Talk:Libertarian socialism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleLibertarian socialism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
March 3, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
January 7, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article

RFC/User Conduct for User:BlueRobe[edit]

Editors with an opinion about User:BlueRobe's conduct in the disputes above may comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BlueRobe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigK HeX (talkcontribs) 06:39, 6 September 2010 UTC) (UTC)

Criticism paragraph[edit]

Just wanted to say that from a quick research, this article remains one of the very few mainstream ideological wiki pages without a paragraph on criticism. Draw your own conclusions. Lmagoutas (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lmagoutas: Communalism, Leninism, Syndicalism, Sorelianism, Post-left anarchy, Council communism, Utopian socialism, Ricardian socialism, Neo-feudalism, Falangism, Neo-fascism, Left-libertarianism, Anarcho-communism... You get the idea. BeŻet (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I love how these are either some of the most nitze ideologies out there where a criticism paragraph isn't necessary for a number of reasons or ones which also are in dire need of one. So let me edit my first text to make you realize what I am talking about when I said a "quick research" as I was referring to more -let's say- popular ideologies, which I think is something that will make things clearer and hopefully show you that, if anything, your comment shows directly to the problem I am referring to. Lmagoutas (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lmagoutas: Many of the ideologies listed above are a lot more prominent than libertarian socialism, and the purpose of that list was to show you that clearly libertarian socialism isn't uniquely lacking a criticism section, as smaller and more prominent ideologies don't have such sections either, therefore there are no "conclusions" to be drawn. BeŻet (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I responded to you with a sentence of two clear categories that are to be found in your list which I would recommend you revisit. In reality the conclusion is very much there, but -guessing from your profile- you really just don't want to see it. Lmagoutas (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In order to add a criticism section, you first need to provide sources that document criticisms of Libertarian socialism. Since Libertarian socialism often overlaps with anarchism, many of the criticisms documented in that article also apply to Libertarian socialism. X-Editor (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relevant discussion on original research re: "Libertarian Marxism"[edit]

Talk:Libertarian_Marxism#Still_Original_Research! --Grnrchst (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears the problem with original research has also made its way into this article. In a quick scan I have come across multiple citations that fail verification, entire sections lacking in reliable sources and a few possible cases of synthesis. This needs work. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The more I look at it, the more I worry that almost the entire "Notable tendencies" section may need to be axed. It's incredibly long, inconsistently formatted and often unclear how it relates to the article's subject. Many of these sections seemingly only exist to summarise their own articles. One could probably cut this entire section down to a few paragraphs and nothing of particular value would be lost. -- Grnrchst (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I just cut the entire "Contemporary libertarian socialism" section, as it consisted almost entirely of text copy-pasted from the contemporary anarchism article, with the word "anarchism" swapped out for "libertarian socialism". None of the sources made even a passing reference to contemporary libertarian socialism, almost all discussing contemporary anarchism or left communism. This was another bad case of a section only existing to summarise a different article, and in doing so, twisting the text in order to make it seem like it fit here. -- Grnrchst (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still going and I swear I'm trying to be conservative about what I cut, but this article isn't making it easy. It seems at times like stuff is just placed in at random, with no thought for how it fits into the rest of the section it's in, often with citations that verifiably don't even mention "libertarian socialism". I have only managed to come across a couple of instances where the cited sources verifiably discuss libertarian socialism, and these are unfortunately few and far between. One of these reliable sources, cited extensively throughout the article (Ojeili 2001), unfortunately falls victim to excessive quotation. So even the good sources aren't utilised well.
If you come across any content removal that you disagree with, please revert it and bring it up here. But as of yet, I'm struggling to find much of this article that is worth keeping. Grnrchst (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly disagree with those edits. I think that the better strategy would be to add citation needed tags and to enhance the use of good sources rather than this massive cull. I've moved the old version to my sandbox here and may try to find time to work on sourcing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like many of the "two word" libertarian articles, they are about a vague term rather than a distinct real world topic that is merely named bu the term. And they become bloated mother-of-all coatracks, mostly about people pondering the term and things related to it. These mostly aren't sources about the term, they are the creators of musings about it. I'd like so see many of these reduced to short articles about the term and applaud any efforts in that direction. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@North8000: Keeping focus on the term is what I'll aim to do with rebuilding this article. As per my restructuring of the articles on collectivist anarchism, social anarchism and green anarchism, my focus has been on sources that verifiably use the subject's terminology. This should hopefully result in a more focused article, rather than pulling together any old text from random sources that only have a tenuous link to the subject. In any case, it'll be better off than the unreadable omnishambles of misinformation that this article was a few months ago. -- Grnrchst (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have the expertise in those areas to comment much further. The simple case (and the case for most Wkikpedia articles) is when there is a distinct real world topic known primarily by the title of the article. But I think we need to recognize when this is not the case. Where it is primarily (just) a term, possibly including a view of real world stuff created by the lens of that term. The fact that it is inherently about a concept doesn't change this. I think that a lot of the "two word" libertarian names/ articles are cases of this. For these I think it's best to recognize this, and to confine coverage to where the sources use the actual term. For example, (chosen only for it's simplicity) Lake Michigan–Huron should be about the concept of combining the two lakes and only where the sources use the term, it should not be coverage about anything else such as Lake Michigan or Lake Huron. North8000 (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aye I agree completely. I'm coming at this as someone that mainly edits history articles, not having paid much attention to the -ism articles until I recently saw just how much of a state they were in. So if I were to be editing an article about a historical figure and saw that more than 75% of the sources didn't even mention them by name, then I wouldn't think twice about cutting those sources or the text they were cited to. I see little difference here. If most of the article is talking about random, tangentially-related stuff and the cited sources never even use the phrase "libertarian socialism", then it's worthless for an encyclopedic article. -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another much more complex example is Right-libertarianism where there was another "tower of babel" complexity added. We had an endless friendly pleasant debate and never resolved it. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Should the cooperative party in the UK and the wider cooperative movement not be included under political roots/modern examples Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Alexanderkowal, can you provide any reliable sources that verifiably describe the cooperative party or the cooperative movement as "libertarian socialist"? -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks for replying, I am unable to find anything that describes the cooperative movement explicitly as libertarian socialist. Does Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s support suffice lol? Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No sorry, that would just be an assumption that the two are related just because we know of someone that was tangentially related to both. This article already has a problem with original research, so we should try not to add more. We need explicit and verifiable descriptions from our sources. -- Grnrchst (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]