Anarcho-capitalism

[grarpamp]

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 21
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Anarcho-capitalism
Jump to navigation Jump to search
	This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of
this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one,
please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 15 	← 	Archive 19 	Archive 20 	Archive 21 	Archive 22 	Archive
23 	→ 	Archive 25
Contents

    1 Relationship with anarchism in lead
    2 Edit request
    3 Page protection requested
    4 Edit request
    5 Edit request
    6 Edit request

Relationship with anarchism in lead

The suggestion that anarcho-capitalism is not always seen, especially
by anarchists, as being a part of anarchism proper is uncontroversial
and well sourced. The nature of the relationship between
anarcho-capitalism and anarchism as a whole is a key issue and relates
to the fundamental definition of the terms. It is also documented
throughout the main body, including in its own section. Despite those
three points, one editor has taken to repeatedly and unilaterally
removing reference to it in the lead, including again just now, in a
blind-revert edit that also blanked content and sources from the main
body. WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:WEIGHT are basic WP policies and the
WP:LEAD guideline is also quite clear that the lead summarises the
body. The idea that that principle of concise overview and explanation
is not a "valid reason" for including this point in the lead or that
to do so would be equivalent to mentioning creationism in the
evolution lead is somewhat odd and certainly not a justification for
removing sourced content. N-HH talk/edits 13:51, 21 May 2014
(UTC)[reply]

    If it's a concise overview, why do none of the other anarchism
articles have such a thing? After all, there have been massive
infights between, say, Bakunin and Proudhonian anarchists. But the
ledes of the articles of the respective ideas they espoused don't have
such a concept in them as you're trying. Why is that? Could it be that
you're just attempting disruptive editing to make a point? Sure looks
that way. Until you perform the same "service" for all anarchism
articles, you have nothing upon which to stand. Nothing.

    Further, if it is, as you say, a concise overview--why does the
lede of evolution not mention anything about "the controversy"? It's
mentioned in "social and cultural responses", but not the lede. Funny
that. You'd think that if the lede was a "concise overview", that "the
controversy" would be mentioned. But it's not. In fact, the "social
and cultural responses" section is the "concise overview" of "the
controversy", and links to other, fuller pages about it. Just as is
warranted here. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2014
(UTC)[reply]

        None of that addresses the questions or justifies your blind
reverts, which have removed sourced material from the body as well as
references to it the lead. Reference to other pages, whether about
individual anarchists or wholly unrelated topics, are irrelevant to
the point at hand, as is the suggestion that an improvement cannot be
made on one page unless and until a purportedly equivalent change is
made on every other article (and, just to humour you, of course
followers of Proudhon and Bakunin disagree but neither has the
fundamental and widely acknowledged definitional issue that we have
here). Even though you seem to have been battling on this and related
points for years against a succession of people who disagree with you,
you have yet to come up with a convincing argument for your position
or to demonstrate that you understand wikipedia policies or practice.
Your flinging around the accusation of being disruptive against others
is the icing on the cake. N-HH talk/edits 08:11, 22 May 2014
(UTC)[reply]

            It actually does both address your "questions" and
justifies the reverts. Please remember that disruptive editing to make
a point is against Wikipolicy. As such, your edits were removed. If
you do not like it: do not use disruptive editing to make a point. It
will not be allowed. References on other pages are completely relevant
to the point, as there's no valid reason to single out one specific
article for the "treatment" you and a few others would like. You and
those like you have yet to come up with a single convincing argument
otherwise, and that you would try to evade that salient point is quite
telling. Now would you like to attempt to justify your special
"treatment" of this article? Remember: the lede of evolution does not,
in any way, mention "the controversy", ID, or creationism. Looks like
you have your work cut out for you. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:42, 22
May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                Er, no, disruptive editing is a description rather
obviously more accurately applied to the repeated unilateral removal –
from both the body and lead – of well sourced, relevant and
significant material, especially when at least two editors recently,
and many more previously, clearly favour its inclusion in some form or
other. I have no particular "point" to prove, while you have offered
no justification for removing the material other than vague statements
about not liking it as a "treatment" and vague assertions about what a
wholly unrelated page with wholly different issues – and where
WP:FRINGE applies, as it clearly does not in the same way here – might
or might not do. The burden is on you to explain why such sourced and
prima facie relevant material, which is commonly found in third-party
analysis of anarcho-capitalism and related terminology, needs to be
deleted with extreme prejudice.
                The idea that this page should not, in the section
entitled "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools", mention the
widely recorded fact that other schools do not even consider it to be
anarchism at all or that the page should suggest in the lead, without
qualifiction at all, that it is a form of anarchism (eg through the
side-bar and alternative names) without some reference to that
significant debate is nonsensical as well as a rather obvious breach
of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. N-HH talk/edits 14:05, 22 May 2014
(UTC)[reply]

                    Actually, it fits what you did perfectly. No other
anarchism page has such. It has no bearing on anarchocapitalism at
all. There's no valid reason for it to be there. None. Putting it in
is a breach of NPOV and LEAD as well. If it is not, then clearly
"teach the controversy" MUST be included in the same for evolution.
But it isn't. And there's a good reason: it's not the place for such,
nor has it any bearing. Similarly, the idea of anarchocapitalism and
other forms of anarchism are not germane to the lede. At all. Nor does
it have any bearing. At all. That you are trying desperately to ignore
those salient facts is telling.

                    Like it or not: you won't get to push your POV,
try to make a point, or anything like that. You have offered no valid
reasons for your inclusions. Offer some if you can. - Knight of BAAWA
(talk) 23:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so one pseudonymous wikipedia editor and zealous self-appointed
page-guardian gets to wield their veto and declare that an observation
taken from a book described as "An exhaustive and authoritative study
which is bound to become the standard account" of anarchism – ie that
"few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the
anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality
and social justice .. even if they do reject the State, [they] might
therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than
anarchists" – is out of bounds for both the lead and the body of this
page, and a "massive change", even if the content just briefly reports
that assessment rather than opens the page with it or endorses it. My
justification for including the observation, as pointed out from the
outset, is simply and precisely that it is there in black and white in
an authoritative source and is a key issue relating to the
classification and description of the subject-matter of the page –
which currently is described, without any qualification, from the lead
onwards, as definitely being a form of anarchism, such that the issue
has already been introduced, but incompletely. Your just ignoring that
and continuing to repeat "I don't like this content or 'treatment'" is
not a rebuttal of the justification I actually have provided. Who set
you up above established sources and authorities and above WP rules on
sourced/verifiable content, neutral point of view and due weight?

And please quit with the "POV" nonsense. It is not "a breach of NPOV"
to note such differences in opinion, if significant enough; indeed,
it's a breach not to of course. And, as noted, I have no underlying
point to prove or "POV" to "push" here. By contrast, I'm not sure the
same can be said for someone using a username that appears all over
the internet posting on various Austrian and anarcho-capitalist boards
with a rather transparent point of view and agenda.

As for other pages, I can only repeat that it doesn’t matter what they
do and that the evolution example is particularly off-beam, as the
issue there is about a substantive dispute of fact and how much weight
to give to fringe controversy. Here, we are talking about a relatively
subjective and non-marginal difference of opinion about categorisation
and description. And if you insist on debating this in terms of other
pages, here are some that are at least vaguely comparable and in some
cases directly relevant, where the lead - and this is not just about
the lead of course anyway, something you've been neatly sidestepping –
does indeed note equivalent contention and debates about taxonomy
and/or classification: Red panda, Koala, Liberal Democratic Party of
Russia and, er, National Anarchism.

I'm not sure you could get every single argument, and the burden of
justification, more back to front than you have here. But that's WP
politics pages for you, policed as they often are by the Lone Warrior
of Truth who knows better than everyone else trying to contribute and
than published authorities and writers and prepared to edit-war
endlessly over it. When I have time I'll RFC this or bring in outside
eyes somehow. No one here gets to own a page and repeatedly
blind-revert entirely reasonable – and hardly extensive – sourced
additions like this, even if they don't personally like them. N-HH
talk/edits 13:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I notice that for all of your words you failed to justify what you
want to be included. Please stop vandalizing the page. - Knight of
BAAWA (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        I haven't edited it for several days, precisely because I'd
rather avoid the edit war you seem to be happily engaging in currently
with a different editor or editors and would rather rely instead on
"words" to convey points – none of which you have explicitly responded
to, let alone rebutted, in the stonewalling above. Plus the edit
adding the content in question, whether made by me or anyone else, is
rather obviously not vandalism. Equally, while I am aware that I have
"failed to justify" the content in your eyes, that is not the same
thing as actually failing to justify it. Not that it should really be
necessary anyway – the idea that an observation about the relationship
between anarcho-capitalism and most other anarchist currents, sourced
from one of the leading published overviews of anarchism as well as to
other sources, is appropriate for a section titled "Anarcho-capitalism
and other anarchist schools" would be obvious to most people, one
would have thought. Also entirely appropriate is a brief reference to
the issue in the lead in turn, given that: that entire section exists;
it is a salient point re categorisation/description; and WP:LEAD
rather explicitly states that the lead should "summarize the most
important points—including any prominent controversies". N-HH
talk/edits 17:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

            Then CLEARLY "teach the controversy" should be in the lede
for evolution. It's a very prominent controversy. But it's not in the
lede. So clearly: You. Are. Wrong. And yes: bringing up other articles
is perfectly fine when you quote from an article about wikipolicy.
Why? Because that applies to ALL articles. So please don't try to
handwave away that "teach the controversy" is not in the lede for
evolution, as you will have no leg to stand on. You have failed to
justify your additions (which are solely about whatever hate you have
for capitalism). Please stop introducing your non-neutral point of
view into the article. And as for an edit-war: you're the one
reverting under different IPv6 addresses. Not me. - Knight of BAAWA
(talk) 01:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                WTF? I have not accused you of edit-warring – against
yourself – from the IP addresses but using your own account, which you
are, with a third party. And, no, the IP addresses are not me: they
are US-based AT&T addresses. Jesus. And quit banging on about the
evolution page, which has nothing to do with anything here, and making
convoluted leaps of logic based on that. As for your bizarre
assertions that this is about the "hate" I supposedly have for
capitalism, and the suggestion that including content that reflects
real-world views as recorded in reliable sources is not neutral, words
fail me. This has nothing to do with my views on anything. N-HH
talk/edits 15:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                    The evolution page has everything to do with here,
since you cited a wikipedia policy WHICH AFFECTS ALL PAGES. Do you not
get that? The page explains how the lede is supposed to work, and that
means FOR ALL PAGES. If you don't like that fact--not my problem.
Can't do anything about it. Host. Petard. Your own. - Knight of BAAWA
(talk) 21:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                        I have absolutely no idea what any of that is
meant to be saying or what it has to do with any of the points raised
here. N-HH talk/edits 22:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                        And as for "edit-warring", unless you're still
labouring under the delusion that all these different US-based IPs are
actually me, you're surely aware that you are currently up to ten
knee-jerk reverts in a month, against what may well genuinely be a
range of other editors? By contrast, I have made a total of three
edits to the actual page in that period, while trying to explain to
you on this talk page, in often extensive and reasoned detail – which
you have never directly responded to in kind – what should be obvious
anyway about this content. The last post above of yours is a shining
example of the limitations, to say the least, of your responses. As
noted previously, you do not own this page. N-HH talk/edits 17:31, 7
June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                        Oh, there have been zero knee-jerk reverts
from me. I have simply reverted vandalism and NPOV as outlined in
wikipolicy. Nor did you try to explain anything in extensive detail;
you tried to rationalize your edits by handwaving away the problems I
pointed out. Please stop trying to play the victim; it does not suit
you. Tell me: when are you going to make edits to every single lede
for which there is a controversy listed in the body? Hmmmm? Yeah,
didn't think so. In other words: you and your buddies wanted to
marginalize anarchocapitalism, got caught, and now you're misusing RfC
to try to keep your vandalism of the page in place. That's not what a
good wikipedia editor does. - Knight of BAAWA (talk)

                            Vandalism on WP has a pretty specific
meaning which this clearly does not fall under (the POV point is
similarly spurious), and your bandying the accusation around is
getting a little tedious, as are your other bizarre comments about
people being "caught" or their supposedly playing the "victim". Nor
are improvements to one page barred until the same editors proposing
them make them to every other purportedly similar page – and, in any
event of course, I have linked to several pages where exactly this
kind of debate about classification and terminology are already
included, including in the lead. Your only objections to reasoned
explanations and cited sources are pretty much to close your eyes, say
"I don't like this content" and impugn the motives of anyone who
disagrees with you, while raising issues about other pages, as if that
has anything to do with anything. The hostility and stonewalling –
and, yes, knee-jerk reverting – on display here is more than enough
material for the next RfC, on user conduct. As for whether I am
misusing the process here, others will judge that. Even if some others
answer "no" to the question, I can't think many people would argue it
was inappropriate to ask it or that it represents a bid to smuggle
vandalism into the page. N-HH talk/edits 16:16, 8 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]

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

Please remove merge template. Discussion failed to garner consensus
and was archived. Template from other page already removed. – S. Rich
(talk) 05:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes check.svg Done --Redrose64 (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection requested

Sorry to see that we have an on-going, albeit slow moving edit war
disrupting the article. I've requested page protection. – S. Rich
(talk) 00:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has been fully protected for one month per the request
at WP:RFPP. If this RfC reaches a conclusion the protection might be
lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        Observations: Comments about vandalism and not-vandalism are
not helpful; Page protection will not be lifted so that one version
prevails over another for any period of time. The two editors in this
should consider WP:3O or another dispute resolution method, but before
doing so they ought to layout the arguments in a KISS [added: Keep It
Simple Student] format. – S. Rich (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2014
(UTC)15:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

            I assume you are not suggesting that fairly wild and
repeated accusations of vandalism in respect of the addition of widely
and reliably sourced, and directly relevant, material is of the same
order as any subsequent and simple denial of that allegation? I'm not
familiar with the KISS format, but the bottom line here is that we
have, as noted, a common and well referenced observation about
problems relating simply to the definition, terminology and
classification of the subject-matter of the page – which does not
endorse one side or other of that debate and which is not about the
fundamental validity or otherwise of anarcho-capitalism as a political
theory – which several editors (yes, including some likely IP
sockpuppets) have attempted to include. Prima facie, that is surely
legitimate content, and it is up to the one person currently opposing
its inclusion to explain precisely why it is not, eg by showing that
the sources are not reliable or authoritative, that the content
misrepresents those sources or that the information is not presented
neutrally or with due weight. There simply has not been that level of
engagement or explanation. Btw I previously posted on the anarchism
project page to get wider input; this RfC was the next step. I did
think of 30 but thought going straight to an RfC was a more efficient
way of getting a broader input from a range of other editors as
quickly as possible (not that that is how it has turned out to date
...) N-HH talk/edits 09:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                The page should be protected in its original form,
since the dispute is whether the controversy about "true anarchism"
should be expanded. Please revert - at least until the dispute is
resolved. JLMadrigal (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                    When I saw the slow moving, but persistent edit
war going on I simply asked for protection. It is my experience that
such requests are granted based upon the edit warring and not with
regard to what version is up at the moment. If another edit had been
made before the request was granted, you would have had that version.
I do not think the previous version will be restored even if you post
an {{edit protected}} request. But feel free to make the request. – S.
Rich (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    Further suggestion. This page is of interest to at
least 3 WikiProjects. The RFC should be publicized on their talk
pages. Other WikiProjects, such as Politics or Capitalism, may be
interested too. – S. Rich (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                        OK, I've notified four project pages –
anarchism, politics, capitalism and socialism – although as ever, I'm
not sure how active or well-watched any of them are. As for the form
of the page, there are always disputes about the "wrong version" in
these cases. It's a legitimate content dispute with no actual
consensus either way pending the result of this RfC so it's surely
hard to claim one version is more "correct" than any other currently.
N-HH talk/edits 08:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                            How about the other two projects? – S.
Rich (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                            I think reporting this to WikiProject
Socialism (which this article is clearly not a part of), yet failing
to report it to WP Liberalism or WP Libertarianism (which it has long
been part of and are listed on this very talk page), shows a clear
attempt on the part of the OP to push a skewed agenda in this RfC. --
Netoholic @ 18:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                                It did not take me much effort to post
RFC notices on the other pages. Also, I posted on Feature Article talk
page. If there are other Projects or notices that the discussion
should be advertised on, editors are welcome to WP:DIY. – S. Rich
(talk) 18:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                                    It was a genuine oversight – I
didn't even check at the top of the page which projects had already
"claimed" the page, I just went for the obvious ones that occurred to
me and to the ones Srich specifically named. As noted, it was and is
open to anyone to alert any other project they want to. Given that
anarchism is traditionally thought of as a sort of socialism, or at
least related to it – indeed that's part of the underlying issue
around the content in question – that seemed a reasonable nod to me,
and balanced by the notification given on the capitalism project page.
N-HH talk/edits 19:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone looked into the use of various anonymous editors that
seemed to be involved in this edit war (in particular that they
repeatedly tried to insert the same desired text as N-HH & Chrisluft?
-- Netoholic @ 18:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure. They're certainly nothing to do with me (as I
repeatedly had to point out to Knight of BAAWA, and I'm going to get
bored of doing soon, they are US IPs – I'm in the UK). Also, for the
record, I changed Chrisluft's original edit rather than simply
reverting it back in – the material was not exactly the same (but got
repeatedly reverted anyway without even an acknowledgement of that).
The UIP editing has not helped the case, but let's not leap to the
conclusion that this is total sockpuppetry all round or that only one
person is on the side of inclusion. N-HH talk/edits 19:35, 12 June
2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The content of this article (which has been featured for many years)
has only recently seen attempted alterations by certain editors who
wish to expand on a parallel debate, and add content regarding said
debate in the lede. Since the debate regarding inclusion of this
debate concerns justification for such alteration, it would make sense
to omit them from the article until the inclusion debate is settled.
Thus, my suggestion is to revert the article to pre-debate content -
clearly 22:27, 6 May 2014. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]

    Incidentally, the questionable content is largely derogatory, and
the debate over inclusion is trending against. JLMadrigal (talk)
15:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JLMadrigal (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        As noted, this is the old "wrong version" argument. An RfC is
in progress. We should wait for the conclusion of that rather than
guessing half-way – and in any event the discussion is not really
"trending against" inclusion, but seems fairly evenly balanced.
Furthermore, I don't quite see in what way the content is
"derogatory", something others have suggested as well. It's a fairly
bland and factual exposition of a widely reported terminological
debate. N-HH talk/edits 19:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

            Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not
done: N-HH has a point - we should wait for the RfC to finish before
we make any edits concerning its subject. Once the RfC reaches a
consensus, feel free to make another edit request. — Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪ 12:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add the following to the external links section:

    Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 21 at Curlie

Non-controversial addition. Suggest posting as first item in section.
– S. Rich (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:44, 15 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]

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

I would like the following disputed 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."

...to be provisionally changed to the following (pending move to the
"Criticism" section):

    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) 09:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This, again, is the part of the content at issue at the RfC. Edit
requests are surely meant for minor edits or those needed to correct
obvious errors, not for major rewrites of existing content, especialy
the very content which brought page protection? Anyway, post-RfC, I'd
be open to looking at re-phrasing the content in question, but I think
it should retain some explicit focus on the fundamental
classification/terminology point. The issue is deeper than simply some
anarchists being a bit less partial to the free market and/or
capitalism than others. N-HH talk/edits 09:55, 16 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]
    Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please
establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit
protected}} template. per N-HH. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)
13:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]