertarian'" is immaterial. Who should be called anything, including "libertarian", is all conjecture, and not a NPOV issue with which Wikipedians are concerned.  What matters to Wikipedians is who is called something, and in this case who is called libertarian.  The point you keep missing that that while some have made unsubstantiated claims that such references exist to folks holding views not covered in the current article, they are unable or unwilling to produce any bonafide evidence of such references in NPOV sources, much less update the existing disambiguation section of the page accordingly. I, for one, would be happy to support a disambiguation page, once I understand what exactly would be disambiguated in it.  --Serge 21:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I give a list of references above. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I support the proposed move. "Libertarianism" would be better as disambiguation page. Arrigo 20:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose the move

 * Dave (talk) 22:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC). My reasoning is outlined at talk:libertarianism.  We'd have to change 600 links if we moved it.
 * RJII 22:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC) "Libertarianism (individualist)" and "Libertarianism (collectivist)" would be better. Because, there are indeed some individualist libertarians who oppose both capitalism and libertarian socialism. RJII 22:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This proposal has been made and rejected before; the previous rejection should stand. Retitling the article "Libertarianism (capitalist)" would be a bias problem, as it strongly suggests the Marxian view that political positions are best described in terms of economic class. -FOo 23:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Chairboy 01:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The precedent is set.  It seems to me that publishers of dictionaries, newspapers, news magazines and commercial encyclopedias try to be neutral and are unlikely to have a libertarian bias, yet they almost universally define and refer to libertarianism exclusively in the right/capitalist sense.  Unless someone can convince me that this is not true, I would want to see a compelling argument for why Wiki should be any different in this regard before I could support a disambiguation page.  Note that in the second sentence of this paragraph I used the term libertarian bias and there is no ambiguity of meaning to be resolved.  --Serge 17:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Dictionaries don't generally define "libertarianism" as a form of anarcho-capitalism. Some don't even mention anarcho-capitalism in their definitions of the word. (By anarcho-capitalism, I mean the political philosophy which is the topic of the page as it currently stands). Cadr 12:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The topic of the libertarianism page as it currently stands is not anarcho-capitalism; that is the topic of the anarcho capitalism page. While some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, not all of them are. --Serge 17:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * That half right: the current content of the article is predominantly about anarcho-capitalism and a somewhat generic minarchism. Other specific variants, such as geolibertarianism, get only the briefest of mentions. --RL0919 02:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This is by far the most common definition, in both common language and academic language. Since all language is based on convention there is no POV in using conventional definitions. Additionally the NPOV tag should be removed asap. --malathion talk 18:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe it is splitting hairs.
 * Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron! *Dan* 03:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the main definition of the libertarianism. --Manveru 00:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This page was what I was looking for when I typed in Libertarianism. Jeshii 02:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with *Dan* --pile0nadestalk 08:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Libertarian socialism is always called just that, hence is not in conflict. The Metaphysical use is unusual. The move is uneccesary and confusing. --Regebro 16:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This brings up a good point. If there was a disambiguation page, what would it reference?  The same things that the top of the current page already references (libertarianism socialism, libertarianism in metaphysics, and "civil libertarianism")?  If so, what problem would the disambiguation page be solving that is not being solved by the current approach? --Serge 22:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem of neutrality, obviously. Cadr 12:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with other users that this move seems politically motivated. I oppose the move. DickClarkMises 21:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Nat Krause 07:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC) - The disambiguation at the top of the page is plenty. "Libertarianism" by itself is very widely used with a specific meaning, which is the meaning we use in this article. - Nat Krause 07:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * When people talk about libertarian socialism, that's what they say. This seems politically motivated to me.  80.189.244.48 09:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: This is this user's first edit. --malathion talk 12:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow. Congratulations to him! RJII 17:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Since I am the one who raised the idea of a disambiguation page this time around (leading to this current proposal), let me note for the record that I am not a "libertarian socialist" or anything close to one. However, I do know the difference between real neutrality versus the sentiments of the majority who attach themselves to a term (some of whom think those sentiments constitute neutrality). --RL0919 02:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

MSCC I oppose it. There should be a section added on free will in the current entry. But the faux indignation some socialists have about libertarian being more accurately libertarian capitalism should be ignored.
 * Describing other people's views as "faux indignation" hardly strikes me as neutral. --RL0919 02:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * As long as the clarification comments remain at the top of the page, it should stay where it is. BrentAApgar 00:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I oppose this move, based on harry491's reasoning, which he has patiently explained many times. Rhobite 01:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I oppose this move, based on most of the above reasons, as well as the sheer obviousness of the case. --Daniel11 05:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Libertarianism is not necessarily capitalist--the suggested new title is a misnomer. — Phil Welch 08:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments
Just to reply to some of the objections from opposition votes:

 * Save your breath — a quick Google search will tell you what libertarianism commonly refers to. --Daniel11 05:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You could have saved some breath of your own if you had read the lengthy discussions on this page, in which people argue about whether the currently dominant usage can be considered neutral in this case. See in particular the information I provided at the bottom of the page about the term's history, which is not revealed in a simple Google search. --RL0919 15:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I did read the previous discussion, and it's irrelevant. Libertarianism's a common word, so common (and ubiquitously understood to mean what the current Wikipedia article is about) that it's perfectly clear what an encyclopedia article under that heading should be, and what a reader will expect to find when looking for that title, etc., etc. Yes, words have histories, and sometimes their meanings even change over time in completely opposite directions, but that doesn't affect what a main article is or should be about -- it's an encyclopedia, not an etymological dictionary. I'm sure libertarians are equally upset that "liberal" no longer means what it used to, but they'll rightfully have to deal with it -- I don't suppose you'd want to split the article about liberalism between moderate leftists and "classical liberal" libertarians. BTW, when you read "libertarians" in my last sentence, I'll bet you didn't think I meant libertarian socialists. --Daniel11 02:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I already said I am willing to repoint the inbound links myself. Keep in mind also that there would still be a "libertarianism" page (for disambiguation) that would link through to the renamed page. The existing links would not be broken, just (temporarily, until updated) pointed to the disambiguation page.
 * One of the benefits of using a disambiguation page is that it can acommodate links to as many different varieties of libertarianism as people want to create articles about — non-capitalist, non-socialist libertarians included.
 * You're referring to varieties of libertarianism as if such beasts exists.  Just because there is something some people refer to as "libertarian socialism" does not make that philosophy a variety of libertarianism per se. Consider that one of the definitions for water given in wiktionary is mineral water.  The usage example provided for that definition is:

 * Perrier is the most popular water in this restaurant.

 * Note that it does not say, "the most popular mineral water...".  The point is that a legitimate definition of water is mineral water.  Similarly, if there are alternative "varieties" of the term libertarian (or libertarianism) to mean something other than the political philosophy of individual liberty based on the non-aggression principle, then reasonable examples of such usage should be provided.  In other words, in what context could "Fred is a libertarian" mean anything other than, "Fred supports the political philosophy of individual liberty based on the non-aggression principle".  More pointedly, is there a context in which it could mean, "Fred is a libertarian socialist?".  I think not.  I contend there is no context where libertarian (alone) means anything other than what the Wiki currently says, except by mistake (e.g., Lyndon Larouche, a lifelong Democrat, was often mistakenly referred to as a libertarian by the press in the 1980s, with far reaching ramifications, which illustrates the importance of having an unambiguous definition of the term, and probably explains why so many don't want a disambiguation page for it).  --Serge 00:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * By "varieties of libertarianism," I simply meant different usages of the word. I apologize if I let the use-mention distinction slip there. There clearly are different usages of the word "libertarian." As to cases where the unmodified term could mean something other than the specific meaning you suggest, the strikingly obvious case is its use in metaphysics, where it would be acceptable and common to say, "Fred is a libertarian," and not be talking about politics at all. In this usage the term has a history and scholarship that dwarfs any political use of the term. That said, I do not accept the assumption that the most common "unmodified" usage should get the namespace. In its earlier usage in leftist politics, the term was primarily an adjective, which meant that it was a modifier, not something to be modified. (The propensity to make nouns by putting an -ism onto the end of every ideological adjective is a relatively recent one.) The adjectival usage survives in such phrases as "libertarian socialism," which you cannot possibly deny exists, since the article being discussed here links to an article on it. But note that "libertarian," the adjective (but also a noun in some contexts — isn't English fun?), redirects to this page on "libertarianism," which is about one specific usage of the term.

 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Just because the term libertarian may be used as an adjective in a variety of contexts does not justify a disambiguation page for it.  The purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain and inform; not to define adjectives.  What's next?  Should we create a disambiguation page for green so that the fans of the Green Hornet can have a link on it?  That aside, do you have any bonafide references to the usage of libertarian as a noun in the field of metaphysics without any political connotation?  I'm not holding my breath; the root of libertarian is liberty, of course, which is an inherently political concept. --Serge 18:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * In the first place, there is a disambiguation page for green, to distinguish the term's use for colors, personal names, political parties, etc. It is arguable whether the color should have the primary namespace, but there is no political controversy over this because the usage of the term to describe colors is non-political. The same cannot be said about the use of "libertarian" to describe two very different types of ideology. (And the Green Hornet analogy is flawed, because that use of "green" is a reference to the color.) As for "the usage of 'libertarian' as a noun in the field of metaphysics without any political connotation," these are not hard to find. Look at the Wikipedia article on the subject for starters. Or, here is a quote from a random blog I found through Google: "To borrow an example similar to one in Mele (1995). Suppose an agent satisfies whatever sort of simple indeterminism a libertarian wants (e.g., Kane's). .... If she is free and responsible just because of the indeterministic process, then libertarians have a very counter-intuitive position." (Frankly to even make such a challenge suggests a distinct lack of knowledge about metaphysics, since the usage is common in that field.) --RL0919 21:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't deny a "distinct lack of knowledge about metaphysics". However, this usage is so obscure that it is not mentioned in any dictionary or encyclopedia that I can find.  At best, it warrants a separate disambiguation page for libertarianism (much like the green (disambiguation) page, leaving the current page as the primary, with a reference to the disambig page like the green page has. --Serge 22:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You must have some really weak dictionaries if you can't find the metaphysics usage in them, becuase I found it in about 10 seconds at dictionary.com. And note that the various examples you keep using, such as green and apple, are not subjects of political controversy. --RL0919 05:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * All that said, the ultimate argument in your comments is a paradox: you want the usage to be unambiguous, so you oppose having a page that would clarify any ambiguities (which is what a disambiguation page does, by definition). That line of thinking makes no sense to me. The most logic I can make of it is that it is a normative claim: your are saying that the leftists are not justified to use the term in another way because it creates ambiguities, which we should battle against by giving the namespace to the currently dominant usage. But that line of argument is precisely the sort of POV-pushing that the articles are not supposed to endorse. --RL0919 03:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * My argument is that all Wikis, including libertarianism, should accurately reflect reality from a NPOV. I contend the current page does this, because it accurately reflects usage of the term in society.  Pointing out the fact that ambiguity of the meaning of the term arguably weakens advancement of the political philophy was only mentioned as a hypothesis for why so many libertarians care about this disambiguation page issue, not as "the ultimate argument" for why there should be no disambiguation page.  --Serge 18:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You seem to think that majority usage is equivalent to NPOV. I don't. This entire discussion simply reinforces my belief that the current use of the namespace is biased. --RL0919 21:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * No, I don't think that majority usage is equivalent to NPOV. But I do think actual usage should be considered, from a NPOV, in determining whether a disambig page is warranted.  --Serge 22:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not wedded to the particular choice of "capitalist" as a modifier, but I disagree with the claim that it reflects Marxist ideas or even that the word capitalist in this context refers to an economic system. Lots of libertarians use the term to refer to a political system. To take an obvious example, anarcho-capitalists use the term in this way. For those that don't, I refer back to my previous point about how a disambiguation page can point to articles on any variety of libertarianism. No group would have to have their ideology lumped in with another's, provided that they can muster a separate article on the subject.

 * Comment: Though I think a fair number of people keep an eye on this page, it might be worth putting this question up on WP:RFC if this discussion is not fruitful. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:47, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of putting it on RFC so as to actually get a more balanced view here - "Libertarian Socialism is an oxymoron!", "It is the main usage of the word [in America] Slizor 12:29, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * After reading your comments, I listed it there. I had already noted this proposal on libertarian socialism so both sides could vote. Dave (talk) 12:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * This is obviously a politically motivated move; Wikipedia should avoid playing politics.

Discussion

 * Though I don't especially care which way this goes, I'll note that I oppose this move unless the disambiguation page clearly denotes this article as the most common referant of the term "libertarianism" used by itself. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:24, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

 * I see no reason why that wouldn't be the case, since to my knowledge no one in the recent discussions has denied that this is the most common usage. If I write the first version of the page (as I offered to do previously), that will definitely be the case. (I originally forgot to sign this comment, so here it is: --RL0919 04:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC))

 * How about just putting all kinds of libertarianism in the one article? That way people can readily see the distinction between the individualist and collectivist forms. RJII 16:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Placing more balanced discussion in the article itself is possible, but it might not be the most desirable solution because of the effort involved, and because the article in its current form is already quite long. It could also result in a long-term edit war as different sides try to make their variation more prominent in the article. With a disambiguation page, people can create specific articles to describe various uses and viewpoints, which can then be linked. That said, I'm certainly open to that approach, although I couldn't personally help with it as much as I would be able/willing to do for the proposed renaming. --RL0919 17:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * An article that "disambiguates" between different kinds of libertarianism will will not work for any significant length of time. Because, it leaves the question of what libertarianism itself is. Inevitably, any ariticle called libertarianism will be changed to be a discussion on libertarianism, by people who are interested in that question, rather than an article called libertarianism empty of everything but links to other articles. It will never work. RJII 22:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Disambiguation pages exist for other topics and appear to work just fine. If the page is clearly designated as being for disambiguation, it is easy enough for editors to revert any changes that attempt to turn it into something else, and even the dullest users should be able to follow the links to the substantive articles that already discuss the specific issues that interest them. --RL0919 22:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * One of the drumbeats from Serge was asking for examples of someone using 'libertarian' or 'libertarianism' in an unmodified way to refer to libetarian socialism. Finding this on the internet, which has vast amounts of material on right-libertarianism, is like looking for a needle in a haystack. However, some research into books produced a number of examples. In fact, such books were easy to find prior to 1970, and I found such examples as George Woodcock's Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements that goes on for hundreds of pages using these terms to refer exclusively to leftists. (I'm not going to give a catalog, but there were dozens of books like this.) Prior to 1950, this seems to have been the dominant usage, although I also found quite a few cases of where what we would now call civil libertarianism was referred to without the 'civil'. The older usage seems to have waned mostly in the 1970s. In books from that timeframe, left-wing anarchist movements start being referred to as 'libertarian socialism' or 'libertarian communism', and 'civil' starts to appear as a modifier for 'libertarian' when talking about liberal political issues. It is during this timeframe that the Libertarian Party is formed, and some of the seminal works of right-libertarian thought (including The Machinery of Freedom and Anarchy, State, and Utopia) are published, and perhaps that cemented the association in the minds of most users of the term.

 * With this history, I can better understand why the left-libertarians are upset by the current usage. I had previously known that the usage had changed in the 20th century, but I had assumed it happened earlier, in the 1940s or so. But in fact the older usage appears to have held on into the 1960s, although in competition with the newer (now dominant) usage. So for quite a few leftist activists, this will be something that happened in their own political lifetimes, which makes the claims of the term being "stolen" much easier to comprehend.

 * I don't know that this history will make any difference to those who consider the present-day usage to be determinant, but I hope it at least shows that claims like "libertarian socialism is an oxymoron" are based on misunderstanding the alternate usage, and that the usage situation is more complex than a Google search would reveal. --RL0919 22:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It's actually a little more involved than that. In the United States, "libertarianism" was interchangeable with American individualist anarchism (throughout the 19th century and early 20th century). Gradually, the European collectivist usage was infiltrating, so some people were using it to refer to all kinds of anarchism. 19th century American individualist anarchism was in favor of private property (one could say it was a more radicalized form of classical liberalism) and opposed collectivist anarchism (though also opposed "usury"). It's not that the term "libertarian" was stolen from the left-libertarians. It's just that the American usage has traditionally referred to individualist philosophy. It's the left-libertarianism that infiltrated the U.S. So it should be no surprise that libertarianism today, in the United States, is commonly understood to refer to liberal individualism, rather than collectivism. Individualism is a tradition that's long been developing in the U.S. RJII 23:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Libertarianism/Page move


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Crosby

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Joyous (talk) 03:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Charles Crosby
Non notable Mayor sub-stub. EvilPhoenix talk 22:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, most small-town mayors are not notable. Dcarrano 00:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Mayors are notable, and Yarmouth is a medium sized town :-P -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Earl Andrew - maclean25 03:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 09:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is notable in Nova Scotia. Besides, "non-notability" is not an accepted grounds for deletion. This article is more than a stub, although it warrants further expaansion. Ground Zero 12:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 05:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dcarrano. Since when is a town of population 8000 "medium-sized"?  No references in article to substantiate any of the claims and non-notable even if claims were verified. Quale 17:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If 8,000 is not medium sized, than what is? Once you get to 10,000 you get some places being called cities! -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A mayor of an important town in Nova Scotia and also president of the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities. Double Blue  (Talk) 03:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Potential to become good article. -Joshuapaquin 11:42, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The mayor of an important town is notable enough. --Deathphoenix 17:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. In lots of places in Canada an 8,000 person town, is considered big. I also point to Iqaluit which is a capital city with about 6,200 people. --Cloveious 04:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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


text:
Air – Transport Europe

'''Air-Transport Europe spol. s r.o. ''' is a specialist Slovak airline based in Poprad. Using a business jet and a helicopter fleet, it undertakes personal transport, helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS), aerial works and contract helicopter services. It is also an authorised service centre for AgustaWestland and MIL helicopters. Its main base is Poprad-Tatry International Airport (TAT), with other bases at Košice International Airport (KSC), M. R. Štefánik Airport (BTS) Bratislava, Banská Bystrica, Nitra, Trenčín and Žilina. ATE is provider of 7 HEMS bases in Slovakia and 2 HEMS bases in the Czech Republic.

History
The airline was established in 1990 and started operations in 1991.

In 2011, Air-Transport Europe became a member of ICAR-CISA, the International Commission for Air Rescue.

Fleet
The Air Transport Europe fleet consists of (as of January 2022):
 * 8 Agusta A109K2 helicopters
 * 4 Eurocopter EC135 helicopters
 * 3 Bell 429 helicopters
 * 1 Cessna 550 Encore business jet

title: Air – Transport Europe


text:
User talk:Tjocheltree

Please do not vandalize articles. This sort of offense can include inserting nonsense into articles, blanking articles, or otherwise changing articles with obviously unwanted content. This serves no other purpose than creating more work for Wikipedia's editors and administrators. If you do continue, your account and/or IP will be blocked. Kelly Martin 22:25, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tjocheltree


text:
Talk:Truth/Archive6

NPOV in Introduction
Introduction edited to maintain NPOV -- 67.182.157.6 21:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * (rv. The intro was crafted to avoid POV traps. It may help to read the archives to understand the evolution of the article.) Ancheta Wis 22:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

(rv. Not everyone agrees that the first paragraph is written in a neutral point of view, so the second paragraph is needed to point that out, for the reason presented.) -- 67.182.157.6 19:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This is not my article. I watch it because my articles depend on this one as a basic/fundamental. I have no stake in it other than it be clear so others can depend on it. However I do know that Truth comes to rest in the heart. Thus someone who does not understand the values which are expressed in the article has an axe to grind. That is called POV. You may wish to examine your motive for impinging on an article which has come to a balance from multiple people with sincere motives. I can state this because I have edited articles with them looking over my shoulder, and I have a sense of their character. In other words, I can vouch for them. But your edits seem to be combative. Where does the Truth come from, in that case? Is it Might makes Right? If that is so, there are many editors where I come from, and you will not fare well. Is it Truth? If that is the case, then what are the issues that make the article the way it is? Are you not curious about those factors? Then one thing you can do is lurk in the background, and learn from these people who have something to say. I intend to learn something in any case. Good luck. Ancheta Wis 20:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say it was your article. You can read what I said above, then comment on the issue raised, NPOV in the introduction, if you have something to contribute other than threats. -- 67.182.157.6 21:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * About this sentence: "However, in the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view here, it must be said at this point that some would object that the above is redundant, that to assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself." Wikipedia articles are not a dialogue. Generally you should avoid mentioning the NPOV policy in articles. You should also avoid the cliche "it must be said", "it should be noted", etc. It's pointless wordiness. I've reverted the anon's edit since it violates a few style guidelines (no lead section, too many external links to wiktionary, self-references). Rhobite 21:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * On another note, editing other users' comments is serious business. As are baseless accusations of vandalism. If you continue to edit other people's comments you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rhobite 21:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not too late. You can join the community. I would recommend taking a user name, reading the policies, and finding like-minded souls. Probably find some topic close to your heart, and then write. I guarantee you will find compatible editors. There are 300,000 of us. Join us. Ancheta Wis 22:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you join me in questioning the neutrality of the first paragraph of this article? See secton 2.2 Deflation -- 67.182.157.6 22:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Tha manual of style says that the first time the title is mentioned in the article, put it in bold using three apostrophes (truth). -- 67.182.157.6 00:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV says: Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all views fairly. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [1]" -- 67.182.157.6 00:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Jim Wae wrote: Some people think the word "truth" has a referent, some think it a collection of true statements, while some think that all true statements have some single property in common (or 2 if you call truth a property) --JimWae 02:16, 2005 July 17 (UTC)

And some people have the point of view that saying "'Snow is white' is true" is redundant, that saying "Snow is white" alone is sufficient. See section 2.2 of the article. This is where the NPOV policy comes in. The statement the other side keeps trying to engrave in stone here is not in keeping with NPOV because it does not take into account that not everyone agrees with it. NPOV says: Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all views fairly. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [1]" -- 67.182.157.6 07:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

67,

 * You can call me DotSix. 8^)

it seems that view is already included in the article. NPOV does NOT mean that only one view is covered. Please try to express your issues more clearly - you are coming across as simply disruptive --JimWae 07:57, 2005 July 17 (UTC)

We are discussing the INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH Banno and his obscurantist friends are trying to engrave in stone here:

This article is primarily concerned with truth as it is used in the evaluation of propositions, sentences, and similar items. For example, the sentence "3 is less than 4 is true" is an evaluation of the sentence "3 is less than 4".

Not everyone agrees that paragraph is in accord with NPOV, on grounds that saying, for example, "'Snow is white' is true" is redundant, and it is sufficient to say simply "Snow is white." So, to preserve a neutral point of view, that paragraph should be deleted, or additional material added to show the other points of view, the one in section 2.2 of the article for example.

According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [1]" -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 08:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * (numbers added so comments don't have to be broken up)

 * 1) Hi. I'm new to this article and don't know its history, so I don't know what the origin was of the introduction which discusses evaluation of statements. I'm not sure what the supposed POV is.
 * 2) However, I do know that an encyclopedia article on Truth cannot start with the sentence "Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, entailing the search for...". It doesn't matter which word you bold, the subject of that sentence is still Philosophy and not Truth.
 * 3) On the other hand, it's clear that you're also correct. I only took a couple years of philosophy and logic classes, but Truth obviously encompasses more than just binary logical evaluations. I suggest you take a stab at writing an introduction (who's subject is truth, not philosophy) which mentions truth both as sought after by philosophers and as an evaluation of logical sentences. — Asbestos | Talk  11:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * 1. It's called "Lead Section" by the Manual of Style:
 * "The lead section is the section before the first headline. It is shown above the table of contents (for pages with more than three headlines)."
 * The lead section entry favored by Banno and crew is not in keeping with NPOV in that it does not take into account an opposing point of view (see section 2.2 of the article), that saying "It is true that P" (for example, "It is true that Snow is white") is redundant, and saying simply, "Snow is white" is perfectly sufficient. See the issue now sir? The issue is maintaining NPOV in the lead section as well as throughout the article. Principled negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article, and especially NOT favoring one POV over another in the lead section. -- 67.182.157.6 17:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2. ?Maybe you missed the philosophy flag at the top of this page?

Template:Philosophy
 * Is there something about "This article is part of WikiProject Philosophy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to philosophy on Wikipedia" that you have trouble understanding sir? -- 67.182.157.6 17:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3. Note that TRUTH is the word in bold, not philosophy? See the manual of style which says the following:
 * "If possible, make the title the subject of the first sentence of the article (as opposed to putting it in the predicate). In any case, the title should appear as early as possible in the article — preferably in the first sentence."

"The first time the title is mentioned in the article, put it in bold using three apostrophes. Here's an example: article title produces article title."
 * -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 17:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Everybody...calm down. It was rather difficult to follow this discussion, but from what I understand, the gist of it is that the anon at IP address 67.182.157.6 finds the presence of this sentence: For example, the sentence "3 is less than 4 is true" is an evaluation of the sentence "3 is less than 4". to be non-NPOV because it does not take into account the POV that saying "'3 is less than 4 is true'" is redundant.  First off, I have to question the validity of that POV--saying "3 is less than 4" is a statement about the value of the number 3 relative to the value of the number 4, while saying "'3 is less than 4' is true." is is a statement about the truth or falsehood of the statement "3 is less than 4".  It's not redundant; the subjects of the sentences are entirely different.

 * Actually, Kurt, what you say here is precisely what deflationists deny. Deflationism holds that "'3 is less than 4' is true." is NOT about the statement "3 is less than 4". For a deflationist, BOTH sentences are about the same thing: they are both about the value of the number 3 relative to the value of the number 4. --Nate Ladd 02:26, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * That said, I fail to see how the not mentioning the POV that "'3 is less than 4' is true" is a redundant statement makes that portion of the article non-NPOV. Certainly, in an article about the statement "'3 is less than 4' is true", such a mention would be appropriate--and the article would certainly be non-NPOV if it weren't there.  However, this is an article on the metaphysical and logical notion of "truth", and the statement in question was simply an example of an evaluation of the truth of a certain phenomenon.  Whether that statement is itself true (or redundant) is irrelevant; thus, that no mention of such POV is made does not make that particle of the article non-NPOV. Kurt Weber 18:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I think "Dot6"'s point is that an article on truth should be more inclusive than an examination of the meaning of true in a sentence such as "P is true". I think there are all kinds of pitfalls (the obtuseness of the paragraph on Henry being just one of them) to taking a broader view of "truth", but I do think it valid to mention them & link to other articles that deal with them. I invite Dot6 to write such a broader introduction without making the subject of the introduction the entire field of philosophy ...

?Maybe you missed the philosophy flag at the top of this page? -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 21:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC) Template:philosophy

 * ... but have to add that given the Henry section, this is likely to be a difficult process. I also note that in the introduction to the article has existed in its present form for many months (before Banno). I also note that the article, in discussing "P is true", already touches on some of the very same issues a "broader meaning of Truth" would consider (such as truth as a property).--JimWae 19:05, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the now defunct version of the intro was indeed written by myself; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth&oldid=4553796 ; The mathematical example I added a few weeks later. That is the reason that I have withdrawn from editing the article during this discussion. Banno 09:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * On the other hand "Dot6 also SEEMS to argue that the deflationary theory is the "correct" view ...

That is not true, I do not argue that the deflarionary theroy is the correct view, I am merely pointing out that to preserve a neutral point of view NPOV throught the article *INCLUDING IN THE LEAD SECTION* Manual of Style there should be balanced placement OF ALL points of view. The old lead section paragraph paragraph concerning "It is true that 3 is less than 4" is POV in that it ignores the opposing point of view (explained in section 2.2 of the article) that that statement is redundant, which is a legitimate oint of view. Both points of view need to be included to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view NPOV. -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 21:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * ... & that a broad discussion of truth is unnecessary - but why then does s/he keep inserting that jargon-filled paragraph that deal with the "truth of life" or whatever? --JimWae 19:05, 2005 July 17 (UTC)

That doesn't come from DotSix. -- 67.182.157.6 21:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * so then the article is an examination of truth (noun form of true), as it appears in sentences such as "P is true" - and one of the analyses is the deflationary view. The lead does not say the deflationary view is wrong, nor does it ignore the posibility that it is right --JimWae 21:27, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
 * Btw, not every philosophy article need deal with all of philosophy--JimWae 21:27, 2005 July 17 (UTC)

1. JimWae, your suggested revision of the lead section is still biased towards one point of view. Let's agree to leave out anything that entails such bias, because it is not in accord with the NPOV policy, what do you say? -- DotSix 67.182.157.6

Monday, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite says (see above), "Wikipedia is not a dialog," but the policy statement on neutral point of view policy says to present both (or ALL, if there are more than two) points of view side by side, in a neutral fashion, so the reader can compare and contrast them.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view#What_is_the_neutral_point_of_view.3F "What we mean isn't obvious, and is easily misunderstood. There are many other valid interpretations of 'unbiased,' and 'neutral'. The notion of 'unbiased writing' that informs Wikipedia's policy is 'presenting conflicting views without asserting them.' This needs further clarification, as follows."

"First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its 'best shot' at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange."

"A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual point of view that is 'neutral,' or 'intermediate,' among the different positions. That represents a particular understanding of what 'neutral point of view' means. The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct."

-- 67.182.157.6 16:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Asbestos asks (creating a new section, below, to ask it), "Exactly which section of the article is in dispute?" From my humble point of view it looks like it is the LEAD SECTION (the intoduction) that is in dispute, and that is where the "neutrality in question" flag is displayed. What does it look like from your point of view, Asbeerstos? -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 21:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Any answer to this question, Asbestos? --DotSix 67.182.157.6 23:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

2. The last edit of the lead section by Asbestos read, "... Such sentences appear to be evaluating the quoted statement." It might appear that way from one point of view, but the goal here is to eliminate bias, and have the lead section worded in such a way as to preserve a neutral point of view (giving all points of view equal space). Best regards, and thanks for the interesting exercise in principled negotiation. -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 21:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Anything to say concerning this, Asbestos? --DotSix 67.182.157.6 23:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy banner and NPOV banner
Dot six, I appreciate the fact that you're an admirer of the Philosophy banner, but it's already been posted three times in this talk page, and doesn't need to be posted in the main article. If you look at the other articles in the WikiProject Philosophy, you'll find that none of the articles put the project banner on the article page. It's not done, it's not necessary, and it makes the page look ugly (the latter is my POV and is not the reason why it should not be up). Wikiproject banners go on the talk pages (see guidelines). You also insist on putting the NPOV banner up. Could I suggest you replace it with NPOV-section in the appropriate section, so that the specific area of dispute can be highlighted? — Asbestos | Talk  17:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

(I have moved my comments on the issue of keeping bias out of the lead section to the section of this discussion concerning the lead section, above.) --DotSix 67.182.157.6 23:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you've been asked before not to edit people's comments. That includes removing section headings in the talk page. — Asbestos | Talk  22:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Recent compromises
The latest edit by Dot67 gives prominent mention (and even discussion) to the deflationary theory - to an extent that it is or approaches editorial POV. NPOV was already affirmed THREE ways in the earlier edit with
 * "if any"
 * appear to be evaluating the quoted statement

From one point of view a statement of the form, "It is true that snow is white" might appear to be evaluating the statement, "snow is white," but not everyone agrees with that; some see it as redundant, and are of the view that saying simply, "Snow is white" is perfectly sufficient (See ). We can't reasonably favor one bias over another in the lead section. In my opinion that would not be in keeping with the WikiPrinciple that avoiding bias should be a primary concern.

 * but as we shall see, this is one of the issues about truth that philosophers dispute

I would change the last to
 * - this is one of the issues discussed below. (See )
 * --JimWae 21:15, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
 * Quite so. Furthermore, much of the article is about non-philosophical uses - sections 4, 5, 6 and the quotations. The present introduction misrepresents the content of the article. Banno 09:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * This article is part of WikiProject Philosophy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to philosophy on Wikipedia. If, from anyone's personal point of view, there appears to be material included that is irrelevant to WikiProject Philosophy, he or she should explain what, where, and why, in Talk:Truth, don't you think? -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 14:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I assumed you had read the article. my appologies. Banno 20:45, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Your slyly disparaging argument _ad hominem_ is noted. 8^)

 * I have read the article. But evidently you haven't read all the recent discussion, have you? See below for my point of view concerning preserving neutrality in the lead section (introduction) of the article. Any comments on that, or do you just want to just concentrate on writing your next bit of slyly disparaging argument _ad hominem_ instead of trying principled negotiation?

 * Just in case the idea behind a WikiProject isn't clear: The Philosophy WikiProject doesn't "own" the article Truth, and isn't "in charge" of the article. Articles in a project are there so that there can be some centralized discussions and standards between articles. If there are relevent sections in this article which aren't specifically relevent to philosophy, such as the section on True Testimony, that's fine. We don't need to get rid of it just because it's not a topic in philosophy. Note, for the record, that this article was started in March, 2001, while the Philosophy Project was started in April 2004. — Asbestos | Talk  15:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

1. The search for truth is one of the major topics of philosophy, so, from my point of view, ANYTHING that has to do with the terms 'true' or 'truth' (or related terms like 'verity', for example) is relevant. But as I see our situation here, the issue is a difference between two points of view in philosophy being represented fairly in the lead section of this article. On the one hand the point of view that a statement of the form, "Snow is white is true" is seen as evaluating the statement, "Snow is white." And on the other hand a different point of view which does not agree, it sees statements like "Snow is white is true" as redundant, and that saying simply, "Snow is white" is perfectly sufficient. See Deflationary theories in the article.

2. From my point of view, in resolving disputes over neutrality issues, it is far better that we acknowledge that all sides must be presented fairly, and make at least a college try at presenting the other sides fairly, particularly in a place so prominant as the introduction (the lead section), to an article about truth, don't you agree? -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 15:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

See Npov:

"Those who constantly attempt to advocate their views on politically charged topics, and who seem not to care about whether other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the non-bias policy ('write unbiasedly'). But the policy also entails that it is our job to speak for the other side, and not just avoid advocating our own views. If we don't commit ourselves to doing that, Wikipedia will be weaker for it. We should all be engaged in explaining each other's points of view as sympathetically as possible."

"In saying this, we are spelling out what might have been obvious from an initial reading of the policy. If each of us is permitted to contribute biased stuff, then how is it possible that the policy is ever violated? The policy says, 'Go thou and write unbiasedly'. If that doesn't entail that each of us should fairly represent views with which we disagree, then what does it mean? Maybe you think it means, 'Represent your own view fairly, and let others have a say.' But consider, if we each take responsibility for the entire article when we hit 'save', then when we make a change that represents our own views but not contrary views, or represents contrary views unfairly or incompletely, surely we are adding bias to Wikipedia. Does it make sense not to take responsibility for the entire article? Does it make sense to take sentences and say, 'These are mine'? Perhaps, but in a project that is so strongly and explicitly committed to neutrality, that attitude seems out of place."

"The other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their views substandard, but it's the thought that counts. In resolving disputes over neutrality issues, it's far better that we acknowledge that all sides must be presented fairly, and make at least a college try at presenting the other sides fairly. That will be appreciated much more than not trying at all."

-- DotSix 67.182.157.6 14:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Archives
The archives are a mess. Material relevant to the present discussion has been archive - in some cases, only a day after it was posted; and the two new archives appear to contain much the same material! Perhaps someone who knows what they are doing could take a look? Banno 09:28, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Truth/Archive6


text:
Society for Electro-Acoustic Music in the United States

The Society for Electro-Acoustic Music in the United States (SEAMUS) is a nonprofit US-based organization founded in 1984 that aims to promote the performance, creation, and research of electro-acoustic music in the United States. SEAMUS comprises composers, performers, and teachers of electroacoustic music and is known for its annual conference, which provides a venue for the presentation and performance of electro-acoustic music from around the world. The organization was formed in 1984 as a U.S. chapter of the International Confederation of Electroacoustic Music (ICEM) which had been formed 2 years prior in Bourges, France. The U.S. representative to ICEM, Jon Appleton, suggested to composer Barry Schrader the formation of such a chapter in 1983 and the inaugural meeting was held at the California Institute of the Arts in November 1984. Significant supporters have included CalArts, ASCAP, and The Alexander Family Foundation.

Publications

 * Music from SEAMUS
 * Journal SEAMUS
 * SEAMUS Newsletter

Lifetime Achievement Award
The SEAMUS Lifetime Achievement Award (formerly the SEAMUS Award) acknowledges the important contributions of its recipients to the field of electroacoustic music. The recipient is selected by the Board of Directors of SEAMUS. The prize was first awarded in 1987.