Anarcho-capitalism
grarpamp
grarpamp at gmail.com
Tue Sep 6 01:42:58 PDT 2022
Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 25
>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 20 ← Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive
27 Archive 28
Contents
1 POV tag
2 Iceland
3 Delisted FA
4 About that sentence in the lede....
5 Private Property
POV tag
Thanks to the persistent removal of important information from the
lead—information which is the subject of an ongoing POV dispute—I have
re-added the POV template to the article. Thanks! — MisterDub (talk |
contribs) 22:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not using it in good faith. Be warned that not using tags
in good faith/misuse of tags can lead to being reported. - Knight of
BAAWA (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Report me or shut up; I will not be bullied. This tag is
reinstated because it is the subject of an ongoing NPOV dispute.
Please do not remove it until we have some kind of resolution. —
MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will report you if you continue to misuse tags. A Wiki
admin moved the tag from the whole article to the Anarchocapitalism
and other anarchist schools section (and it is still there as of
6:25pm CDT 9/4/14, despite your claim in your edit summary that it is
not). As for bullying: what do you think you were trying to do to me,
hmmmmm? Do you not like it when your tactic is used against you?
Perhaps you'll think twice about trying to bully others with that
tactic.- Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Knight of BAAWA, the difference is that I warned you,
and then I reported you; an action quite distinct from bullying. As
for your poor recollection of recent events, let me remind you that
the admin removed the tag from the whole article, but placed one in
the lead on the line in question. This line was recently removed and
it shouldn't have been. Thanks to your persistent removal of this
line, I was forced to tag the whole article. — MisterDub (talk |
contribs) 15:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you tried to bully me into silence. That
will NOT be tolerated here on Wikipedia. And you were not forced to do
anything; a wiki admin MOVED the tag for a reason. Don't try to play
the victim. Further, the admin moved the tag OUT OF THE LEDE and into
a section further down the page. Anyone can check the history and see
that I'm correct. Deliberately trying to mislead people will NOT be
tolerated here. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2014
(UTC)[reply]
This article is certainly the focus of debate about
whether it is extremely promotional. The tag should stay until the
promotion is removed. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2014
(UTC)[reply]
A wiki admin moved the tag to the section I noted.
Are you, Dub, and Goethean saying that the wiki admin is WRONG? You're
going to defy the wiki admin? Oh boy; this will be fun. And notice
that I have the edit history of the page to back me up. Do you think
it go well for all three of you if you continue to defy the wiki
admin? Further, the "POV dispute" has had nothing in the way of any
discussion for nigh on 2 weeks and 3 weeks respectively. So there is
no dispute; it's been settled. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:38, 5
September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with the following wording for the final
paragraph in the lead:
Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from
minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the
function of individual protection, and other anarchists, who reject
capitalism on the grounds that it is incompatible with social and
economic equality.
- ...although I would take out the last comma.
JLMadrigal (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To someone with an ideological axe to grind,
information seems like promotion. There is no reason to banner-tag the
entire article, when the issue is one line or one section - we have
tags for those. The line JLMadrigal quoted above is appropriate, as it
is descriptive to the uninformed to distinguish between similar
concepts. -- Netoholic @ 02:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason even for that sentence; it really
does not add anything to the article. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:38,
5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It gives the context of anCap with regard to
opposing schools which, in the case of minarchism on the right, is
nominally hospitable to capitalism, and schools on the left which are
nominally hospitable to anarchism. It does not legitimize either point
of view. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that it needs to have such
context, I really do not. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 18:56, 5 September
2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following wording:
Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished
from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to
the function of individual protection, and other anarchists who
advocate collectivization of property and capital.
...might be a little less POV-ish.
JLMadrigal (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JLMadrigal, I am satisfied with the
article as it currently stands. I would argue against this second
suggestion of yours because, as Eduen stated in his edit summary,
"mutualist and individualist anarchists also advocate self employment
and markets." In other words, the suggested wording ignores
individualist (but still anti-capitalist) anarchists by specifically
referring to collectivist strains. — MisterDub (talk | contribs)
15:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reinstated the POV tag for the line in question, as it doesn't
express the fact that there is a relevant controversy that
anti-capitalism is prominent among, and arguably integral to,
anarchism. Maybe Knight of BAAWA will bring a reasonable compromise to
the table, but until then, I'll be seeking resolution at the
noticeboards. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 00:44, 17 September 2014
(UTC)[reply]
You've yet to bring anything reasonable to the table in the first
place. You just want to hold this page hostage to your desires; that
is not how Wikipedia works. And the sentence deals with the so-called
"controversy". So please: stop trying to play the victim; it's not
warranted. Further, no dictionary definition of anarchism includes
anticapitalism. None. To believe otherwise is to believe that atheism
entails communism. Should you believe otherwise: show the dictionary
definition which includes anticapitalism. Now. Or else remove the tag
which you are, in point of fact, misusing. - Knight of BAAWA (talk)
12:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting..... - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:43, 17
September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following wording more clearly maps ancap among neighboring
political ideologies and gives a snapshot of each. I think it's about
the best that we can get for a clear summary:
Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists on the
right, who seek to retain the state in a smaller and more manageable
form, and those on the left who identify as anarchists but tend to
distrust the market process and seek to abolish or restrict the
accumulation of property and capital.
JLMadrigal ... 13:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your wording of "those on the left who identify as anarchists
but tend to distrust" is dismissive of the mainstream traditional
anarchists. It's not accurate to treat them as a minor group, and not
neutral. The mainstream anarchists must be given pride of place, not
kicked to the curb. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2014
(UTC)[reply]
"Those on the left who identify as anarchists"?!?!?! That is far
worse! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:08, 17 September 2014
(UTC)[reply]
Here is a proposal that I doubt will be received favorably by the
owners of this article. In any case, this is what the lead should look
like:
Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism,[1]
market anarchism,[2] private-property anarchism,[3] libertarian
anarchism[4]) is a political philosophy that argues the state
inherently violates the non-aggression principle (NAP) and therefore
must be eliminated in favor of a voluntary society in which money, law
enforcement, courts, and all other security services are operated by
private firms in a free market. It asserts that personal and economic
activities should be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution
organizations under tort and contract law, rather than statute.[5]
Anarcho-capitalism grew out of the modern American libertarianism of
the 20th century, when members of the Old Right—most notably Murray
Rothbard, who coined the term—adopted left-wing anarchist terminology
to describe their classical liberal beliefs.[6] These
right-libertarians valued self-ownership and justly acquired private
property, but disagreed over the extent to which the state is
permissible or necessary: while minarchists supported a night-watchman
state limited to protection of individual rights, anarcho-capitalists
argued for its complete eradication. Unlike most anarchists,[7][8] who
believe anti-capitalism is an integral part of their philosophy,[9]
anarcho-capitalists defend wage labor and hierarchy as necessary
components of a free society.[10]
Sources for lead proposal
— MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only "owner" of the article so far is YOU, MisterDub. Your
edit history on this article betrays some bend to have it read only as
you want otherwise you'll POV it. That's not how Wikipedia works.
And no, I do not like your non-neutral POV attempt at the lede. -
Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You will not find any source that supports the claim that
anarcho-capitalists "defend hierarchy as necessary components of a
free society", because it is untrue. They reject hierarchy. A man owns
his own castle. In a free market, workers are voluntary service
providers. JLMadrigal ... 03:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. However
anarcho-capitalists believe that different individuals will rise to
different levels in society, that is, under their preferred society,
some people will have more money than others. In any case,
anarcho-capitalists are far more likely to vote for the Conservative
Party or UKIP than they are for Labour, which puts them on the right.
TFD (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vote? Anarcho-capitalists reject majoritarianism along
with all other manifestations of the confiscatory state. Do your
homework. JLMadrigal ... 04:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are some who argue against voting (such as
Rockwell), but not voting is not part of the ideology. If you have any
evidence that they are not allowed to vote, then please provide
sources so we can add it. TFD (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2014
(UTC)[reply]
Allowed? Have you even heard of
anarcho-capitalism? Only the state is disallowed. So any "support"
that an ancap would offer would be toward whoever would most succeed
at eliminating the state without making it more efficient in its
confiscatory practices. JLMadrigal ... 13:31, 18 September 2014
(UTC)[reply]
"You will not find any source that supports the claim that
anarcho-capitalists 'defend hierarchy as necessary components of a
free society', because it is untrue." Did you even look at my
proposal? Did you see the source? Did you notice it's even Murray
Rothbard saying it? This is ridiculous! — MisterDub (talk | contribs)
14:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you are seeing something that's not there,
MisterDub. Exactly which quote makes this claim? JLMadrigal ... 15:54,
18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you can't see the very last source? The
one immediately after the statement it supports? The one in which
Murray Rothbard states that the "institutions necessary to the triumph
of liberty" include "hierarchy, [and] wage work"? — MisterDub (talk |
contribs) 16:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While Mr. Rothbard is the first
self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist, he does not represent the movement
as a whole, nor does his statement regarding hierarchies describe
anarcho-capitalism. David Friedman, another anarcho-capitalist, has
the following to say about them,
"One major limitation on the size of firms is
the problem of control. The more layers of hierarchy there are between
the president and the factory worker, the harder it is for management
to monitor and control the workers. That is one reason that small
firms often are more successful than large ones."[1] JLMadrigal ...
05:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Friedman is still advocating hierarchy in
that quote, just less of it. He does not say hierarchy should be
abolished. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Advocating hierarchy? Explain.
JLMadrigal ... 01:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Central characteristics of
capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage
labour.
Capital accumulation = financial
hierarchy. — goethean 01:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following quote by Mr. Friedman from "The
Machinery of Freedom" takes aim at the role of hierarchies in central
planning, and shows how capitalism opposes them:
In a perfect centrally planned socialist
state everyone is part of a hierarchy pursuing the same end. If that
end is the one true good, that society will be perfect in a sense in
which a capitalist society, where everyone pursues his own differing
and imperfect perception of the good, cannot be.
The following quote from the book is an attack
on the corporate university system:
The solution is to replace the corporate
university by institutions with an essentially economic rather than
political structure, a market instead of a hierarchy.
It is easy to find quotes from Friedman and
other anarcho-capitalists explaining how free markets oppose
hierarchies. JLMadrigal ... 02:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following wording dispenses with
discussion of placement on a political scale (at least for the lede).
Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished
from minarchists, who seek to retain the state in a smaller and more
manageable form, and others who identify as anarchists but tend to
distrust the market process and seek to abolish or restrict the
accumulation and unequal distribution of property and capital.
Even if we grant the hierarchy thing, it doesn't separate
anarchocapitalists from other anarchists in that there are a slew of
anarchists who like sports. And most sports have referees. Which is a
hierarchy. So clearly: that's a non-starter and means nothing other
than hypocrisy on the part of those professing to hate all hierachies
while embracing the idea of refereed sports and/or sports governing
bodies (like FIFA). - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2014
(UTC)[reply]
*scratches head* Weren't we talking political
philosophy? — goethean 00:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are. And we're also talking about those who
scream that all hierarchies are bad while supporting some hierarchies,
which is clearly hypocritical. Wouldn't you agree? - Knight of BAAWA
(talk) 03:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But you bringing umpires and sports into
the discussion is off-topic and makes zero sense as a counter-example.
— goethean 17:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It only makes zero sense if you're
desperately trying to deny the hierarchy involved. Which, it appears,
you are. Why is that? You can see there is a hierarchy there, and all
hierarchies are bad, right? But clearly some are ok or else there
wouldn't be anarchists who like those sports. See what I'm getting at?
See how I'm showing that they can't say all hierarchies are bad while
embracing some hierarchies as good? See how I'm pointing out the
hypocrisy? And see how the idea of hierarchy really is red herring
here? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that you are playing a
sophomoric libertarian gotcha parlor game rather than discussing a
Wikipedia article — and making a fool of yourself in the process. —
goethean 17:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that you're being
uncivil again. I am discussing the article (despite your obviously
wrong statement to the contrary); you just don't like where it is
going. That is not my problem; it is yours. When you want to discuss
the article rather than being uncivil: let me know. - Knight of BAAWA
(talk) 18:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to figure out how the phrase "others who identify as
anarchists but tend to distrust the market process" marginalizes
anyone. Could those of you who think it marginalizes anyone please
kindly explain how it does? If no explanation is forthcoming: it will
be re-added. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2014
(UTC)[reply]
The statement about others "who identify as anarchists" casts
doubt on their claim (the obvious intention of the POV warriors here).
It's a word to watch, like so-called, nominally, etc. — MisterDub
(talk | contribs) 19:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does no such thing, Mr. POV-warrior and article-owner. -
Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to that, the use of the word "but" implies that
there is an inconsistency between being (or "identifying as") an
anarchist and rejecting capitalism (or as you put it, "tend[ing] to
distrust the market process.") I think most "anarchists", whether
traditionally or otherwise, would say there is no such inconsistency,
and I also think they would say they don't merely "tend to distrust
the market process", but go so far as to "reject capitalism." Neutron
(talk) 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't imply any inconsistency at all. - Knight of
BAAWA (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Their claim is dubious for two reasons: 1) Property
and markets are natural phenomena, so any attempt at their elimination
would reject anarchy in those realms, and 2) said elimination would
require a state as an enforcing mechanism. If a wording that states
these important differences can be made more polite, I'm open to
suggestions. JLMadrigal @ 00:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Knight, if there is no inconsistency being
implied, then I assume you wouldn't object to replacing "but" with
"and", right? (Not that that's the only problem with the sentence.)
Neutron (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which I have now rewritten a little into a
compromise version, but people are already undoing the compromise. Ah
well, I will just go offer my diplomatic services elsewhere. Neutron
(talk) 22:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's because a POV-warrior has decided
that he and he alone owns this page. And he's now been warned about
it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we ready to remove the tag? There is no substantial difference between:
Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, who seek
to retain the state in a smaller and more manageable form, and other
anarchists who reject capitalism and seek to abolish or restrict the
accumulation of property and capital.
and
Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, who
advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of
individual protection, and other anarchists who reject capitalism on
the grounds that it is incompatible with social and economic equality.
...and the former has had "...who identify as..." and "...but..."
removed as requested above. What's the beef? JLMadrigal @ 17:13, 28
September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason you have not offered the other versions which
have been put forward, for instance:
Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists,
who seek to retain the state in a smaller and more manageable form,
and traditional anarchists who reject capitalism on the grounds that
it is incompatible with social and economic equality.
Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists,
who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of
individual protection, and traditional anarchists who reject
capitalism on the grounds that it is incompatible with social and
economic equality.
Both of these pay greater respect to the
traditional/mainstream anarchists who preceded by many years the
an-caps in their disavowal of regular government. It is not neutral to
call this greater group "other anarchists", as if they are not the
main thing going. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2014
(UTC)[reply]
I listed the two versions that came closest to consensus.
Regarding respect, the anti-property anarchism of yesteryear is being
displaced by modern libertarian thinking. Do you have any numbers to
back up your claim that traditionalism is still the main thing going?
If not, I have no objection to giving them a prominent place in the
history section. JLMadrigal @ 03:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Can the following version get a consensus?:
Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from
minarchists, who seek to retain the state in a smaller and more
manageable form, and traditional anarchists who reject capitalism and
seek to abolish or restrict the accumulation of property and capital.
JLMadrigal @ 12:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think it could read better. 1) Why not
introduce the idea of a night-watchman state when discussing
minarchists? The statement is accurate, but sounds clumsy to me. 2)
The end of the sentence is redundant: we should keep either "reject
capitalism" or "seek to abolish or restrict...". I would prefer
something like the following:
Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from
minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the
function of individual protection, and traditional anarchists, who
reject capitalism.
But as long as the redundancy is removed, I would
support its inclusion and the removal of the NPOV tag associated with
it. It's not what it ought to be, but it's a (grudgingly) acceptable
compromise. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:05, 30 September 2014
(UTC)[reply]
Traditional anarchists perceive and define
capitalism differently than capitalists do. How about the following:
Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from
minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the
function of individual protection, and traditional anarchists who seek
to abolish or restrict the accumulation of property and capital.
JLMadrigal @ 04:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim is nonsense, but the proposed text
is acceptable, as stated previously. — MisterDub (talk | contribs)
14:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense? Hardly. The term itself is used
as a spook by the left, conjuring up horrible images of sweatshops,
&c. (which in reality are a direct result of cronyism - its opposite).
Even some who seem to accept the market process try to dissociate free
markets and capitalism. JLMadrigal @ 13:02, 2 October 2014
(UTC)[reply]
I do not accept it; it violates NPOV. It is
grossly tilted in favor of the so-called "anti-capitalist anarchists".
And the sentence in no way needs to be there. - Knight of BAAWA (talk)
12:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-added the tag, as "traditional" marginalizes
anarchocapitalists. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2014
(UTC)[reply]
Please offer an alternative. "classical"? JLMadrigal @ 13:51, 3
October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Knight of BAAWA is correct. I have forgotten the fact that
Wikipedia specifically lists "traditional" among words to avoid.
Hopefully we can quickly find a better word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Relative_time_references
JLMadrigal @ 14:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Baloney. The word "traditional" works perfectly well to
establish the fact that anti-capitalist anarchists established their
beliefs long before pro-capitalist anarchists. Ancaps are comparative
upstarts. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While in many contexts "traditional" could fit the above
linked description, in this case I am comfortable with it. The word,
after all, is not forbidden. "Other" does seem a bit foggy. If Knight
of BAAWA can provide an improvement, we can discuss it here. I don't
think "traditional" warrants a tag. JLMadrigal @ 15:21, 3 October 2014
(UTC)[reply]
The word "other" works fine for me (I don't see how
it's foggy). "Traditional" simply marginalizes anarchocapitalists as
somehow being inferior or less-than, and I am not comfortable with it
at all. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about "classical"? JLMadrigal @ 12:24, 5
October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still has the ring of marginalization, sorry.
That they are the "classics"--to be elevated above all others--and
anarchocapitalists are not that important. - Knight of BAAWA (talk)
14:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion from a casual passerby, how
about rephrasing as "...and traditional other anarchists who often
seek to...." This removes the fuzziness from other, and preserves the
idea that both views are widespread. Hope that helps. — Bill W.
(Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 20:02, 6 October 2014
(UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with that. - Knight of BAAWA
(talk) 23:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Crime.html
Iceland
I just added a one source section tag to the discussion of Iceland.
I'm a little weary of using a Libertarian Economist who has a
political agenda as the source of this discussion. It seems like a far
better place to look for a NPOV on this topic would be in the writings
of historians, or economic historians (preferably those that focus on
Iceland) and not economists with Washington think tank
affiliations.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2014
(UTC)[reply]
Is anything he wrote not verifiable or accurate? - Knight of BAAWA
(talk) 14:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delisted FA
Regarding these edits,[1][2] and the Featured article review at
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Anarcho-capitalism/archive1:
The instructions for the process can be found at WP:FAR.
The FAR was initiated on July 29, 2014, and remained in the two to
three-week review phase until 14 September.
The article moved to the Featured Article Candidate Removal (FARC)
phase (typically lasting two to three weeks) on 14 September, where it
remained for another three months before the article was delisted.
Every editor significantly involved in the article was notified on
user talk (see notifications at the top of the FAR page).
The FAR Coordinator, Nikkimaria delisted the article on December
16,[3] [4] [5] and because the bot which processes FAR closings is no
longer operating, I did the final steps (updating articlehistory and
removing the star) manually. I hope this clears up any questions.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was never notified that the article had been moved to "Featured
article removal candidate (FARC)" status. When was notification given?
JLMadrigal @ 05:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You (and every other significant contributor to the article)
were notified when the FAR was opened;[6] you commented at the page
after the article was moved to the FARC phase. [7] [8] Individual
notification of FAR to FARC is not given; it is presumed at that stage
that involved parties are watchlisting the FAR (as you apparently
were). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All issues regarding delisting were promptly resolved
three months ago - within 24 hours after they were presented. Only
four days before the article was delisted were new issues presented.
[9] Smells like stealth to me. JLMadrigal @ 12:16, 21 December 2014
(UTC)[reply]
Yep--stealth on the part of those who want there to be
a government. There was no consensus to delist. It needs to be
IMMEDIATELY reinstated or action will be taken. - Knight of BAAWA
(talk) 14:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"All issues regarding delisting were promptly resolved
three months ago" ... Not true... :/ Shii (tock) 19:11, 23 December
2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article can be relisted FA by nominating it at WP:FAC.
As to whether the action was "stealth on the part of those who want
there to be a government", readers might note that I was a supporter
of the article in its 2006 FAR (which btw is the only FAR I'm aware of
in eight years that saw editors arguing after the close that it was
wrongly Kept).
Submitting the article to FAC is the route to relisting it as a
Featured article, but as a four-year former FAC delegate, I would
suggest that it will be quickly denied status until/unless the issues
relative to FA standards that caused its delisting be addressed first:
There is a good deal of uncited text.
There is a tagged section and multiple tags in the article (more
needed, but I'm not going to tag bomb since it appears no one is
working to correct those issues).
Evaluate whether any of the lengthy quotes can be re-expressed in
Wikipedia's own words.
There is considerable Manual of style cleanup needed, including
section headings (WP:MSH), WP:PUNC placement relative to quotes, WP:FN
placement, WP:CAPTION (puncutation), inconsistent use of Em and
En-dashes, and more
There is a lengthy See also section (when an article is
comprehensive, most See alsos will have been worked into the text)
Further reading needs pruning
Citations are incomplete and inconsistent.
That provides a list of things to work on without even analyzing the
quality of the sources or prose, which will be scrutinized at FAC.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it can be relisted immediately, since the unilateral delisting
without consensus clearly was wrong. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 18:00,
21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear what your intended meaning of "unilateral
delisting" is; see the instructions at WP:FAR:
"The featured article removal coordinators determine
whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination,
and close the listing accordingly."
In the many (overly generous IMO) months that the article
remained at FAR, the issues were not corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
18:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unclear what the meaning of "unilateral
delisting" is, especially when taken with "without consensus". There.
Was. No. Consensus. To. Delist. Ergo. The. Delisting. Was. Unilateral.
Period. End of story. How this is difficult to grasp is beyond me. -
Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, EVERY issue that elicited a "delist" during the
FARC phase (that is, under the "FARC" heading in the talk page when it
was typed in - since that action seems to be all that is required to
convert it to this phase), was resolved - until four days before the
entire article was delisted. That can hardly be considered "generous".
Furthermore, Binksternet, who initiated the review
process, promised "...to more closely identify problems, and to
rectify them. The first part of the process is to compare the present
version of the article to past versions, to see what might current
text might be changed or deleted, and to see what past text might be
restored in some form. The second part of the process is to look at
modern writings on the topic and see how the article can be changed to
better reflect the literature."
It has become glaringly apparent (as I had suspected from
the beginning) that his intention has always been to see to it that
featured status was removed, rather than tune the article as he
claimed. JLMadrigal @ 21:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not satisfy the FA criteria. There are substantial
sections that are not cited to a reliable source, numerous WP:MOS
breaches, inconsistent citation styles and a host of other issues.
Rather than whinge about its delisting, why not improve the article?
As it stands, it would not have a snowball’s chance in hell for
promotion at WP:FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2014
(UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the user immediately above this post - I'm
not a frequent editor of this article, but am interested in
libertarianism and have also become cognizant recently that the bar
for FA has increased significantly since 2005. There are a lot of
fundamental issues with this article, and while it would be great to
see this be FA again, the goal should be first and foremost to improve
the article. The bullet points above cover the issues at a very
fundamental level, and once those are addressed, a peer review will
likely be in order. My recommendation is to address the points above,
receive a peer review, obtain GA status, then FA. But I must
regrettably concur with the previous poster that the current article
would not stand a chance if taken directly to FAC as is. Tonystewart14
(talk) 05:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree with Graham—and I would have made the same
decision in Nikkimaria's place. Once the article moved to FARC,
legitimate summary concerns were listed and went unaddressed. Shii
posted concerns here on 29 September and DrKiernan posted concerns
here on 11 December. So, I don't think it's accurate to argue that
concerns were posted suddenly at the end and the closing was
unilateral. --Laser brain (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yet there was no consensus. Ergo, unilateral delisting. -
Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The FARC process does not require full consensus for
delisting. Rather, a strong consensus is needed if the article is to
keep its FA status, so you have it backward. Binksternet (talk) 14:03,
15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About that sentence in the lede....
I still see no reason for it to be there other than to appease those
who want there to be a government so that there isn't an edit-war. And
that is not a valid reason for that sentence to be there. Unless a
valid reason for it to be there is given, it should be
removed--regardless of wanting to appease those who want there to be a
government just so they won't engage in an edit-war to hijack this
article. And if no valid reason is forthcoming: it will be removed. -
Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Insults and ultimatums aren't appropriate on Wikipedia. "That
sentence in the lede" situates anarcho-capitalism appropriately within
the family tree of libertarianism, establishing context and noting
prominent controversies (per WP:LEAD). Let us not also forget that
this addition was the result of a RfC. — MisterDub (talk | contribs)
15:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What insults? And no--that addition was not the result of an
RfC; it was the result of you holding the page hostage to your demands
by your engaging in an edit-war. THAT is not allowable here in
Wikipedia. Nor does that sentence have any appropriateness in the
article per WP:LEAD. It needs to be removed. And without any valid
support--it will be. THAT is how Wikipedia works. - Knight of BAAWA
(talk) 13:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been three weeks, and the only complaint is from the one who
held this article hostage to his demands in order to hijack it for his
own desires. That being the case, the sentence shall be removed, since
his desire to own the article is in clear violation of Wikipedia
principles and rules. Further, it the other "anarcho-" articles are
any template (and they are), anarchocapitalism appears to be the only
one with such a sentence. No reason for that; time to bring it in line
with the other articles.
And yes: the one who wants to own the page will be reported for his
attempt to own the article again when he engages in an edit-war to put
back that which does not belong. He will not be permitted to own the
article. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your ridiculous bravado is amusing, but ineffectual. The reason
anarcho-capitalism is the only article displaying the most prominent
controversy in anarchism is because every other anarchist current is
anti-capitalist, and therefore "few anarchists would accept the
'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share
a concern for economic equality and social justice". (Marshall p. 565)
It's Wikipedia policy to make prominent controversies known and give
due weight. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:11, 14 January 2015
(UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the reason at all. You have made it clear that
you want to marginalize anarchocapitalism in any possible way you can
(in violation of Wikipedia policy), and have decided to own the
anarchocapitalism article as a result (in violation of Wikipedia
policy). Due weight? False. No other "anarcho-" article has such a
sentence. I am simply bringing the article in line with them. Should
you not like it I suggest you edit the other "anarcho-" articles with
such a sentence. Otherwise: you are simply violating Wikipedia policy.
And you will be reported for it. I am tired of your game. - Knight of
BAAWA (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have apparently lost track of the larger picture in
your wish to promote an-cap magical goodness to the world. The larger
picture is that everybody else thinks it's ridiculously impractical,
full of internal contradictions, terribly antisocial, and without a
chance in hell of being widely implemented. The article must at least
let the reader know that negative opinions exist. Binksternet (talk)
14:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't understand WP:DUE WEIGHT, do you?
"[Articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint] should still
make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant
and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the
minority view. ... In addition, the majority view should be explained
in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority
view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the
minority view should be clearly identified and explained."
If you feel the need to report me, go ahead. I have done
nothing in violation of Wikipedia policy, and I won't be intimidated
by your vacant threats. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:29, 15
January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Private Property
The "Private Property" section is slanted toward Rothbard. It neglects
the consequentialist view of the topic - namely that markets dictate
property distributions and assure order. JLMadrigal @ 12:06, 21
October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted, that there is a distinction between private
and personal property. Jp16103 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added
21:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, no there isn't any such distinction. - Knight of BAAWA (talk)
21:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list