Talk:List of American libertarians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposing deletion of this page

There is no lack of lists of Libertarians already, see Category:Libertarians. Proposing for deletion using the new curator tools.  :) --Qgil (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

criteria

I'm guessing this list is for people whose prominence is independent of their politics? —Tamfang (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Scope

JayJasper recently moved this article from List of libertarians to List of libertarians in the United States, which is understandable since at present it contains only the names of people associated with the U.S., and has only ever contained one name (Ludwig von Mises) who might not come under that header. I've been contributing to this U.S.-centrism by adding names from the libertarians category, beginning with the first subcat, which is American libertarians. My feeling is that if we're to have a comprehensive "list of libertarians", the size of the former category indicates it will have to be split in some way; however the existence of a decent number of national subcats containing only a few items suggests that, for example, a List of libertarians in India, with Category:Indian libertarians's two members, wouldn't be feasible. Perhaps divide by continent? Or impose stricter criteria on a single list? Or delete the lot? What do others think? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of dividing by continent. Merging with Outline of libertarianism might be considered as well.--JayJasper (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Re-organize the article back to how it was in sections and put the people removed from it back in. J390 (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

List of libertarians

Given that there's not (yet?) an obvious consensus to create more national- or continent-level lists or to merge this one, we have a problem in that the unspecific list of libertarians currently redirects to this U.S.-specific article. It could of course go to RfD, but perhaps it would be better to turn it into a disambiguation page listing the (redlinked) lists we think ought to exist? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Format

In light of recent additions it occurs to me that the current format doesn't do justice to the nuances of certain people's identities. The reference for Bill Maher, for example, involves him explicitly identifying as a libertarian, but was published in 2001. I don't see a problem, necessarily, with including people who once identified as libertarians but no longer do; but at the same time I do think it's potentially problematic to include him without explicitly noting the fact that the statement "Maher is a libertarian" may no longer be true. There are similar issues with Doug Stanhope, who in the same piece identifies as both a libertarian and an anarchist, perhaps placing the former in the past and the latter in the present, which (though the two aren't incompatible) poses similar problems. I'm tentatively suggesting, I think, a move to a definition list format. Any thoughts? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

I want to ask what people think of putting Ann Coulter here. While the entry is referenced, but that's not the actual story. She may have run as a Libertarian Party candidate, but her only intent at the time was to dilute votes away from Republican Congressman Chris Shays, to punish him for not voting for Clinton's impeachment. When the Connecticut Libertarian Party discovered this, they refused to endorse her. Most importantly, she herself says she is a Republican conservative.

We're More Ambitious than the Republicans Are (Harry Brown's rebuttal to her aritcle, the one that's referenced currently)

John Stossel - The Conservative's Case Against Liberty (featuring Ann Coulter)

Her political position should be quite evident to some of you who are long time libertarians. That is, she is far from being a libertarian, but a Conservative. If you've watched some of her speech and interviews, it's easy to tell she didn't even have a basic grasp of some of the most important libertarian concepts. Zzzplayer (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

We as editors do not determine what her political position is. If it is sourced that she is Libertarian, than that's that. If she gets sourced as something else, then it gets changed. It's that simple. Scr★pIron^IV 13:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll cite three sources here, all of which are already cited by the Wikipedia itself and all of them are more recent than the one currently cited (the current one was cited way back in 2000).

• G.O.P. Candidates Criticize Slur by Conservative Author

• Two More Newspapers Drop Ann Coulter's Column

• Ann Coulter Battles Libertarians (transcripts for the above video)

If there no better and more recent counter sources, then the current entry on Ann Coulter will be removed. Zzzplayer (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As this is a list class article, and she has been appropriately sourced as a libertarian at some point in her career, removing her from the list is inappropriate. Details about her libertarian history go on her page. Scr★pIron^IV 12:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

By this definition (that simply it's sourced and regardless of the quality of the source), then this list would be useless. Anyone can basically lie and write an article about themselves being a libertarian.

In fact, she actually should NOT even be soruced as a libertarian on her own Wiki page.

You've contradicted yourself and said you would accept removal if more sources are provided: "...if she gets sourced as something else, then it gets changed". I did the work and provided them, multiples of them, and you or anyone else didn't reply on the Talk page for almost two weeks. When I removed the entry, now you're saying you oppose to any editing just because it's currently sourced, irrespective of the quality of the current source and context.

By the way, you might not be aware of this, I was the user who created this list. It started the list as "List of libertarians", then other users migrated into what we have today with "List of libertarians in the United States".

The issue persist, that is, the source currently cited is a flawed one and all the other sources says otherwise.

The other thing is, even someone was a libertarian, this list should be about those who are currently a libertarian and not formerly a libertarian. If someone was a Republican, but is no longer and actually despise the party. Should he/she be continued to be included in a list called "List of Republicans". I don't think so. Zzzplayer (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

She was the Libertarian Candidate in her district; a notable Libertarian. Change the name of the article, through an RfC, if you think it "should be" about something other than what it is. Then, ask for an RfC regarding her current affiliations. Even if she changed or changes parties between then and now, she will remain a notable Libertarian in the United States for her Libertarian contributions. As for who created the article... well, this is Wikipedia. Scr★pIron^IV 21:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It turns out you've got more things wrong. Not only her political position isn't a libertarian (as we've been mainly discussing here previously), it seems that she isn't a Libertarian party candidate at all.

She never ran as a Libertarian party member. she only "considers" running as a Libertarian party member.

In the source currently cited, she use the phrase "...that's my party...". It turns out that she is merely using that phrase for contemplating which party to join in order to run her spoiler campaign.

In the end, she isn't a registered Libertarian party member and didn't run at all.

from the Ann Coulter page on Wikipedia itself:

"In 1999 and 2000, Coulter considered running for Congress in Connecticut on the Libertarian Party ticket to serve as a spoiler in order to throw the seat to the Democratic candidate and see that Republican Congressman Christopher Shays failed to gain re-election, as a punishment for Shays' vote against Clinton's impeachment. The leadership of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut, after meeting with Coulter, declined to endorse her. As a result, her self-described "total sham, media-intensive, third-party Jesse Ventura campaign" did not take place. Shays subsequently won the election, and held the seat until 2008."

1) from your previous reply: "...she was the Libertarian Candidate in her district...she will remain a notable Libertarian in the United States for her Libertarian contributions..."

You got the facts wrong to begin with. She is neither a Libertarian party member or a libertarian. She never contributed to libertarian cause, but Conservative cause. She is a Conservative "trying" to masquerade as Libertarian party member in order to run a spoiler election campaign, as I've already cited multiple sources in my previous reply. There is not any prominent libertarian who regarded her as libertarian (if you have any, please cite a counter source).

2) Further, regardless of whether she is a libertarian or a Libertarian party member. The scope of this Wiki article clearly says "...includes people who have identified themselves as...". Clearly, it doesn't apply to her for this article. The political position or affiliation must be present continuous. For Coulter, she may had been a Libertarian party member and was a phony masqueraded one. The "had" already disqualifies her.

3) Regarding my involvment in the creation of this Wiki article, I'm not saying you can't contribute. I'm saying because I've been a libertarian, I've a very good sense of knowing who is and isn't a libertarian, as opposed to someone who is an outsider.

I feel that you're being a bad editor here and is taking things personal. Your argument is invalid and your responses so far are inconsistent. Zzzplayer (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Feel as you wish, but what is needed is sources, not your WP:OR on who you believe is a Libertarian and who isn't. What you "know" as a Libertarian is immaterial; whether you believe someone is an insider or outsider is equally so. Sources, sources, sources. And who ever said that a conservative can't be Libertarian? If she self identified as a Libertarian, and it is sourced, then that is that. As for communication, I tend to be a bit terse, but that does not mean I am taking anything personally. Whether you "feel" I am a "bad" editor or not... Well, you can finish that sentence for yourself. Scr★pIron^IV 17:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And, based on sources, I have removed her name. A reasonable search shows no valid connection to the Libertarian party; rather, it shows the opposite. So, if, instead of inserting all of the "I feel" and "I believe" and "I know" nonsense, you had pointed to the articles where she threatened to drown libertarians, or called them foul names, we never would have gotten here. Sources, not words. Scr★pIron^IV 17:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

> but what is needed is sources

In this Talk page, you've cited zero sources.

> not your WP:OR on who you believe is a Libertarian and who isn't.

From the very begining, I've cited multiple sources and you've cited zero!

It's evident that you're the person here with No Original Research.

I've expressed my opinion and I've also supplied multiple sources to back up my claim.

> whether you believe someone is an insider or outsider is equally so

An insider is necessary. An insider knows there is more to the story (especially in politics) while an outsider like yourself can easily be mislead by a questionable source.

> Sources, sources, sources.

In this Talk page, you're the one who took a faulty source as true and have cited zero sources!!

> And who ever said that a conservative can't be Libertarian?

No one said that, just unlikely.

> If she self identified as a Libertarian, and it is sourced, then that is that.

The quality of the source and the context is equally important. As I've said previously, she wasn't recognized as a Libertarian party member. She was merely contemplating in her article which of the political parties to join in order to run her spoiler campaign. It was a "tentative" decision that has not been finalized and was never meant to be serious. In the end, she has never been a Libertarian party candidate and her spoiler campaign never took place.

> And, based on sources, I have removed her name. A reasonable search shows no valid connection to the Libertarian party; rather, it shows the opposite.

If you can do this research yourself early on in the discussion, then all these back and forth hassle wouldn't be necessary.

> So, if, instead of inserting all of the "I feel" and "I believe" and "I know" nonsense,

I never said either of "I believe" and "I know" phrases in my posts. In addition, I've cited multiple sources. Read the posts again.

> instead of inserting all of the...you [could] had pointed to the articles where she threatened to drown libertarians, or called them foul names, we never would have...

Oh! So you finally realized that she is anti-libertarian at this point? she's been anti-libertarian for a long time.

In the John Stossel video that I cited, she's was dissing the libertarians! Did you not watch the Q&A section near the end, she is in a roomful of libertarians! The sources that I've cited in my 1st and 2nd post already mentioned those facts! You're a bad editor, you didn't even read my sources. Zzzplayer (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Obsess much? You are still arguing after the article has been edited to your liking. Just... WOW! Scr★pIron^IV 21:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I already knew the entry was removed before I made the reply. The post was reponse to your complete nonsense and total opposite claims to what has happened on this Talk page. Zzzplayer (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

ZZZzzzZZzzZzzzzzz.... Scr★pIron^IV 17:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Turning personal. You're a low quality editor. Zzzplayer (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:LASTWORD Scr★pIron^IV 15:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Funny, in that same article, they cited WP:No personal attacks and beware of the bad admins™. Zzzplayer (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I knew you couldn't resist. Scr★pIron^IV 16:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you not the same? Your last reply was basically empty. Zzzplayer (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What are you, 12? "I know you are, but what am I?" is so 6th Grade. But you go ahead, keep calling me "bad" and "low quality" then accuse me of personal attacks. So, feel free to answer, or not - I am finding your inability to accept that the article has been edited in the way you desired quite amusing. Who said Wikipedia could not be fun? You DO realize that the article HAS, in fact, been changed to reflect your views, right? And that this continued banter serves nothing at all? As for me, I have actual articles to edit, but this has been fun. Scr★pIron^IV 16:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I already realized that long ago, as you can see in my previous posts (the post made on 16:43, 2 September 2015). I've already agreed and accepted the change long ago (it was the right decision that aligns to what I've been discussing here). There is nothing wrong with the article at the present. It's done. We've already reached an agreement. I was merely replying to some of the things you accuse me of (the replies you made at the time after the entry removal) that was complete opposite to what had happened. Zzzplayer (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet, you keep talking...

I don't think you get what I'm saying. After the entry was removed, I should be thanked for my effort in pointing out the facts, the context, and the multiples sources that I cited early on. Yet, I got accused of things from you that was totally false. That angers me. So of course I had to reply to defend myself. The message I receive from you, as a closure for this issue, should be something along the lines of "okay, as an editor and an outsider to the libertarian circle, I've omitted some critical points and context. After doing some research myelf, I now see where you're coming from now. The info you've provided were helpful in revealing the truth about her political position. You're a helpful contributor." Zzzplayer (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet, you keep talking... and talking... and talking... Scr★pIron^IV 18:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm outta here. You should be ashamed of yourself. Zzzplayer (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of libertarians in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/intl/article/0,9171,1107991025-33716,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of libertarians in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1435462/The-most-influential-US-conservatives-21-40.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=M2VmZTRmZGFmZmExNTFiMTM1ZDJmN2UwY2Y0NDYwOWI
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C132225%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2004-03-08-white-house-humor_x.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928052243/http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/rhode-island-lawmaker-expelled-from-gop-caucus to http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/rhode-island-lawmaker-expelled-from-gop-caucus
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130720014459/http://stlbeacon.org/ to https://www.stlbeacon.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/intl/article/0%2C9171%2C1107991025-33716%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-19n6-10.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927193402/http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20060412%2FNEWS02%2F604120315%2F1009 to http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20060412%2FNEWS02%2F604120315%2F1009
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106140556/http://www.munciefreepress.com/node/430 to http://www.munciefreepress.com/node/430

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Does Bill Weld belong on the list?

Maybe we should call it List of self-identified libertarians in the United States. An LP nomination doesn't necessarily mean the party thinks he's the most libertarian candidate they could have nominated; there can be LINOs who get nominated based on name recognition. 172.56.3.129 (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of libertarians in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024021436/http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/is_cole_the_tipping_point to http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/is_cole_the_tipping_point
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140624233228/http://www.playboy.com/playground/view/gary-oldman-playboy-interview to http://www.playboy.com/playground/view/gary-oldman-playboy-interview

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)