Talk:Anarchism/Archive 6

message: It seems like we're all decending into flame and troll.  This is a real problem which requires its own solution.  My suggestion is a self-enforced edit freeze.
The excuse for this troll/flame war, an ideological division combined with a lack of political eduction is sad.  [anarchism] should probably be a nexus article, leading out to topic articles, frex: anarchic societies in history, or anarchist political economy.  This would help the problem of trying to place every anarchist position under the head article.  Additionally, these smaller topical articles is where libertarian socialist ideology naturally confronts the ideology of the US Libertarian movement.  
The crowding ideological battle distorts this encyclopedia's entry on anarchism away from disciplinary issues or historical importance.  It is as if contemporary Americans on the right and left are solely describing this issue.  For goodness sakes, some of the anarchists here don/'t even know about Kronstadt!
A final issue: right wing Americans must conceed the centrality of libertarian socialist and allied strains of anarchism in terms of total historical numbers.  The CNT/FAI were a real social force.  The US IWW caused the US government to panic and purge its own citizens, (illegally deporting people too).  Nobody on this page has even mentioned Italian syndicalism at depth.  I guess this paragraph asks:  What disciplinary methods do we use to discriminate relative importance and division of subject matter in this article?
in sadness about the current emotional state of the anarchism editing community, Fifelfoo 04:46, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he makes some good points, and while I may not agree with everything, I  do agree to spend some time studying and reflecting and discussing before making any changes. Actually, I think it would be GREAT if we could come to any kind of concensus here in talk, before overhauling the page. Thanks for your calm words and even hand. Sam Spade 10:13, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Recent examples of short-term anarchy or long-term warlordism include Afghanistan and Albania around 1990, Rwanda/Burundi in the early 1990s, Somalia from the early 1990s to the present, and Bosnia around 1995. 
It's not entirely clear which term applies to which country: which countries were ruled by warlords (Afghanistan and Somalia, I know, but other readers might not), and which were in short-term anarchy? Can someone fix this? --67.69.188.153 10:25, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  don/'t feed the troll 

message: well, thats a weird combo above. Anyhow, I just wanted to share with you some musings of mine that I find relevent. After massive amounts of research and discussion (here and elsewhere) I have come to a conclusion about two types of anarchism. I think these are perfect examples of each. One is the black anarchist, the pirate. He wants to loot, and behave wildly, defying the state, but he also likely chooses to follow a pirate code. He is necessarilly hierarchical, but reserves the right to change ships (or captains) whenever they dock. The other type is more similar to the utopian ideas expressed on this page and elsewhere in regards to anarchism, and that is the quakers. They are non-hierarchical, and yet are able to function (and have for some time), a remarkable feat. They accept the state, but don't conform to it. They are also pacifists, but I'm not so sure that is a concept fundamentally related to anarchism in any way. Anyhow, theres a couple of alternate examples for ya. Sam Spade 08:07, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A good book on pirates and anarchism is Pirate Utopias ().
As to whether pacifism is inherently related to anarchism, note the difference between pacifism and non-violence.
Quakers, traditionally, are both; while the "propoganda of the deed" folks 100 years ago were strictly only the former.
-- Toby Bartels 02:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that a distinction between non-violence and pacifism is useful, but then its not my area of expertise ;) Sam Spade 02:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  pirates and quakers 

message: I made enough edits for me to feel good about the header being removed, so assuming they arn't all undone feel free to remove the dispute headers. I would, but I've found its unseemly to do the editing, and then take the headers off. Additionally, I would really appreciate additions regarding syndicalism and nihilism, as my dictionary states these as synonyms for anarchism. Finially, if anybody can find a cool way to wrap the stuff I brought up about pirates and quakers in, that would rock. Any how, let me know what you think. Sam Spade 22:10, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits 

message: I have linked to the page Past and present anarchist communities under "See also", but shouldn't a lot of the content on this page Anarchism be moved to Past and present anarchist communities? Just a thought.... --Vikingstad 04:46, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
:I think yes, alot of, but not all of the content about such communities. There needs to be enough on this (anarchism) page for a person to get a reasonable undertsanding from here alone. Sam Spade 04:49, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging/moving 

message: Anarchism is a generic term given to various political philosophies which advocate a society of free individuals without a government. It should be noted that much of philosophical anarchist thought (particularly within this article) does not advocate for chaos or anomie, and generally does not intend their statements regarding the term "anarchy" to include the full, standard definition.
:Clearly there is not unaminity that this is an excellent introductory paragraph. I myself don't like the wording, and find it awkward. On the other hand, it is important that the information be kept, valid and insightful points are mentioned. Discussion? Proposals? Rewrites? Wikiquette please, you know who you are :) Sam Spade 04:53, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: Why are the introductory paragraphs of a page entitled anarchism, almost completely about anarchy.  Sam Spade insists on using the dictionary definition of anarchy on a page about anarchism, and he insists that this is the "typical definition".  I have a few complaints as he seems to be trying to push his own agenda.
A dictionary definition will always be limited by scope and space, whereas an encylopedia (like wikipedia) should be more detailed.  Simply giving dictionary definitions of anarchy and a few examples that match one aspect of this definition doesn't suffice for an encyclopedia article on anarchism.
Secondly, the definition of anarchy in most of the dictionaries that I have looked in, is much broader than the definition of anarchism.  I think Sam Spade knows this, and he's tring to have the page reflect his own POV by letting this fact slip his mind.
I looked in an actual dictionary (my World Book Encyclopedia dictionary) instead of an online dictionary, and found the following definitions:
:Anarchy: 1. An absence of a system of government and law.  2. Disorder and Confusion.
:Anarchism: 1a. The political theory that all systems of government and law are harmful.  b. The practice or support of this belief.  2. Lawlessness.
The wikipedia page on anarchy reflects the broader definition of anarchy, the wikipedia page on anarchism should relect the narrower definition, and the historical and political aspects of anarchism as a political/economic theory.
Also, it should be noted by Sam Spade that the first definition a dictionary gives is usually the one with the most prominant or original usage.
Lastly, dictionary definitions are varied enough that almost anyone can find a dictionary definition that can be twisted into agreeing with their own views. millerc 20:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: BS :). You can put me down as disagreeing w 95% of the above, with particular emphasis on the last sentence. Your dictionary definition is superb, and proves my point exquisitely, as does every other dictionary definition I have seen, heard, or thought of ;). Maybe you can produce a "anarchist's cookbook type" dictionary where the definition is blurred enough by rhetoric to be suitable for your purposes, but that would be just fine. I'd gladly have you cite or reference dubious and biased sources, so long as you don't interfere with me citing reliable, time honored sources. I can see this will be an uphill battle towards verifiability, but I expect the smiles of comprehension and understanding we will eventually be able to bring to the faces of our fearless readers will be well worth the struggle. Please try to remember that what we do here is all about informing the reader, not about engaging in a war of words with our political or philosophical "opposition". In short, lets agree to disagree, and get to work citing our sources, increasing NPOV, and decreasing our own POV in the article. Sam Spade 20:36, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear fellow-workers, I have to say that the Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Edition supports anarchism as a political doctrine.  While the first usage represents chaos or anomie, this was a Burkian political idea of government without divine right.  Infact, the etymological root of the first OED2 use implies a political doctrine of statelessness.  Of course, the second meaning (and predominant one) for anarchism is a political doctrine of statelessness, interestingly (for OED2 1980s revision) one commonly used in English to imply libertarian socialism.  Given OED2 is simply the best record of English usage and derivation, I say we go with OED2. Fifelfoo 22:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view as being correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q
So saying "Anarchists believe..." in the anarchism article should make it NPOV.  This might be followed by a quote from such an anarchist, and a reference. millerc 02:28, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Making dictionary-type entries. We take the stance that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia's goal is not to define words, as this would duplicate the information you could find in a dictionary. Wikipedia articles should cover topics and teach something. There is a sister project, Wiktionary, which concerns itself with dictionary definitions. millerc 04:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchy v. Anarchism and POV