Talk:Libertarian Party (United States)

Npov

Various problems: Use of primary sources (e.g., the party platform); "Libertarian socialism" with unreliable outdated sources; Absent political orientation... Am I wrong or is Mises Caucus considered far-right*?

* https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/10/11/libertarian-party-loses-state-parties-donors-after-hard-right-turn

93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

That SPLC source is an Op-ed, so it is WP:UNDUE to include such a statement in Wikivoice. Additionally, none of these constitute a violation of NPOV. Curbon7 (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Curbon7 The use of primary sources is against the guidelines. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Curbon7 "The party generally promotes a classical liberal platform" the source is the party platform that doesn't even say that. It doesn't seem to me that the party is proposing Whig doctrine and radicalism. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Curbon7 Also, why does the Wikipedia article not say that Libertarians are in favor of segregation by private entities?

Am I wrong, or would this lead to the annulment of Runyon v. McCrary and Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.? 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

p.s. see https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/07/why-libertarians-oppose-civil-rights 93.45.229.98 (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It is therefore evident that whitewashing was done by cherry picking sources to make the party's ideas appear more left-wing. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

To reiterate, the SPLC source is Op-Ed so it is WP:UNDUE and cannot be used. Additionally, none of your previous statements constitute a violation of NPOV, with credible non-op-ed sources you can add the information about the party's stance on segregation or the political position of the Mises Caucus - the party's current leadership. The party's political orientation or position is absent per Wikipedia policy, political positions are not to be included in the infoboxes for any major American political party - hence why it is not present in the Libertarian Party's infobox. The NPOV warning should be removed from the top of the article. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

As for libertarian socialism being included in the infobox, there is a libertarian socialist faction of the Libertarian Party per the sources. The sources supporting this are not necessarily "outdated" because of their publication dates, there are many sources cited in the article that are older that are still accurate - date alone does not determine if a source is outdated, only when the information found in the source has become out of date and become inaccurate is the source considered outdated and the source's information removed. If the sources currently cited are found to be non-credible or other credible sources can be found that prove that the libertarian socialist faction no longer exists, then libertarian socialism should be removed from the infobox's list of ideologies. Additionally, classical liberalism does not solely mean "Whig doctrine and radicalism" in modern America, multiple credible sources describe the Libertarian Party as being "classically liberal", hence its inclusion. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mt.FijiBoiz I wasn't clear: you can't use the party platform as a source.

The source for "libertarian socialism" is based on an interview with party members, ergo it is a primary source. So you should find reliable sources for these claims.

«multiple credible sources describe the Libertarian Party as being "classically liberal"» I don't think so. "Socially liberal and fiscally conservative" can also mean: neoliberalism, conservative liberalism, liberal conservatism, neo-classical liberalism, etc. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The party platform and claims of party members cannot be used as sources:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)."

"Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. "

WP:RS

WP:REPUTABLE

WP:INDEPENDENT

Southern Poverty Law Center can be used as a source:

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

WP:BIASED

The date of publication matters:

"In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect."

WP:AGE MATTERS 93.45.229.98 (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Consensus on Political Position

Alright guys, we need some consensus on what the position should be. It is more reliable and more easily understandable if we include one. I propose:

Syncretic

Fiscal: Right-wing

Social: Left-wing

I shall explain this: On economic issues the party is for lower spending and taxation. This would match fiscal conservatism. On social issues the party is for legalisation of anything immoral but not hurting other people. I would like to see further changes to this model and the eventual implementation of such similar. Petjayso (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Where is the libertarian socialist fraction of the libertarian party?

Please give me sources otherwise I will have to delete it Usydydjwhxyxhx (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It was deleted by consensus. Jayson (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)