Talk:Anarchism/Archive 49

message: While the term eurocentraism may make sense in relation to discussion in North America its use in the race section for groups based in Europe makes no sense.  At the comically extreme the idea that a European group (Wombles in UK) involving itself in a European campaign around European employment legislation (EUMayday)is eurocentraism is very weird indeed.  Obviously European groups will be involved in European issues rather than a campaign for labour rights in say North America.  I reckon the mentions of eurocentraism should go as they are all used with regards to groups / individuals in Europe - the term is only applicable to describe groups outside of Europe obcessed with European struggles / history etc. AndrewFleming72 12:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think this is about Eurocentrism vs. broader global/third-world struggles, not Eurocentrism as opposed to a focus on North America. So, for anarchists in Europe to articulate their struggles in terms of Europe-wide, rather than global, struggles, could indeed be seen as Eurocentric. That being said, we should only include this if we have reliable sources showing that a criticism of anarchist Eurocentrism has been put forward by notable sources, rather than being one wiki editor's opinion. The only source I can think of off-hand is a brief mention in Stewart Home's pamphlet, "Anarchist Integralism," but there may well be others. VoluntarySlave 17:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If this was true - "for anarchists in Europe to ONLY articulate their struggles in terms of Europe-wide, rather than global, struggles, could indeed be seen as Eurocentric" I agree there is a point here.  However we are actually talking of a group of a dozen or so people that no longer exists (Wombles) rather than 'anarchists' plus there is no evidence that the 'only' above applies - quite the opposite as in relation to their G8 activism they emphasised stuff outside of Europe.  In fact part of the Euromayday agenda was a campaign for workers without papers (ie workers from outside Europe).  The entry is bizarre and at best 'original research' / opinion.  The whole section should go - its irrelevent.AndrewFleming72 12:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I have done a bit more work on it. I must admit I find AndrewFleming72 remarks a little bit on the weird side. When Mayday has been for many years the day when workers of the world express their solidarity, then when groups like the Wombles use it to proclaim their European identity, restricting the expression of solidarity to people in Europe, it should come as no surprise that this is questioned. Of course Indeed I do belief that Euromayday is being retired (and not before time in my opinion). I have included a citation concerning that discussion and Eurocentrism. At first glance some might find it bizarre that an anarchist group like the Wombles are so readily dragooned behind a programme of reforming the EU coming from people close to Toni Negri the advocate of the EU constitution - but perhaps for them anarchism is more about an evasion of responsibilities than the supercession of the state.Harrypotter 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Harry I'm geninely puzzled by just what you are up to, the above looks more like an eagerness to have a dig at a tiny group that no longer exists than a serious contribution to a global entry on anarchism. I can't see what other context to read the Negri remarks above in.  From what you say above it appears to me that referring to your Eurocentrism entries as 'original research' would be too kind - the whole section is irrelevent and marginal.  Your  latest addition of what some guy said in his blog back in 2002 really just proves the point AndrewFleming72 12:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No doubt there are those who think that any critique of Eurocentrism is irrelevant or marginal. In fact the critique of anarchist Orientalism was presented as a paper at a No War But The Class War conference in London in 2002, so it is not merely the case of some guy doing a blog. It is quite true that his contribution was marginalised by the anarchists presented, but it is precisely this process of marginalisation that is being discussed, rather than just accepting the consequences of it. Certainly the remark about Foti being close to Negri is 'original research' which is why it has not been included in the article. I merely included it in the talk page so that you would better understand that just as you may find somethings weird that other people find normal, other people might find weird that which you find normal.Harrypotter 21:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird Eurocentrism section in race 

message: Where does the logotype used on the main page come from -- the A in a circle?  Is this a symbol used by anarchists or anarchist organizations on a regular basis?  I only ask because it is (was) the symbol of a notorius Chicago streetgang, Orchestra Albany. (They could be thought of as crypto-anarchists, I suppose, but I doubt they thought of themselves as such.
Athansor 17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not familiar with it? That's odd; it's very well-known. The circle-A is probably the best-known anarchist symbol. It has been used by anarchists since the early 1900s. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where does the logotype come from?

message: Stating that "most individualist anarchists" support capitalism poses several problems. (1) Who are the individualist anarchists? Does this include egoistic communists? Does this include altruistic mutualists? Is this an economic-sustem category or a personal-philosophy category? (2) What is private property in this context? Proudhon favored personal or small-group possession, and somewhere argues that we cannot apply one set of rules to products and another set of rules to the means of production. We might say that Proudhon, Tucker, et al. favor private possession over common possession or private property. (3) What is capitalism in this context? There are some rather overbroad definitions going around that describe communism as capitalism (if it is all voluntary) or anarcho-syndicalism as anarcho-capitalism (since the unions are market mechanisms). There are other definitions which focus on the separation of ownership from labor. In this case most classical individualist anarchists and many contemporary ones don't support capitalism. Jacob Haller 00:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Most Individualist Anarchists"

message: Someone with a better knowledge of the history should probably complete the edit and supply sources, but the movements described include groups such as Anti-Racist Action and the antifa groups. Libertatia 01:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  left-anarchist anti-fascism 

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 21, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Yes
:2. Factually accurate?: Sorta
:3. Broad in coverage?: Overly
:4. Neutral point of view?: Sorta
:5. Article stability? Sorta
:6. Images?: Some
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review.  Thank you for your work so far.
While I think this article is well written, it's accuracy, NPOVness and at times stability means that I don't think it is quite there yet.  Also, it is far to fucking long!  See my comments above regarding this.--AFA http://www.revleft.com 01:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: In terms of wikipedia accuracy, it is truly atrocious what a few capitalist vandals have done to this page.  There isn't a soul in the entire anarchist movement that would say that capitalism "doesn't necessarily have to rejected."  The rejection of capitalism is a given, how can you NOT be against one of the primary causes of oppression in the world when you're trying to create a new one free of hierarchy and compulsion?  I've met thousands of anarchists in the past few years and not a single one has been a capitalist or has ever met any one who was a "free market" anarchist, just saying the words makes me shudder, what a horrible terrible concept.  You are a laughing stock to real anarchists.  Want to know why capitalists are NEVER seen anywhere?  Not at protests, convergences, bookstores, news, anywhere at all?  Because so called "anarcho" capitalists don't DO ANYTHING.  They're completely uninvolved in any anarchist movement worldwide.  There has been a very very limited number of writings which grossly fall short of understanding anarchism at all that have made this concept and I would argue that the only visible presence it has is through internet trolls, a few rediculous message boards, and a website or two.  All things on the internet alone, I would add, that anarchists also aren't involved in.  Sorry "anarcho" capitalists, but your "movement" simply doesn't exist.  You're a "movement" internet trolls, constantly giving absurd electronic pressure to the idea that "We are anarchists too!" which you are not.
It really is kind of funny how infamous this wikipedia page has become.  Whenever wikipedia is brought up in conversation amongst anarchists (This has personally happened to be many times without even initiating it), the response is, "Yeah, wikipedia is a good resource, but the Anarchism page sucks!"  Wikipedia has shown to be inadequate for accurate information, given the Anarchism page as a frequent example.  If anyone would remember this, a while ago on this page there were even some asshole "nationalist anarchists" that wanted to be included.  Not only is nationalism less compatible with anarchism than sand with a parched tongue, but they were blatant racists!  Nevertheless, they were given attention and some people who were trying to be "objective" actually gave them some credit for a few weeks before everyone editing the page realized, "Okay, let's finally acknowledge that these people are scum and have nothing in the least to do with anarchism and never could possibly at all" and that was that.  But what an embarassment to wikipedia and a testament to the continued joke of this wikipedia page on Anarchism that they were given any attention at all!
If you are an anarchist, you KNOW that one of the consistent desires of yourself and other anarchists is to completely destroy capitalism beyond the power of memory, you KNOW that "anarcho" capitalism does not exist at all as a "movement" and has no prescence whatsoever at any events, protest, or convergences that anarchists have, and you KNOW that only through the tool of the internet have these idiots gained any credibility at all, sadly.  So stop giving into absurd demands and assert what you know to be true, that sympathy for capitalism does NOT BELONG anywhere on a wikipedia page about anarchism!
By the way, the fact that this page was actually nominated as a "good article" is absurd, hilarious, and tragic (in the internet sense of the word).  -Fatal 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said "There isn't a soul in the entire anarchist movement that would say that capitalism "doesn't necessarily have to rejected." If your conclusion is that therefore anarcho-capitalism isn't part of the "anarchist movement," then that's circular. Your premise is that anarcho-capitalism is not in the "anarchist movement" so you're not taking their opinions into account. Anarcho-capitalism 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding of anarchism, is that all variants could co-exist in a future anarchistic society.  Any form that could not co-exist with (for example) communism, *can't* be anarchism.  But that is just my opinionAFA http://www.revleft.com 10:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the Wikipedia article doesn't speak for the Anarchist community, that was never intended. In fact, it arguablly is Wikipedia policy to NOT speak for just your community. Wikipedia policy is that truth is irrelevant, the verifiable facts and the popularity of a concept determines how prominent it will be here. To get Wikipedia to bring it's article to conform with anarchist views, you just need to become more than a tiny fringe political philosophy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the larger culture, which is exactly why you hate this article... Raggz 02:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: One line you mentioned, "popularity of a concept," is applicable here. A very few number of rich, white men support the concept of "anarcho-capitalism" in theory. They warrant one line, on the Libertarianism article, and that's it. Vert et Noirtalk 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Worst article on a subject I've seen

message: Someone removed the Black anarchism link from the anarchism sidebar. i suspect it was someone who didn't want any links to alphabetically precede "Capitalist." I don't know how to edit the side bar but someone who does should add the Black Anarchism link back in as it is an important article (thought it needs work) referenced in many other frequented pages, such as Black Panthers. Blockader 15:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: I think the old section title helped distinguish between market individualism (Warren, Tucker, et al.) and egoism (Stirner, Tucker, et al.). Despite the overlap these are not the same tradition. Jacob Haller 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Individualist anarchism in the Unites States

message: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anarcho-capitalism. Comments requested. -- infinity0 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MFD comments requested

message: The current Issues/Globalization subsection reads:
All anarchists oppose the use of coercion related to international trade, as carried out through institutions such as the World Bank, World Trade Organization, G8 and World Economic Forum. Some anarchists see such coercion as neoliberal globalization. Groups such as Reclaim the Streets,Reclaim the Streets Donnacha DeLong, RTÉ News Online 2002 retrieved 5 September 2006 were among the instigators of the so-called anti-globalization movement.The New Anarchists David Graeber, New Left Review 13, January-February 2002 retrieved 6 September 2006 The Carnival Against Capitalism on 18 June 1999 is generally regarded as the first of the major anti-globalization protests.G8 Summit - J18: Global Carnival Against Corporate Tyranny, London, England C. L. Staten, EmergencyNet News journalist, writing for RTÉ's website in 2002 retrieved 5 September 2006 Anarchists, such as the WOMBLES, often played a major role in planning, organising and participating in the subsequent protests.WOMBLES wandering free Josie Appleton, spiked-politics, 2002 retrieved 5 September 2006 The protests tended to be organised on anarchist direct action principles with a general tolerance for a range of different activities ranging from those who engage in tactical frivolity to the black blocs.Anarchism as a Scapegoat of the 21st century: violence, anarchism and anti-globalisation protests Thrall issue #21, 2001 retrieved 5 September 2006 Other market anarchists and anarcho-capitalists see the worldwide expansion of the division of labor through trade as a boon, and oppose the regulation and cartelization imposed by the World Bank, WTO, etc. Many also object to fiat money issued by central banks and resulting debasement of money and confiscation of wealth.
:Perhaps we should tackle the issues in here? e.g.
:*Opposition to border controls (immigration quotas, historically import tarriffs, etc.)
:*Opposition to intellectual property (with Spooner dissenting)
:*Opposition to interest, theft, and charging people for their rulers' debts
:*Opposition to structural adjustment
:*Various environmental issues
:I would also separate the currency section (one line right now) from the globalization section. Jacob Haller 01:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalization

message: Someone has removed Black anarchism from the template again. i don't know how to fix it. Blockader 15:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy: If it is part of the template itself, go to the template page and revert it in the history. If it is data that was added to the infobox table in this article, edit the article and re-add it. All this assumes that the entry should be there. If it was removed with good reason, then don't just revert it; discuss it with the editor who removed it. Drop me a message if you need my help. Adrian M. H. 22:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: Why has the page on the "anarchopedia" site been deleted?
:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchopedia might help you out there. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 03:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has the page on "anarchopedia" been deleted? 

message: What evidence is there that this was a real attempt to assinate Franco? I am not doubting Christie's sincereity has he set out on his ill-fated mission, but I do wonder why je appeared on television with the MI6 agent, Malcolm Muggeridge, who asked him whether it would be acceptable to assassinate a tyrant like Franco the evening before he left Britain. Reading his account of thewhole episode, i am sure I am not the only person to ask myself whether it was not a set up so the Spanish police could arrest Louis Edo. Perhaps thisaddition needs to be reworded.Harrypotter 09:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have amended the passage so that it reads much better. Of course, Franco's views on racewerequite different from Hitler's. Ater the civil war he had an honour guard drawn from the Moroccan troops who served as a significant part of hos army during the civil war - a far cry from the raciialy manicured SS who served Hitler. Check Regulares for more information about this.Harrypotter 16:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christie and the assassination attempt on Franco

message: In Skinner's essay, News From Nowhere, 1984 he places his utopian (socialist) novel Walden Two as a practical form of (19th century, non-violent) anarchism. If I were to add this notation to this page, where should it go? Is Skinner's Radical Behaviorist Anarchism it's own school? Or is it a subset of "communitarian" or socialist anarchism?
--florkle 18:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it should go in a section with herbert Spencer?Harrypotter 18:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure I see the link. I'll look into it. --florkle 15:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#19th_century_United_States is where I think Skinner is linking- from Thoreau to Walden Two (a "collective thoreauvian anarchism"?). Maybe it's too insignificant to bother, although there have been many attempts to create a walden two (see Los Horcones & Twin Oaks) ?
--florkle 15:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skinner's News From Nowhere, 1984 

message: I'm somewhat uneasy about the current description of anarchism, which implies several not-always-compatible and not-closely-related schools. Malatesta writes:Jacob Haller 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Current description is good because there are several incompatible and unrelated schools (one obvious example is relation between individualist anarchism and communist anarchism). -- Vision Thing -- 15:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You mean, you agree that sourced text should be altered to better represent your POV? -- Vision Thing -- 11:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   That isn't what I said, but thanks for the indication that you are not worth trying to communicate with here.  Etcetc 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Malatesta on the interrelationship of different schools of anarchist thought

message: In Bob Black's article The Libertarian as Conservative I can't find where he claims that anarcho-capitalists shouldn't be called anarchists. Am I missing something? -- Vision Thing -- 13:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "To my mind a right-wing anarchist is just a minarchist who'd abolish the state to his own satisfaction by calling it something else." So, just to state the obvious, for Black a "right-wing anarchist" is, in fact, a "minarchist" and does not abolish the state. Clearly, not an anarchist. BlackFlag 16:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When the Infoshop Library is working again, you can re-establish links to the articles by Black that we have in the library. Chuck0 02:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bob Black

message: I would like to remind everyone that if any suspicious accounts such as User:Crashola, User:Level basis or User:Signatory turn up, on this or any other related pages (eg. Lysander Spooner), they may be reported at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Billy Ego. After you have edited that page, add the line  to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Pending. -- infinity0 12:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppets 

message: I have been extensively sourcing the libertarian socialism article and in the process I have noticed that nearly all of the sources use the term "libertarian socialism" synonymously with anarchism.  Its seems to me that it is thus important to note in this article that libertarian socialism is often, though not always, used as a synonym for anarchism.  Yet, the article currently only mentions libertarian socialism in the "see also" and "referances" section, and there is no mention of it in the template.  I'm trying to think of a good place to put this reference, perhaps in the header or 2nd paragraph of the intro, and also where it might be best placed in the toolbar.  Any ideas?  Etcetc 20:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this raises some curious issues. It may well be that many of the texts which use libertarian socialism as a synonym for anarchism also denote a certain distancing from anarchism. This of course links to the continual tussles between libetraian socialist anarchists and individualists. In many ways the term libertarian socialism was an expression developed by people who wished to advocate a society in which there would be no need of a state, and differentiate themselves from anarchism - which places the struggle against the state as the central issue of the current society. The lib socs contrariwise saw the state being eroded, but in a conflict greatly determined by class struggle than a struggle against the state. Clearly these are very different views, and perhaps only superficially compatable.Harrypotter 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many self-identified libertarian socialists are individualists. The term just distinguishes between rival senses of libertarian. Jacob Haller 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Libertarian Socialism is indeed a common synonym. It's more popular in Europe than in the U.S. (where in fact it may be virtually unkown, even among anarchist circles), and represents a continued tie to the rest of the radical left. Post-left anarchists often consciously distance themselves from the term. Vert et Noirtalk 03:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've definitely always thought of lib soc as synonymous with the worker/class struggle oriented strains of anarchism. Murderbike 06:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sometimes used as a less "agressive" term. Over 20 years ago I was involved with an attempt to launch a local anarchist group in Britain. There was an American present who had been deported in the Committee of 100 days and wanted the group to be called "libertarian socialist" rather than "anarchist" because he thought it was less likely to attract hostility. --Peter cohen 08:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian Socialism 

message: :Image:Hakim Bey.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hakim Bey.jpeg

message: I'm not particularly familiar with the subject. I've gone to Bakunin's works but we can't agree what they mean. Are any other editors more familiar with the subject? Jacob Haller 03:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Collectivist anarchism]] article needs work

message: I don't know what Maziotis problem is, but the edit removed the false statement that Fredy Perlman was a) French, and b) an anarchist. In Having Little, Being Much: A Chronicle of Fredy Perlman’s Fifty Years by Lorraine Perlman it is made clear that Fredy was not into any -isms. Furthermore by ascribing agency to the considering as the progenitor of green anarchism things are made a lot clearer. Also I resent the implications that I am in anyway sympathetic to green anarchism, even though I respect the work of Fredy Perlman.Harrypotter 21:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Perlman and Green Anarchism

message: To anyone interested, I've created a chronologically organized List of anarchist periodicals that I hope will place anarchist newspapers and magazines in a historical context. Currently, the page is rather US/UK-centric. If you are familiar with the history of anarchist journals, please help flesh-out this new article. Thanks! - N1h1l 17:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've responded on the talk page for the list with some journals I can remember in Britain and Ireland. Some of these are still going. I suspect that emails to SolFed or the AF might not just turn up the publication dates of their own mags but also potentially yield info on continental groups with whom they exchange issues. Kate Sharpley Librady might also have info from their archive.--Peter cohen 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of anarchist periodicals 

message: It is completely unacceptable to protect a talk page. Non-users need to be able to express concerns with the article just as much, if not more, than registered users. Algabal 11:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good in certain cases to semi-protect the talk page, for the exact same reasons as any other pages. However, it looks like this was done in September 2006 (probably for vandalism or something) and was merely forgotten. I'l put a request up for unprotect. - Zero1328 Talk? 14:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Unprotected :) - Alison ☺ 16:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected talk page

message: Firstly, anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism is POV. Many individualist anarchists denounce anarcho-capitalism. So I've moved it to its own section.
Secondly, the section is too large and presents unnecessary details which serve only to confuse the reader. It is like a badly written essay. It tells me nothing about the general ideas of anarcho-capitalism. Why is it focusing on specific issues like interest and rent?
Thirdly, why is there 30 sources betwen cited for one view? This is spam and also propaganda, because it makes it seem like it's somehow a fact and not just an opinion.
Fourthly, the "Inidivudalist anarchism in the Untied States" section is a specific issue which should not be in a general article on anarchism.
Fifthly, I am shocked why nobody else is removing these things I have pointed out. They severely unbalance the article, and this is blatantly obvious. Individualist anarchism in the US and anarcho-capitalism in no way represent any significant portion of the anarchist movement, so they should not take up a significant portion of the article. And why is nobody removing the 30-source spam? -- infinity0 12:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is not "POV." What does this mean: "Many individualist anarchists denounce anarcho-capitalism." That's circular. You're first assuming that anarcho-capitalists aren't individualist anarchists, then saying that individualist anarchists denounce anarcho-capitalism.  But, anarcho-capitalists don't denounce themselves. Anyway, who are these "many individualist anarchists"?  You're making that up.  The reason there are 30 sources is to head off people like you coming in and saying that anarcho-capitalism is not an individualist form of anarchism. The sources are there. So, I'm restoring. Anarcho-capitalism 13:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The title "Individualist anarchism in the United States" though is kind of strange. I think I can straighten that out.. Anarcho-capitalism 14:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I renamed it "19th century in the United States." The individualist anarchism that originated in the U.S. is historically very important, so it shouldn't be deleted. Anarcho-capitalism 14:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If that's what you mean by "POV" then everything in the article is POV since all the sources are written by people. So what you're saying is ridiculous. Anarcho-capitalism 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 30 sources is more than enough to show that anarcho-capitalism is considered a form of anarchism, and an individualist form. Without those sources people like you would come and and delete anarcho-capitalism with the silly POV-pushing claim that it's not a form of anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above statement is logically wrong. "30 sources" mean absolutely nothing, because those 30 sources are not a random sample, and are therefore unrepresentative of anarchism or general opinion. Why are they not a random sample? Because those 30 sources have been hand-picked and selected by you and other anarcho-capitalist editors. You have neglected to mention any other sources, such as AFAQ and the vast majority of the contemporary modern anarchist movement, which denounce anarcho-capitalism at least as a form of individualist-anarchism, and often as a form of anarchism altogether. -- infinity0 11:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Current consensus is to keep issues at Issues section, so there you will find (few) sources which dispute claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. AFAQ is not there because it is not a reliable source, as well as anarchist websites. Also, when editing keep in mind WP:OR. -- Vision Thing -- 12:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Anarcho-capitalism 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, fair point. However, it seems a bit over-done, and too wordy. The US-ind-anarchism section is just way too long compared to the other sections, and basically, is boring. Could you condense it down? I am going to add clean-up templates and the occasinal inline NPOV marker. Please don't remove them, as they are valid points. -- infinity0 11:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  individualist anarhcism and anarcho-capitalist section 

message: "Green-Anarchism is a philosophy that advocates a return to a pre-industrial and usually pre-agricultural society"
I am unsure that green anarchism necessarily implies this.  This section seems to me too heavily focused on primitivist perspectives - I think a look at the work of the Australian Graham Purchase (Anarchism and Ecology) and the many eco-anarchists working outside of a primitivist or anti-industry perspective would help to round out this section.  I might start working on an edit for this...
:That would, imho, be a very welcome addition. Libertatia 20:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  green anarchism section 

message: Looking at Vision Thing's recent revert, I'm thinking that this is getting ridiculous. You've removed every single change since your previous revert, even ! This is not constructive at all. I'd really like you to start explaining your reverts, because right now you appear to be simply blindly reverting everything, as if you own the article. If you can't do that, I suggest you take some time off Wikipedia to think about this. - Zero1328 Talk? 12:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed that  tag was added. I wouldn't have removed it otherwise, because I agree that the article is too long. As for other changes, I reverted Full Shunyata's revert which he didn't explained or discussed, anon's additions which are discussed in section above, and infintiy0's edit which is basically  a revert to an old version of the Anarcho-capitalism and Capitalism sections. -- Vision Thing -- 13:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Restoring a consensus version, as I noted in the ES. You reverted 12 editors: Jacob Haller, Infinity0, Full Shunyata, ES Sage, Nwe, Van helsing, Jiddisch, 192, Christopher Connor, SmackBot, 75, and Neilbeach. Granted, one of them is a bot and two others are IP editors. Your reasons above accounts for only two of us, one of which amounts to you ignoring consensus, the other involving you accusing someone of a revert, which I can't actually see which version he supposedly reverted to. -- infinity0 13:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My reverts are usually not "blind" reverts, in them I try to keep good changes. Last time I mostly failed to do that, so I apologize to editors whose constructive changes I reverted. -- Vision Thing -- 13:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are senselessly reverting again. All you have done here is added the tag and a few minor word changes; the 9 editors included far more than this. -- infinity0 14:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Read Tucker, particularly State Socialism and Anarchism and Armies that Overlap. Even Kropotkin considered Tucker's anarchism a form of socialism, as did Malatesta. Jacob Haller 18:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about me reading Tucker somehow. It is about reliable secondary sources that make this claim about Tucker. Intangible2.0 18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like the primary sources, which are far more reliable than any secondary sources can ever be, then I suppose you will accept some secondary sources. I have Kropotkin's 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica article handy. Paragraphs 4 & 6 define all anarchists as socialists, and opponents of capitalism, not mentioning Tucker. Kropotkin discusses Tucker much later in the article, emphasizing his egoism more than his economic proposals. Jacob Haller 19:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Peacott, Joe, An Overview of Individualist Anarchist Thought. Jacob Haller 19:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with using a 100-year-old source, is that it gets out of date, when its subject is a living, breathing thing. Kropotkin was an Anarchist Communist. Anarchism emerged from the left, but it is no longer wholly defined as a part of the political left. Many anarchists do still identify with the left, but not all, and to ignore post-left anarchists is simply asinine. We have modern sources we can use just as well as the older ones. Vert et Noirtalk 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vision Thing's reverts 

message: I've added a POV tag to the article. The lead does not correctly summarize the main points that should be made about anarchism, recent edits were unsourced, and more importantly, these changes to the lead should be discussed on the talk page first. Intangible2.0 15:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. It's the same lead that's been there for ages. (I went back 500 edits to check.) Well, except for the claim that the "principal focus" is "the democratisation of society", which is of course ridiculously sectarian. I guess that's what you refer to. I'll delete it forthwith. PhilLiberty 05:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, although I think the bit about involuntary servitude is superfluous. Anyways some stuff has been re-added again, I'm not sure why. Intangible2.0 15:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I added that back in because it belongs there. With Vision Thing's reverts/trashing the whole article is getting screwed up, and vital material kept getting deleted. Jacob Haller 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Admittedly, the version with "democratization" was problematic. Jacob Haller 15:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pov tag 

message: Anyone else apart from Vision Thing objecting to these edits? Here is an explanation of my edits:
*edits 1&2: Removal of spam of sources supporting one view
**Addessing Vision Thing's concerns, AFAQ is frankly the best web resource on anarchism. It's comparable to printed sources, is actually getting printed soon, and has also been cited by printed sources. AFAQ itself is in reality actually a published source - it is published on many many anarchist websites, and also by the Debian GNU/Linux group.
**Wikipedia article on AFAQ provides plenty of information for the reader about its origins. If you think it is "out of the way", well, so is the note.
*edits 3&4: in these edits no information was deleted, all I did was move the last paragraph into second place, so that the information flows better, in light of edits 1&2.
*edits 5&6: here I have moved some anti-ancap rhetoric away from the capitalist section into the anarcho-capitalist note, because I thought it was taking up too much space in that section, and also these types of anti-ancap arguments was not relevant to the discussion on capitalism.
-- infinity0 19:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the AFAQ is pretty irrelevant. There are plenty of secondary source, many with peer review and professional oversight. Furthermore, the AFAQ has more to do with activism than with academic discussion. And it is hardly cited at all (see Google Scholar). It is easy to self-publish these days, one can even produce books on-demand, and why should one care about what Linux developers think about the AFAQ, they are professional software writers, not polical scientists. Intangible2.0 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First volume of AAFAQ has been delivered to the publisher, AK Press. Libertatia 17:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, OK, well, if you have better sources in mind, feel free to put them in. I was just defending AFAQ against removal. It was the best, most general, source I could find under the circumstances. However, about your "easy to self-publish" point, AFAQ is not primarily "self-published". Many separate, independent, and reputable (for the subject of anarchism) websites have decided to host it because they think it is a good piece of work. -- infinity0 16:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: I have just read this discussion page and I am greatly disheartened by users such as Anarcho-capitalism and Vision Thing who consistently close their eyes to the consensus and make this article a platform for their fairly isolated point of view. I'm not sure if they are trolling or just delluded. It makes me very sad to see this. Anarcho-capitalism's arguments are not logical yet it seems he/she believes they are. How can this be stopped. This article on anarchism is a complete misrepresentation as I'm sure most people here realize. Surely there is a solution. Howabout these people who disagree with the consensus create their own website detailing their beliefs and then that website could be linked to from the Wikipedia article saying something about how these Anarcho-Capitalists consider themselves to be anarchists but generally non-Anarcho-Capitalists completely disagree. That is factual. 125.63.133.176 08:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs to be fixed 

message: Apparently someone thinks that the way to solve our edit conflicts here is just to remove the section on anarcho-capitalism. Much as I disagree with some an-caps, I can see how that particular move can be anything by flagrant POV-pushing. The last time we had anything like a general consensus on the shape of this article, the question of inclusion of the an-cap section had been pretty well dropped. We really don't need to descend into "True Anarchism" edit-wars. Libertatia 17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho-capitalism (for the bazillionth time) 

message: Just wondering what's up with this... why is it misleading? also it's kinda harsh to call someone a vandal. -- infinity0 16:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  uh.. 

message: I can udnerstand the reasons behind the removal of this, but I thought there was good information there. (And I myself re-inserted the first sentence, which I thought gave useful information.) Does anyone think likewise? Maybe the removed stuff could be rewritten and re-inserted? -- infinity0 16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FS's removal 

message: I suggest dividing this into two sub-sections (at the same level as the current section), one on markets and one on capitalism. Additional concerns:
* Proudhon himself was, in most senses of the term, a market anarchist. Ironically, he's one  of the only two people named for non-market anarchists here.
* Of course most individual anarchists can't be considered collectivist anarchists. Why is that passage even there?
* "Private property" invites equivocation. Jacob Haller 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the edit buttons don't show up, reload the page; if they do show up, they are screwed up. Click to edit the previous section. Jacob Haller 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. You have to click to edit the previous section to edit the next section. Thanks. I wish someone would fix that.  Operation Spooner 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues-Capitalism

message: Is it possible to not have the term anarcho-pacifism forward here? I haven't followed the history of the page and don't know the reasoning behind having done so in the first place, but there's not a single use of the term "pacifism" in the entire article at this point... and the word "pacifist" is used once in reference to a music group. Suffice it to say, a person looking for information on anarcho-pacifism isn't going to find any such information in this article and is going to waste a lot of time looking for it. I would suggest that either the term be forwarded to the Christian Anarchism article... which at the very least does have a pacifism section, or ideally it should have an article of its own (since not all anarcho-pacifists are Christians)
:Go to Anarcho-pacifism. Unless you specify no redirect, the Anarchism page will load with a note saying "redirected from Anarcho-pacifism." Click on the Anarcho-pacifism link there. This time the Anarcho-pacifism page will load. Now you can start the page, mark it as a stub, add some appropriate categories, and so on. Okay? Jacob Haller 06:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarcho-Pacifism

message: I've added a POV tag to this section. AFAQ is not a reliable source to talk about anarchism in general, and anarcho-capitalism in particular. I'm not sure how anarcho-capitalism is supposed to be a controversial political philosophy? This seems like a WP:OR reading of source material. The first paragraph needs to be cut. Intangible2.0 01:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag anarcho-capitalism section 

message: I've removed this bit. See for example The State of Statelessness by John T. Sanders , who points out that this is a mere terminological issue. Intangible2.0 01:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalism and Marshall 

message: Just because one tries to use the word "anarcho" in their philosophy, does not make them a part of the anarchist movement. Including "Anarcho-Capitalism" in this article is roughly equivalent to including the Anarchist Pogo Party of Germany here, and purporting it to be a major "school of thought" among anarchists. It's bullshit, and anyone can tell you that. Murray Rothbard was a libertarian who wanted to use a shocking word. All the sources mention libertarian along with, if not instead of, anarchism to describe "anarcho capitalism". The Libertarian template lists it, why the hell must we? Vert et Noirtalk 21:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Anarcho-capitalism" is just a word. If Rothbard named it "market anarchism" which is what most people call it, I don't think we'd be having this conversation would we? Operation Spooner 21:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That first bit is my point; it is just a word. His calling it "anarchism" does not change the fact that it has nothing to do with Anarchism, though it may be a libertarian philosophy. We'd be having the same discussion if someone tried to include "market anarchism" in this article, because it is not anarchism. It's just a word. Plain and simple. Vert et Noirtalk 21:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the stuff on Proudhon should be cut from this article as well?! The reason why anarcho-capitalism is included in this article is because reliable sources support its inclusion. Intangible2.0 22:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it should be. Not a whole lot of Anarchists in the real world read Proudhon anymore. But that's not the point. I'll look into the reliable sources on it. Anarcho-Capitalism is a loaded term, and everyone knows it. It's staring you in the face. Why can't we come together and bring in enough sources and perspective to warrant it's expulsion from the article? Vert et Noirtalk 02:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarianism, or "Anarcho Capitalism" 

message: I can't seem to find any discussion on it, but people have mentioned that the Anarchist FAQ is not a reliable source. Why is this? Vert et Noirtalk 21:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:V: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Intangible2.0 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our own article, An Anarchist FAQ, describes the work as "an online FAQ written by an international work group of anarchists connected through the internet." It's not published by an individual. It's hosted by Infoshop.org, which is neither a blog nor a personal website. Even if any of these were true, the guideline says "largely." Anyone with any background knowledge on Anarchism, with any connection to the Anarchist movement would think of it a quite a reliable source, at least for Anarchism. Vert et Noirtalk 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Therefore there exists a second clause in WP:V: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I doubt that will hold for Infoshop; anyways the proof of that lies with the editor who wants to insert material from Infoshop. Intangible2.0 18:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian Mackaye would be pretty darned established as an expert in my opinion, and I doubt many people would argue with that. As well, he's had writings published in countless liner notes, and several introductions/forwards. The other "principle contributors" are of good renown as well. Vert et Noirtalk 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the discussion will end there. AK Press is not a mainstream publishing house. WP:NPOV still applies. The Faq has not been used much in academic discussion on anarchism, I doubt that will change in the future. Intangible2.0 18:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For non-anarchism related subjects, your point is valid. However, the subject here is anarchism, so of course an anarchist publisher is appropriate. Your argument would similarly justify deleting many many pro-anarchocapitalist sources from various articles. -- infinity0 20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Plenty of those sources are from mainstream (academic) publishers, and include scholars, like John Hospers, who have regularly written about anarchism in academic publications.  Intangible2.0 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Vert et Noirtalk 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Int2, of course that is OK for a source. What you were saying though is the source has to have been discussed/cited ("used") much by other academics, which which does not apply to the vast majority of sources on the page, including AFAQ. (An "internet source" being cited in at least two printed works as serious research, is very impressive though, don't you think?). Even without being published in print form, AFAQ is a good source to go on wikipedia; in fact, it is much better than a lot of sources which *are* printed. Its credentials - being hosted on a lot (I was exaggerating when I said hundreds, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number was 100) of major independent anarchist websites, speaks for itself, TBH. -- infinity0 09:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchist FAQ reliability 

message: I haven't been around this article to know off-hand how old all the discussions are on this page, or if they're all active. I've found that just archiving judging by the posted dates on conversations generally pisses someone or another off, so I won't be bold here. But this talk page is rather cluttered, and it looks like it's highly deserving of an archiving. Vert et Noirtalk 03:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. This is just what I was talking about. It just seems that a lot of these things were inactive, and could use with it soon. I wouldn't be the one to do it, anyway, methinks. Vert et Noirtalk 20:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page cleanup, Archiving 

message: I found that, when editing, the Godwin button led to both the Godwin and Proudhon sections, explaining why the edit buttons for all later sections were off by one. The "main" template in the Proudhon section was on the same line as the section header was. I moved the "main" template to its own line and this seems to have corrected the edit button problem. Jacob Haller 08:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed edit buttons