Template talk:Anarchism sidebar/Archive 3

message: With the "Real poll" being open for a week (that poll is now archived), I went ahead and implemented the white design based on the consensus that had developed.  As most were indifferent to the border and actual border-related opinions balanced out equally (one for, one against), I took a touch of artistic license and went ahead and added it.
I also archived the talk page again, since it was getting so long that it was becoming unwieldy.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for archiving the page. It was getting rather unwieldy. But we aren't ready to update the contents of the template yet; just the color scheme. Aelffin 00:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed discussion on "Real Poll" and implemented results 

message: Ok, so there is some disagreement over where to place this. It looks like Sarge and myself want it in the "Anarchism Today" section, while some others feel it should go in the offshoots. I think we need to come to a consensus on this issue, so this is the place to discuss it. Anyone have any thoughts? The Ungovernable Force 18:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; this needs to be hashed out. As does the anarcho-capitalism issue. I think the new content is an improvement over the current template in that it makes a compromise on ancap (no disclaimer/no association), and it includes a few new hot topics in contemporary anarchism. I think there are two proper ways to go about organizing this information: Historical/Sociological or Theoretical/Philosophical. The first would organize based on which movements evolved from which while the second would organize based on the conceptual similarities between the different categories. --Aelffin 19:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho-primitivism 

message: There are two guys, One and Two. They both consider themeselves anarchists.
One supports a totalitarian ideology. He also supports nationalization and taxes, and therefore he supports hierarchy (somebody must collect those taxes.)
Two supports a liberal ideology. He believes in competition, entrepreneurship and economical freedom.
Then how come the anrchism of Two is disputed? Psychomelodic  19:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, anarcho-communists don't support taxes, they support a gift economy. Big difference. Your understanding of anarcho-communism seems flawed. As for economic "freedom", how free do you think a person who is born poor can ever be, economically or otherwise? Economic freedom is merely a means for some to advance their self-interest at the expense of others, who lose their freedom. It's the freedom to be able to screw other people over. That's not what I consider freedom. Anarcho-communists advocate freedom for freedom's sake, and for people to be free, they need to have access to the basic needs of life and not forced to bow to the will of an employer. Anarcho-communism is about co-operation and voluntary sharing of resources, as opposed to the ruthless competition of the free market, or the forced "equality" of authoritarian socialism. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 00:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Please refrain from such moves in the future. There was consensus about content of the template, just about its color. -- Vision Thing -- 18:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going on what you intended to say and not what you actually said, as I took it, we were discussing the new layout and color scheme, so by that, yes, we had consensus.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About how it should look we have consensus, we don't have it about content of the template. I advise you to read "Problems" section. -- Vision Thing -- 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seen.  Not new to me.  Read it as it was happening.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you claim that there is a consensus? Can you cite appropriate part of talk? -- Vision Thing -- 18:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already have.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? -- Vision Thing -- 18:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Template talk:Anarchism/Archive 2#Real Poll, and mentioned closed on Template talk:Anarchism#Closed discussion on "Real Poll" and implemented results.  Additionally, any further discussion on this topic should be taken up at Template talk:Anarchism so that the discussion is more visible to the entire group, vs. an individual user talk page.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has definitely not been a consensus on the content. The color scheme is clear to be implemented per consensus but the contents must be hashed out before we change it from the previous contents. Changes to the content slipped in as part of the color scheme update are certainly disengenuous. Aelffin 00:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Anarchism 

message: A common source of obstinacy in NPOV disputes is the belief that one group "owns" a word and has     
    sole authority to define it:
    
    "The word liberalism was coined by political philosophers. Political philosophers are the experts  
    on liberalism, and not one of them alive today believes that liberalism is the same thing as 
    libertarianism."
    
    In fact, many words have multiple meanings, and it's not just that one person sometimes uses 
    "liberal" to refer to a political movement and sometimes to refer to generous use of an 
    ingredient in a recipe. Sometimes it means that different people mean different things when they
    say the same word.
--rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 01:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly what I mean. Anarcho-capitalists define "anarchism" in a different way. That's fine, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. But as long as we can acknowledge they have a different meaning of the term, then putting them on a page that uses the term differently is misleading and is a violation of NPOV because it implies that they are supporters of the same ideas as other anarchists, which they are not. All I'm saying is that we acknowledge the difference. Anarchists proper and anarcho-capitalists should be on seperate pages. It's simple: they mean one thing, we mean another thing therefore they belong in different articles. It is also in the interests of accuracy to point out that anarcho-capitalists and individualist anarchists use the terms "free market", "anarchism", and "individualism" in very different ways. Aelffin 01:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, you're bending yourself into a pretzel here. Did you read the example? Two distinct groups use the same word to define themselves. As we've learned from the tutorial, neither group owns the term. Listing both groups in the term's template is the only NPOV solution. Allowing one group to dictate how the term is used is not NPOV. It's crystal clear.--rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 01:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, I think anarcho-capitalism belongs on the template. But only in a way that does not confuse the two different uses of the term "anarchism" and only in a way that doesn't give undue prominence to a small minority. That's NPOV. However, if we are unwilling to draw a clear distinction between the two uses of the term, then we have to include every other use of the word "anarchism" on the same template as well...so we must include links to "anarcho-monarchism" as well as anarchists as vandals and terrorists and all of the other definitions of the word. My proposal to split the page into Anarchism (movement) and Anarchism (philosophy) is a compromise that clarifies the issue and provides a place for multiple uses of the term "anarchism". Aelffin 02:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, go over to Talk:Jew and try to use your argument to make them put Jews for Jesus in the Judaism template. Aelffin 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jews for Jesus probably isn't on the Judaism template because it isn't notable enough, not because we're giving a certain group of Jews the authority to define who is and who is not a Jew. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 13:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jews for Jesus is pretty well-known. It has some sort of organization and a presence in the real world. In that sense, it is more notable than anarcho-capitalism. --AaronS 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that any of this is relevant to the discussion, but let me point out for clarity's sake that you're comparing a word to a religious movement and finding one more notable than the other because it's more organized. Heh. It's like "Which is more notable, the San Francisco Giants or Brie Cheese?" --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 13:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're comparing a religious movement to a social movement. We're comparing a hostile outside group that wants to convert the Jews to a hostile outside group that wants to convert the anarchists. I think it's an apt metaphor. Aelffin 14:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalism is a word. JfJ is an incoporated legal entity that has a payroll, takes donations, and does other organizational stuff. Saying one is more organized than the other is patent nonsense. BTW, I have no idea where you're getting this "hostile outside group" business from in either case. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the [[Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Word_ownership|WP NPOV tutorial]] 

message: Does anyone else find this doesn't belong on this bar?  Better yet- can anyone explain why it's included?
Macho Philipovich 22:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anomie 

message: I'm taking a break from these articles. There is far too much sock puppetry going on. Those involved might find it amusing, for whatever reason, or might believe that they're spreading the Truth, but it's actually quite silly. I've never understood why so many evangelicals were attracted to Wikipedia, as if people came to Wikipedia to do scholarly research, rather than the leisurely perusal of articles for their own enjoyment. But, people are strange. I had my fun with this article, but I feel no need to engage in the kinds of games that some people here, and their sock puppets, seem so fond of. Engaging in arguments for the sake of argument, or to keep track of points, and engaging in hot-headed Internet disputes, are two things that I grew out of at the end of high school. --AaronS 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sockpuppetry hmm? Are you taking Blockaddr with you? DTC 19:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fresh, RJII. I'll be keeping an eye on you, because it's just so easy. --AaronS 19:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking a break 

message: All forms of anarchism have been disputed by someone or another. Communist anarchism was disputed by Tucker and Proudhon;Xtian anarchism by some socialists, Individualist anarchism by some commies, and so on. Rather than putting "disputed" by every school, I think we should maintain the NPOV standard by leaving off such silly disclaimers. Save it for articles where it is more appropriate, e.g. Anarchism and capitalism. Hogeye 16:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already had this discussion above. The other schools aren't disputed near as much. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 18:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But they are disputed. So for NPOV, we can either label all as such or none. Hogeye 02:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems Hogeye does have a point there.  If they're all disputed to an extent, then he's got a very valid point.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but none of them are rejected by virtually all other self-described anarchists. Hell, even Christian anarchism is usually accepted, even if it's a bit strange. But no one except an-caps and a few individualists except it as a proper form of anarchism. I'm sure both of you know this. It used to be that an-cap wasn't even in the template. We've been making a damn lot of compromises with the an-caps, but this is too much. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Compromises? The discussion has not moved one iota when it first started. There is a positive claim being made (orginally by User:FrancisTyers) without sources being provided. Sources that say a-c is anarchism have been provided plenteously... Intangible 12:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was pleased when we had proposed that new template layout a while back, because it seemed to contain a good compromise, but a few people just wouldn't let it through, even reverting it back when we tried to implement it with the color change.  My bottom line is that I want to see the "(disputed)" tag go because it looks bad on the template.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto, the proposal was pretty good. I still think it's the best option, but as you said, some others didn't let it go through. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 04:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wait a sec... before you lump me in with any particular faction, let me clarify.  I personally don't care whether the an-cap link is on the template or not.  I just don't like the "disputed" tag.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right - that's what I said. You agree the "disputed" tag should go. This isn't a faction thing; it's an NPOV thing. Hogeye 18:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm also for removal of disputed tag. -- Vision Thing -- 19:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is including a philosophy that virtually all anarchists reject neutral? You're pushing a minority view and trying to make it seem like it somehow has just as much place within anarchism as anarcho-communism or something. That's not neutral. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 04:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does it matter if all other anarchists reject anarcho-capitalism? That doesn't mean they should be allowed to control Wikipedia. What does the "disputed" label mean anyway? How is anyone supposed to know what it means?Anarcho-capitalism 04:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Majority view among academics is that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. It doesn’t matter what most of other people think or don’t think about it. This is encyclopedia, not some populist pamphlet. -- Vision Thing -- 11:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I am as well. It doesn't make sense to single out anarcho-capitalism like that. I see three sources in the Anarchism article from anarcho-communists that say anarcho-capitalism is not a legitimate form of anarchism. But there are also just as many, or more, sources  from individualist anarchists that say that anarcho-communism is not a legitimate form of anarchism. So why wouldn't there be a "disputed" tag on anarcho-communism?Anarcho-capitalism 03:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks good to me too. It seems to comply with the POV policy.Anarcho-capitalism 19:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe the grammar could be more technically correct though because it's not really the forms of anarchism that say that but certain anarchists. Maybe it should say something like "Some self-described anarchists argue that some self-described forms of anarchism not bona-fide forms of anarchism."Anarcho-capitalism 19:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not in favor, and like others have already done, I am inclined to revert it.  It's just too weasel-y in the wording.  The KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid) comes to mind here.  I really just want to get any philosophical arguments off the template.  We already have criticisms of the concept under three headings in the Anarcho-capitalism article.  Thus we've covered the fact that it is disputed in the article.  With that in mind, the "disputed" tag or any other weasel words on the template are essentially POV-pushing.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed label 

message: I'm going to rename "Types of Anarchism" to "Navigational Portal." This way, the template does not endorse any view with regard to the authenticity of any of the various subsections. Then, there should not be any problem with removing the "disputed" label. --AaronS 00:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling the one section "navigational portal" seems a bit of a misnomer, as that's the point of the template as a whole.  I'm going to twiddle with it, though, so let's see what we come up with...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay... I went back a little bit and pulled up a design that I like, and then changed "Types of Anarchism", which was more recently named "Navigational Portal", to "Schools of thought".  This will hopefully smooth things over, as we don't even touch on whether or not it's anarchism.  Also, as for removing the Anarchism link, it's already linked at the top, so it's redundant here.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the average visitor to Wikipedia doesn't have a clue with regard to the metastructure, and therefore what templates are and are supposed to be, and so might not assume that they are navigational. Although we understand the whole thing as a navigational template, they might not. --AaronS 01:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that since links are underlined and blue, that anyone with a brain will realize they can navigate. I like the current version, without the POV "disputed" label. "Schools of thought" works for me. Hogeye 03:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual, you're missing the point, intentionally or not. Yes, users can navigate using the template. No, it's not clear whether or not the template is endorsing the categorization. I do not like the "schools of thought" heading. --AaronS 02:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's not the greatest title (I'll be the first to admit it's somewhat clunky), but it does skirt the issue causing the contention.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible NPOV solution 

message: I disagree they should be put in alphabetical order. Sure it is the criterion within which there can be no dispute (a comes before b and c after b), but it is not necessarily the fairest approach and it is definitely not consensual. I believe there are other things to consider. There could be a case where a school that is much less representative, and most far off of what is generally considered to be the core principles of anarchism, appears on top. Some people might find this criterion more reasonable.
I propose to try to put the names of schools in order of historical importance. I think we can find a relatively objective criterion that goes behind personal conviction. Speaking on my part, even though I am pretty much "pro-leftist", for example, I believe that perhaps anarcho-syndicalism should be on top.Maziotis 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once you order by alleged "importance", it becomes POV.  Sorting alphabetically helps maintain NPOV, since it shows no preferences for any one idea.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Before I changed it back to alphabetical order, someone had put "syndicalist" first, and the rest in some unknown (random?) order. PhilLiberty 21:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of schools of anarchist theory 

message: Hi all, I think it'd be a good idea to add Anarchism and animal rights to the template, though I've no idea where, and I've never worked on this template before. Hope it makes it in somewhere!  Canæn  09:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That page totally sucks, I hate whoever wrote it. It needs so much work. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 09:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You dork. :P  Canæn  07:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism and animal rights