Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:53, 9 August 2014

This article is undergoing a featured article review. A featured article should exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 2 months

	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.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 24, 2005 Peer review Reviewed July 15, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 28, 2005 Peer review Reviewed August 13, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted August 17, 2006 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

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. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject LibertarianismPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy

Template:Anarcho-article

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 2 months

RfC: should the page note in more detail the contention around including anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

• No and yes. If anything, it seems the section titled "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" (as of 20 June 2014) should be reduced. Aside from the first statement, the whole section is supported by only three sources, two of which are primary (and why the heck is so much content derived from a webmaster???); it's a lot of filler, but little actual content. I also have a concern that the first sentence uses the term libertarian as a philosophy distinct from anarchism, whereas these terms are often used synonymously. This goes straight to the heart of the issue, which is that libertarianism/anarchism, as it has been expounded since the mid-19th century, has been a left-wing, anti-private property ideology. It wasn't until the mid-20th century that so-called classical liberals in the USA appropriated both terms to describe propertarian and statist beliefs. This information should absolutely be in the article and the lead, but again, the section in question needs a lot of work. Add better content with more reliable sources to make this a good section. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes and yes. I'm not impressed with political arguments that smear the opposing team like this was a heated debate on a web board or Usenet. I see two issues that could preclude this information: is it undue or off topic? While an argument could be made for either, I personally do not agree. This is a topic that I would expect to see in the article, and, as a reader, I would be surprised to find that it had been excluded. How the wider anarchist community perceives anarcho-capitalists, and how academics have reported on this topic, is relevant and verifiable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:39, 23 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)

At least there's an attempt here to look at whether the material might be included, but perhaps in a different way, rather than the outright and absolute "no" that prevailed ahead of the RfC. That said, I'm not sure I'd be in favour of this suggestion. Firstly, devoted "Criticism" sections are deprecated on WP and, in my view, just end up as rather tedious POV laundry lists; secondly, despite this assumption seeming to be behind much of the opposition to inclusion, the material under debate here is not "criticism" of the tenets of anarcho-capitalism, it's just a brief reference to the debate about terminology and classification. Btw, I would also dispute the suggestion that anything on the page should be about presenting the "case" for anarcho-capitalism (or indeed making the case against it). An encyclopedia is meant to inform, describe and place in context, based on the content and observations of reliable, authoritative sources, not advocate one way or the other. N-HH talk/edits 10:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the disputed text is that it describes viewpoints about anarcho-capitalism held by those outside of the movement - in this case criticisms of anarcho-capitalism. Such viewpoints clearly belong in a "Criticisms" section. Regarding the clarification of terminology, the sidebar (which could be expanded) offers an appropriate venue to describe terminology as it is used by the movement. Regarding classification, anarcho-capitalism does not fit the defective mold offered by the left (or the right for that matter). Libertarianism itself is viewed by the left as far right, and by the right as far left. So, in order to understand where anarcho-capitalism "fits", one must see the defects of existing systems of classification. To allow anarcho-capitalism to be defined by outsiders - particularly by enemies of the movement - would increase the confusion surrounding an already complex topic. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No topic gets to exclusively define itself, on WP or elsewhere, without reference to authoritative third-party views and analysis. Equally, the proposed text is not allowing anarcho-capitalism to be defined by outsiders, hostile or otherwise; it merely notes significant views on definitions and terminology, as reported in reliable sources. I can only repeat that that is not criticism – any more than saying that a Tibetan terrier is not a terrier (not that this text goes that far anyway, nor should it) is a "criticism" of the Tibetan terrier – and that WP disdains criticism sections anyway. N-HH talk/edits 08:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not the issue at all. The concern is due weight: this article is the only place where AnCap descriptions of their own movement is relevant and in fact necessary to give a clear definition of the viewpoints that make up this philosophy. That sort of information would be off-topic (to any large degree) in another article. What "traditional" left-anarchists think about AC can fit in many places, and probably the best mix is a little here on this article and a little on their own articles, in-line and in-context. The lead of this article should paint broad strokes, and I'm sorry but the quibble from left-anarchists is a minor sidenote. -- Netoholic @ 18:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"...the quibble from left-anarchists..." --- you mean how anarcho-capitalists deliberately and successfully re-defined anarchism to something closer to its opposite? It's more than a quibble, it is a well-documented part of history that the article should note prominently rather than pretending that it never happened. — goethean 18:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"Anarcho" comes from the simple, definition of word "anarchy" meaning "no rulers", not from "anarchism". Anarchism ("traditional") comes from the same base word. The only difference in their philosophy is what comes after we have no rulers. Its not "capito-anarchism". -- Netoholic @ 18:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a discussion of the ostensible merit of various political philosophies. Please refer back to my previous comment (it is a well-documented part of history that the article should note prominently rather than pretending that it never happened.). — goethean 19:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It does not follow that "well-documented" means it should feature "prominently" in this article. For the reasons I said above, article space in this article must give more weight to descriptions of anarcho-capitalism from people within the movement since this article is the only reasonable place that content (also "well-documented") belongs. -- Netoholic @ 21:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Instead of expanding the "Criticism" section, scrap it along with the "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" section, and create a new section preceding the "Internal debates" section (itself more appropriately renamed "Branches of anarcho-capitalism") that classifies anarcho-capitalism among relevant contemporary political ideologies - possibly entitled, "Anarcho-capitalism and Modern libertarianism". Since the Nolan Chart clarifies how modern libertarians define themselves, and how anarcho-capitalists identify themselves among the modern libertarian movement, a brief, well-sourced discussion of the political spectrum in this light would resolve the classification issue, and make anarcho-capitalism more understandable. JLMadrigal (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism sections are bad form and no subject is allowed to define itself. BTW the term "anarcho-capitalism" is a clear reference to anarchism. Rothbard used the anarchist flag and cited anarchist sources. How sincere he was or whether it really is anarchism is another issue. TFD (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. We're slightly going round in circles here. As noted, the bottom line is "An encyclopedia is meant to inform, describe and place in context, based on the content and observations of reliable, authoritative sources, not advocate one way or the other." That is a pretty simple and basic requirement. WP is not here to provide a platform for proponents of the political school that is the topic of the page. It should not, and the proposed text does not, advocate in favour of or against anarcho-capitalism per se but simply and briefly note the wider context including, in this case and others, an acknowledged definitional dispute. Also as noted, the argument that anarcho-capitalists aren't or don't claim to be part of the broader anarchist school is neither entirely accurate nor what the page currently asserts. And even if that were the case, it should surely propel those arguing that towards accepting the inclusion of widely and reliably sourced content that briefly notes that very issue. If non-partisan, secondary sources consistently make observations that the definition and context is not that clear cut, WP should reflect that, and no policy-based arguments have been presented to counter that assumption. N-HH talk/edits 09:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

N-HH, you are again confusing popularity (among members of an opposing school for that matter) with legitimacy. The ideological context of Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is modern libertarianism - not leftism. Further, the basis for anarcho-capitalism in general is not political ideology but economic reality. Its popularity among political activists is a matter better explored in such a section. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:34, 20 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)

I'm not sure how a fair-minded reader can conclude any such thing. I'd suggest that perhaps it might be an idea to ease off with such overheated rhetoric and focus on the substantive content of the discussion rather than the motivations of one's ideological opponents. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:40, 10 July 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)

@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)

Would the real anarchist please stand up? There is only one reason to not include this information if it is well sourced. wp:valid Would we unduly legitimize these positions if we included them?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The following text and references:

"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."

is an inaccurate representation of anarcho-capitalism, and would immediately be recognized as such by any anarcho-capitalist:

It is clearly not right wing, since it fully rejects the state and rightist collectivism. Those on the right support the state monopolization of the military-industrial complex and monopolization of law via an ecclesiastical collectivization of personhood. The left views anyone supporting a free market as "right wing".

Anarcho-capitalists understand that social equality is not achieved through the confiscation and redistribution of wealth (as the left believe), but through free markets where business associates are peers. Cronyism requires the state.

The cited text incorrectly defines "the state" to include any provider of security and arbitration services. Such a broad definition could only support a bomb-throwing, property defacing definition for "anarchy" (since no one would be allowed to defend himself).

My suggested wording below (to be placed in the "Criticism" section) would provide a clearer statement of the ideological conflict. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

References

1. "The philosophy of “anarcho-capitalism” dreamed up by the “libertarian” New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper."Meltzer, Albert. Anarchism: Arguments For and Against AK Press, (2000) p. 50
2. "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists." Peter Marshall. Demanding the impossible: A history of anarchism. Harper Perennial. London. 2008. p. 565
3. "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism)."Saul Newman, The Politics of Postanarchism, Edinburgh University Press, 2010, p. 43 ISBN 0748634959
4. Section F – Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism? at An Anarchist FAQ published in physical book form by An Anarchist FAQ as "Volume I"; by AK Press, Oakland/Edinburgh 2008; 558 pages, ISBN 9781902593906
5. "‘Libertarian’ and ‘libertarianism’ are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for ‘anarchist’ and ‘anarchism’, largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of ‘anarchy’ and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, ‘minimal statism’ and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words ‘libertarian’ and ‘libertarianism’. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition." Anarchist seeds beneath the snow: left libertarian thought and british writers from William Morris to Colin Ward by David Goodway. Liverpool University Press. Liverpool. 2006. p. 4
6. "Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard’s claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist venders...so what remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in hackneyed defense of capitalism. In sum, the “anarchy” of Libertarianism reduces to a liberal fraud."Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy" by Peter Sabatini in issue #41 (Fall/Winter 1994–95) of Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed

"While anarcho-capitalists clearly would prefer to omit the state from the orchestration of capital and markets, many old-school anarchists have less faith in the free market, and would prefer not to allow the unhindered accumulation of wealth, associating capitalism with wage slavery." JLMadrigal (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I dislike overt "Criticisms" sections, so I'd rather see this line (and its a good line stating the "conflict" with appropriate weight) placed along with other discussion of Anarcho-capitalist philosophy regarding anarchy (basic statelessness), perhaps under subheading Anarcho-capitalism#Contractual society. (related note, I think that heading is a bit misleading, since its not immediately apparent to a reader that it contains information AnCap anarchist/statelessness views) --Netoholic @ 19:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

As noted in another sub-thread I'm also against outright and discrete "Criticism" sections (as, indeed, is WP as a whole; nor, indeed, is this about "criticism" as such anyway). As for the critique of the current proposed text, that text is of course derived from an accredited source – that's half the point of the whole debate here – and we shouldn't suddenly be relying on our own logic to argue with the accuracy or otherwise of the source material (which is not anyway trying to represent anarcho-capitalism but to represent views of anarcho-capitalism and to place it in context) or advocating changing the text to something not directly based on that material. Equally, the alternative text, as noted elsewhere, while arguably "correct", is anyway making a different point and does not address the classification issue at all. It might be a valid addition but I don't see that it's an alternative. N-HH talk/edits 08:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Who? Who are these traditional anarchists. I think you really have to name them off. While see no issue with giving a little weight to notable people, these unnamed traditional anarchist don't really deserve that weight. As written in the survey above, that would be wikipedia giving a position. Misplaced Pages can't give a position. Anachocapilists say they are anarchists and "traditional" anarchists say they aren't. These are the only recorded facts. I'm not familiar with any group known as "traditional Anarchists". Not a group like say the Republican party, who will at times have a spokesman that issues a statement on their behalf. Most of the sources shown here are being to used to do just that. Your proposed change is giving undue weight to.. well that part isn't clear.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is a distinct ideology, and is independent of any "proper" anarchism movement. It does not need to be classified in terms agreeable to ideologists of another strain (in this case, to leftists). In fact, if anarchy is defined as the absence of the state, then anCaps are the only "true" anarchists (since leftists require the existence of the state in order to confiscate and redistribute wealth, prevent competition, and abolish property). Rather, anarcho-capitalism is properly classified as the advocacy of abolishing the state in matters regarding BOTH person AND property. JLMadrigal (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoespycho: Traditional anarchists might better expressed as the traditional conception or currents of anarchism. Obviously the wording could be changed to that or something similar, but I'm not sure they have to be identified and named: the idea is fairly clear, surely, and also used in sources. I agree though with noting the recorded facts, and the dispute in question is well recorded. @JLMadrigal: As for the distinctiveness of anarcho-capitalism, as noted, that is the very issue that the proposed text addresses, which as ever leads me to wonder why there is such opposition to including it from those who appear to be advocates for anarcho-capitalism and why there's less complaint from them about the current state of the page, which by contrast asserts the connection without qualification or explanation. Also, as already noted by me and others, we're not here to debate the merits or otherwise of anarcho-capitalism or traditional anarchism nor should the page be about that. N-HH talk/edits 09:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Just as an article about evolution does not need to mention creationism to be clear, an article about anarcho-capitalism need not even make reference to the misnamed "anarchist" movement. Again, anarcho-capitalism (unlike leftism) is consistently opposed to the state. The Evolution article makes a brief reference to Creationism under a "Social and cultural responses" section. A similar approach might be acceptable in an article clarifying economic realities. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

N-HH, I'm sorry. I'll try to be more clear for you. There doesn't seem case being made that this point of view is the majority point of view. It does seem to be pushed as a significant minority point of view. However if it is signifigant there would be prominent adherents. If they are prominent it is very likely they have names. I'm not an advocate for anarocaptilism. A bot directed me to this RFC. You can see that on my talk page. As far as advocacy goes since you mention it, it does seem to me that there are advocates on both sides of this issue. However that isn't very important. I have good faith that both sides can be nuetral. I'm not debating the merits of either. I am asking who the traditional anarchists are that hold this position. Unless the position is this is the majority POV, name names.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I have to say that the "debate" on this page is appalling. This isn't a place to institute your personal, ideological beliefs; Misplaced Pages is built on verifiability, people... find your sources! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Closing

The last comment was 20 days ago. Since then the lede has been modified. Is this discussion resolved? If no comments are presented, I propose to archive this thread with a simple {{resolved}} note. – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

S. Rich, the RfC was recently reopened, and discussion should continue. I'm a little confused as to your recent deletion from the lead, as well. Perhaps you didn't see the section in the body which makes the same claim and is supported by six sources? I don't mind leaving the statement out for the moment, as there is currently an edit war occurring and the IP user should not have re-added it. If the RfC doesn't resolve this problem (which I now believe to be indicative of a wider, POV issue), I'll bring it to the DRN. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually I was supporting Ditto51, like with here. Next. I've seen RFCs pulled out of the archives in the past, but I think the better procedure is to start a new thread with a link to archived discussions. (In fact, Help pages which I've contributed to say as much. E.g., archived discussions are immutable....) At present, Mr. Dub, I don't see a need to go to DRN. Rather, if there are specific changes that are needed, let's find out what they are. (I am entirely neutral on the matter.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

References: arbitrary break

Tea Party

If something about the Tea Party is put in the lead section, per WP:LEAD it should be a summary of referenced article text. Please don't put new material in the lead section alone. Binksternet (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Following the LEAD guideline

At WP:LEAD, the guideline says that the lead section is to be a summary of information contained in the article body. The following text seems to me to be a suitable summary of article body text:

• Anarcho-capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist.

The article body goes into more detail on this point:

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. Most social anarchists argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism because they view capitalism as being inherently authoritarian. In particular they argue that certain capitalist transactions are not voluntary, and that maintaining the class structure of a capitalist society requires coercion, which is incompatible with an anarchist society.

The main article about this issue is identified for the reader: Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.

Here at this article, involved editor Knight of BAAWA expressed that the text seen above in bold should not be made part of the lead section, "even according to WP:LEAD". Please explain the position to me, as it looks otherwise on the face of it. Binksternet (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Does the lede for evolution mention "teach the controversy"? No, of course not. Does the lede for Earth mention the Flat-Earth society? No, of course not. Does the lede for sociology mention phrenology? No, of course not. Does the lede for christianity mention that some catholics do not consider protestants to be christian (and vice-versa)? No, of course not. The lede is not for such things. Please stop trying to make it be that way, given your complete misreading and misunderstanding of WP:LEAD. And please don't say that those articles are not relevant to this discussion, for they are. It's called "consistency". You will have to explain to all of us why you think anarchocapitalism is so special that it deserves this special treatment that other articles don't have. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The information removed is entirely relevant and should be reinstated. Anarchism is the parent philosophy of anarcho-capitalism, and thus their relation is absolutely appropriate to illustrate here. Contrary to Knight of BAAWA's examples, omitting this information would be more like the Catholicism lead failing to mention Protestantism, or vice versa (both, in fact, do). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, to look at your examples, the Earth article does not mention the Flat Earth Society. The Sociology article does not mention phrenology. The Christianity article does not tell the reader that certain groups consider each other not to be Christian. So if we look only at the WP:LEAD guideline, none of these articles would carry your suggested summary statement in the lead section, because there is no such referenced text in the article body.

Second, you have flipped the mainstream and minor relation of traditional anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Traditional anarchism has more text written about it, more study of it, and is more established as a position. So traditional anarchism is the more mainstream topic, in this sense. Anarcho-capitalism, by contrast, is newer, less studied, and less established. Therefore your examples should have been whether the Flat Earth Society mentions that the Earth is spherical (it does), or whether some other article about a minor position tells the reader about the mainstream position (it should). Here at the anarcho-capitalism article, it is very relevant to tell the reader how this field is viewed by those who came before.

Third, you have not quoted the WP:LEAD guideline directly to explain what part I might be misunderstanding. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The sentence that both of you want added is completely irrelevant to what anarchocapitalism is, and is dealt with in the body of the text. I'll give you an example via wikiprecedent: christianity. The lede does say that protestantism came from catholicism, just as the lede for anarchocapitalism says that it is an individualist anarchism form (parent). But the lede of christianity does not say (though it could with references) that the catholics did not consider protestants to be christian (and vice-versa). And given that historically western christianity was catholic only for a thousand years, we see the argument from antiquity attempt clearly fail.

As to what you misunderstand, Binksternet, it is due weight. I'll give another wikiprecedent: evolution. There is neither mention of creationism nor ID in the lede for evolution. At all. Period. But it is clearly significant enough to have been brought up in court in the US many times regarding the teaching of it and of ID. One would think, then, that it would get mentioned. But no, it's not. Why? Because it's irrelevant to what evolution is. Similarly, that some people view anarchocapitalism as not part of anarchism is irrelevant to the lede as well. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not finding your argument very compelling. You started with WP:LEAD, saying I was misunderstanding the guideline, then you switched to WP:WEIGHT, which is another thing altogether, making me assume that you have abandoned the argument about WP:LEAD, acknowledging that it does not help your point. The WP:WEIGHT guideline discusses whether to represent minor viewpoints strongly or weakly as compared to the representation in published sources. However, the viewpoint of traditional anarchism is the mainstream view, and cannot be lessened by an application of WP:WEIGHT. The mainstream view always gets prominence on Misplaced Pages. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

So you don't find how other pages are set up to be compelling? You don't find consistency in pages to be compelling? Suit yourself, but neither precedent nor WP:LEAD are on your side. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Knight of BAAWA, sorry, but that's just outright nonsense. Your examples were obviously set up in error and thus are not appropriate analogues to the current dispute. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not nonsense. No, my examples were not in error, and yes they are analogues to the current dispute. Further, it appears that Binksternet hasn't actually read WP:LEAD, for he would have found a section in there about undue weight. I know this because I actually read it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The edit warring needs to stop! BRD -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, major edits (i.e. content removal) need to stop being marked as minor! Is this a common theme here??? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The irrelevance of the Evolution page and the argument being derived from it have been pointed out over and over, and far more apposite examples, in which definitional debates are very definitely and correctly included, provided ad nauseam. That has all been consistently ignored, as have guidelines re weight and lead structure (or rather, oddly deployed as if they somehow justify removal, when they rather obviously tend to supporting inclusion. How back to front could "it's in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead" be as an argument?). Furthermore, this content is subject to an RfC, which is still open. Due to edit warring, the page was protected .. and as soon as that is left, mid-RfC, those wanting to remove it are off edit-warring it out again? N-HH talk/edits 20:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not irrelevant, much to your dismay. You too are ignoring precedent and policy. Please stop. By the way: the sentence is being edit-warred in, not out; it has no business being there. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Your just saying that the comparison with Evolution is relevant, that others must be dismayed by that and that the information has "no business being there" doesn't make any of those assertions automatically true. Let's explain it again, in bullet points:

• What individual other pages do is not of itself probative of anything
• The "debate" around Evolution/Creationism is a substantive one of fact, not one of classification/description/context. Same with Earth/Flat Earth
• Creationism and flat-earthism are fringe concepts/arguments, hence clearly undue for the lead of the main serious page on the overarching topic; the observation that anarcho-capitalism is often not seen as anarchism is clearly not fringe, as the sources cited show
• Other pages, in fact, very much do note such issues (or at least did when I last looked): see for example Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and, especially pertinently, National Anarchism; as well as, more trivially, Red panda, Koala, Tibetan terrier
• And, if you want to stick with evolution, a more appropriate, though still imperfect, comparison would be with the Intelligent Design page. Are you seriously suggesting that it should not point out in the lead – which it of course does – out that it is not considered a science? Especially if it had an "also known as Creation-Science" line and carried the "Science" template?

Also, I don't know why you're telling me to "stop". As before when you tried this one on, I'm not editing the page. Btw the text that, slightly varied, is now being touted as some kind of reasonable compromise, which suggests that "Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from ... anti-capitalist anarchists", is extremely problematic and in no way a replacement for the material which needs to be there: not only does it rely on the a-c perspective, rather than that of third parties, but it if anything reinforces the suggestion that a-c definitely is, uncontroversially, assumed to be a form of anarchism, by directly contrasting it with other forms of anarchism. This is the crux of the problem – this page asserts and assumes a fundamental descriptive/definitional fact which is a matter of significant recorded dispute in the real world according to authoritative sources. N-HH talk/edits 09:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

This section is now open to discuss neutrality issues. (Have at it!) – S. Rich (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The following text in the lede:

"Anarcho-capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist."

describing a POV of anCap from the left, has been revised to the following:

"Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who would advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and from anti-capitalist anarchists and socialists who advocate cooperative ownership and worker management of resources."

which takes a neutral stand on the philosophy, and places it in a political context.

Certain editors would like to reintroduce the disputed text in its original form in the lede. The dispute is briefly explored in the body of the article. So the question is not whether the article is neutral, but rather at which point other views of the philosophy of anCap are discussed. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion. As I wrote at WP:ANEW, the disputed sentence is well-referenced "true-but-not-very-flattering" response regarding what non-capitalist anarchists think of anarcho-capitalists. The material was added to the article body by Chrisluft on 8 May 2014 with these two edits based on a number of quotes in reliable sources. I would have brought this material to the article differently than Chrisluft, with more context given in prose, but the basic idea is good. On 21 May 2014, N-HH restored the disputed text, adding more context in the article body, and putting the unflattering summary in the lead section. Our friend Knight of BAAWA edit-warred to keep the text out, fighting against N-HH and an IP6 editor who insulted people as "ancap retards". This insult should bear upon the IP6 editor who was guilty of incivility, not on the text in dispute which is well-referenced.

I consider that the WP:LEAD guideline can be followed to the letter if we tell the reader about in-world anarcho-capitalist views along with the prominent external view of traditional anarchists:

• Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who would advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and from anti-capitalist anarchists and socialists who advocate cooperative ownership and worker management of resources. Anarcho-capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist.

This summary is pertinent to the article, true in every sense in the real world, and is therefore neutral. It is a significant viewpoint, and should remain in the article much as N-HH composed it. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit by User:Srich32977 was a bad edit which should be reverted, and I suggest that editors familiarize themselves with the article (particularly footnotes 58 through 63) and the talk page conversation rather than making claims in edit summaries ("Needs a source.") which are obviously false. — goethean 14:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

My edit was no more "bad" than the edits done by other users. E.g., I did the exact same revert that they did with regard to the IP's addition. Suppose I said "revert unexplained edit by IP"? Or "revert edit by IP which lacks consensus"? I ask that you de-personalize the comment. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You falsely claim that sourced text has no sources, you remove the text, giving the reason that it has no sources, when it has five, and when I point this out, you say that I need to "de-personalize" my comment, and you completely ignore the fact that your edit summary and reason for removing content from the article rest on a plain falsehood. It is you who needs to examine his behavior. — goethean 19:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

– Per User:Goethean's most diplomatic and polite request above (posted 7 hours after the page received protection), please revert the edit I did least the version be seen as consensus and immutable. – S. Rich (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose this, the additional text is exactly what's been edit-warred about. The text has not gained consensus throughout multiple weeks of page protection, and so the default state is to leave it out, but in particular not to re-add it during page protection (m:The Wrong Version). Proponents should use this time to come up with a new alternative that can gain consensus. --Netoholic @ 06:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done: Sorry, but I don't see a consensus here yet for any particular wording. Please reactivate the request when you've managed to find a consensus. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 08:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing the text for having "no source" was clearly a bad call, which seems to have been acknowledged. As for neutrality, ever since this kicked off there have been suggestions by those opposed to the content that it somehow is not neutral and/or prioritises a left-wing view. This is just muddying the waters. If the proposed content was sourced solely to partisan anarchist sources and said "Anarcho-capitalism is a bad idea and a rubbish theory", there might be a point here. But it isn't. It's sourced to objective and academic sources, reports a widely held view and is simply about categorisation, classification and use of terminology. What is instrinsically negative about saying "this is often not seen as a form of anarchism, but as right-wing libertarianism"? The onus, as it always has been, is on those opposing it to explain why this fundamental, well-sourced and substantively unchallenged information about definition and context should not be included in the lead, to reflect the body. If anything, the POV seems to be coming from the other side, who are quite open in calling those that disagree with them "statists" and seem to believe that this page is here to allow the political philosophy in question to promote itself rather than to be a neutral explanation of what it is and how it fits into the wider political context, as described, especially, in third-party secondary sources. And as a side point, the page is clearly not FA-worthy. This status appears to have been awarded in 2005. Standards are higher now, and the scrappiness of the content together with this ongoing dispute clearly invalidate it. N-HH talk/edits 09:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

And as for a possible consensus text, I agree that having both the sentences together could work: it puts anarcho-capitalism in context in relation to both other forms of right-wing libertarianism and anarchism proper (or "other forms of anarchism", if you wish), from different perspectives. I don't see them as either/or alternatives, not least because the proposed replacement, as noted previously, still assumes and takes for granted that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, when whether it is or not is the crux of the problem. It adds useful detail and perspective, but it is neither a more neutral nor a direct replacement. N-HH talk/edits 10:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"Anarchism proper" is as ridiculous a concept as "left-anarchism". There is no "official" school of anarchism, and anarchism via forced redistribution of wealth is self-contradictory. If anything, if anarcho-capitalists are not "permitted" into the anarchist "group" it would be more a point in their favor as far as legitimacy is concerned. The POV of left-leaning "anarchists" is a side note of the anarcho-capitalist movement. Please remove the NPOV tag, and keep this excellent article protected from further malicious edits. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

N-HH is correct: this is not a safe space for anarcho-capitalists to dress up their philosophy as they see fit, ignoring well-sourced and relevant facts because they don't like it. Anyone who reads the reasons given in the RfC survey or the uncivil comments aimed at other editors would make this same conclusion. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The only dress-up that's being imposed on this article by editors is its relationship with other schools of thought. The "well-sourced" facts through which those who wish to advocate their POV to discolor the article are quotes from said advocates. Anarcho-capitalism is first and foremost an economic liberation movement, and has little to do with the inevitably statist socialism of the left. In terms of objectivity, leftists are in no position to pass judgement on the anarcho-capitalist movement. The topic of the article is anarcho-capitalism. POVs are at best ancillary. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That comment is a perfect example of the POV problem occurring here: blatantly biased, derogatory remarks toward the left are substituted for rational justifications based on sources or policy. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Justifications for what? JLMadrigal (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you not familiar with the subject at hand? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

N-HH is correct, this article in its current condition is very, very different from the 2006 FAR version, the version which resulted after a lot of different viewpoints were applied to the article during the 2006 FAR discussion. The 2006 FAR version told the reader a lot about what non-ancap viewpoints were in relation to ancap views, giving a much greater level of objectivity. Since then it had degraded at the hands of ancap proponents. The current article is aligned toward rah-rah positivism about how ancap is so good. It seems there is sentiment here for starting another FAR, with the goal of making the article more objective, or removing its FA status. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, our job as editors is not to justify anything, but to define - in this case, to define anarcho-capitalism. Am I familiar? Extremely. Binksternet, the article has (not surprisingly) evolved a lot over the last nine years. But even the linked version that you hold as an example does not take the POV position that you advocate. As I mentioned previously, I would like to see the Nolan chart introduced (which is very similar to the one in the version discussed), because it provides a clearer picture of the distinct views in question. Nolan's chart (which is well-known among American libertarians) puts anarcho-capitalists at the apex of the libertarian quadrant, because they advocate absolute liberty in both person and property. JLMadrigal (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but your "definition" seems to be "we are the true anarchists" and any reliable and authoritative third-party source that questions the nature of the relationship with anarchism as a simple matter of standard definition – note, again, not "partisan leftist source" that "denies" the relationship – is apparently to be excluded on the say-so of one or two anonymous WP editors who are very clearly of a partisan bent. Sorry, this doesn't wash. Again, if you think it's "POV" to simply note quite fundamental and widely reported definitional and classification disputes, or to place one political philosophy in the context of others, based on sources other than those from within that camp, you don't understand the policy. And, as also previously noted, if you're so adamant that anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with the socialism of the left – which indeed is correct – I'm struggling to understand why you're objecting to further clarification of this fact; which inevitably also entails a brief note of the uncontroversial fact that anarchism has traditionally been seen as a movement of the left. This is simply about clarity, explanation of the historical record and context, not about arguing for – or against – anarcho-capitalism as a theory of "economic liberation" or of anything else. N-HH talk/edits 09:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

By Nolan's definition of liberty, anCaps (and American libertarians in general) place many who call themselves "anarchists" (but advocate for redistribution of wealth) to the left - which, by said definition, implies that they are not truly anarchist. Whether an interpretation is popular - or endorsed by an "authority" does not make it correct (particularly in the case of a movement against hierarchy). This is the crux of the issue regarding editors who are attempting to subject the article to the point of view (POV) that social anarchists "are the true anarchists", and that anarcho-capitalism is therefor 'illegitimate'. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It is you, only you, and no reliable sources which equates anarchism solely with an-cap. On the contrary, multiple reliable sources have been presented which call this identity into question. In response to the presentation of these sources, you've offered nothing but name-calling. — goethean 13:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

JLMadrigal, you seem to have misunderstood. I was not asking if you were familiar with anarcho-capitalism, but the current dispute. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is impossible. No direct response or engagement is forthcoming in respect of any points that are put related to WP policy or third-party evidence, and every reasoned point is simply ignored and talked past. All we are getting is repeated assertion that one personal interpretation of anything and everything is the definitively correct one and the apparent belief that the purpose of this page is to allow anarcho-capitalists to present the case, in an almost cult-like fashion, for anarcho-capitalism not only being a good thing but also the only true manifestation of anarchism, as understood by those who really get it. There also seems to be a confused perception that they are heroically battling people trying to do the mirror-image opposite, ie discredit the substantive philosophy of anarcho-capitalism and/or write the entire page as if Bakunin is the one true prophet, when of course that is not the point either – all that is being asked for is, per policy and practice, the representative incorporation of the range of secondary views, without taking sides at all. Unfortunately, this is how WP pages, especially those about politics, drive themselves into the dirt. N-HH talk/edits 09:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"All that is being asked for is, per policy and practice, the representative incorporation of the range of secondary views, without taking sides at all." If that were the case, I would have no objection. Unfortunately, it is not. These views are already in the document. They do not belong in the lede, since they are, as you mention, secondary. The existing compromise paragraph - which has already been incorporated into the lead - sets the stage. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. — goethean 14:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

And secondary doesn't mean tangential... it means, "Look! Misplaced Pages is built on secondary views!" -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The only controversy of note in anarcho-capitalism is the Friedmanite versus Rothbardian ethical basis for argumentation. But it's minor enough not to be included in the lede. Regardless, even if the debate over the birthright to the "anarchist" title were notable enough to be included in the lede, omission from the lede would still not violate neutrality since it is discussed in the body. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Funny you would say such a thing, when you obviously don't believe it yourself: -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, let's just pretend that the reliable sources which say otherwise don't exist. — goethean 16:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

And let's pretend that if it is in the body, it should/need not be in the lead – whereas of course that is entirely back to front, given that the lead, as noted, is meant to reflect and summarise the body as well as defining the topic and putting it in context. If the lead did not assert, pretty much outright, that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, you could argue that noting the widespread querying of that need not be there either. But of course it is there, in black and white in the name, the alternative names and the Anarchism template. Thanks to others for pointing out the gross confusion about the meaning and relevance of the term "secondary" in this context as well btw. Finally, of course, a "controversy of note" is not the one and only one, internal to anarcho-capitalism that JLMadrigal declares exists but what secondary sources note as significant, as pointed out ad nauseam.

Finally, finally, the "compromise" text on its own is entirely inadequate, for reasons explained; nor should it have been unilaterally inserted as a supposed replacement/repair of the text in issue without independent discussion mid-RfC (it's now of course set in stone for the time at least, while the discussed-in-detail and so-far majority-supported text remains out, due to the inevitable randomness of page protection). If we can get agreement on the combined text incorporating both internal and third-party views, as suggested above, that might at long last sort this pointless dispute out. N-HH talk/edits 09:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The proposed text is redundant, since the previous sentence already establishes that there is a difference regarding capitalism among anarchists. Further, it asserts that the traditional view is still a majority view without submitting or referencing any numbers as evidence. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the text you personally object to is sourced as a statement/assessment – numbers have nothing to do with it. Secondly, the text you are insisting should be there instead as an alternative/replacement not only presents the view from one, in-world, perspective as opposed to an objective third-party position but does not address at all the definition/classification point (which you continue to ignore on this talk page as well by referring to the differences "among anarchists"). Thirdly, unlike the orginal text, that text was not made subject to discussion or debate but simply unilaterally declared, mid-RfC, to be the ideal solution and then inserted as a fait accompli ahead of the latest page protection. I can keep repeating all this and you can keep ignoring it if you wish. N-HH talk/edits 12:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"Anarcho-capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist." "Most" is a fraction (>.5). Such a claim needs to be verified if it is to be included in an objective document. This might lend credence to inclusion of a POV of 'orthodox' anarchists. JLMadrigal (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources provided above sufficiently verify the text. — goethean 16:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Goethean: we do not need exact figures so long as we have many strong sources which more than justify the claim's inclusion. The proposed addition could probably be phrased better, but we need to accurately reflect the fact that capitalist anarchism is a relatively new development that many other anarchists (i.e. the communists, syndicalists, and mutualists representative of "traditional anarchism") reject because capitalism is viewed as intrinsically hierarchical. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who would advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and from anti-capitalist anarchists and socialists who advocate cooperative ownership and worker management of resources. Conversely, traditional anarchists typically reject property and market processes, viewing them as hierarchical.

JLMadrigal (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that being obfuscating in an attempt to hide information from readers is productive. The proposed content that you removed is clear, well-sourced, and true. — goethean 12:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for working toward a compromise, JLMadrigal. I think your proposal is fair, but could use some copy editing. How about something like the following?

A couple thoughts: 1) I think it'd be easier to say that traditional anarchists "typically reject capitalism as intrinsically hierarchical" or something similar... is there a reason why this wouldn't be acceptable? 2) Given my quote above, I don't think the last bit ("viewing them as hierarchical") is necessary; distinguishing these two groups by showing that traditional anarchists reject private property and markets should suffice. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No need to delete reference to communal ownership. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think it'd read better if it said they "reject private property... in favor of cooperative ownership arrangements," but let's see what others have to say. Thanks again! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I notice you've changed cooperative to communal... is there any reason for this? My concern here is that communal may be true for communists, but isn't (or is less so) for syndicalists and mutualists. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The term "cooperative" is used in a special way by traditional anarchists, which may be confusing as anCaps believe that market relationships are cooperative. Perhaps "collective property arrangements" would be more accurate. JLMadrigal (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Although fine as far as it goes, and the information contained is useful for the lead (although FWIW I'd prefer "co-operative" to "communal" or "collective"), this is simply an embellishment of the alternative text parachuted in mid-RfC and is still skirting round the fundamental point: this is not just about describing a dispute on matters of detail/execution between different schools of anarchism but about noting the widely acknowledged and more fundamental definitional dispute as to whether anarcho-capitalism is or should be considered as anarchism at all. Whatever detail is added, this well-sourced information about context and definition is still being entirely excluded in the above proposal. Nor is the text getting the same level of oversight that the proposed addition in the still-open RfC has had (which is currently running 5-4 I think in favour of including that addition). The proposal that merges both observations, as already suggested, subject to minor tweaks to the precise text, would seem to be a more genuine compromise than a suggestion from one party who has always wanted the point under debate in the RfC to be excluded that it should continue to be excluded. N-HH talk/edits 09:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

N-HH, I'm hoping we can work toward a compromise "that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution". From what you are saying, it sounds like we ought to have a different separation between sentences... perhaps something like the following?

Anarchism is usually considered a radical left-wing ideology which promotes cooperative ownership and worker management of resources, and anarchists from this tradition typically believe capitalism to be antithetical to anarchism. Amongst right-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists can be distinguished from minarchists, who advocate a night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection.

-- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

One step forward, two steps back. This article is about anarcho-capitalism - not left-anarchism. Further, as discussed prior, anarcho-capitalists are not right-libertarians. Those would be the minarchists. The following addition addresses the definitional concern without a meat-ax.

Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and traditional anarchists, who typically reject private property and market processes, in favor of collective ownership arrangements. In contrast to left-anarchists, who believe that economic relationships tend to be hierarchical, anarcho-capitalists believe that hierarchies can only be flattened in a naturally competitive marketplace to the extent that states and state-sponsored monopoliies are abolished. As a result, there is disagreement between anarcho-capitalists and left-anarchists over the nature of "anarchy".

JLMadrigal (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

JLMadrigal, you say that "This article is about anarcho-capitalism - not left-anarchism." I agree, but... so? What point are you trying to make here? You also say that "anarcho-capitalists are not right-libertarians," which is provably false (see Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism). Please try to be clear and accurate, and maybe we can get through this dispute. Thanks! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and traditional anarchists, who typically reject private property and market processes, in favor of collective ownership arrangements. In contrast to left-anarchists, who believe that economic relationships tend to be hierarchical, anarcho-capitalists believe that hierarchies can only be flattened in a naturally competitive marketplace to the extent that states and state-sponsored monopolies are abolished. As a result, there is disagreement between anarcho-capitalists and left-anarchists over the nature of "anarchy".

Sorry, but this latest suggestion is absolutely terrible; we can't insert false information into the article. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

And which information exactly is "false", MisterDub? JLMadrigal (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, pretty much that entire last sentence. 1) It doesn't seem appropriate to inject a new term (left-anarchists) without an explicit connection to the previous term (traditional anarchists); 2) left-anarchists do not believe "economic relationships tend to be hierarchical," they believe that capitalist economic relations are necessarily hierarchical; and 3) anarcho-capitalists think hierarchy is permissible as long as it's voluntary and so don't care to attack hierarchical relationships. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This last proposal is every bit as bad as the others. The reader needs to be told plainly that ancaps are not considered properly anarchist. The "disagreement" is an absolute one about inclusion, not about the "nature" of anarchy. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm open to revision of the last sentence. JLMadrigal (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree – we appear to be veering into some fairly subjective essay-style analysis about what anarchists and/or anarcho-capitalists believe in terms of detailed theory, while at the same time avoiding the key issue that this has been about from the start, which is that of definition and classification. Despite the "idontlikeit" complaints of one or two editors about including it, as endlessly pointed out, the original content succinctly reflects – and cites – material directly found in sources on that point. Furthermore, the RfC on that has been closed with the conclusion that it should be included in the form originally proposed. I would happily see the brief point about AC vs minarchism etc also added as a separate – and equally uncontroversial – observation. N-HH talk/edits 09:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

1) And regarding left-anarchists, there is consensus among traditional anarchists that they self-identify as left of center, so that shouldn't be an issue. 2) Since leftists have a limited understanding of the laws of the marketplace (property, capital, and business relationships in general) they tend to distrust it. "Capitalism" as they define it - rather than the state - is their bogeyman. 3) Leftists also tend to conflate hierarchy and inequality - thus equating "capitalism" with oppression. Inequality is the natural state of affairs in all animal and plant kingdoms. JLMadrigal (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to respect your edits when you chop down leftists in this manner. Let's try to steer clear of such global statements. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Just describing the context, Binksternet. JLMadrigal (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the proper context is that we're not here to debate you! This is an academic encyclopaedia built upon reliable sources, and the sources are clear. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The context of anarcho-capitalism IS the issue. Advocates of another strain of "anarchism", who wish to insert their foreign viewpoint (regardless of how well sourced) into the article are seeking to muddy a clear definition of anarcho-capitalism which presupposes the accuracy of said viewpoints. JLMadrigal (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A deeply amusing comment. User:JLMadrigal's apparent stance is that this article should lack all reference to the world beyond the minds of anarcho-captalists. This stance is untenable and directly contradicts core Misplaced Pages policy, such as WP:NPOV. — goethean 15:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Post-RFC

OK, so this was closed a few days ago now with approval to include the content re disputed classification. I'm therefore going to add it back in. I will leave the recently added text about minarchism and the anarcho-capitalist perspective, which links into the point if not directly covering it, preceding it. That leaves us in effect with the composite compromise text initially floated above – which, separately from the support for the RfC text alone, had the backing of at least two editors and no outright objections. If anyone still wants to object to the RfC text specifically, they should not edit-war it out but take it to review or whatever, if they really think it's necessary. There's been more than enough squabbling over material that is fairly uncontroversial in the real world. N-HH talk/edits 09:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have posted this anarchist POV issue on the NPOV noticeboard in order to remedy the persistent insertion of the disputed POV text in its original form: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Featured_Anarcho-capitalism_article_is_being_held_captive_to_left-anarchist_editors JLMadrigal (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring without discussion now? Classy, fellas! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of stealth, it would seem that the following discussion is relevent to editors of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Anarcho-capitalism/archive1 JLMadrigal (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, no one was speaking of "stealth", nor has there been any as far as I can see when it comes to that discussion. As noted in an edit summary, I will go to ANI and report everyone who is still trying to edit war the sentence out the next time any of you remove it. That means User:JLMadrigal, User:Netoholic – who has form when it comes to simply ignoring RfC conclusions – and User:Knight of BAAWA. You are fairly likely to end up blocked I'd have thought. This has gotten beyond boring now. N-HH talk/edits 09:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

And now we are, as promised, at ANI. More bureaucratic hoop-jumping required, unfortunately, because one or two invested people insist that they, and they alone, are right even when the real-world sources, WP policy and WP consensus are all against them. N-HH talk/edits 16:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the real-world sources and policy are with us, and there was no consensus. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of npov tag from neutral article

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Anarcho-capitalism. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Please remove npov tag from this neutral article. The following paragraph in the lede

Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and from anti-capitalist anarchists and socialists who advocate cooperative ownership and worker management of resources.

...replaces the text in a neutral manner which previously stated the context as a POV. The RfC was closed with a weak consensus to include early mention regarding the distinction between "traditional" anarchists and anCaps. As a result, the new paragraph is included in the lede which clarifies the distinction. Furthermore, the new compromise paragraph is neutral on the question of which version of anarchism is "correct" or "valid". Further discussion occurs in the body of the article, regarding the differences of opinion among self-identifying anarchists (which does not need to be expanded further according to the results of the RfC). Please remove this inappropriate tag from the article. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag, as I am still awaiting resolution at the NPOV noticeboard. Thank you! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Let's not remove the tag, as there are critical unanswered questions about neutrality. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There will never be 100% agreement - even though the page is now clearly neutral. Please remove the tag. JLMadrigal (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Opponents of certain controversial topics often will perform such inappropriate tagging because it can be a sneaky way to discredit the article subject. This is no different. Instead of the tag at the top, people who have specific, actionable objections to neutrality issues should mark the specific sections ({{POV-section}}) or lines ({{POV-check inline}}) that they claim problems. -- Netoholic @ 17:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The article conformed to NPOV...until those who want there to be a government decided to add a specific sentence. Since that sentence is not there currently, clearly the NPOV tag can be removed. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Bylund

The main section relating to the relationship with other anarchist schools has a detailed exposition, including a huge block quote, of the views of someone who appears to be a non-notable commentator (and has an odd reference and link to "anarchism without adjectives"). Arguably his views should not be there at all, but the full quote is definitely OTT and undue. In terms of explanation I'm not sure it adds much to the Rothbard material that follows. Could we agree t lose some, if not all, of it? N-HH talk/edits 09:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this section needs to be pared down significantly. Per Bylund should be removed entirely as non-notable. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait to see if anyone comes up to defend it and will then remove or at least trim it (if no one else does first). I don't want to dive in and just wipe it all too quickly, given the recent history here. N-HH talk/edits 10:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

How is he non-notable? Please explain. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's your burden to explain how he is notable... but let's start with the fact that the article introduces him as a webmaster (which conveys no special status or knowledge), and end with the deletion of his Wiki article because "he notability of this topic has not been established." — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's not my burden. So please: show how he is non-notable. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Per Bylund. Misplaced Pages has twice voted to delete a biography about him, once in February then again in March 2008. The guy is a Mises Institute columnist. Outside of Mises he is not quoted by mainstream authors. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Well there you go! A real argument for removal has been advanced. Wonderful. However, some of the quote can remain. The 3rd paragraph, beginning with the 2nd word, clearly needs to remain. After all: it is verifiable (which is wikipedia's standard) and helps intro the Rothbard section. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Dissection of The Sentence

"Anarcho-capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist."

This exact sentence seems to be the locus of the storm which has lead to 3 separate page protections, an RfC, a FA review, and an Admin noticeboard post. Now, let's take some time to really dissect what is specifically wrong with this sentence, so that those who keep insisting on this precise wording are no longer mystified as to why it is unacceptable and keeps being removed.

"not usually", "most"

These assertions are pretty much classic weasel wording, with no backing or context. How would one determine "not usually" or "most"? Have there been surveys? Have reliable sources used this phrasing, and what do they base that on? Is there really a preponderance of evidence in the literature of this viewpoint, or is just cherry-picking? How can we know it isn't cherry-picking?

"recognized"

I feel like this is simply the wrong word being used here. I have no idea why recognition of a viewpoint matters as to the viewpoint itself. I don't "recognize" certain musicians as being good, but who cares? Those musicians are still successful and I can acknowledge their success by empirical evidence. Opinions exist on their own and are not dependent on the recognition of others. Is the assertion being made here that there is some strict definition of "anarchism", which anarcho-capitalism doesn't fit definitionally? If that were true then it would be obvious. We would not say that "circles are not usually recognized as a form of squares", because circles cannot be squares. If you can't say with confidence "anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism", then you also can't say it "is not usually recognized". And if you could say "...is 'not...", then we would just simply say it in the article. The way its used enhances the weasel wording effect mentioned above.

"traditional"

If there is one segment of the population that the word "traditional" doesn't apply to, it is anarchists. By their nature, they generally reject blanket terms or definitions. But Misplaced Pages needs clear context. Right now, the word "traditional" within the context of anarchists has no grounding. If this point needs to be made, then it should be made by directly referring to specific, prominent anarchists that hold this view. Let the reader decide who is "traditional" or whether that label is even important at all. I think this word also fits MoS/Words to watch § Relative time references ("traditionally" is mentioned there as an example of words to avoid).

"historically"

Why is the historical meaning of anarchism being given preferential weight here? Anarcho-capitalism as a philosophy has only been formalized for a few decades, and anarchism as a philosophy has also changed from its historical foundations. This is like saying that a modern viewpoint on civil liberties is invalid because "historically" minorities and women have not had such liberties. Again, its the wrong word and wrong perspective, and I think it too falls within WP:RELTIME. The point should be made by referencing specific, prominent viewpoints from any time period, and let the reader decide how to weigh the "historical" value of such viewpoints.

All in all, we cannot use this specific phrase as a summary of the viewpoint in the lead because of these problems. -- Netoholic @ 18:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Your parsing of the phrasing and your personal judgment that it is somehow flawed or wrong are both all very interesting, but as noted ad nauseam, this is what reliable and authoritative sources say. I know you and others like doing this kind of thing but, as it happens, the role of WP editors is not to second-guess and argue with such sources, or to suggest that we somehow know better. The point here is clear, widely recorded and was agreed in an RfC. Start a blog if you think you have a more interesting analysis of reality. N-HH talk/edits 20:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Usually: The sources demonstrate that most anarchists are anti-capitalists. Colin Ward states that "The mainstream of anarchist propaganda for more than a century has been anarchist-communism." "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice." (Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism)
• Recognized: You ask "Is the assertion being made here that there is some strict definition of 'anarchism', which anarcho-capitalism doesn't fit definitionally?" and the answer is yes. Peter Marshall writes that anarchism "emerged at the end of the eighteenth century in its modern form as a response partly to the rise of centralized States and nationalism, and partly to industrialization and capitalism. Anarchism thus took up the dual challenge of overthrowing both Capital and the State." "Godwin was one of the first to describe clearly the intimate link between property and power which has made the anarchists enemies of capitalism as well as of the state." (George Woodcock's Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements)
• Traditional: Anarcho-capitalism is a recent development, developing ~100 years after anarchism. "However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers – David Friedman, Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Paul Wolff – so it is necessary to examine the modern individualist 'libertarian' response from the standpoint of the anarchist tradition." (Colin Ward's Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction)
• Historically: Again, anarcho-capitalism is a recent development... see above.

Of course I'm open to rephrasing (as I've stated before), but the core of the argument is that we need to make clear that 1) anarchism developed in the mid-19th century as an anti-capitalist ideology, 2) anarcho-capitalism is a recent development (at least a century after Godwin and Proudhon first espoused anarchism), and 3) the anarchists in point #1—those who had been theorizing and practicing anti-capitalism as an integral characteristic of anarchism for a century before American individualists appropriated libertarian terminology—don't accept anarcho-capitalists as anarchists. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

For about a thousand years, the only form of Christianity was Roman Catholicism. The article on Christianity mentions the Protestant/Catholic schism in the lede. However: it does NOT state that some in each camp did not recognize the other as Christian--and in fact some of that still holds sway today, e.g. the anti-Catholic Jack Chick tracts. So we have the idea of historically something has been, but does not state that those adherents do not usually recognize the other side as being part of them. The upshot: Argument from Antiquity is a fallacy no matter how you try to word it. Same with Argument from Numbers.

We could also look at the page on atheism. Nowhere in that lede does it talk about communism (as many people still equate atheism with communism) or wickedness (as even some dictionaries include that in the definition of atheism). So what "most" might "usually" "recognize" as "traditional" isn't necessarily what it actually is, now is it? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

We prefer citing sources to making stuff up. — goethean 03:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That's nice. I cited sources too. Whee! We're even! Now stop trying to marginalize anarchocapitalism just because you hate whatever misconception of capitalism you have. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"those who had been theorizing and practicing anti-capitalism as an integral characteristic of anarchism for a century before American individualists appropriated libertarian terminology" were dead long before anarcho-capitalism was developed. They cannot be used to make an assertion as to whether AnCap "counts" as anarchism. -- Netoholic @ 02:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No, but the reliable sources can (and do). — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And just to make it clear, contrary to Netoholic's edit summary, the point has not been incorporated "in an acceptable way in the prior sentence," as it fails to address the core argument I've enumerated above. Rather, the impression is that these suggestions are purpose-built to avoid the main issue. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure it has. We now make a brief summary ("Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from ... anti-capitalist anarchists and socialists") of the distinction between AnCaps and anti-capitalist anarchists in the lead. All the other expansion on that should be made in the article body where references, context, and opposing viewpoints can be explained further. -- Netoholic @ 02:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No. The current phrasing doesn't make known that there is a controversy as to whether or not anarcho-capitalists are even anarchists, as the sources all relate.

It seems clear that these rationalizations are just that; they are not supported by reliable sources, nor do they comport with Misplaced Pages policy. I guess I will wait to see how the NPOV noticeboard shakes out. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This goes back to the question I posted above: How can we know that the selection of sources isn't just cherry-picking? -- Netoholic @ 18:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, you'd actually have to know about the subject. I suggest reading some of the robust secondary sources on anarchism, many of which I have already referenced above, or political philosophy in general. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not a good enough answer for editors, let alone readers. If you can't explain how we can know that those sources aren't cherry-picked, then we can't rely on them. There are a lot of sources which also talk about states of anarchy without ever mentioning capitalism. There are plenty likewise that see capitalism as inevitable. Unless you can demonstrate how you know that "usually" "most" "traditional" anarchist thinkers reject capitalism, then we cannot make such an assertion. We can reference what specific thinkers say on the issue, but we cannot imply that they speak for the majority of anarchists. -- Netoholic @ 20:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like someone to explain why communists are editing anarcho-capitalism? Wolf DeVoon (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC) 06:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Because (and unfortunately this means good-faith cannot be assumed, especially given such tactics as Eduen's use of scarce-quotes and other sundry examples of incivility which I never bother to report because I'm not petty) they wish to marginalize it due to their hatred of whatever misconceptions they have about capitalism. They tend to confuse capitalism with the current mercantilist/fascist/welfare-warfare socialist state system which holds sway in many places. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI – Laissez Faire City redirects to List of Anarchist Communities, 100% edited by commies, and there is zero information, not even a mention about ancap LFC on the page. Orlin Grabbe, Patri Friedman, Andre Goldman, Tibor Machan, Alberto Mingardi and many others were intimately involved. Writers and full-text articles about LFC at archive.org — Wolf DeVoon (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ancap legal systems

It is intensely annoying that Andre Goldman is mentioned without reference or link to his vaporware Common Economic Protocols. His cyberspace law firm (International Contract Administration) has likewise vanished, after he conducted an amateurish investigation into the collapse of Laissez Faire City and its Dubai based spin-off Digital Monetary Trust over ten years ago.

As far as I'm concerned, Goldman's intellectual contribution was about 1/4" deep and consisted in the main of incoherent attacks on my work. Bottom line: "Andre Goldman" can't be found anywhere on the web. I certainly can be. Wolf DeVoon (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/laissez-faire-law-wolf-devoon/1012570462?ean=9781430308362
2. http://www.amazon.com/The-Constitution-Government-Galts-Gulch/dp/1499550456

• Misplaced Pages featured article review candidates
• 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 semi-protected edit requests
• Misplaced Pages edit requests possibly using incorrect templates