This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia.
This article of a book doesn't even have a section analyzing its argument, not even a definition of an idea, and someone post a link to a full page article refuting...what? There is a clear problem of NPOV right there, aside from the fact that Libcom is not that notable. It's not like we are dealing with a big, consensual authority in the modern anarchist movement. Maziotis (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
If it's so poor, why the defensiveness? From WP:EL's "what should be linked" guide: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews". All decent Wikipedia articles on books have reviews as external links; an anarchist communist organisation is an appropriate review source (just as the Institute for Anarchist Studies is for its critical review of Days of War, Nights of Love). You make the point that the article does not even describe the argument of the book - very true, it's a stub, so why not write it instead of ensuring that the reader is even more deprived of relevant information.
It seems like the only POV at play here is your dislike of the linked review. the skomorokh 18:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I did not judge the quality of the review. Simply, it is a propaganda piece where this book is being used as a pretext. Right now, this article in this open, balanced site we like to call an online encyclopedia is being used to link for the perspectives of anarcho-communists on Fredy Perlman's work. So, yes, I believe the "defensiveness" is fair, without the effect of me protecting my POV and ideals. You can be "defensive" while working for the benefit of being a good, neutral wikipedian.
This article is not coming from a notable source that provides an in-depth explanation of the subject. Of course, it is always appropriate to provide links to criticism of the ideas addressed in an article. In that case, we go back to the problem that there is no article for the time being. I wish I could be of more help when it comes to "being bold", but I can't, and that as got nothing to do with the problem we are facing. Maziotis (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Well... it's got the stub notice for a reason. Fix it by adding to the article. Not by merely subtracting.--Cast (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I am not putting that in anyone's shoulders. The reason why I removed the link was for not being notable, as I explained above. I don't think I have anything else to add. Maziotis (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)