Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Libertarianism

Libertarianism

Article is still a featured article.

Fails to meet the third criteria, in that it has a neutrality tag, a controversial tag and seems to be in the middle of an edit war. Is also listed twice on RfC. Hiding 5 July 2005 13:15 (UTC)

• Since the neutrality tag has been off the page for over ten days now, as nominator I am happy to change my vote to Keep. Hiding talk 08:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: as of tonight, the POV tag has been removed by User:Kevehs, who placed it there initially.

Remove. It's a great article in its established form, but it's also a big attraction for POV pushing. I hate to say it, but this is too controversial to be featured. --Malathion 5 July 2005 13:47 (UTC)

Keep I think that the FARC was a little premature. If you'll let me explain what's going on, I hope you'll agree. Perhaps the article needs to be renamed, but its contents are definitely featured article quality.

1. 1. The POV tag and controversial tag were not about the contents of the article, but about the name. Some users believe that the article should be placed elsewhere (for example, at "right-libertarianism," with "libertarianism" being a disambiguation page) but they don't dispute the content. See this edit which led to the tags being added.
   2. The "edit war" you were referring to is because an anonymous user kept on inserting a complaint about other editors into the article's text [1], not an edit war about content.
   3. The RFC issues have been addressed in talk as far as I can tell. Both were about problem users that seem to have mostly given up and gone elsewhere.
   4. It is my understanding that Wikipedia can feature articles on controversial subjects so long as they are dealth with fairly. We shouldn't let trolls disrupt a good article.

I hope you'll consider removing your FARC in light of these facts. I think that the issue of the article name should be dealt with separately from the issue of its contents and whether or not it can be featured. Dave (talk) July 5, 2005 13:53 (UTC)

Remove, unless tags are dealt with I've taken the liberty of changing your votes to "keep" and "remove" rather than "support" and "object", it's clearer that way. Unless this article stabilizes, I'm afraid it has to go. Borisblue 6 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)

Keep. I can understand why there article attracts a lot of POV pushing. However, I believe that it is an excellent article with some dedicated editors willing to work on resolving their issues. As stated above, the article will always attract vandals and people who make poor edits. This isn't a reason to remove it. My suggestion is to give this article two months. If after that time it is still subject to edit wars, then bring it back up for removal consideration.--Alabamaboy 6 July 2005 13:36 (UTC)

Keep. Article does attact POV pushing, but it's nothing we can't handle. Article is still remarkably good, though could do with improving. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 08:52 (UTC)

Remove. The tags need to go or the article will not seem credible. Peter ^Isotalo 18:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The current issues involve disruptive users, not problems with the article itself. Rhobite 15:33, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with Rhobite. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:12, 2005 July 15 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with Dave, Ta bu shi da yu and Rhobite. --Serge 18:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Remove. This article is currently marginalizing some views that fall under the "libertarian" label, with editors excusing this by claiming that such views are minority or no longer in widespread use. Some of these same editors ignore similar facts in other articles (like anarchism), meaning that a double-standard is being applied across articles. This article needs to deal with libertarian socialism in a substantive way, via diambiguation of the entire thing, brief introduction along with NPOV definitions and charts, or some third option, rather than to ignore it, use POV language to imply that it is somehow less legitimate, or describe the use of the term "libertarian" in lib soc as nothing more than an adjective, rather than a political philosophy with a history and close tradition with libertarianism. Kev 10:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

With respect to whether the libertarianism article needs to "deal with libertarian socialism in a substantive way", it seems to me that the issue is whether the term libertarianism is used today, in English, in at least some NPOV contexts, to refer to the topic covered on the libertarian socialism page. If such usage is now decades old, which appears to be the case, then I believe that the reference to it at the top of the page is more than sufficient.

As to the allegation that there is a double-standard, I don't think this is the case. As far as I can tell, in the example given, the variations of anarchism that are "dealt with in a substantive way" on that page are generally and currently referred to as anarchism in English, at least in some NPOV contexts. The anarchism article does not deal with political philosophies that have "a history and close tradition" with anarchism, it deals with philosophies that are actually referred to as anarchism. Similarly, the libertarianism article should not deal with political philosophies that have "a history and close tradition" with libertarianism, but should deal with political philosophies that are actually referred to as libertarianism. --Serge 18:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

A recent vote overwhelmingly rejected moving the article to Libertarianism (capitalism) and having the article located at libertarianism cover all philosophies with that title. The "double-standard" across articles is not relevant to this article's featured status, as it is not something that can be fixed by modifying this article. Dave (talk) 15:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Removing articles about controversial topics is incredibly wrong-headed and smacks of POV-pushing (not accusing anyone but saying we want to make a precedent against this). — Phil Welch 08:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. Who's pushing what POV (most "Remove"-votes seem to be about the mere presence of a disputed-sign) and how can we possibly set a precedent that one of the FAC criterion should always be ignored? Why would we even have it then? I don't think we can separate articles from their conflicts since we're a collaborative effort. If an article can't handle a conflict which is supposedly irrelevant to the content, then it shouldn't be noticable in that article. As long as the sign stays up the credibility of the entire article will seem tainted to the average reader.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. agree with dave and Rhobite. --Manveru 05:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Remove, unless tags are dealt with The argument over the name is a political one. The right gains by holding the status quo - Libertarian means pro-capitalist tendencies alone. Left gains by demoting those tendencies to variant. Choose your side or queue for hot dogs...[unsigned comment left by 82.69.29.92

Keep, as per reasons above. - Mailer Diablo 05:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Remove. Since the [Libertarian socialism] article has been removed as too controversial and lacking unanimous concensus, this should be removed for the same reason. Metamatic 04:26, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

That was a result of a decision reached between user:Sam Spade and user:Toby Bartels, not policy, as far as I can tell. If FAs must be unanimous, then this system of voting would be superfluous. Someone would just say it should be removed, and it would have to be removed, even if everyone else thought it was FA-worthy. Dave (talk) 15:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

BIG DELETE This is WIKIPEDIA not hippie leftist wacko islamist loving scum message boards--205.188.117.13 04:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Presumably no one is going to pay attention to this vote? Dave (talk) 15:33, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Some is better than none, and its realy not that bad. This was a featured article, and example of prose and POV standards. --Cuimalo 05:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. There really isn't a substantive NPOV dispute here; rather, there's a small number of contributors who object to the way the word "libertarianism" is used in English today. Their attempt to have the article renamed to fit their particular views rather than common usage was soundly rejected by the Wikipedia community, as reflected in the vote wherein a 2/3 supermajority opposed the proposed move. For them to continue to push the issue (as seems to be happening here) strikes me as an abuse of process, just like constantly renominating an article for VfD would be. --FOo 16:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Remove. Wikipedia's ongoing, uncontrolled libertarian bias is, not surprisingly, found in this article. Even with a NPOV rule, the right-wing libertarians still get there way here, being allowed to take over this article to promote themselves over other political views that use their name. It's sad that a potentially good service such as Wikipedia can be controlled so much by one political group; it's even sadder that they blatantly promote biased articles to featured status when it suits their ideology.

And, ya, go ahead and call me a troll if you want. I've been a loyal Wikipedia editor for some time, and one of the top contributors, but the bias that gets ignored here makes even me think that Wikipedia is not going to be a reliable source for a long time. -- LGagnon 02:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

No one is going to call you a troll, but you might want to say what is biased so it could be fixed. Should the criticism section be expanded? Dave (talk) 03:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness in your reply. I've unfortunately been on the bad end of slander here at Wikipedia when expressing a controversial viewpoint, which was takenly seriously despite its blatantly obvious lack of reliability (this reign of trolls is another problem with our current system, but that's a problem for another discussion), and thus I felt that I had to add that disclaimer just in case.

This article's definition of libertarianism as only the current "popular" use seems biased to me; a disambiguation page would be better to have here, as it would be less POV in that it wouldn't support one definition as the "true" one. This, however, is not the only libertarian bias I've seen at Wikipedia. Articles pertaining to issues that libertarians hold dear, such as globalization and free trade, have been favorable towards libertarian views as they do not go into enough detail on criticisms of these concepts (for instance, notice no mention whatsoever of sweatshops and related atrocities in either article, an important factor in criticisms of them). Likewise, anti-globalization had a POV scandal with fringe claims of anti-Semitism taking up a huge part of the article; even now, with that info forked to another article (which is still designated POV), it gets its own section in the article despite it being an extremely small one (a subtle yet noticable bias). Additionally, I once attempt to get an article (Jello Biafra) related to progressivism (which I guess one might consider an opposite view to libertarianism) to featured article status, yet it was rejected twice on shady grounds. The first time, it was given failure status a bit too early. The second time, it was given failure status on the basis of an objection that had been cleared up immediately after it was made. And dispite this, this article made it to FA status even though it is still POV.

Right now, the biggest problem with bias in the media these days is not just political bias, but the fact that the whole truth is not given. As it stands, we have many libertarians running Wikipedia and working to "improve" articles related to their beliefs without adding detailed criticisms (not surprisingly, I have found libertarians, whether online or offline, tend to make no attempt to research criticisms of their beliefs). This is a systematic bias, a thing that Wikipedia has discussed but never mentions the political side of it. In fact, Wikipedia has a page about systematic bias within the project (can't remember what it was called right now), yet it doesn't mention libertarianism in it. That doesn't surprise me, though, as the one page in Wikipedia that did mention it - Wikipedia's own article - had the part about it deleted. -- LGagnon 23:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I've had anything to do with the articles you've mentioned except this one. In fact, I wrote most of the content criticizing libertarianism on the Criticism of libertarianism page, which is summarized in the main libertarianism article. The one issue relevant here--the title--was dealt with at the recent vote. Dave (talk) 02:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Keep

Keep IMO this FARC nomination has more to do with the article's editors and the article's name than it does the article's content. . . 66.94.94.154 18:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment It would be nice if you could assume good faith. Hiding talk 08:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)