Talk:Voluntaryism

message: "The Voluntaryist' was apparently a periodical.  I am going to put its "Statement of Purpose" in the article. Hogeye 21:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Voluntaryist 

message: If I find the time, I'll try to remember to improve this article.  Voluntaryism is discussed some in Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.  It could be a useful source.  Allixpeeke (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article could truly need some work. Maybe I'll get the time to do it but don't count on it.Lord Metroid (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleanup done, expansion still needed. Lord Metroid (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Expansion done, although now a little clean-up may again be in order. Allixpeeke (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a little bit of cleanup and tried to get rid of some of the bias/original research. Tisane (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Could Be Made Into A Great Article, But Currently Needs Some Work 

message: First this article on "voluntaryism" is describing a specific philosophy, i.e.: Voluntaryism is the philosophical belief that the only legitimate interactions in between and among people is done on a freely chosen basis through voluntary association and agreements. I have no problem with this philosophy having it's own article, just that it should NOT have replaced the "voluntarism" article which clearly did NOT reflect the various ways it is used below. Just the first page of a google search showed these different definitions and further searches probably would reveal more definitive sources.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/44/V0144400.html
voluntarism: The use of or reliance on voluntary action to maintain an institution, carry out a policy, or achieve an end. 2.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/voluntaristic
vol·un·ta·rism: The use of or reliance on voluntary action to maintain an institution, carry out a policy, or achieve an end.
Volunt/ar/eer/ism: What's the Difference? By Susan J. Ellis
So many people ask me whether there is a distinction between "volunteerism" and "voluntarism" that I have written up my answer. Here it is:  "Voluntarism" (the older term) refers to everything voluntary. In the United States this includes, for example, religion. It certainly encompasses the entire "voluntary sector," but "voluntary" in the "voluntarism" context means not mandated by law (as government is). Many voluntary sector (nonprofit) agencies have a volunteer board because that is a legal requirement, but may not utilize volunteers in direct service in any way. There are subjects within "voluntarism" that have nothing to do with volunteers: things like UBIT legislation; proposal writing; compensation law. 
Voluntarism By Susan Perkins, Graduate Student, Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. Definition "Voluntarism is the voluntary (acting of one's own accord) participation in a certain action, or a system based on this." Webster's Dictionary. NOTE: This is a long article with lots of examples that could form a good basis for wiki article
Center for Study of Philanthropy and Voluntarism
UNITED KINGDOM:VOLUNTARISM The British system of industrial relations has frequently been described as voluntarist, by which is usually meant the abstention of the state from direct intervention in the handling of industrial relations. ETC...
TWO BOOKS: 
1) Landscapes of voluntarism, New spaces of health, welfare and governance, Edited by Christine Milligan and David Conradson
2) Liberalism: Voluntarism and Individuality in Political Theory, by Richard E. Flathman - 1992 - Philosophy - 232 pages
Carol MooreUser:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc  —Preceding comment was added at 17:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kind of Info that belongs in separate "voluntarism" article

message: FYI Voluntarism.  Probably will do some more work on in a few days; first draft.
Carol Moore 22:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, everything worked out all right and the new article looks very promising. Lord Metroid (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voluntarism article is up

message: I've placed Voluntaryist Carl Watner's new article on the main page. Minor edits are welcome, particularly the insertion of internal links.Psdillard (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Watner's New Article Up

message: I stumbled across this article from the Libertarian Party, and was interested in the subject, but the article as it stands is decidedly un-Wikipedian.  The rewrite cleanup tag seemed most relevant according to the cleanup rules, although significant reorganization and wikification would be sufficient. Evan Deaubl (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite tag placed

message: Evan Deaubl, 
The new article is not from the Libertarian Party but by Carl Watner, a notable voluntaryist who opposes the LP and any other political organization. 
Please describe what sort of reorganization and "wikification" you think the article needs. I will then direct Mr. Watner to your comments, and we can proceed from there.
Thank you for your feedback.
Psdillard (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually didn't have any suggestions offhand, and I wasn't indicating that the article was related to the LP in any way; that is just how I ended up getting to this page (I just realized my previous statement was unclear; I got here from the Libertarian Party page on Wikipedia, not from an LP site).  My understanding is that putting a cleanup tag on a page "puts it on the radar" as a page that people who are interested in cleaning up Wikipedia can (and should) work on.  So my main motivation for adding the tag was to get the page noticed in order to hopefully bring some more experienced Wikipedia editors into the mix.  I'm nowhere near experienced enough to tackle an article of this size. :-) Evan Deaubl (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions?

message: I would just like to point out that User:Psdillard, apart from editing disruptively, has been copying and pasting text from here. I hope that next time his edits will be reverted sooner. --Cambrasa confab 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Turned out it was just a case of accidental page blanking by someone who knows the copyright holder - sorry --Cambrasa confab 13:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright infringement 

message: Cambrasa is absolutely wrong on both counts. The text I copied and pasted was not taken without permission from The Voluntaryist website. Rather, it is a new article by Carl Watner that he asked me to post. Cambrasa would know that if he/she had taken the time to read and understand the discussion page.
Nor have I edited disruptively. I proposed replacing the old voluntaryist article with Mr. Watner's new one and allowed plenty of time for comments before I did so. I even e-mailed all of the previous commentators asking for their feedback. When no one objected, I went ahead and posted Watner's new article. A disruptive person subsequently reverted it to the old article, which I reverted back to the new article. When I did so, I made the mistake of first deleting the old article entirely in the hopes that the new article would then come up automatically. I have since learned that one should merge edits into the article to be edited. 
I resent your accusations, Cambrasa. I see that you are responsible for restoring the old article.  Shame on you for not first bringing your concerns to the discussion page and talking about them before you reverted. I'll be restoring Watner's article. Leave it alone.Psdillard (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, cool down, it's not that big of a deal. First I saw that you had blanked the page. Then I saw that your text had some neutrality issues, which I will address below. Then I saw that it had been copied and pasted from a website. Then I briefly skimmed over the talk page, where you didn't make it very clear that you had Carl Watner's permission. So I assumed some disruptive editing was going on, which obviously wasn't the case. It's just a misunderstanding, so my apologies. --Cambrasa confab 13:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No copyright infringement

message: Peter Dillard has replaced the old article with an essay written by Carl Watner, on his instruction. Carl Watner seems to be a notable proponent of voluntaryism, so that in itself is not a problem.
However, there are several problems with the article as it stands now:
1:A lot of it seems to be original research. Even though Carl Watner is a notable academic, this essay has only been published on his website and not in a peer-reviewed journal, so it is not a reliable source. Also, since this article is now primarily based on  Carl Watner's essay, it violates point 7 on Wikipedia's policy for self-published sources. Finally, many parts of this article arrive at conclusions through synthesis rather than stating where the conclusions came from, violanting WP:SYN.
2:The article is written in a horribly biased tone. It reads more like a manifesto than an encyclopedia article. It is full of emotive vocabulary - "X is evil", instructional and presumptious language - "Do the poor have a right to alms?", hyperboles - "Voluntarism represents a means, and end, and an insight", and value judgements  - "... whereupon [government] will fall of its own dead weight". All that it's missing is a "long live voluntrayism!" at the end.
The worst thing about this article is that it presents several contentious claims as if they were widely accepted facts, without citing sources - "History and theory demonstrate that a free people produce many more goods and services than their counterparts in a centrally organized economy. Thus, there is more to go around in a free society, and the poor there generally have a higher standard of living than the poor in a collectivist society". Note: This article does not say "According to voluntaryists, history and theory demostrate...".  It just says "History and theory demostrate..." even though there are plenty of theorists, economists and historians more notable than Carl Watner who would contest this claim. 
3:The article casts voluntaryism and voluntaryists in a very positive light. Since Carl Watner seems to be one of the key proponents of voluntaryism, this raises conflict of interest concerns.
--Cambrasa confab 16:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New article by Carl Watner: Serious neutrality issues

message: * I think that the article is unacceptable in its current form. Yes, it may be written by an expert, and it may contain more legitimate information than before, but this information is presented in such a biased manner that it is actually worse than the previous article. I suggest reverting it to the old version with immediate effect, and taking the current version to a sandbox, where it should go through a major re-work before being reinserted. --Cambrasa confab 15:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Phew, I've fixed this monster now. Still needs some work, but I think in this form it finally deserves being called an "encylopedia article". I'll add a copyedit template because the references still need to be formatted. --Cambrasa confab 19:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleaned up a number of typos I found in the last revision. Also in that version, the last sentence in the section entitled "The practical perspective in the case of the United States" reads like a total non sequitur. (The sentence in question was "A study by The Economist has concluded that social mobility is low in America when compared to other rich nations, especially among the bottom fifth of society, and that meritocratic competition only takes places within elites rather than 'among the full range of talents that the country has to offer'".) Its relevance to the immediately foregoing material isn't made clear. Is it supposed to be another objection? A reference to a source offering an alternative to the voluntaryist viewpoint on the plight of the poor? Hence I have deleted both it and the accompanying reference to the study from The Economist. This material should be reincorporated into the article only if its rationale for being there is made perfectly clear.Psdillard (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed the new version

message: I don't see any difference between voluntarism and mainstream philosophy. In fact, I'd go so far as to say if Wikipedia was polled on the issue, over 80% of respondents would identify with "voluntarism". EDIT -- check that: there's a lot more extremism here than I thought. Nevermind. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with mainstream article? 

message: I am not 100% sure whether the Gandhi mentioned is Mohandas Gandhi, or perhaps S.I. Gandhi.  Any RS for that?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gandhi 

message: The sentence at the top -- "Voluntaryists assert that people cannot be coerced into freedom or voluntarily give it up."  is not clear (I'm a long standing Voluntaryist and I don't understand what is meant by this statement! -- and as noted by someone else, there is no citation.)  Personally I'd remove it or rewrite it, but don't want to step on anyone's toes -- would the original author of this be willing to have another stab at it please?  Kind regards, tyler@earthsociety.org
This article is tagged as having problems, and I agree. Tweaking it bit by bit to be better seems like a bad solution to me, so I have decided to start a rewrite of the article at User:Bjwebb/Voluntaryism. Any help would be appreciated. --bjwebb (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll work on fixing that.--bjwebb (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Shouldn't Voluntaryism be under the category "Anarchy" instead of "Libertarianism?"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.87.87.19 (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong category? 

message: Leo Tolstoy was not "near anarchist" he was a christian pacifist anarchist. Gandhi can be described as 'near anarchist' because his philosophy was based on that of Tolstoy (so there is a corralation there). I am going to fix this error now. Beta M (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leo Tolstoy was an anarchist 

message: The article says, "Herbert was not a pure voluntaryist because, although he held that it was possible for state revenues to be generated by offering competitive services on the free market, he continued to advocate a single monopolistic state for every given geographic territory." Don't all libertarians support monopolistic control over property? If you own a piece of land and have the power and authority to do whatever you want with it and set whatever rules you want to govern its use, without forcible interference from anyone else, then you are basically a state unto yourself. There is nothing "involuntary" about the situation, except inasmuch as others don't have freedom to "voluntarily" do as they wish with your property; they must obtain your voluntary consent first. Tisane (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pure voluntaryism 

message: I imagine other economic systems could exist under a voluntaryist system, such as a group of voluntary collectivists. So, a citation number next to "anarcho-capitalism" in the opening line would be useful. --Coching (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim that Voluntaryism is a form of anarcho-capitalism lacks a source 

message: It's the first I've visited the Voluntaryism page in maybe a good year, and I have to say I'm quite disappointed that the page has undergone such a radical overhaul.  I barely recognize the content of this page as it is today versus what it was and it doesnt appear in my mind to be an improvement.  I assume the overhaul was due to the page now being under the 'scope' of WikiProject Libertarianism and WikiProject Philosophy and spearheaded by these groups. It seems the entire focus of the article has shifted from 'what is Voluntaryism' to 'what is the historical context for Voluntaryism' and I don't understand the reason for such emphasis.  Certainly the historical context is an important aspect, but would it not be better to more thoroughly describe what Voluntaryism actually is, not merely where it came from and what it is 'in relation to'. I'm sorry I can't be more explicit, this is just a general impression, but if I had to try to explain Voluntaryism to someone I believe I would no longer point them to this article.  In fact, the intro is in my mind a bit of a travesty, its so thin.  It consists of a couple sentences that define voluntaryism in relation to other terms like anarcho-capitalism and then a few quotes on what "Rothbard maintained".  Why is what Rothbard maintained somehow central to defining voluntaryism?  Further, what is the basis for making the claim that "many voluntaryists base their thinking on" Rothbard's work.  I for one have never read Rothbard as I'm sure many havn't.  Its as if the reader were to assume that people who subscribe to voluntaryism base their thinking on the work of some founding principal in the way that Karl Marx was the progenitor of Marxism and that those who would call themselves Marxists are those that base their thinking on his ideas.  It is just not so in this case, I hope you see my point.  Why not reference Rothbard or others somewhere in the main body of the article instead.  If you look back at some of the intros from different points in 2011, I think you'll see a much better job of describing what voluntaryism actually is, on its own terms.  I understand some folks who have made the recent edits would probably object to 'going backward' to older revisions, so I'm not suggesting it needs to be a facsimile of a former version, but I would like to see the intro move closer to an incarnation of what those previous versions embodied, and perhaps all of the historical context and reference to people throughout history who may or may not have practiced or wrote something about voluntaryism be one subsection with equal attention being paid to other subsections.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.78.188 (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Overhaul 

message: Ayn Rand did not espouse Voluntaryism.  She was very much Pro-coercion.  This is even shown by the quote given in the page.  Under Voluntaryism, violence is ALWAYS wrong, not just when self-interest dictates that it is or is not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.127.182 (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayn Rand 

message: The bit about the Levellers seems like original research. It's good and well to cite the history of the Levellers, but I'm not sure source 10 connects the Levellers to the modern voluntaryist movement, which is what we need to cite them as precursors. Anarchists, Marxists, a-caps, and other radical groups all claim the Levellers as proto-types of their own movements, so we need a RS that makes an explicit connection between them and the modern movement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AttackTheRivers (talk • contribs) 05:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: Hey all, my name is Stephen Packard (https://www.facebook.com/Steveyagraha). I like to describe myself as a Voluntaryist activist, enthusiast, and entrepreneur in Omaha, Nebraska. Although I have no extensive school education in philosophy or politics, I have been deeply involved in many discussions and projects to create awareness and dialogue throughout my life. I have been an active and donating member of FreeDomainRadio.com for three years and have connections with many activists in what I perceive to be the Voluntaryism and Libertarian movements. I run Flat River Freedom Media at www.facebook.com/flatrivermedia and www.youtube.com/flatrivermedia.
This article is important to me - it's the top Google result any time someone types in "Voluntaryism" and so, I assume, the most widely-read introduction to the topic. I'm also a regular Wikipedia donor, so I have some small expense of a stake in Wikipedia's performance. However, this article, in my experience defining and discussing "Voluntaryism", has some serious biases and deficiencies - if I was given the authority I would want to completely reconstruct the article into something that I will describe in the rest of the post. To that end, I'll quote how I think the article could receive more merit and legitimacy, and then critique how it currently reads.
My recommendation for the Introductory (Top) Paragraph:
"Voluntaryism is a term used to describe a set of principles that argue all forms of human association should be voluntary. Although no definitive reference nor authority on Voluntaryism exists, proponents of Voluntaryism agree that arguments for voluntary interaction have been evident and conclusive throughout human history.
Voluntaryist thought has appeared to have been brought to light most recently by modern Libertarian and Anarcho-Capitalist thinkers such as Murray Rothbard, Stefan Molyneux, Ron Paul, Robert LeFerve, and Henry Hazlitt, each reflecting somewhat divergent views on origins and conclusions of Voluntaryism, but generally agreeing on important methods and observations."
I think that is how the introductory paragraph should read. Here is how the introductory paragraph reads now and I will dissect my problems with it sentence by sentence:
"Voluntaryism (or sometimes voluntarism), is a libertarian philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary."
I'm not sure the "libertarian philosophy" part applies. Stefan Molyneux, a hugely credible and arguably popular proponent of voluntary behaviors at FreeDomainRadio.com, argues there is no such thing as x, y, or z philosophy - Stefan argues there is only "good philosophy" and "bad philosophy", with which I whole-heartedly agree. For example, some hold Russia's lack of civil liberties as a viable "political philosophy". However, if you have any sense of ethics or empathy, clearly it should not be considered wise to demonstrate that gay activists being horse-whipped in public is a wise action - this would be "bad philosophy". To say that "Russian political philosophy" or "libertarian philosophy" or "geocentristic philosophy" has any merit as a description, I think is disingenuous and we should hold ourselves to a higher starndard.
"The principle most frequently used to support voluntaryism is the non-aggression principle (NAP). It is closely associated with, and often used synonymously with, the anarcho-capitalist philosophy."
I have so many problems with this part. Let's begin:
There is a phrase in here: "...to support voluntaryism...". What about the concept of Voluntaryism needs or should be supported? Partly, I want to make that argument Voluntaryism is really a concept arguing for a specific type or kind of behavior. Do emotional responses need support? Nope. Should they be supported? If they are voluntary emotional responses, then yes. Henry Hazlitt and Stefan Molyneux both argue this point about Voluntaryism often - it should be recognized. As a logical structure, this phrase is sound, but as much as we may want the knowledge, even stored with Wikipedia, to be purely logical, emotions will largely play a role until humans can tame them at some future point.
Non-aggression principle is important, but even the worth and definition of the NAP is still being debated in many Libertarian and Voluntaryist circles. Also, Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behavior model may be an even better explanation of the principle(s) on which Voluntaryism works. I'd like to see "Principles of Voluntaryism" moved to a separate section below from the introductory paragraph.
And another "philosophy" mentioned here, "anarcho-capitalist philosophy". Every type of philosophy, "Libertarian philosophy", "Anarcho-Capitalist philosophy", "Anarcho-Communist philosophy" is going to have their *own* take on what "Voluntarysim" means to their label. It becomes redundant and complicated. Philosophy, by the Molyneux definition of which I am a strong proponent, *should not* be accompanied by a label other than "good" or "bad". Let's drop the labels or move them to their own section so each "philosophy" may have its own take on Voluntaryism, if that is what the label proponents wish.
And final part of introductory:
"Many voluntaryists base their thinking on the ideas of voluntaryist philosophers Murray Rothbard and Robert LeFevre. Rothbard maintained, first, that every government "presumes to establish a compulsory monopoly of defense (police and courts) service over some geographical area. So that individual property owners who prefer to subscribe to another defense company within that area are not allowed to do so"; and, second, that every government obtains its income by extortion, euphemistically labeled "taxation". "All governments, however limited they may be otherwise, commit at least these two fundamental crimes against liberty and property."[3]"
Yes, Rothbard contributed much to Voluntaryist thinking and I had not even heard of LeFevre until I read this entry, but Rothbard is not the only one and many Voluntaryists/Anarcho-Capitalists/Libertarians, etc. have serious issues with the last part of Rothbard's career. Again, Rothbard had a take which was different from LeFevre's take which was different Hazlitt's which is different from Molyneux's - let's move all of this below where each thinker may have their own section.
As I look at the clock I'm realizing how much time this may take to change this entry. So, I'll give a brief idea of how I see the rest of the article going and hope to continue discussion of soon changing this article. Some content structure ideas:
1. Short History
2. Principles
   -NAP
   -Universally Preferable Behavior
3. Thinkers
   -Murray Rothbard
   -Stefan Molyneux
   -Robert LeFevre
   -Henry Hazlitt
4. Voluntaryism in Philosophy
   -Libertarian philosophy
   -Anarcho-Capitalist philosophy
   -Anarcho-Communist philosophy
   -Molyneux's "Good philosophy" vs. "Bad philosophy" argument
The external links could have *far* more reach, as well. I suppose that's all for now. I hope anyone interested in this entry will comment - I think I have made some great points and we should start changing the entry as soon as possible. Thanks for now!
Spackard85 (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Spackard85, I applaud your intent of improving the article. The biggest challenge you will face (as any editor, especially in this area) is to come up with a robust list of reliable sources literally for each statement you made above. I would recommend updating the prose of the article by inserting individual sentences and paragraphs once you support them with sources. I am sure you will get plenty of support and / or criticism for each update. Best of luck.--TRUTHER2012 14:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Truther, thanks for your input. I am beginning today. I would love to hear from the editor of this page. Spackard85 (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who I am and major article rework I would like to see. 

message: Back in 2007, this article looked something like this.  Now, might there have been problems with that?  Sure.  But, it clearly pointed out that voluntaryism was first advocated by Auberon Herbert, and cited Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement by Brian Doherty.  Today, it does not cite Radicals for Capitalism at all.  For that matter, it barely even mentions Auberon Herbert.  I find this regrettable.  I encourage editors to re-integrate Voluntaryism's founder into the article.  Sincerely, allixpeeke (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auberon Herbert, ''Radicals for Capitalism'', and this article 

message: This article places a ridiculous amount of undue weight on the walled-garden that is modern Libertarianism, eg: Rothbard. Voluntaryism has a long history, as the body of the article makes clear (although poorly sourced). Emphasising Rothbard et al in the lead is completely unjustified, as indeed is the prominence of the NAP section. Basically, a historic movement has been hijacked by Libertarian Wikipedians. It needs to stop. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight 

message: The lead sentence is missing a source which supports the definition - the whole article is heavily lacking in citations, but this should be resolved quickly, if possible, with a good quality source. Moreover, the definition is quite basic and non-distinct: plenty of political philosophies could argue that they want "all forms of human association to be voluntary", from anarchism and socialism to laissez-faire doctrines. This is probably one of the main issues in this article, it doesn't really elaborate much what this so called "voluntaryism" is. Therefore, the lead needs a bit more nuance: as I understand, the philosophy claims to want all forms of association to be voluntary, but supports wage labour and private property. This should all be presented in the lead to give a more accurate picture of the philosophy. BeŻet (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main definition needs source, further explanation 

message: Nearly everything in the History section is original research and should be removed. The sourcing is poor and without page numbers, and there is nothing suggesting that the movements or people discussed identified with voluntaryism. BeŻet (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most of History section is [[WP:OR]]