Talk:Libertarian socialism/Featured article removal

Text taken from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates by Gentgeen 10:56, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Libertarian socialism
  • I don't understand how this ever got on the list, I can't find any discussion of it. Additionally I think the very concept is fundamentalliy flawed, as well as the article tragically misinformative. Sam Spade 23:06, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Your political objection to the concept is not a reason for its removal. Secretlondon 23:12, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't recollect discussing my politics, and I can't imagine how they are relevant here. I am torn between begging the question, ad hominem or red herring as the fallacy you are committing by bringing that up. Perhaps all 3? What are you talking about? Sam Spade 23:39, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • There seems to be a misunderstanding relating to the phrase, "I think the very concept is fundamentally flawed" - perhaps you would care to clarify which concept is flawed, for the sake of removing any doubts? Emsworth
    • Its an oxymoron. Libertarianism involves the defense of private property, and other forms of personal liberty, whereas "Libertarian" socialism involves the removal of private property. It simply makes no sense to string the two words together when you can more honestly just say "socialism". I'm not at the moment contesting whether the article should exist (I can see how such an argument could validly be made however) but I am clearly stating that the article as it stands is misinformative. Also, there is the question of how it, and other articles got onto the list in the first place. Was there any discussion involved? I find no record of it. Sam Spade 23:47, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • After some more thought and research, I have placed an inclusion dispute on the page, due to its being irredeemably biased. Maybe it should be a redirect to anarchism or something, but as it stands, it serves only to misinform. Sam Spade 23:58, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Umm, the notice that's now on the page says that its inclusion in Wikipedia is disputed. Did the wrong message get picked up, or what? If anyone wants it out of Wikipedia, it belongs in VfD, not here. (If the debate really is about inclusion in Featured Articles, I'm neutral at the moment: the name clearly is oxymoronic, but it appears to describe something for which there isn't another useful name. BTW if it's heavily POV, shouldn't it be getting that disclaimer along with a debate on its Talk page?) Dandrake 19:03, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
        • The name is not oxymoronic, if you believe so, I think it may be your cultural bias. The word "libertarian", in and of itself, in no way implies capitalism. However big-L Libertarianism has created that impression in modern times, as it's become the most common usage on the Internet and in America. See the talk page for further details. I'm not supporting the article for featured article status though, as I believe it needs a counterbalancing "critics of libertarian socialism" section. ShaneKing 09:57, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • The name is absolutely oxymoronic. Not only that, but the article is POV, poorly written, and a red herring. It should be list on the Votes for Deletion page. Mcarling 11:50, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
            • Hear hear! Sam Spade 23:45, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
              • Actually, this goes beyond being an oxymoron. Liberty and socialism are exact opposites. This really belongs in VfD. As I live in the former Soviet Union, I trust that ShaneKing will not accuse me of a narrow American perspective. Mcarling 03:07, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
                • Firstly, I've not accused anyone of having a narrow American perspective, I merely stated that the idea of Libertarianism being a uniquely capitalist concept is most widespread in America. Before exposure to that view on the internet, I was only aware of the term in it's dictionary usage: "an advocate of the doctrine of free will". Secondly, the claim that socialism and liberty are opposites is a POV statement, and has no place in deciding upon the text for an article. I think Scientology is a crock of shit, for example, but I will certainly not be putting that in the Scientology article, nor voting for the article's deletion on that basis. Thirdly, and I'll qualify this as saying it's entirely my POV, the former soviet union had a terrible political system. However, I'd describe it as socialist in name only, and state capitalist in actuality. If that's what you're basing your opinion of socialisism being anti-liberty, I can sympathise with where you're coming from, even though I disagree. Forthy, the fact that you feel the title is oxymoronic is neither here not there, as it's the real term used to describe the concept. I dislike certain phrases too, but I'm not campaigning to remove them from wikipedia based on my own distate. ShaneKing 07:08, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
              • Are you people serious? I won't claim that the article is "featured" quantity -- most articles aren't -- but what are these objections to the very notion??? I don't believe in the "Catholic Church" (since when has any church ever been catholic?), but there's a group that calls itself that, so we have an article on it. And there are people that call themselves "libertarian socialists" -- some quite famous -- so we have an article on that. And if that article ever gets up to "featured" quality, then we should feature it too! -- Toby Bartels 06:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
                • Humbug. The name is a mislabeling trick for something else. I am asking on talk:Libertarian socialism where the difference betweeen this and say... communism, anarchism, etc... is. I'd be fascinated to hear what anyone can say to illuminate us. Sam Spade 11:15, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

History

Some history regarding this page's listing on Wikipedia:Featured articles. The article was added to Brillian prose on March 3, 2003, by User: DanKeshet. This was before the current nomination system was in place. The page was listed at Wikipedia:Refreshing brilliant prose - Others, where it recieved one keep and one remove vote. In January 2004 the article, along with all the other articles with both keep and remove votes, was was listed in a special section of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, where it recieved no objections for a week. The listing was then deleted and the page retained at Featured articles.

Outcome

Sam Spade removed the article from the listing, on the grounds that articles require unanimous consent to remain listed. Toby Bartels restored the listing on the grounds that this was not policy. Discussion of the reasons for removal continues on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. But Toby agreed that Sam's policy had strong support; when Sam removed the listing again (after recieving what he felt to be Toby's permission), Toby intentionally did not restore it.