Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Libertarianism/archive1
Self-nom, though others put in a lot of work, too. All suggestions on peer review were implemented. I think it's nonbiased and comprehensive, with lots of sub-articles to keep this page a reasonable length. Any criticism would be appreciated; I think the article is ready for FA, but if you don't, I'll be happy to make the article even better. Dave (talk) 19:40, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Note: I have to go for a few days. I won't be able to address any new objections until I get back. I would appreciate an opportunity to address any new objections that may arise once I get back. For the record, the article has been here for six days and all objections have been met. Thanks, Dave (talk) 04:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Object for now. A very good artcle overall, but two problems. First of all ,the discussion on the environment (in "Rights and the Law") is notably unclear. It says that they oppose environmental damage as an infringement of individual rights, and has the quote saying they 'would not allow anyone to [do so]', but provides no specifics or discussion. I'd like to see criticism of libertarianism and the environment addressed a little more specifically. Secondly, the section on criticisms has a few problems. It inserts a vague quote from Jeffrey Friedman saying that libertarianism is based on "unproved assumptions", but doesn't say what those assumptions are. In addition, the criticism section doesn't address the question of public goods, which I'd think would be dealt with there, if not elsewhere in the article. Very good effort, needs polishing .Meelar (talk) 20:05, May 6, 2005 (UTC)- I hope [these edits] address the pollution and "unproved assumptions" issue. I agree public goods would be a good thing to put in, but I'm not sure about the best way to do it. Any other "polishing?" Dave (talk) 20:19, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I've added in a quick bit about public goods, so that's at least halfway covered now. The section about the environment could use more elaboration of the criticisms of the libertarian model on the environment (e.g. hard to put a value on, etc.), but that's OK for now. However, the final issue--you write that "critics claim it rests on unproven assumptions about human nature and free markets"--it begs the question of what those assumptions are. Fix that, and I'll support. Best, Meelar (talk) 21:09, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I'll confess I didn't read the whole Friedman article (it's 60 pages) but I think after a few attempts, I specified some assumptions correctly. I tweaked the wording of the public goods issue and put it in the footnote format of the rest of the article. Thanks for your advice and contributions. Dave (talk)
- I've added in a quick bit about public goods, so that's at least halfway covered now. The section about the environment could use more elaboration of the criticisms of the libertarian model on the environment (e.g. hard to put a value on, etc.), but that's OK for now. However, the final issue--you write that "critics claim it rests on unproven assumptions about human nature and free markets"--it begs the question of what those assumptions are. Fix that, and I'll support. Best, Meelar (talk) 21:09, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I hope [these edits] address the pollution and "unproved assumptions" issue. I agree public goods would be a good thing to put in, but I'm not sure about the best way to do it. Any other "polishing?" Dave (talk) 20:19, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. This article seems worthy of being a featured article. Not to mention Libertarianism is an interesting subject. --Kross 09:48, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Wow, I'm sure it could be improved somewhere, but that's great. More sources and citation if anything I guess. Are Milton Friedman's views themselves important? - Taxman 04:13, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm glad you like it. What specifically needs sources? What more do you think we should say about Milton Friedman? Dave (talk) 14:52, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Well any statements that could be considered opinion would ideally be cited to a source. Especially the most important or potentially contentious statements. The article already has many, its just more is better. I don't know much specifically about Friedman and libertarianism, wondered what his importance in relation to the subject was. I figured if he was mentioned at all, there may be something more. - Taxman 14:44, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm glad you like it. What specifically needs sources? What more do you think we should say about Milton Friedman? Dave (talk) 14:52, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. No mention of John Stuart Mill? This article seems to suggest that libertarianism is purely American... --Oldak Quill 08:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- I added a bit on Mill, and I think we should probably add a bit on Locke, too. I think that while the article focuses on the US, it mentions important European thinkers like Hayek and talks about other countries' movements a bit. If you know anything about libertarianism in other countries, it would make a valuable contribution. Dave (talk) 17:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
- SupportRJII
- Comment How many votes for do we need? --Kross 22:06, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
- This isn't a vote, and there's no set number of supporters. If an article meets the criteria, deals with all objections at WP:FAC, and has several supporters then it is featured. If it fails to deal with significant objections then it won't be featured even if the supporters are in a majority. Gdr 15:44, 2005 May 11 (UTC)