Talk:Communitarianism/Archive 1

message: I merged communitarianism (ideology) into the philosophy section. Feel free to comment. Sam [Spade] 18:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger 

message: Was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the effect of communitarianism and multicultralism on feminism - i am not really in the know, but figured that if multicultralsim is in the first paragraph there should be some explaination in the article - eg:
"The question of priority, whether on the individual or community, often has the largest impact in the most pressing ethical questions, such as poverty, abortion, multiculturalism, and hate speech."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.57.36 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communitarianism and Multicultralism - Vs Feminism? 

message: I don't quickly know what to make of the recently and anonymously added link to Communitarian Agonism. Despite its name, it is not clearly or obviously related to the topic of Communitarianism. Can someone take some time to get a good look at it and see if they can (at the very least) add a sentence or two of useful commentary next to the link, explaining its nature and/or relevance or (more likely) find a more appropriate article from which to link it? -- Jmabel 23:33, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
:This page is confusing in the way it simultaneously talks about both forms of communitarianism. I think the page on conservatism should be a model for this page. It is very well-organized.
Juan, Oct 15, 2004
:I think I agree with you; if someone can point out the signifcance of the article, good, but I couldn't find any. Unless any is found, I think it should be removed. (unsigned; as explained below, it's Juan, who meant to agree with Jmabel, not with himself.)
::The above two comments both came from the same account, User:Juan Ponderas. Agreeing anonymously with one's own statement does not strengthen it. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:35, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
LOL, Jmabel, I was agreeing with your statement. Sorry for the imprecision. I meant the article in the link- 'Communitarian Agonism' 
Oh, and there's always a possibility that jmabel and I are two accounts by the same person...
Juan, Oct 25, 2004
: OK, if you're me: what's my mother's maiden name? (Even though I'm not you, I'm going to put a comment by your comment to make it clearer what you were referring to. If I do not fulfil what you intended, please revert me.) -- Jmabel | Talk 06:42, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the link, since no one seems to be defending it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:46, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
I, a totally anonymous user who is definately not Juan Ponderas, agree that the link should be removed. And I think it's obvious that the question as to his mother's maiden name is a clever coverup to hide their true identity. You can stop playing your game. The edit makes sense, Thankyou. Now I'll get back to something more substantive, like filling in the remaining holes in the article.- Anonymous, Oct 26, 2004
: Who, for anyone not following closely, is Juan Ponderas. And I am Jmabel | Talk. Are you confused yet? 22:15, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry folks. I felt I had to reset the "Communitarian Agonism" thing, as I failed to get convinced by your objections to. You should say some more about "how it's not being relevant to communitarianism." You're suggesting that anti-colonial communitarianism is conservative--I don't agree with you. User:Mohhe, 13:46, 14 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communitarian Agonism? 

message: Amitai Etzioni clearly made communitarian a widely-used term. It's aetiology is Vatican II and the document Gaudium et spes (1964 [Church in the Modern World]. It orchestrates a program of church, state, individual, institutions, etc., that have since acquired Lasch, Bellah, George, and others as a "bridge" between collectivist and liberal ideals. This entry needs far more of Vatican II's designs to make it complete. ````dshsfca  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshsfca (talk • contribs) 22:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone help me figure out where Amitai Etzioni's brand of Responsive Communitarianism fits into this picture?  It doesn't seem to align with the two given definitions, so I've listed it as a possible third.Drernie 18:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You got me. I've never heard of that. Couldn't really understand their platform; it was so vague as to apply to, like, anything. Juan Ponderas 21:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, Pat Buchanan is quite the economic nationalist being anti-internationalist, just the opposite of an economical liberal. He's against free trade, globalization, NAFTA and for tarrifs and other protectionist policies. - Dejitarob 06:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: You do it just the same way you made a comment here. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporaries Section 

message: I'm considering removing the unwritten sub-section on Civil Society. I can't think of much to say about it other than -) this is what it is and communitarians embrace it. That much is already said. Or could anyone expand on it?
:That would be fine by me. Unwritten sections aren't much use unless some one plans to write them in the near future. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:18, 8 November 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil Society? 

message: I added this section following a realization I had since writing this article originally. Then, I had assumed that the fourth quadrant on the Nolan Chart was communitarian, and, if authoritarianism was their, it was an extremist version. Now, it seems to be rather that the Nolan Chart, by only labeling by government action, includes both in the same space. So I felt it necesary to distinguish them. Juan Ponderas 22:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to overplay the importance of the Nolan Chart, though it is the most widely known; how should I fix this? I'm certainly not partial to it, having faults with it I believed I fixed in my chart, but it is better than most others- not all charts are created equal. If you believe mention should be made of totalitarian democracy, should it be made in this section? Ideology is not circumstantial; you either believe in majority rule or you don't. There is not an in-between. Those regimes would have ruled without popular support; there philosophy justifies it to them. Does popular support make their regimes democratic? In cirsumstance, yes, but in philosophy, no.Juan Ponderas 03:22, 15 December 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communitarianism versus Authoritarianism 

message: Someone recently (and anonymously) added a link to the Anti-Communitarian League. It is of some imaginable relevance, but it's a bit out there in tin-foil-hat territory. Could someone besides me have a look? Am I the only one who thinks this is a bit into the lunatic fringe? I won't delete it singlehandedly, but I'd be very happy if we can get some sort of consensus to delete it. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:39, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
:No, go ahead, I agree with you. 'imperialist communist conspiracy?' Juan Ponderas 03:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will defend the link. I found it amusing and informative. So what if their crazy. Some subjects, such as this, are so obscure that few are concerned with them. In such situations the % of people involved who are wacko's is high. Besides, I think it provides a bit of context. Understanding the opposition can sometimes teach you about the subject :)  01:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be violating NPOV if we had the link with a warning that the site is operated by a highly amusing fringe group who doesn't have a clue what communitarianism is? Then maybe. I don't think it counts as opposition when it's opposing something that communitarianism is not, and I'm not sure if lack of better sites is enough reason to allow a site that wouldn't be allowed at other articles. As it is, I think we need a review as to the relevance of some of the links transported from disinfopedia. Amusing, yes, and I hate to be seen as square, but not informative- actually the opposite, misinformative. Juan Ponderas 04:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hows that?  12:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Communitarian League 

message: I've done two things. First, I've rearranged the sections of the article. Second, I've made some changes to matters concerning political models. As jmabel advised, I took some of the emphasis off the Nolan Chart. Mainly, by referencing to it less in other sections and making brief mention of other models in the section on the political spectrum. I did, however, replace the image I had made with the actual Nolan Chart image used throughout wikipedia. Juan Ponderas 01:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to jmabel's comment in history; I probably did a bad job describing populists, but what I wanted to do was give the definition used in the populist article. Juan Ponderas 23:10, 18 February 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: I can't comment much on Aristotle's politics until I do some more research, but from what articles I've read there are rational reasons to believe his views may have provided a source for communitarian philosophy. This topic should be elaborated on, or the sentence concerning it removed, and clarified whether it applies to either or both forms of communitarianism. In the meanwhile, I think the recently added comment "for no logical reason" should be removed. Juan Ponderas 02:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: Arturodekko's recent edit looks to me to be pure POV, and counterproductive. I haven't been much involved in this article, and others have, so I'm just raising the flag and recommending a revert.  -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
I second that. I wrote him a comment in his user talk so he can do something. Jacoplane 15:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: A few questions, and some ideas for future work.
*In the first line, does 'liberalism' refer to classical or contemporary American liberalism? Or both?
*"For example, both would generally be more supportive of war than would more socially liberal philosophies, but each would support it under different cicumstances and for different reasons. Communitarians would go to war under a doctrine of just war, claiming humanitarian reasons or to spread democracy, whereas for authoritarians would tend to go to war for imperialistic or nationalistic reasons, or in an effort to enforce their ideology." I think this is a bad argument, or at least unsupported. US imperialism in the late 19th century could be cited as a counterexample. It should probably be removed until it can be better supported. And yes, I'm aware that I originally wrote it.
*Is the 'See also' section meant to apply to both forms of communitarianism?
*A cleanup of the links, perhaps embedding some within the article.
*Expansion of sections on contributors to communitarian philosophy (in the second sense).
*Ties of communitarianism to Aristotle.  
Juan Ponderas 16:05, 23 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few issues