| Revision as of 14:59, 13 June 2014 editGoethean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users40,563 edits →Suggested compromise regarding disputed material← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:08, 14 June 2014 edit undoJLMadrigal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,267 edits →Suggested compromise regarding disputed material: contextNext edit → | ||
| Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
| Many articles have a "Criticism" section devoted to counter arguments. Placing disputes regarding "official" and "unofficial" versions of anarcho-capitalism (as well as any disputes regarding the "legitimacy" of anarcho-capitalism) in such a section would be a fitting compromise. It's not a question of preventing readers from knowing about controversies regarding the movement, but about presenting them in an organized way. An article about the laws of aerodynamics written in the 19th century would have been corrupted if it were subject to contemporary viewpoints regarding man's inability to fly. Likewise, the laws of economics are not subject to the whims of social engineers - as the official politico-academic left (as well as the ecclesiastical right) would prefer. ] (]) 13:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC) | Many articles have a "Criticism" section devoted to counter arguments. Placing disputes regarding "official" and "unofficial" versions of anarcho-capitalism (as well as any disputes regarding the "legitimacy" of anarcho-capitalism) in such a section would be a fitting compromise. It's not a question of preventing readers from knowing about controversies regarding the movement, but about presenting them in an organized way. An article about the laws of aerodynamics written in the 19th century would have been corrupted if it were subject to contemporary viewpoints regarding man's inability to fly. Likewise, the laws of economics are not subject to the whims of social engineers - as the official politico-academic left (as well as the ecclesiastical right) would prefer. ] (]) 13:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :An article about 19th century aerodynamic theories ''must'' be placed in its proper context at the outset so as not to mislead readers. So must an article on politico-economic theory. — ] 14:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC) | :An article about 19th century aerodynamic theories ''must'' be placed in its proper context at the outset so as not to mislead readers. So must an article on politico-economic theory. — ] 14:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::Precisely. And the context in which the principles of anarcho-capitalism is understood is a clear understanding of the basic laws of economics. The reason the anti-state movement has failed on the left is because of its grave misunderstanding of capital and markets. Similarly, in the 19th century, the laws of aerodynamics were not well understood - and certainly not by the majority. What would be misleading to readers of anarcho-capitalism would be a writing-off of market fundamentals by basing its legitimacy on its popularity. The case for anarcho-capitalism must be presented clearly in the article. Opposing theories (where applicable) can be presented toward the end in the "Criticism" section. ] (]) 00:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Threaded discussion=== | ===Threaded discussion=== | ||
Revision as of 00:08, 14 June 2014
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anarcho-capitalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | Anarcho-capitalism is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 9, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WP1.0Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anarcho-capitalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
Relationship with anarchism in lead
The suggestion that anarcho-capitalism is not always seen, especially by anarchists, as being a part of anarchism proper is uncontroversial and well sourced. The nature of the relationship between anarcho-capitalism and anarchism as a whole is a key issue and relates to the fundamental definition of the terms. It is also documented throughout the main body, including in its own section. Despite those three points, one editor has taken to repeatedly and unilaterally removing reference to it in the lead, including again just now, in a blind-revert edit that also blanked content and sources from the main body. WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:WEIGHT are basic WP policies and the WP:LEAD guideline is also quite clear that the lead summarises the body. The idea that that principle of concise overview and explanation is not a "valid reason" for including this point in the lead or that to do so would be equivalent to mentioning creationism in the evolution lead is somewhat odd and certainly not a justification for removing sourced content. N-HH talk/edits 13:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- If it's a concise overview, why do none of the other anarchism articles have such a thing? After all, there have been massive infights between, say, Bakunin and Proudhonian anarchists. But the ledes of the articles of the respective ideas they espoused don't have such a concept in them as you're trying. Why is that? Could it be that you're just attempting disruptive editing to make a point? Sure looks that way. Until you perform the same "service" for all anarchism articles, you have nothing upon which to stand. Nothing.
- Further, if it is, as you say, a concise overview--why does the lede of evolution not mention anything about "the controversy"? It's mentioned in "social and cultural responses", but not the lede. Funny that. You'd think that if the lede was a "concise overview", that "the controversy" would be mentioned. But it's not. In fact, the "social and cultural responses" section is the "concise overview" of "the controversy", and links to other, fuller pages about it. Just as is warranted here. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- None of that addresses the questions or justifies your blind reverts, which have removed sourced material from the body as well as references to it the lead. Reference to other pages, whether about individual anarchists or wholly unrelated topics, are irrelevant to the point at hand, as is the suggestion that an improvement cannot be made on one page unless and until a purportedly equivalent change is made on every other article (and, just to humour you, of course followers of Proudhon and Bakunin disagree but neither has the fundamental and widely acknowledged definitional issue that we have here). Even though you seem to have been battling on this and related points for years against a succession of people who disagree with you, you have yet to come up with a convincing argument for your position or to demonstrate that you understand wikipedia policies or practice. Your flinging around the accusation of being disruptive against others is the icing on the cake. N-HH talk/edits 08:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- It actually does both address your "questions" and justifies the reverts. Please remember that disruptive editing to make a point is against Wikipolicy. As such, your edits were removed. If you do not like it: do not use disruptive editing to make a point. It will not be allowed. References on other pages are completely relevant to the point, as there's no valid reason to single out one specific article for the "treatment" you and a few others would like. You and those like you have yet to come up with a single convincing argument otherwise, and that you would try to evade that salient point is quite telling. Now would you like to attempt to justify your special "treatment" of this article? Remember: the lede of evolution does not, in any way, mention "the controversy", ID, or creationism. Looks like you have your work cut out for you. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Er, no, disruptive editing is a description rather obviously more accurately applied to the repeated unilateral removal – from both the body and lead – of well sourced, relevant and significant material, especially when at least two editors recently, and many more previously, clearly favour its inclusion in some form or other. I have no particular "point" to prove, while you have offered no justification for removing the material other than vague statements about not liking it as a "treatment" and vague assertions about what a wholly unrelated page with wholly different issues – and where WP:FRINGE applies, as it clearly does not in the same way here – might or might not do. The burden is on you to explain why such sourced and prima facie relevant material, which is commonly found in third-party analysis of anarcho-capitalism and related terminology, needs to be deleted with extreme prejudice.
- The idea that this page should not, in the section entitled "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools", mention the widely recorded fact that other schools do not even consider it to be anarchism at all or that the page should suggest in the lead, without qualifiction at all, that it is a form of anarchism (eg through the side-bar and alternative names) without some reference to that significant debate is nonsensical as well as a rather obvious breach of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. N-HH talk/edits 14:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it fits what you did perfectly. No other anarchism page has such. It has no bearing on anarchocapitalism at all. There's no valid reason for it to be there. None. Putting it in is a breach of NPOV and LEAD as well. If it is not, then clearly "teach the controversy" MUST be included in the same for evolution. But it isn't. And there's a good reason: it's not the place for such, nor has it any bearing. Similarly, the idea of anarchocapitalism and other forms of anarchism are not germane to the lede. At all. Nor does it have any bearing. At all. That you are trying desperately to ignore those salient facts is telling.
- Er, no, disruptive editing is a description rather obviously more accurately applied to the repeated unilateral removal – from both the body and lead – of well sourced, relevant and significant material, especially when at least two editors recently, and many more previously, clearly favour its inclusion in some form or other. I have no particular "point" to prove, while you have offered no justification for removing the material other than vague statements about not liking it as a "treatment" and vague assertions about what a wholly unrelated page with wholly different issues – and where WP:FRINGE applies, as it clearly does not in the same way here – might or might not do. The burden is on you to explain why such sourced and prima facie relevant material, which is commonly found in third-party analysis of anarcho-capitalism and related terminology, needs to be deleted with extreme prejudice.
- It actually does both address your "questions" and justifies the reverts. Please remember that disruptive editing to make a point is against Wikipolicy. As such, your edits were removed. If you do not like it: do not use disruptive editing to make a point. It will not be allowed. References on other pages are completely relevant to the point, as there's no valid reason to single out one specific article for the "treatment" you and a few others would like. You and those like you have yet to come up with a single convincing argument otherwise, and that you would try to evade that salient point is quite telling. Now would you like to attempt to justify your special "treatment" of this article? Remember: the lede of evolution does not, in any way, mention "the controversy", ID, or creationism. Looks like you have your work cut out for you. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- None of that addresses the questions or justifies your blind reverts, which have removed sourced material from the body as well as references to it the lead. Reference to other pages, whether about individual anarchists or wholly unrelated topics, are irrelevant to the point at hand, as is the suggestion that an improvement cannot be made on one page unless and until a purportedly equivalent change is made on every other article (and, just to humour you, of course followers of Proudhon and Bakunin disagree but neither has the fundamental and widely acknowledged definitional issue that we have here). Even though you seem to have been battling on this and related points for years against a succession of people who disagree with you, you have yet to come up with a convincing argument for your position or to demonstrate that you understand wikipedia policies or practice. Your flinging around the accusation of being disruptive against others is the icing on the cake. N-HH talk/edits 08:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Like it or not: you won't get to push your POV, try to make a point, or anything like that. You have offered no valid reasons for your inclusions. Offer some if you can. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Right, so one pseudonymous wikipedia editor and zealous self-appointed page-guardian gets to wield their veto and declare that an observation taken from a book described as "An exhaustive and authoritative study which is bound to become the standard account" of anarchism – ie that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice .. even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists" – is out of bounds for both the lead and the body of this page, and a "massive change", even if the content just briefly reports that assessment rather than opens the page with it or endorses it. My justification for including the observation, as pointed out from the outset, is simply and precisely that it is there in black and white in an authoritative source and is a key issue relating to the classification and description of the subject-matter of the page – which currently is described, without any qualification, from the lead onwards, as definitely being a form of anarchism, such that the issue has already been introduced, but incompletely. Your just ignoring that and continuing to repeat "I don't like this content or 'treatment'" is not a rebuttal of the justification I actually have provided. Who set you up above established sources and authorities and above WP rules on sourced/verifiable content, neutral point of view and due weight?
And please quit with the "POV" nonsense. It is not "a breach of NPOV" to note such differences in opinion, if significant enough; indeed, it's a breach not to of course. And, as noted, I have no underlying point to prove or "POV" to "push" here. By contrast, I'm not sure the same can be said for someone using a username that appears all over the internet posting on various Austrian and anarcho-capitalist boards with a rather transparent point of view and agenda.
As for other pages, I can only repeat that it doesn’t matter what they do and that the evolution example is particularly off-beam, as the issue there is about a substantive dispute of fact and how much weight to give to fringe controversy. Here, we are talking about a relatively subjective and non-marginal difference of opinion about categorisation and description. And if you insist on debating this in terms of other pages, here are some that are at least vaguely comparable and in some cases directly relevant, where the lead - and this is not just about the lead of course anyway, something you've been neatly sidestepping – does indeed note equivalent contention and debates about taxonomy and/or classification: Red panda, Koala, Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and, er, National Anarchism.
I'm not sure you could get every single argument, and the burden of justification, more back to front than you have here. But that's WP politics pages for you, policed as they often are by the Lone Warrior of Truth who knows better than everyone else trying to contribute and than published authorities and writers and prepared to edit-war endlessly over it. When I have time I'll RFC this or bring in outside eyes somehow. No one here gets to own a page and repeatedly blind-revert entirely reasonable – and hardly extensive – sourced additions like this, even if they don't personally like them. N-HH talk/edits 13:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I notice that for all of your words you failed to justify what you want to be included. Please stop vandalizing the page. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't edited it for several days, precisely because I'd rather avoid the edit war you seem to be happily engaging in currently with a different editor or editors and would rather rely instead on "words" to convey points – none of which you have explicitly responded to, let alone rebutted, in the stonewalling above. Plus the edit adding the content in question, whether made by me or anyone else, is rather obviously not vandalism. Equally, while I am aware that I have "failed to justify" the content in your eyes, that is not the same thing as actually failing to justify it. Not that it should really be necessary anyway – the idea that an observation about the relationship between anarcho-capitalism and most other anarchist currents, sourced from one of the leading published overviews of anarchism as well as to other sources, is appropriate for a section titled "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" would be obvious to most people, one would have thought. Also entirely appropriate is a brief reference to the issue in the lead in turn, given that: that entire section exists; it is a salient point re categorisation/description; and WP:LEAD rather explicitly states that the lead should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". N-HH talk/edits 17:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Then CLEARLY "teach the controversy" should be in the lede for evolution. It's a very prominent controversy. But it's not in the lede. So clearly: You. Are. Wrong. And yes: bringing up other articles is perfectly fine when you quote from an article about wikipolicy. Why? Because that applies to ALL articles. So please don't try to handwave away that "teach the controversy" is not in the lede for evolution, as you will have no leg to stand on. You have failed to justify your additions (which are solely about whatever hate you have for capitalism). Please stop introducing your non-neutral point of view into the article. And as for an edit-war: you're the one reverting under different IPv6 addresses. Not me. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- WTF? I have not accused you of edit-warring – against yourself – from the IP addresses but using your own account, which you are, with a third party. And, no, the IP addresses are not me: they are US-based AT&T addresses. Jesus. And quit banging on about the evolution page, which has nothing to do with anything here, and making convoluted leaps of logic based on that. As for your bizarre assertions that this is about the "hate" I supposedly have for capitalism, and the suggestion that including content that reflects real-world views as recorded in reliable sources is not neutral, words fail me. This has nothing to do with my views on anything. N-HH talk/edits 15:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- The evolution page has everything to do with here, since you cited a wikipedia policy WHICH AFFECTS ALL PAGES. Do you not get that? The page explains how the lede is supposed to work, and that means FOR ALL PAGES. If you don't like that fact--not my problem. Can't do anything about it. Host. Petard. Your own. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no idea what any of that is meant to be saying or what it has to do with any of the points raised here. N-HH talk/edits 22:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- And as for "edit-warring", unless you're still labouring under the delusion that all these different US-based IPs are actually me, you're surely aware that you are currently up to ten knee-jerk reverts in a month, against what may well genuinely be a range of other editors? By contrast, I have made a total of three edits to the actual page in that period, while trying to explain to you on this talk page, in often extensive and reasoned detail – which you have never directly responded to in kind – what should be obvious anyway about this content. The last post above of yours is a shining example of the limitations, to say the least, of your responses. As noted previously, you do not own this page. N-HH talk/edits 17:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, there have been zero knee-jerk reverts from me. I have simply reverted vandalism and NPOV as outlined in wikipolicy. Nor did you try to explain anything in extensive detail; you tried to rationalize your edits by handwaving away the problems I pointed out. Please stop trying to play the victim; it does not suit you. Tell me: when are you going to make edits to every single lede for which there is a controversy listed in the body? Hmmmm? Yeah, didn't think so. In other words: you and your buddies wanted to marginalize anarchocapitalism, got caught, and now you're misusing RfC to try to keep your vandalism of the page in place. That's not what a good wikipedia editor does. - Knight of BAAWA (talk)
- Vandalism on WP has a pretty specific meaning which this clearly does not fall under (the POV point is similarly spurious), and your bandying the accusation around is getting a little tedious, as are your other bizarre comments about people being "caught" or their supposedly playing the "victim". Nor are improvements to one page barred until the same editors proposing them make them to every other purportedly similar page – and, in any event of course, I have linked to several pages where exactly this kind of debate about classification and terminology are already included, including in the lead. Your only objections to reasoned explanations and cited sources are pretty much to close your eyes, say "I don't like this content" and impugn the motives of anyone who disagrees with you, while raising issues about other pages, as if that has anything to do with anything. The hostility and stonewalling – and, yes, knee-jerk reverting – on display here is more than enough material for the next RfC, on user conduct. As for whether I am misusing the process here, others will judge that. Even if some others answer "no" to the question, I can't think many people would argue it was inappropriate to ask it or that it represents a bid to smuggle vandalism into the page. N-HH talk/edits 16:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- The evolution page has everything to do with here, since you cited a wikipedia policy WHICH AFFECTS ALL PAGES. Do you not get that? The page explains how the lede is supposed to work, and that means FOR ALL PAGES. If you don't like that fact--not my problem. Can't do anything about it. Host. Petard. Your own. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- WTF? I have not accused you of edit-warring – against yourself – from the IP addresses but using your own account, which you are, with a third party. And, no, the IP addresses are not me: they are US-based AT&T addresses. Jesus. And quit banging on about the evolution page, which has nothing to do with anything here, and making convoluted leaps of logic based on that. As for your bizarre assertions that this is about the "hate" I supposedly have for capitalism, and the suggestion that including content that reflects real-world views as recorded in reliable sources is not neutral, words fail me. This has nothing to do with my views on anything. N-HH talk/edits 15:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Then CLEARLY "teach the controversy" should be in the lede for evolution. It's a very prominent controversy. But it's not in the lede. So clearly: You. Are. Wrong. And yes: bringing up other articles is perfectly fine when you quote from an article about wikipolicy. Why? Because that applies to ALL articles. So please don't try to handwave away that "teach the controversy" is not in the lede for evolution, as you will have no leg to stand on. You have failed to justify your additions (which are solely about whatever hate you have for capitalism). Please stop introducing your non-neutral point of view into the article. And as for an edit-war: you're the one reverting under different IPv6 addresses. Not me. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't edited it for several days, precisely because I'd rather avoid the edit war you seem to be happily engaging in currently with a different editor or editors and would rather rely instead on "words" to convey points – none of which you have explicitly responded to, let alone rebutted, in the stonewalling above. Plus the edit adding the content in question, whether made by me or anyone else, is rather obviously not vandalism. Equally, while I am aware that I have "failed to justify" the content in your eyes, that is not the same thing as actually failing to justify it. Not that it should really be necessary anyway – the idea that an observation about the relationship between anarcho-capitalism and most other anarchist currents, sourced from one of the leading published overviews of anarchism as well as to other sources, is appropriate for a section titled "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" would be obvious to most people, one would have thought. Also entirely appropriate is a brief reference to the issue in the lead in turn, given that: that entire section exists; it is a salient point re categorisation/description; and WP:LEAD rather explicitly states that the lead should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". N-HH talk/edits 17:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
RfC: should the page note in more detail the contention around including anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism?
 |
|
An edit, and now a later variation of it, that includes more detail on the fact that most anarchists and much academic analysis question the classification/inclusion has been repeatedly reverted by a single editor. There has been discussion on this in the section above. In essence there are two parts to the edit and two issues to look at:
- A: Should the point be expanded, with references, in the section "Anarcho-capitalism and other schools", eg through the current proposed wording or some variation of it: "Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a variety of anarchism by traditional anarchists, who would instead view it as a form of right-wing libertarianism, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist and concerned with social and economic equality"?
- B: Should a brief summary of the point, as referenced in that section, be included in the lead? N-HH talk/edits 18:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Survey
- Yes re both A & B. The content itself is well sourced. The point also appears in The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, as well as the books currently cited in the edit itself. It is verifiable information, which is included in multiple reliable and authoritative sources, and a significant point of dispute within the classification and definition of anarchism. The fact that there is such a dispute is not controversial. Not mentioning the issue – the lead and much, though not all, of the body avoid it currently – not only misleads through omission but is a breach of NPOV. As for the lead/point B, it needs to be noted there, however briefly, as it goes to the definition of the topic. The fact that we have a section, indeed a whole separate article, on the relationship between these two concepts also suggests it is significant enough to include in the lead, which currently asserts and assumes, without qualification, that anarcho-capitalism is, uncontroversially, regarded as a form of anarchism. N-HH talk/edits 18:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- No to all. You've failed to make any sort of valid points. You need to make edits to every single lede for every single idea that has controversies in order for your edits to have merit. And please stop misleading people that there is a misleading by omission and breach of NPOV; there isn't. The article in no way asserts and assumes what you say it does. Ergo, you are lying--and no, that is not a personal attack. Since the article clearly doesn't say what you say it does, and since you have to have read it to make whatever claims you are making lest you not have any clue, it's clear that you are deliberately not being truthful. Why is that? Why did you lie? You know that anyone can look at the article and see that what you have written does not comport with what the article says--so why lie? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- No to both - This is an article about AnCap philosophy and history, and that requires that we stay on-topic, summarize, and give due weight the various aspects of this ideology, and so we do not have to give the same due weight to other, off-topic ideologies. AnCap views about other ideologies is highly relevant, and should be described in a way that relates to how why those views are counter to AnCap philosophy. Views about AnCap from the perspective of other ideologies are highly off-topic, and should be only mentioned in very brief form here (this is of course reversed on the articles about those ideologies when talking about AnCap). I am perplexed at the existence of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, as it is very poorly-defined, a structural mess, should probably be deprecated or re-tasked, perhaps to Great anarchist pissing matches of history. -- Netoholic @ 07:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- No and No. Anarcho-capitalists have never claimed to identify with the bomb-throwing, property-hating left - who have long commandeered the term "anarchy" for their own political agenda. Hence they tend to use the term "anarcho-capitalism" rather than "anarchism". (Nor do they identify with the political right who tend to disrespect persons in a similar manner.) Regarding equality, anarcho-capitalists are actually more concerned with flattening hierarchies by allowing a level playing field where individual employer-employee relationships tend to become peer to peer, than impractical political "solutions" such as those from the left - which tend to create class rifts. Their "equality" claim is as hypocritical as their "anti-state" claim. (The "Anarchism" article is sorely lacking on this point. But that is another matter and needs be settled elsewhere.) While mention of the claim to the title "anarchism" by other schools of thought could continue to be offered in its own section in this article, it is clearly secondary. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes and yes. Misplaced Pages articles commonly give readers a context in which to place a philosophy. It is the AnCaps who deliberately and explicitly took the term anarchist and transformed it for their own purposes — which is a legitimate move, and their move has been overwhelmingly successful, due largely to the popularity of right-wing values of the US. But the dual meanings can easily cause confusion for the reader, and this potential confusion can be ameliorated, and therefore should be. — goethean 15:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes and yes. We are writing an encyclopedia here, so we should primarily concern ourselves with objective viewpoints such as that found in The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, edited by Gerald F. Gaus, Fred D'Agostino. On page 225, Roderick T. Long says that social anarchists generally think of anarcho-capitalists as not anarchists.
We should not concentrate on in-universe descriptions, taking the word of anarcho-capitalists about whether they are this or that. Rather, we should stay objective and tell the reader about the scholarly analysis, both in the lead section and in greater detail in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Suggested compromise regarding disputed material
Many articles have a "Criticism" section devoted to counter arguments. Placing disputes regarding "official" and "unofficial" versions of anarcho-capitalism (as well as any disputes regarding the "legitimacy" of anarcho-capitalism) in such a section would be a fitting compromise. It's not a question of preventing readers from knowing about controversies regarding the movement, but about presenting them in an organized way. An article about the laws of aerodynamics written in the 19th century would have been corrupted if it were subject to contemporary viewpoints regarding man's inability to fly. Likewise, the laws of economics are not subject to the whims of social engineers - as the official politico-academic left (as well as the ecclesiastical right) would prefer. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- An article about 19th century aerodynamic theories must be placed in its proper context at the outset so as not to mislead readers. So must an article on politico-economic theory. — goethean 14:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Precisely. And the context in which the principles of anarcho-capitalism is understood is a clear understanding of the basic laws of economics. The reason the anti-state movement has failed on the left is because of its grave misunderstanding of capital and markets. Similarly, in the 19th century, the laws of aerodynamics were not well understood - and certainly not by the majority. What would be misleading to readers of anarcho-capitalism would be a writing-off of market fundamentals by basing its legitimacy on its popularity. The case for anarcho-capitalism must be presented clearly in the article. Opposing theories (where applicable) can be presented toward the end in the "Criticism" section. JLMadrigal (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
The only specific point made against inclusion posted in the current discussion about this seems to be that the Evolution page doesn't mention creationism in the lead. However, this is not just about the lead, and in any event the two cases are utterly different. Creationism is a) a fringe theory that b) disputes the reality of evolution. The dispute here is about classification and terminology, not about the correctness or otherwise of any underlying theories, and nor is the "anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism" stance a fringe view. Far more appropriate analogies, as noted in the previous discussion, can be found in the following pages, where the taxonomic issue is covered both in the lead and the body: Red panda, Koala, Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and, for good measure, National Anarchism and Creation science. N-HH talk/edits 18:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- So you've admitted that you're just trying to marginalize anarchocapitalism. Great. You've just invalidated your entire stance by admitting to trying to introduce a non-neutral point of view to the text. I request the protection be lifted at once so that the NPOV edits can be removed. There will be no further discussion required. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I've admitted or done any such thing or how anyone could possibly come to that conclusion or, pace your comment above, that I've been "lying" (or that that accusation is not a personal attack. Whatever). And NPOV is of course in fact precisely about representing all widely held points of view, without necessarily endorsing any of them. We have reliable, authoritative sources that explicitly note the existence of the dispute over terminology and note that the "not a form of anarchism" view is widely held. However, currently, as noted, the lead classifies and describes anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism without qualification (even if you don't accept that the prefix "anarcho-" is doing this in itself anyway, the lead also rather obviously does it by saying in the very first sentence "also referred to as free-market anarchism .." and through the use of the Anarchism template, which includes in its list of "Schools of Thought" what it calls "Capitalist" anarchism, which ordinarily links back to this page). As for "no further discussion required", the whole point of RfCs is to get exactly that, preferably from third parties. I'd suggest we let that happen. N-HH talk/edits 16:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@Netoholic: when you say "we do not have to give the same due weight to other, off-topic ideologies", are you suggesting Anarchism is "off-topic" and "other" to Anarcho-capitalism? Surely that if anything justifies including the material, not excluding it? Also as for due weight, we are talking about a couple of sentences to note the issue. It is not about taking one side of the argument, filling half the page with it or putting it in the very first sentence, but briefly – as you indeed suggest as well – and simply noting, per multiple reliable sources, that the taxonomical debate exists. N-HH talk/edits 08:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- General anarchism (as in the unambiguous use of the word meaning "without rulers") is relevant to AnCap philosophy, of course. The sources that you have for the particular brand of "traditional" anarchism (ie left-anarchism, I guess) is a different ideology than AnCap, evidenced by how those sources try to disavow AnCap from their ranks. As such, yes, then those sources are certainly from an off-topic ideology and do not deserve strong weight here. Brief mention is perhaps fitting in the right context in the article body, but the lead should be squarely on describing AnCap ideology, history, and any major controversies, if any. What you want to put in there is not major. Also, there is no point trying to justify this inclusion based on how reliably sourced it is. Content that is extensively and reliably sourced can still be off-topic for a particular page. Describe the "taxonomical debate" on the pages of ideologies that think there is a "taxonomical debate" - its relevant over there because its part of their ideology, but only minimally relevant on AnCap. --Netoholic @ 08:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- As noted, the lead currently uses the Anarchism template and uses synonyms such as "free-market anarchism". You can't get round that by saying, "oh it refers to a totally different thing, which happens to also be called anarchism, and hence it's off-topic and cannot be mentioned at all". There simply isn't that neat sort of distinction in the real world for such topics and terminology. Even if there was, an explanation would still be warranted. Regardless, the simple fact is that the debate about the use of the term anarchism in this context – whether it is taken to mean simply without rulers and/or to refer to the predomoninantly leftist strain attested in the academic and historical record and what the relationship is between "anarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism" – is noted, and noted broadly in the fashion being proposed in the RfC, in multiple reliable sources about "anarchism" and about politics more generally. The definition and classification of a topic, the terminology used to describe it and how it relates to other, arguably related, ideas, are surely fairly fundamental to that topic, and hence relevant to the lead. At the very least it must be relevant to a section in the body explicitly titled "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools". If you're going to be consistent in arguing that discussion about "anarchism" is off-topic and that anarcho-capitalism is entirely sui generis and discrete, you've got to scrub that section entirely and also remove the Anarchism template and the "anarchism" synonyms. In fact of course, what we should do is briefly present the issue/debate, as reflected in sources, without plumping definitively for either option, which is all the proposal entails. N-HH talk/edits 19:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Re: Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools section.... "you've got to scrub that section entirely" - The best suggestion I've heard in this entire discussion. The section should instead be dedicated to referencing AnCap arguments from sources that comment about any other ideologies (left-anarchism, conservatism, etc.). Devoting an entire section to the argument with just "traditional" anarchists is unduly weighted. Let left-anarchist complaints about AnCaps be in their own articles because those views are part of their ideology. --Netoholic @ 19:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- But that section is not, without the proposed addition, simply about the "argument" with "'traditional' anarchists" nor would the addition of the one-sentence content in question make it so. Anarcho-capitalists tend to call themselves anarchists, and the section is about the relationship, as a whole, with other anarchist schools. As reliable sources attest, there is an interrelationship and theoretical lineage there, and some elements of anarcho-capitalist thought sync with other anarchist ideas; but there are also disputes, about both theory and terminology. The assertion that such content is off-topic or unwarranted on a page about "Anarcho-capitalism", which would otherwise carry unqualified assertions about its relationship to and membership of the broader currents of "Anarchism", is untenable. So long as the material is presented in the round, with due weight and neutrally, it is manifestly relevant and on-topic, barring some extraordinarily strong argument to the contrary, which has yet to be presented, and is unlikely ever to be.
- More specifically, equally untenable is any similar assertion about the precise content under consideration in the RfC, based as that content is on the explicit meta-observation that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice .. even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists" in a chapter on "The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism" in a book entitled A History of Anarchism, which is described in one formal review as "An exhaustive and authoritative study which is bound to become the standard account" of anarchism. When we also find the same observations in other, more general books, such as The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, in a sub-chapter called "The Rise of Anarcho-capitalism", the foundations of any objections fall away to anyone with an open mind. How can such explicit treatment of the topic of Anarcho-capitalism in authoritative sources not be relevant and why should individual random WP editors get to override/veto the judgment of those sources? Fine, there's a debate about how exactly to present that information but the idea that it cannot be included at all is just bizarre, to be frank. Hopefully that is going to be clear to most people – I've said more than enough on this. N-HH talk/edits 22:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- But that section is not, without the proposed addition, simply about the "argument" with "'traditional' anarchists" nor would the addition of the one-sentence content in question make it so. Anarcho-capitalists tend to call themselves anarchists, and the section is about the relationship, as a whole, with other anarchist schools. As reliable sources attest, there is an interrelationship and theoretical lineage there, and some elements of anarcho-capitalist thought sync with other anarchist ideas; but there are also disputes, about both theory and terminology. The assertion that such content is off-topic or unwarranted on a page about "Anarcho-capitalism", which would otherwise carry unqualified assertions about its relationship to and membership of the broader currents of "Anarchism", is untenable. So long as the material is presented in the round, with due weight and neutrally, it is manifestly relevant and on-topic, barring some extraordinarily strong argument to the contrary, which has yet to be presented, and is unlikely ever to be.
- Re: Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools section.... "you've got to scrub that section entirely" - The best suggestion I've heard in this entire discussion. The section should instead be dedicated to referencing AnCap arguments from sources that comment about any other ideologies (left-anarchism, conservatism, etc.). Devoting an entire section to the argument with just "traditional" anarchists is unduly weighted. Let left-anarchist complaints about AnCaps be in their own articles because those views are part of their ideology. --Netoholic @ 19:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- As noted, the lead currently uses the Anarchism template and uses synonyms such as "free-market anarchism". You can't get round that by saying, "oh it refers to a totally different thing, which happens to also be called anarchism, and hence it's off-topic and cannot be mentioned at all". There simply isn't that neat sort of distinction in the real world for such topics and terminology. Even if there was, an explanation would still be warranted. Regardless, the simple fact is that the debate about the use of the term anarchism in this context – whether it is taken to mean simply without rulers and/or to refer to the predomoninantly leftist strain attested in the academic and historical record and what the relationship is between "anarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism" – is noted, and noted broadly in the fashion being proposed in the RfC, in multiple reliable sources about "anarchism" and about politics more generally. The definition and classification of a topic, the terminology used to describe it and how it relates to other, arguably related, ideas, are surely fairly fundamental to that topic, and hence relevant to the lead. At the very least it must be relevant to a section in the body explicitly titled "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools". If you're going to be consistent in arguing that discussion about "anarchism" is off-topic and that anarcho-capitalism is entirely sui generis and discrete, you've got to scrub that section entirely and also remove the Anarchism template and the "anarchism" synonyms. In fact of course, what we should do is briefly present the issue/debate, as reflected in sources, without plumping definitively for either option, which is all the proposal entails. N-HH talk/edits 19:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
@JLMadrigal: "Anarcho-capitalists have never claimed to identify with the bomb-throwing, property-hating left ... 'equality' claim is as hypocritical as their 'anti-state' claim". This is not about the merits or otherwise of anarcho-capitalism, general/leftist anarchism or any other political viewpoint, nor is the material in question about promoting or denigrating any such viewpoints, but about merely noting the differences, as recorded in reliable sources, despite the similarity in some terminology and, even, in some theoretical ideas. And if, as you say, anarcho-capitalists want to disassociate themselves from anarchists – as the term is usually used – I don't quite understand what the objection is to referring to the well-sourced and verified observation that the logic works the other way too, and that there is an analytical and taxonomical debate in academic sources about the relationship. N-HH talk/edits 23:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- This article is about anarcho-capitalism. As such, it may further expand on the viewpoints of anarcho-capitalists regarding contrary ideologies. For example, it may clarify that anarcho-capitalists see left-anarchism as a self-contradictory term since a forced collectivization of property and capital requires a state. Any negative viewpoints about anarcho-capitalism by sources other than those in the movement need to be confined to a special section regarding said objections. The debate between anarcho-capitalists and traditional "anarchists" has its own article. JLMadrigal (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Page protection requested
Sorry to see that we have an on-going, albeit slow moving edit war disrupting the article. I've requested page protection. – S. Rich (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- The article has been fully protected for one month per the request at WP:RFPP. If this RfC reaches a conclusion the protection might be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Observations: Comments about vandalism and not-vandalism are not helpful; Page protection will not be lifted so that one version prevails over another for any period of time. The two editors in this should consider WP:3O or another dispute resolution method, but before doing so they ought to layout the arguments in a KISS format. – S. Rich (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)15:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I assume you are not suggesting that fairly wild and repeated accusations of vandalism in respect of the addition of widely and reliably sourced, and directly relevant, material is of the same order as any subsequent and simple denial of that allegation? I'm not familiar with the KISS format, but the bottom line here is that we have, as noted, a common and well referenced observation about problems relating simply to the definition, terminology and classification of the subject-matter of the page – which does not endorse one side or other of that debate and which is not about the fundamental validity or otherwise of anarcho-capitalism as a political theory – which several editors (yes, including some likely IP sockpuppets) have attempted to include. Prima facie, that is surely legitimate content, and it is up to the one person currently opposing its inclusion to explain precisely why it is not, eg by showing that the sources are not reliable or authoritative, that the content misrepresents those sources or that the information is not presented neutrally or with due weight. There simply has not been that level of engagement or explanation. Btw I previously posted on the anarchism project page to get wider input; this RfC was the next step. I did think of 30 but thought going straight to an RfC was a more efficient way of getting a broader input from a range of other editors as quickly as possible (not that that is how it has turned out to date ...) N-HH talk/edits 09:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- The page should be protected in its original form, since the dispute is whether the controversy about "true anarchism" should be expanded. Please revert - at least until the dispute is resolved. JLMadrigal (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- When I saw the slow moving, but persistent edit war going on I simply asked for protection. It is my experience that such requests are granted based upon the edit warring and not with regard to what version is up at the moment. If another edit had been made before the request was granted, you would have had that version. I do not think the previous version will be restored even if you post an {{edit protected}} request. But feel free to make the request. – S. Rich (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Further suggestion. This page is of interest to at least 3 WikiProjects. The RFC should be publicized on their talk pages. Other WikiProjects, such as Politics or Capitalism, may be interested too. – S. Rich (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I've notified four project pages – anarchism, politics, capitalism and socialism – although as ever, I'm not sure how active or well-watched any of them are. As for the form of the page, there are always disputes about the "wrong version" in these cases. It's a legitimate content dispute with no actual consensus either way pending the result of this RfC so it's surely hard to claim one version is more "correct" than any other currently. N-HH talk/edits 08:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- How about the other two projects? – S. Rich (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think reporting this to WikiProject Socialism (which this article is clearly not a part of), yet failing to report it to WP Liberalism or WP Libertarianism (which it has long been part of and are listed on this very talk page), shows a clear attempt on the part of the OP to push a skewed agenda in this RfC. -- Netoholic @ 18:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- It did not take me much effort to post RFC notices on the other pages. Also, I posted on Feature Article talk page. If there are other Projects or notices that the discussion should be advertised on, editors are welcome to WP:DIY. – S. Rich (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- It was a genuine oversight – I didn't even check at the top of the page which projects had already "claimed" the page, I just went for the obvious ones that occurred to me and to the ones Srich specifically named. As noted, it was and is open to anyone to alert any other project they want to. Given that anarchism is traditionally thought of as a sort of socialism, or at least related to it – indeed that's part of the underlying issue around the content in question – that seemed a reasonable nod to me, and balanced by the notification given on the capitalism project page. N-HH talk/edits 19:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- It did not take me much effort to post RFC notices on the other pages. Also, I posted on Feature Article talk page. If there are other Projects or notices that the discussion should be advertised on, editors are welcome to WP:DIY. – S. Rich (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I've notified four project pages – anarchism, politics, capitalism and socialism – although as ever, I'm not sure how active or well-watched any of them are. As for the form of the page, there are always disputes about the "wrong version" in these cases. It's a legitimate content dispute with no actual consensus either way pending the result of this RfC so it's surely hard to claim one version is more "correct" than any other currently. N-HH talk/edits 08:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- The page should be protected in its original form, since the dispute is whether the controversy about "true anarchism" should be expanded. Please revert - at least until the dispute is resolved. JLMadrigal (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- I assume you are not suggesting that fairly wild and repeated accusations of vandalism in respect of the addition of widely and reliably sourced, and directly relevant, material is of the same order as any subsequent and simple denial of that allegation? I'm not familiar with the KISS format, but the bottom line here is that we have, as noted, a common and well referenced observation about problems relating simply to the definition, terminology and classification of the subject-matter of the page – which does not endorse one side or other of that debate and which is not about the fundamental validity or otherwise of anarcho-capitalism as a political theory – which several editors (yes, including some likely IP sockpuppets) have attempted to include. Prima facie, that is surely legitimate content, and it is up to the one person currently opposing its inclusion to explain precisely why it is not, eg by showing that the sources are not reliable or authoritative, that the content misrepresents those sources or that the information is not presented neutrally or with due weight. There simply has not been that level of engagement or explanation. Btw I previously posted on the anarchism project page to get wider input; this RfC was the next step. I did think of 30 but thought going straight to an RfC was a more efficient way of getting a broader input from a range of other editors as quickly as possible (not that that is how it has turned out to date ...) N-HH talk/edits 09:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Observations: Comments about vandalism and not-vandalism are not helpful; Page protection will not be lifted so that one version prevails over another for any period of time. The two editors in this should consider WP:3O or another dispute resolution method, but before doing so they ought to layout the arguments in a KISS format. – S. Rich (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)15:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Has anyone looked into the use of various anonymous editors that seemed to be involved in this edit war (in particular that they repeatedly tried to insert the same desired text as N-HH & Chrisluft? -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. They're certainly nothing to do with me (as I repeatedly had to point out to Knight of BAAWA, and I'm going to get bored of doing soon, they are US IPs – I'm in the UK). Also, for the record, I changed Chrisluft's original edit rather than simply reverting it back in – the material was not exactly the same (but got repeatedly reverted anyway without even an acknowledgement of that). The UIP editing has not helped the case, but let's not leap to the conclusion that this is total sockpuppetry all round or that only one person is on the side of inclusion. N-HH talk/edits 19:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Edit request
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The content of this article (which has been featured for many years) has only recently seen attempted alterations by certain editors who wish to expand on a parallel debate, and add content regarding said debate in the lede. Since the debate regarding inclusion of this debate concerns justification for such alteration, it would make sense to omit them from the article until the inclusion debate is settled. Thus, my suggestion is to revert the article to pre-debate content - clearly 22:27, 6 May 2014. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the questionable content is largely derogatory, and the debate over inclusion is trending against. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
JLMadrigal (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- As noted, this is the old "wrong version" argument. An RfC is in progress. We should wait for the conclusion of that rather than guessing half-way – and in any event the discussion is not really "trending against" inclusion, but seems fairly evenly balanced. Furthermore, I don't quite see in what way the content is "derogatory", something others have suggested as well. It's a fairly bland and factual exposition of a widely reported terminological debate. N-HH talk/edits 19:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Not done: N-HH has a point - we should wait for the RfC to finish before we make any edits concerning its subject. Once the RfC reaches a consensus, feel free to make another edit request. — Mr. Stradivarius 12:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- As noted, this is the old "wrong version" argument. An RfC is in progress. We should wait for the conclusion of that rather than guessing half-way – and in any event the discussion is not really "trending against" inclusion, but seems fairly evenly balanced. Furthermore, I don't quite see in what way the content is "derogatory", something others have suggested as well. It's a fairly bland and factual exposition of a widely reported terminological debate. N-HH talk/edits 19:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Edit request
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove merge template. Discussion failed to garner consensus and was archived. Template from other page already removed. – S. Rich (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- FA-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- FA-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- FA-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment