Talk:Austin Petersen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disruptive Editing

Biographies of Living Persons should be treated with care. No addition of information without sources or explanations and no disruptive editing. user:Auggyp has been engaged in an apparent edit warring, and this should stop. Please, explain your edits and bring your concerns here. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

A hostile editor who has a personal vendetta against Petersen is vandalizing this page and putting their subjective opinions into the article. Auggyp (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Auggyp

@Auggyp: Thanks for writing back. Perhaps you are correct. However, you hurt this article by engaging in edits warring WP:WAR and disruptive editing WP:DIS. The best you could do to make this article better is to follow the guidelines WP:EDITING (this would help to avoid the flagging of your contributions as vandalism) and assuming good faith: WP:AGF and WP:CIV. If your intentions are to contribute to Wikipedia in a non-subjective manner and with a spirit of collaboration, I am here to help you. Please, let me know how can I assist in improving this article. Cheers, Caballero/Historiador (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Caballero1967 Ironically the hostile editor is someone who engages in internet harassment against the article's subject on a daily basis on other websites, and has taken his vendetta to Wikipedia. The article suggests that a philosophical principle (the NAP) is the sole defining position of libertarianism, which is an obviously subjective claim, and one that Buncoman is seeking to force onto the page. It is accurate to say that Petersen rejects the principle, but inaccurate to claim it as the sole defining principle of libertarian philosophy. I suggest that the edit read that Petersen simply rejects the NAP, without it stating that that principle is the sole defining principle of all of libertarianism, which is subjective and mere opinion. Auggyp (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Auggyp

• Auggyp I see what you are saying. But can you explain why you took a source away from the article here? And can you produce sources and, perhaps, quotations to sustain your arguments? I know lots about the history of anarchism, but not the current one. I know close to nothing about this person neither. But I can help you in making sure that what you write follows good practices. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Auggyp, I have been waiting for an explanation to your latest deletion here. I can't see why is this a reasonable thing to do. You deleted a source, which seems to be legitimate and reliable, without explanation. This triggered, once more, the vandalism flag for your edit. I will revert it, but I still hope you will explain it here. As I said, above, I am willing to help, but please, explain and support your changes. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Caballero1967, I am not the hostile editor. The paragraph I am protecting is not incorrect (see below). I have been with the Libertarian movement for 40-years and the NAP is indeed one of two foundation principles. It is listed as such in the party platform which I referenced. Libertarians have to sign a pledge of non-aggression when they join. Petersen wants to remove the NAP which has caused great turmoil within the party and movement. My paragraph is true and conforms to Wiki rules. Jeff Smith (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"Petersen is controversial in his opposition to some of the Libertarian key positions, such as his denial of the NAP[7] (Non-aggression principle), one of two foundation principles of libertarianism.[8]"

@Caballero1967 Jeff Smith is indeed the hostile editor, and someone who engages in daily harassment campaigns against Mr Petersen on other websites. The Non-aggression principle is an anarcho-capitalist creed, and is not the foundation of libertarianism. It's accurate to state that Mr Petersen rejects the NAP. It's inaccurate to state that it's the foundation of libertarianism. Many libertarian scholars have written authoritative pieces explaining why including these three pieces: http://www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians-should-reject-non-aggression-principle http://www2.gcc.edu/dept/econ/ASSC/Papers%202012/bennett_rethinkingnonagression.pdf http://dbzer0.com/blog/why-the-non-aggression-principle-is-useless-as-a-moral-guideline/

Jeff Smith's claim is subjective, not objective, and should be edited to more accurately reflect that the NAP is an anarchist principle. Petersen is a constitutional minarchist (not monarchist), and believes that the NAP is anti-capitalist because any pollution is a violation of the NAP. Since libertarians are capitalists, it means that the NAP would be the end of all industrial civilization, since any pollution would necessarily be a violation of the NAP. The NAP is pacifist anarchism defined, and Jeff Smith knows this, and is impinging on others so as to force his worldview on the rest of the libertarian movement. Ironically, he's violating the NAP, and vandalizing Mr Petersen's wiki page. Auggyp (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Auggyp

• The NAP is not an anarchist principle. It is listed and referenced exactly 10 times within the Libertarian Party platform, which I reference in the article. What Petersen personally believes is not what the Libertarian Party believes. The sentence below is how it reads now. What is the problem with it? It is true and well-sourced.

"Petersen opposes some fundamental Libertarian positions, such as the NAP[7] (Non-aggression principle), one of two foundation principles of libertarianism.[8] Jeff Smith (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• ADDENDUM: The three articles listed by user:Aggyp were not written by the Libertarian Party, and they have counter articles of which I can retrieve if I must. It is probable that user:Aggyp is actually Austin Petersen [[1]], [[2]] Jeff Smith (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Caballero1967 First of all, it is absolutely absurd to claim that the NAP is the "fundamental principle of libertarianism." Libertarianism predates the NAP, and people can be libertarian for any number of reasons. Political ideologies are based on positions on policy, not ethics. Libertarianism is a political ideology, and the NAP is an ethical ideology. Wiki's own articles on libertarianism (which themselves are well sourced), make very clear that the NAP is fundamental for some libertarians, but is not remotely fundamental to libertarianism. Furthermore, the LP platform makes all of zero references to the NAP, and in fact specifically references consequences throughout, even in the Statement of Principles. I don't agree that the NAP is "pacifist anarchism," or even that the NAP is fundamental to anarchism--itself a political ideology, which can be defended on any ethical grounds. Second, let me apologize for not having any idea how to properly format a section on a talk page. 68.229.48.250 (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, the NAP is one of two foundation principles listed in the Statements of Principles, listed in the Libertarian Party platform (https://www.lp.org/platform), and has been a huge part of libertarianism since the Party was created in 1971. The NAP is referred to exactly ten-times in the platform. It is absolutely absurd to claim that the NAP is NOT a "fundamental principle of libertarianism." No, Libertarianism does not predate the NAP. Wiki's own articles on libertarianism ALSO states that the NAP is the "fundamental principle of libertarianism." Jeff Smith (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution WP:DR

All Wikipedia articles are important, but more are the BLPs, particularly if they are currently in politics. They require special attention (WP:BLPKIND) and its editors should tread with care (WP:AVOIDEDITWAR). Unfortunately, the current state of this article hurts WP, but it mostly affects the living person. These are my key points: this article should NEITHER continue as the realm of an editors' niche (WP:OWN), nor the playground of puppets (WP:SOCK), nor the battleground of ideas, NAP or not (WP:BLPCOI) & (WP:COATRACK). Admittedly, this Talk Page seems moving in a better direction than what it was a few days back when the tug of war was taking place in the form of a deliberately gradual war editing (WP:WAR). Users Jeff Smith and Auggyp have begun speaking here, and for a few days, I harbored hopes for a consensus. But now I fear the discussions are leading nowhere, repeating the same accusations and rehearsing the same old arguments. Keeping this article as a combat zone only rewards those hostile to the living person, but attempting to vindicate the person in sneaky or un-Wikipedian ways (WP:TE) is as harmful. So, I suggest you bring your disputes to the appropriate forums. If things go worse, you can always ask the WP:OTRS's team for help--this article, I think, qualifies. But I suggest you start here: WP:BLPN. Submit your dispute for resolution to experienced editors. Recognize the controversial nature of this article, and learn from previous experiences. A better article is good for everybody. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 10:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Page for Deletion

I have read all of the commentary on why the Austin Petersen page is not in compliance. I am working all day today to try to correct the problems. Please keep the page up while I work diligently to fix it. If I have any questions, I will certainly ask. Thank you so much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezymundo (talk • contribs) 17:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit update.

I was wondering if anyone had a chance to review my edits. I put a lot of time, heart and Soul into it, so if there is something I need to fix l we t me know. Thank you Hezymundo (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian Party debate

It's possible Austin Petersen may be getting close to deserving his own article. There's been some coverage of yesterday's LP debate on Fox Business:

• Washington Times
• Fox Business
• Fox News

Admittedly, the last two sources might not be considered independent for the event, since it was on a Fox channel. There's also a profile specifically for him here. And this Newsweek article covers Petersen along with the other significant LP candidates. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The first two items are almost identical - the ones in the Washington Times and Fox Business. And the Fox News item is a teaser, written before the debate by the person who was going to host it, urging people to watch - so it's not independent. But Newsweek seems to accept Petersen as "one of the three leading candidates;" that adds an independent voice. We may be getting closer to notability, but maybe not; notability of a candidate is generally taken to mean notability for other things besides being a candidate. That's why the other two "leading candidates" have articles here; they were already notable for other things. Petersen hasn't achieved that. As the convention gets closer it's possible that people here might accept his candidacy in itself as notable. However I note that one of the articles refers to Johnson as the "likely nominee". --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

If we look at a candidate like R. Lee Wrights, who was notable enough to have his own article in spite of never getting the nomination, there are a couple differences - Wrights was covered by multiple reliable and notable sources including Al-Jazeera and Independent Political Report, both before and during his candidacy, while no evidence has surfaced of independent and notable coverage of Petersen before he became a candidate. Were such evidence presented, it would justify recreation of the article, though it requires a lot of work to comply with WP:NPOV and other policies. I should point out that NPOV violations should be resolved by rewriting the article, not deleting it, assuming that is the only issue. As mentioned above, it is possible Petersen's campaign will be notable in its own right, particularly if he gets the nomination, but we are not there yet. As I recall, consensus is that nominees of "major" third parties - Libertarians, Greens, etc., are notable regardless of whether they were before. And if evidence could be provided for coverage of Petersen before the campaign - such as the ample coverage of John McAfee for his computer software and the alleged incident in Central America - then, again, that would constitute notability and the article should be recreated but significantly rewritten to ensure NPOV. And based on what I've seen, I'm also concerned about conflict of interest issues, though those could be addressed on a case by case basis and are not, in themselves, a reason for not having an article. So do a little research, see if Petersen has comparable coverage to Wrights, from notable, reliable, independent sources, and if so, we can go from there. And if and when it's recreated, we need to stop with the edit warring and remember that nobody "owns" articles here. Smartyllama (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I copied the last good revision of what was at Austin Wade Petersen into Draft:Austin Petersen. I added a few new sources and tagged the bad sources. --Hamez0 (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Of the new sources, I got one from Independent Political Report, Breitbart, and The Blaze. --Hamez0 (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I think he's garnered enough coverage to warrant an article. FallingGravity (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. If we use R. Lee Wrights as a benchmark, Petersen seems to have attracted significantly more media attention (currently 9,030 results for Petersen on Google News, 61 for Wrights). Professorstampede (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• If the acceptance of the draft can wait until May 29, 2016 when Petersen loses the Libertarian Party nomination, there will be no need for a Petersen article. He will return to his previous status as a blogger. Buncoshark 04:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The Austin Petersen page has been redirected to Austin Petersen presidential campaign 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Petersen_presidential_campaign,_2016 The Libertarian Party nomination will be announced in a couple of days (May 29, 2016) Bunco man (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated the "presidential campaign" article for speedy deletion per G4. This is just another attempt (at least the third, see also Austin Wade Petersen) to create an article about this person, in violation of the decision reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen. --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Update: the presidential campaign article was speedy deleted, then restored and made into a redirect to the Libertarian Party primary article, like the other two articles. --MelanieN (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Page is up again?

I see they going to try to sneak this article up again? Bunco man (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Bunco man - I just rewrote this article, but, for the record, agree with its initial AfD. That said, I think it now meets our GNG given additional RS that have emerged since the discussion. This iteration also substantially de-promotionalizes it. That said, I see it quickly attracted a new editor who attempted to insert promotional content sourced to YouTube videos so your assistance in monitoring the article will be appreciated. For the record, I have nothing to do with Petersen, I have been writing articles for many third-party candidates that warrant them based on breadth of RS (e.g. Chris Keniston, Peter Skewes, etc.). LavaBaron (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You can use my name for crying out loud. I was using text from a previous Draft:Austin Petersen which I had previously contributed to. Upon closer look, I see some of the previous text had dubious sourcing. ^Falling_Gravity 17:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this clarification, new editor. LavaBaron (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It's essentially the same article that was deleted numerous times in the past, with really nothing new to report. Bunco man (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The most recent previous version did not include profiles of Petersen by the Kansas City Star, National Review, or KYW-TV, which have been added, but did include questionable statements sourced to YouTube videos and blogs, which have been removed. If you still think it's the same, go ahead and AfD it again. That's really your only option at this point. LavaBaron (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, while I can appreciate the work you have done on this article, I cannot see how the concerns of the AFD and the declined draft have been met. He is not the Libertarian presidential candidate, nor does he seem to have much media coverage from after he lost. His only major media attention is because he was a candidate, and NPOL is rather against those sorts of people. As for new sources, the article from August is just a mention, and the June articles still fall in the vein of "here's one of the candidates" (I will admit, the Kansas City Star article is good, but it's a local paper). I highly suggest you take the work you've done and continue working on the Draft page. I'm not saying that he won't ever get a page, but it's definitely going to be an uphill struggle due to the failed campaign. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The concerns in the AfD were with breadth of sourcing, Primefac. Notability is not tied to success. One can be a total failure and still be notable if subject of broad coverage. I've reverted your redirect. Good luck. LavaBaron (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Third place?

@Bunco man: Where is the evidence that Petersen got third place at the convention? I've seen the delegate count and he got second place. Also, stop using poor sources to "prove" that the NAP is the "one of the foundation principles of the libertarian philosophy and party". That's a discussion for another article. ^Falling_Gravity 01:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Read the Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 article. He came in third, not second. In fact, if we need to get technical, he actually came in fourth as "uncommitted" received more votes. As far as your comment about "using poor sources to 'prove' that the NAP is 'one of the foundation principles of the libertarian philosophy and party,'" the sources are showing that Petersen opposes the NAP, not proving that the NAP is a well-established principle of libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. For the latter please see the "Statement of Principles" in the party platform. DO NOT DELETE well-sourced information in the article! Thank you. Bunco man (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Read the 2016 Libertarian National Convention article. He got second place on both ballots. Hence, he finished in second place. You said yourself, "There was no 'primary,' only the convention" (which actually doesn't make any sense, because what would that article be about?). Blogs aren't generally considered reliable sources, especially for biographies of living people. The material you add heavily relies on blog posts, some of which are Petersen's own words, but I'm not going to remove it. ^Falling_Gravity 03:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC@)

Falling Gravity is correct. See 2016 Libertarian National Convention#Presidential delegate count. The primaries were basically non-binding straw polls that did not officially or directly factor in the nomination process. In fact, the final one took place after the nomination had been established.--JayJasper (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Petersen's Senate candidacy

@Primefac: @DemSocLib: I'll take this to the talk page- just wanted to add that I only used Facebook as a citation because it is used in United States Senate election in Missouri, 2018 for the same reason. Also, Petersen's comment on his own Facebook post, "#AP4DC?" may be better evidence that he is interested. Ghoul flesh • talk 01:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I suppose my main concern was that "#AP4DC" ≠ "He has expressed interest in running for the United States Senate...or a Republican". All it means is that he's interested in DC. I will concede the point that it is his official FB page and so it does count as an "announcement" of sorts, but the level of detail given in the edit does not match the detail given in the newsfeed post. Primefac (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

A better source, though probably not the best source, is The Libertarian Republic, the site that Petersen created. It's pretty much like a blog, but since Petersen created it it has some credence here. ^Falling_Gravity 03:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: @Primefac: Petersen also did a livestream all about his potential Senate candidacy, available on his Facebook and YouTube which would probably be the best proof that he is interested. Ghoul flesh • talk 04:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

His own blog might be a better source (since it's in print). However, I realised last night that there is another issue to consider, that of CRYSTAL. Just because Petersen says today that he is interested in running for the Senate, in a week or a year he might completely change his mind. Until he submits the paperwork to become a candidate (or whatever the equivalent of "100% going to run" is in the USA) I think we should leave it out as mere speculation (even if it comes from the horse's mouth). Primefac (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

NAP opposition

All that matters in this article is that Petersen opposes the non-aggression principle. Whether or not this is a foundational part of libertarianism or a defining feature is a discussion for a different article. ^Falling_Gravity 05:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• If we ONLY allow the misinformation about the NAP being a foundation principle (see Libertarian Party platform) then why allow the article to mention that Petersen claims to be a libertarian? Bunco man (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The section is about Petersen's political beliefs, not a debate about whether he passes a Libertarian litmus test. ^Falling_Gravity 06:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
    • So you don't think that it's important to mention the fact that Petersen says he is "libertarian," yet opposes libertarianism? Bunco man (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

So apparently Libertarianism also opposes libertarianism? ^Falling_Gravity 07:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• • • • There is a five-part series of reply articles in that same group countering Matt Zwolinski's one article. It is true that the political right and political left has been attempting to redefine libertarianism, but the NAP remains as one of three foundation principles within the Statement of Principles found at the top of the platform Bunco man (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The platform for the U.S. Libertarian Party defines libertarianism as much as the Republican Party platform defines conservatism. From the articles linked in this discussion, I gather that the NAP is contested in libertarian circles. Forcing that discussion in this article is WP:POVPUSHING. ^Falling_Gravity 15:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• • • • • Comparing the falsehoods of the Republican Party platform does not mean others get to redefine libertarianism. The NAP has been, and remains, a major part of the definition of libertarianism. You seek to deny that the NAP is clearly listed in the party platform, and has been there since the beginning. Simply because right-wingers and Republicans have decided (on their own) what libertarianism means, we have to pretend the NAP isn't one of the published and recorded principles? Bunco man (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with FallingGravity and have removed. Bunco, you need to get consensus before re-inserting this content. To state in Wikipedia's voice, definitively, that X is "one of the foundation [sic] principles of the libertarian philosophy and party" we would need much stronger sourcing than we have, and the sources would have to directly discuss Petersen. None of the cited sources meet this criteria: (1) "FreedomGulch" - a libertarian blog post by Andy Bakker, a law student, consultant, and libertarian activist; (2) an anonymous blog post by "Zeroth Position" on a self-published website; and (3) an anonymous blog post on "Libertarian Republican" by someone under the pseudonym "R. Brownell" (a self-described "shadow contributor"); (4) "TruthInMedia.com" - a website that won't let you read it without a username and password. These are, quite frankly, garbage sources. Opinion blog sources from self-published blogs don't cut the mustard on a BLP. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 02:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• • Do not removed sourced material. Thank you. Bunco man (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

No, Bunco, that's not acceptable, nor is it responsive to the concerns raised. Again, you need to get consensus before re-inserting this content. Two separate users have objected to this content, and only you support it. This is a WP:BLP, and special rules apply (as you know or should have known, given that you have received the standard BLP discretionary sanctions alert notification):

WP:BLP: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced."

"To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first."

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate."

If you wish to start an RfC, then you can do so, but you are not permitted to shoehorn in this content against the expressed objections of a majority of editors. Neutrality^talk 14:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• • The most important fact is that the information FallingGravity removed is that it is true and sourced, not "contentious material." You and Fallinging Gravity are supporters of Austin Petersen and you didn't like the truth about libertarianism and Petersen's lack of adhering to the principles being told, so you use bully tactics to threaten others. Normally, I would fight this more, but on July 4, 2017 Petersen will be announcing that he is returning to the GOP to run for the Senate as a Republican. That act will finally finish off his contentious term as a "libertarian." Bunco man (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Bunco man: "returning to the GOP"? I'm just curious, but at what time was he previously a member of the GOP? ^Falling_Gravity 18:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Anyone who watched Petersen in his early days with the start of his blog (2012) knows that Petersen was a Republican. Don't care if you don't believe this, as he deleted most of that history. He is right-wing and all evidence clearly shows he will announce his return to the GOP on July 4, 2017. He never adhered to the libertarian principles and his move will prove that he was an aggressionist (anti-non-aggression) all-along. Once he changes over, will you bully editors from mentioning this too? Bunco man (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
        • If you can provide reliable sources that back up your claims (which so far you have failed to do), then I have no objection to including those claims and sources in the article. ^Falling_Gravity 23:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• "Although I ran for president in 2016 as a Libertarian, I intend to make this run for the Senate as a Republican." -Austin Petersen, (source: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article159534249.html) So his support for aggressionism, being accepted by the Republican Party, no longer matters to libertarians & Libertarians. Bunco man (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2017

I am an unofficial volunteer with Petersen's campaign and we're trying to add updates to his biography and candidacy. Tyevans498 (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Also, you might be suggesting a possible conflict of interest. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Who is this guy

Who is Jamie Allman, and why is it so important to have a random quote from him? It seems like undue weight being given to a throwaway statement from a non-notable person. Coming here as part of WP:BRD, since I already reverted the addition once. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. At this point the WP:BURDEN is clear. Please justify the addition. – S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It appears the article was added here by Auggyp who is likely the candidate himself as he uses that name on YouTube. WP:COI would apply, I would think. Smartyllama (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Austin Petersen page tags "libertarian"

@Bunco man: took it upon himself to remove the page Category tags "American libertarians" and "Missouri libertarians". It should be noted the lower-case "L" in both tags, meaning people tagged as a Missouri and American libertarian are libertarians philosophically, not necessarily members of the U.S. Libertarian Party. People that have also been tagged as American libertarians include Glenn Beck and even Kid Rock. I have also noticed of the three state legislators in New Hampshire that switched over to the Libertarian Party, two still have their New Hampshire Republicans and New Hampshire Democrats tags. See: Caleb Q. Dyer and Joseph Stallcop.

What does everyone think? Ghoul flesh • talk 03:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually "Missouri Libertarians" was an upper-case "L", which donates the Libertarian Party. Petersen left the Libertarian Party and joined the Republican Party. People are not defined as being members of two parties, per rules of the GOP and the LP. Bunco man (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bunco man: My mistake. Good call, I would definitely agree with removing that tag. However, American libertarians should remain based on other person articles. Thanks for your discussion here. Ghoul flesh • talk 18:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, ANYONE can be a Libertarian (upper-case) Party member. All one needs to do is pay the dues. Only those that adhere to the libertarian (lower-case) principles can be libertarian. Because Petersen left the Libertarian Party and opposes the NAP (non-aggression principle), he is actually neither Libertarian nor libertarian. Bunco man (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

He still self-identifies as a libertarian (lower-case) and that's all that matters for the category, which reads "American people who have categorically referred to themselves as libertarians; who adhere to any form of libertarian philosophy (including libertarian conservatives, libertarian socialists, etc.)." ^Falling_Gravity 21:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• By that explanation ANYONE and EVERYONE is a libertarian, which makes the term useless. That is part of the reason I left the movement. Bunco man (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

He was a Missouri Libertarian at one point and therefore Category:Missouri Libertarians must stay on the page. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is an encyclopedia. Eugene Debs is no longer an Indiana Socialist nor an Indiana Democrat. The first because he is dead and the second because he left that party. However, both categories apply to his biography and the same for Austin Petersen.--TM 21:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party and the Republican Party have rules that states that people cannot be members of both Parties. As "Missouri Libertarian" and "Missouri Republican" are in present tense, it would not be grammatically correct to have both. A past tense of "Missouri Libertarian" would be passable. Bunco man (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

This is how it is for every single biography on Wikipedia. If you oppose it, discuss it with the Categories talk page.--TM 12:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Another comparison would that the Gary Johnson article, which has the categories "New Mexico Libertarians" and "New Mexico Republicans". Another place you could go to discuss this is Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. ^Falling_Gravity 06:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The other articles need to be corrected as well. Being grammatically incorrect should not be accepted because others are making the same mistake. Bunco man (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The pertinent guidance is at WP:COP#N. – S. Rich (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• There is nothing there regarding a person claiming to belong to two parties at once. Again, the categories "Missouri Libertarian" and "Republican Party" are capitalized, thus representing the parties. They are present tense, meaning in that using them both implies that Petersen is a member of both parties, of which he is not. It is also against the rules of each party to belong to more than one. Bunco man (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• From WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article." We don't get wrapped around present tense v. past tense. Petersen did not have an Epiphany (feeling) where he suddenly rejected libertarianism in favor of republican political thought. And we don't apply WP:original research in categorization decisions to say "the party rules are...". Bottom-line – both categories apply. (BTW: Take a look at Vermin Supreme. Is he actually a member of any party? Well, we can't say no because he was on the ballot in various elections.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC) 16:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• • We do make sure that categories listed are correct. Listing Petersen as a "Missouri Libertarian" is incorrect. I used the present tense and party rules issues as added points but you don't want to see the error in using both categories, so I will ask, "is Petersen a Missouri Libertarian" (party member)? No, he is not. By listing him as a "Missouri Libertarian" it gives a false and confusing identity. Bunco man (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Bunco man: He was a Missouri Libertarian. If you feel a second category should be split off from that called "Former Missouri Libertarians" or something, then you can discuss it at Categories for discussion (and probably the similar ones as well, since the same logic would apply.) But Petersen qualifies for the category as presently defined, which includes all current and former Libertarians from Missouri. So this article talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss it. Smartyllama (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, He "WAS" a Missouri Libertarian and he is NOT one NOW. He does not qualify for the category as presently defined, because the category is in present tense, not past tense. He would qualify for a past-tense category if there is one, such as "past Missouri Libertarian." He can be qualified as a "Missouri libertarian" (lower-case), but NOT as a "Missouri Libertarian" (upper-case). In the real world Petersen would not even qualify as a lower-case libertarian, but the term has been redefined by the Republican Party so that everyone is a libertarian these days. Categories are not to be contradictory. A good comparison is that Petersen is listed as an "American atheists," but why not also list him as an "American Christian?" See how that would confuses the reader? Bunco man (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Readers won't be confused – they read and understand articles. IMO none scroll to the bottom of a page to look at categories in order to learn about a subject. (Just as readers don't rely on book indexes to determine what the book subject is.) Indeed, the whole rationale for categories is to guide readers to articles which have similar topics. In any event, unless you can garner a WP:CONSENSUS here that Missouri Libertarian is not an appropriate category, I suggest you sit back and be content with what you see. – S. Rich (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
          • So your argument is that two opposing categories are not confusing? That none look at the categories in order to learn about a subject? How about let's follow Wiki rules regarding the use of contradictory categories? Bunco man (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
            • No, there is nothing confusing about it. Paul Pierce is in Category:Boston Celtics players, Category:Washington Wizards players, Category:Los Angeles Clippers players and Category:Brooklyn Nets players even though he is not on ANY of those rosters currently. Srich described the purpose of categories properly. You have no consensus to change anything and are very unlikely to garner one.--TM 22:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. This horse is dead. – S. Rich (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ryan Moran endorsement

See here for a discussion on whether Ryan Moran should be listed as an endorsement or whether he is not notable enough. Please direct all discussion to that link even though the endorsement appears on this page as well - it doesn't make sense to have it in two separate places. Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Abortion stand

In the articles section "Political positions" It reads, During his presidential campaign, he affirmed a pro-life stance. This is incorrect. He changed his position from pro-choice to anti-abortion after leaving the Libertarian Party and joining a Republican Party member in 2017. In fact, he debated the issue a number of times. I don't care why why changed his stand, but the article says he was pro-life during his Libertarian Party campaign and this is not true. This needs to be rewritten. Bunco man (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added a credible source to back up the assertion that he considered himself pro-life during his Libertarian Party presidential campaign. ^Falling_Gravity 01:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Petersen was always pro-choice... watch the Stossel debate. Ghoul flesh • talk 03:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

That is incorrect. He debated the pro-choice several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunco_man (talk • contribs) 03:17, October 21, 2017 (UTC)

@Bunco man: No offense Bunco, but I'm really starting to question your integrity on here. I added the time for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQPWiCgAjDo&feature=youtu.be&t=31m47s Ghoul flesh • talk 03:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh:Your personal opinion of me is of no relevance. Libertarians are well-aware of Petersen's stands in 2015-16 because he was very vocal and argumentative. When he changed his stand on abortion that's when it became a problem. Bunco man (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bunco man: I don't think you watched the video. Clearly his stance in 2016 was pro-life. I was not aware of Petersen in '15, so if you have a Facebook post that proves he was once pro-choice, then I believe you. But during his campaign he was definitely pro-life. Ghoul flesh • talk 01:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: There is no question that Petersen now states he is "pro-life." There is no question that Petersen argued against outlawing abortion early in his campaign (2015-2016). He exposed his real beliefs when he made a comment that stated he would not "actively work to outlaw abortion as president, but would if he were a state governor." Bunco man (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• • @Ghoul flesh: Here is a quote from Austin Petersen from his 2016 campaign as a Libertarian candidate. I have a screen shot. He wrote the following about banning abortion.

"Yes I'm hostile to it because abortion is an issue that people who have no concept of politics grasp on to because they think they understand it but instead it amounts to "MAH MAGIC MAN SAID NO." So please, get the f____ off the high horse. You don't have moral high ground and there's probably no god so please shut up about abortion."

Bunco man (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Stupid bot undid my change.

Can somebody please make it permanent. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austin_Petersen&oldid=825024702 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.3.227 (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• NO. Bunco man (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Supposed second Facebook ban

In the article there is a paragraph that reads as follows

On March 6, Petersen announced a new AR-15 raffle on Facebook. His personal page was banned for 30 days less than 2 hours after the livestream was recorded.

Because there is no apparent ban of his two Facebook pages I added the following to the article.

However, the article lists Petersen's Facebook page as the page banned but Petersen has continued to post since March 6, the date of the ban.

Editors are removing it. We need a citation or link for the Facebook page that has been banned. I know Austin Petersen and I believe he may be enacting a ploy for propaganda purposes. Bunco man (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Please leave your political babble to yourself. It doesn't help anybody to say things like "I know Austin Peterson and I believe he may be enacting a ploy for propaganda purposes." These comments do not belong on Wikipedia. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Yes there is a blog story, however, none of Petersen's Facebook accounts have been banned as stated! You can solve this mystery by producing the Facebook page in which was blocked. If you know then please link it here. Thanks. Bunco man (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article (both this one and the source) say Petersen's personal Facebook account has been banned, not his campaign one. As best I can tell, his personal account (Austin Wade) has not posted since Tuesday, before the alleged ban started. Nowhere in the source or anywhere else does it claim Petersen's campaign account (AP4Liberty) has been banned. Perhaps there's some confusion since it mentions a tweet which tagged Petersen's Twitter account of the same name, but seeing as Facebook clearly doesn't have the power to ban Petersen or anyone else from Twitter, that's obviously intended to refer to Petersen himself. More importantly, we only print what can be found in reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source that calls this a hoax (or quotes someone significant accusing Petersen of making the whole thing up), that can be included. But pure speculation on the part of editors has no place in Wikipedia. Smartyllama (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Smartyllama: You keep reverting my edits, stating that, his personal account has not posted since Tuesday, before the alleged ban took place, but you will not share a link that would prove the mystery. Why not? Bunco man (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Bunco man: I'm at work. I can't access his Facebook page through my computer due to the firewall, and I despise the mobile editor. I'll do it when I get home tonight. Smartyllama (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Petersen's personal Facebook page has not posted since Tuesday at 3:25 PM, before the alleged ban started. It's also showing page not available when I try to access it when not logged in, though I can see it when logged in. Of course, that's not concerete proof, but between that and the article, unless you actually have a reliable source saying he's lying, don't post wild speculation. Smartyllama (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2018 (

References