Talk:Anarchism/Archive 24

message: Since I made the Summary of Arguments above, I've noticed that no new arguments not on that list have popped up. Is it really that simple? Have all the relevant arguments been made? Does anyone have any new insights arguments to add? Why not let this go to mediation, then? Or failing that, arbitration? --albamuth 1 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
:Wouldn't it be more true to our pro-social beliefs, as Pedant implied above, to agree a cooperative solution in which everyone gets a fair share? Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 12:08 (UTC)
::  Everyone having their "fair share" does not entail that a handful of people in a town of 10,000 should get half the representation, over and above even more significant factions such as primitivists and individualists.  Currently the article is already disambiguated, there was only one single group which wanted it disambiguated and it was done just for their sake.  This should be all that is necessary.  Then the anarcho-capitalism section was added back in, which is redundant when it is already disambiguated since this page is no longer supposed to be about their selective definition.  I'm happy to go with either of these solutions (rather than both), and either is completely "fair" given both the controversial nature of their claims to our tradition and their relative insignificance historically, they are getting their very own page to detail their views, and either way a method by which to link from this page to their own.  To do what the anarcho-capitalists are attempting to do, have this page both disambiguated and introduce anarcho-capitalism, -plus- change the definition to suit their bias, and add in a bunch of misleading charts combined with over-simplified comparisons, and rearrange categories to make it appear that wikipedia itself supports their claims, and put in tons of links to their own factional books, is certainly not in the realm of "fair".  Kev 1 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)
:::Kev still doesn't grok the difference between disambiguating different definitions of "anarchism" and links to particular schools.  Well, Katz, you see the problem.  Not a single partisan anarcho-socialist supports the neutral disambituation idea.  I suspect that some may come around in the long run, but only after months of edit warring (and/or article protection) when it will become apparent that they will never regain absolute control over the article. It seems to me that so long as the ansoc faction sees the possibility of "winning", either via binding arbitration or edit warring, they will not come to the table willing to negotiate. Hogeye 1 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)
:::Kev, have we been sufficiently clear about what we're proposing?  Your description makes me feel that we haven't.  We're talking about a bare-bones page that points to sectarian pages.  That would mean that this current page would no longer be required to have any  pro-Capitalist content at all, not even links.  It could be made 100% pro-social, with all negotiation limited to like-minded people.  All NPOV-ness would be encoded in the tree structure of the pages, not in the content of any page.  This page, under our proposed solution, could become the 'Anarchism' page rather than the 'anarchism' page.  The 'anarchism' page would be the neutral, bare-bones page that would point to all the second-tier pages.
:::How do you feel about that?  Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)
::::Now I'm not clear. I think Wikipedia ignores capitalization of the first letter.  Are you sure it's possible to have both an anarchism and an Anarchism article? I was thinking we'd have to have something like anarchism (anti-state) and anarchism (anti-state  + anti-capitalist). Hogeye 1 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)
:::::You might well be right, I've been too busy to do any experimentation to see how it works.  In fact, now I come to think about it, you almost certainly are right.  It might even force capitalisation of the page title, for all I know. But I've been assuming all along that, even if the linkage can't be flagged to be case-sensitive, we can achieve the goal in an honest way editorially. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)
:  Alba, if all relevant arguments have been made then mediation is useless. In any case, as you see there is still a lot of discussion of the Neutral Disambiguation Page, and about enlarging the discussion to include a deal concerning the libertarianism article.
:  I just don't understand your insistence that mediation would help.  Is there some brilliant mediator you have in mind that would come up with a magic bullet to change your mind about the definition of anarchism?  Who would you like to be mediator?  As for arbitration: I prefer continued attempts to convince people than giving the decision to some unknown arbiter.  Furthermore, I question what mediation or arbitration means in Wikiworld, since every new editor overrides all previous decisions. Hogeye 1 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)
::Hey Hogeye, the libertarian party called, they're missing one of their members.
:::Reason #37 why LPers don't like me: Tweedledee or Tweedledum. Hogeye 1 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)
::Not to mention, the people who get bored of debating (like me) and wait for you guys to come to a consensus then come back and start editing. This whole procedure of coming to a consensus is a sham. I'm convinced this protracted lockdown is POV based to keep the article from being changed. I suggest that anyone who wants the article to be unlocked, stop debating. Official Wikipedia policy says pages shoulnd't be locked for very long. It's going on a month now. . This lockdown is in violation of policy. We're just playing into the rogue adminstrator's hands by dragging out these debates so he can keep the article locked. RJII 1 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)
:::I wonder what the record is for lockdown time? Hogeye 1 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)
:I have an argument I though I'd raise. It seems to me that a group can't be anarchist unless they're happy using that term alone to describe themselves. But it seems to me that "anarcho-capitalists" have to specifically call themselves anarcho-capitalist so as to distinguish themselves from other anarchists. This implies to me the acknowledgment of a certain degree of separation from anarchism at large.
:In short then, I would argue: Anarchists are content with using that label alone; as anarcho-capitalists need specifically to specify themselves as such, they cannot be considered a branch of anarchism, because to be a proper subcategory a group must be able to fully identify with what they are branching off from. Sarge Baldy 08:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No New Arguments?

message: A little bit of Googling yielded these two statements regarding the Wikipedia page on Anarchism:
...the Wikipedia entry on "anarchism" is controlled by right wing libertarians...
Leftist anarchists (or "anarchists") have that article pretty well staked out, and it'd be no good trying to edit it to reflect more capitalist viewpoints.
So, which is correct, or can they both be?
*Dan* 01:54, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
:To be frank, this article is in amazingly good condition considering the sorts of users involved, and the quality of debate on this talk page. My guess is that the majority are more biased towards article quality than anything else, and thus the article has been allowed to at least struggle along as a moderately useful overview. More time should be given to the rampant racism, nationalism, and terrorism of anarchist thinkers, but hey, theres only so much you can expect from an article dominated by adherants. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The sorts of users involved, you simply cannot refrain from characterizations, can you, SS? "To be frank."El_C 05:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks, I did. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 05:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pot. Kettle. Black. Directly above, SS. El_C 05:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, that makes no sense. I specifically avoided mentioning names. Please take your personality politics to the appropriate policy page. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 06:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is disingenuos, I find. Please avoid editorial personalization, period, SS. El_C 06:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, which way is this site biased? 

message: RJ freaks out about my removing links, saying, "put back in link about individualist anarchism. Don't pretend individualist anarchism doesnt exist. It needs some links."
He ignores the fact that individualist anarchism has its own section, and that I "removed" all the links pertaining to anarcho-snydicalism, anarcho-communism, christian anarchism, anarcha-feminism, and more.  Well, apparently I'm pretending that none of these things exist.  Or maybe I'm paring down the article from an overly bloated state by removing links that only apply to submovements and are already present in articles linked to from this one.  You know, like I already said in my edit summary.  Kev 20:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: "What are the essential convictions of anarchist thought? Anarchism is revolutionary in that it desires a new social order based on libertarian socialist ideas. There is a principled opposition to most forms of imposed, centralized or hierachical authority. Institutions and organizations and structures of thought and art in culture that embody such forms of authority are criticized and rejected because they are seen to inhibit, control or repress the creative and productive abilities of people." From Anarchism by Sean M. Sheehan (2003) 
I thought I would paste this up from a second chapter book I have. It maybe the very latest one published on the topic (at least in the en lang) -max rspct 18:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarchism

message: Wikipedia has no obligation to serve as a platform to any lunatic with a website and a wingnut point of view. The perverse trend on Wikipedia to cater to trolls in a feeble attempt to avoid conflict has an obvious problem, in that we have come to have little concern for the encyclopedic value of the content we put into articles. A dialectic is created: Well-established point of view, opposed by crazy, non-notable point of view, leading to a synthesis of the two. The synthesis, of course, is a piece of shit article like the one we have here every time I'm away from the computer for a few hours. It is time to realize that one webpage does not a "School of anarchism" make. I absolutely will not tolerate such de facto vandalism of this article, and will not submit to the feed-the-troll dialectic. --Tothebarricades 01:49, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
:Assuming you're talking about national anarchism, it's not just "one webpage." Read the article, and check out the links. The movement is definitely notable and existing in multiple countries. What's the harm of having it in the article? It takes up 3 or 4 sentences. You think having it in the article is going to change the world and everyone is going to convert to national anarchism? RJII 02:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What NPOV is not