Talk:Left anarchism

message: Although this article itself is a minefield of POV, OR, uninformative mishmash, the sources look pretty strong and the topic itself is surely worthy of inclusion. Thus, I propose we stub the article right down to one line and rebuild, cited statement by cited statement, from the references. Any thoughts? скоморохъ 23:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No responses, so I was bold and went ahead with the stubbing. скоморохъ 01:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: All it needs are some more sources. But you seem to have taken some out. maxrspct ping me  02:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out some of the external links that didn't seem to address the issue directly - I don't have a problem restoring them if you feel they're relevant. But to say all the text of the article needs is a few more sources is to overlook the fact that the article has been in this sorry state of uncited original research since its creation. My idea is, if we strip he article back to an uncontroversial definition and a list of sources, we can start building it back up, line by line, from those sources instead of having to contort them to fit problematic text. So how about the compromise - re-remove the text I originally purged, but restore all the previous sources? скоморохъ 02:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, you could nominate it for deletion, but I tried that before and it was unsuccessful. In the meantime, what to you say to my proposal? скоморохъ 02:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: At the very least some of the ancap trash needs to be removed. People like Bryan Caplan simply are not reliable sources simply for the fact they espouse the irrational nonsense that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism when by definition we know it isn't (It fails the principle test of anarchism of being against bosses and tolerates the sort of rothbardian "its ok to sell children into slavery"(rothbard literally argues this) nonsense that all anarchists are by definition opposed to. Why the hell is the confused and fucked up anarchist faq (Incorrect answers for frequently asked questions!) by caplan in there, or at least not marked as suspicious whilst the excellent and well researched faq at infoshop dismissively marked as a "social anarchist" text (And does anyone IRL refer to themselves as a "social anarchist", we're bloody economic anarchists too because we advocate the overthrow of capitalism ffs. RANT RANT. 121.45.242.182 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for overhaul 

message: It looks like it's much more often called "left-wing anarchism." Operation Spooner (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Google begs to differ: 643 for "left-wing anarchism" vs. 5,170 for "left anarchism". скоморохъ 06:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Operation Spooner (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well.. i just reread the archive. RJII all over it plus other voices on the term being non-notable. --maxrspct ping me  15:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to remind you, max, to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors.  You have accused, and not for the first time, two editors in good standing of being sockpuppets of another editor, and you have done so with no evidence whatsoever.  Please try to remember that, for the most part, the motivations of other editors are at least as pure as your own. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no information on what evidence or not I have. Don't bite me over something that goes back 4 years. maxrspct ping me  18:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All I will say is that Wikipedia is an openf forum, so if you have evidence relating to another editor, present it and make your case.  Otherwise, please refrain from making accusations and, once again, assume good faith. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is arguable whether it is forum or not or more. I do assume good faith but if I see subsequent behaviour or activity that shows otherwise I will adjust my responses accordingly. Are you not just wound up about my editing of this article? feel free to contribute. -maxrspct ping me  20:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change? 

message: I spend 15 mins reading the contorted AFD guidelines and information .. but i am obviously none the wiser. How am i spossed to know how to clear AFD old nomination backlogs? For those in the dark about the reasons for my nomination - Its a non-notable or fringe term that belongs in wiktionary + the page is just being filled with fringe right-wing libertarian claptrap. --maxrspct ping me  15:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated it properly for you; the discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left anarchism (2nd nomination). Friendly advice: with your current rationale, editors are likely to vote keep, because the term has received coverage in reliable third party sources. You might want to find another reason for deletion besides notability, such as WP:FORK or WP:SYN. скоморохъ 15:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear Admins and all those concerned 

message: Doesn't Bob Black talk about "left anarchism", with respect to "post-left anarchism"? Isn't that a starting point for a decent article? I definitely think a very good first-class article can be built here, even though it might take a lot of time and several volunteers. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Black? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Left anarchism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120128135116/http://www.akpress.org/2007/items/ananarchistfaqakpress to http://www.akpress.org/2007/items/ananarchistfaqakpress
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117031933/http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionF7 to http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionF7
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120128135116/http://www.akpress.org/2007/items/ananarchistfaqakpress to http://www.akpress.org/2007/items/ananarchistfaqakpress
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303150454/http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionD6 to http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionD6
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Whether you all like my edit of the link in the first sentence, from anarcho-collectivism to social anarchism, or not, please bare in mind anarchocollectivism is specifically distinct from anarchocommunism and other models because of the use of labor notes, (currency), and is associated mostly with Bakunin and popularly contrasted with Kropotkin's communist model. It never should have specified left-anarchism was a term meant to contrast anarcho-collectivism with so-called right-anarchism, that excludes most left-anarchism from left-anarchism. Many other philosophies/movements/sets-of-tactics exist other than anarcho-collectivism and most are distinct from anarchocollectivism as far as terminology and most do not necessarily have much overlap. Traditionally the philosophies of the "big three" are compared and contrasted to represent the spectrum of opinion in classical anarchism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.82.67.49 (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only [[anarcho-collectivism]]?