Talk:Anarchism

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes; Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue. While making any such changes, please include an accurate and concise description of your edit in the "Edit summary" field-box. Shortly after making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page. (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Talk archives & Open Tasks

• Talk:Anarchism/Archives - List of archives.
• Template:AnarchismOpenTask - List of open tasks.

Unprotection

I've requested that the article (but not the template) be unprotected.[1] Hogeye 17:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, now that editing is up again, be sure to stay civil and avoid edit wars.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Avoid edit wars? A likely story. Straight away Hogeye and RJII have re-introduced all the elements that they know have caused most dispute: Hogeye's pet chart of influences; the division into 'individualist' and 'collectivist' schools; the controversial intro para on dictionary definitions; major section on anarcho-capitalism in the middle of the page; liberal anarchism etc.... however much we go over the same points, these two are unwilling to give an inch. There have been edit wars in the past on all these points, and there will be again. They wear down the latest enthusiastic anti-capitalist arrivals, but sure enough more will come along soon and it'll start up all over again. In short, no progress at all, and if the page needed protection before the need hasn't gone away. Perhaps a permanent NPOV dispute tag would be the honest approach, as this is a permanent NPOV dispute.Bengalski 11:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Click go the shears, comrades, click click click

As promised in Talk:Anarchism/Archive32 I'm pruning back the sections. The entire article is too long. Everyone wants their own tendency full featured and explored. This is not the purpose of a head page. Regardless of the composition and selection of sections, all sections must be much smaller. Expect other sections to receive similar treatment to what Individualism, Anarchism at Work and Anarchosyndicalism received. Fifelfoo 01:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Right on; I had the same idea, as you can see. I think you already had a shorter version of Individualist Anarchism. I looked for your shorter version in Archives but couldn't find it, so I'll leave that to you. ... Good, you've already done it. And anarcho-syndicalism, too! Hogeye 01:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Photos

What photos should be included? IMO we need photos for Proudhon and Rothbard. Both are more noteworthy than Hakim Bey. Hogeye 03:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind Warren being there instead of Tucker. Warren is historically important, as he started the whole native American movement. It depends on what kind of presentation you want to have. RJII 03:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Concurr on Bey. A Goldman / Berkman group shot would be good. A CNT-FAI group should would be excellent (one of the CNT-FAI trucks full of militia from 36/7 would be great). Less dead white men, more group shots. 19th century line drawings should be available too. Fifelfoo 04:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want something recent, I took this photograph when I was in Barcelona a couple of years ago, or how about this photograph of CNT collectivised workers? - FrancisTyers 11:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Francis! Fifelfoo 11:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

individualist anarchism

The labor-value individualism is the most signficant, but that is not the only kind of individualist anarchism. I don't like that Stirner is not included in the individualist anarchism section. Proudhon probably belongs there as well. I'll play around with it. RJII 03:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sectarianism

Social anarchism's opposition to anarcho-capitalism isn't sectarian. Opposition based on fundamental differences is not sectarian: they lack a shared basis for agreement. Fifelfoo 04:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sectarianism in no way implies that there are no fundamental differences. Besides, there are fundamental similarities, too: opposition to the State. Hogeye 04:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism

I'm happy to see the Anarchism article back open for business. Ya'll can always use me for reference. I'm an old version of the Anarchism article. :) Look at me: Anarchism 04:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Bullet list for Issues

I've pared down each issue to one paragraph. My intention is to make a bullet list like I did for Contemporary (now Other branches and offshoots), making the TOC smaller. Any objection to that? Hogeye 04:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Historical vs Schools structure

Either way is acceptable to me, but if we are going back to a Schools structure with anarcho-capitalism under individualist anarchism, then it's only logical to be consistent and put 2.3 The International thru 2.8 The fight against fascism under collectivist anarchism. Otherwise we should go back to having a Contemporary section. Hogeye 05:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A Contemporary section seems crazy to me. The original types of anarchism are still contemporary --plenty of anarcho-commmunist groups around, for example. We would have to repeat the sections twice ..once above the line and once below. It can still have an historical narrative without such a section. RJII 05:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that the schools in History would need to be repeated, since they were already covered. I do see your logic. What if "Contemporary" were changed to "Newer Schools," "Recent Conceptions of Anarchism" or some such? I think you're opening up a whole can of worms by significantly changing the structure of the article, and wrecking the historical order, without consensus among the other editors. And that's from me, who as you know is anything but shy about making changes! I fear you're pretty much guaranteeing a new edit war. Think about it. Hogeye 05:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

When is there not an edit war in this article? No matter what one does there is an edit war. Anyway, what is the cutoff time period for a "newer school." And, would anarcho-capitalism be there? I wouldn't agree that that's a "newer school." I'm not sure of the point of such a dilineation. RJII 05:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Post WWII? I would say that, even though there were earlier isolated individuals like Molinari and Herbert, that the anarcho-capitalist school started with Rothbard's writings. Hogeye 06:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine if you have some kind of time frame in mind. But isn't that going to cause edit warring too? I thought most of the anti-AC people wanted anarcho-capitalism under the individualist anarchism section. RJII 06:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But, I would say it's more historical the other way. Anarcho-capitalism developed in parallel with labor-value individualist anarchism. It's not like it all of a sudden spontaneously arose from nothing. RJII 06:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As you know that's highly disputed. I have left AC in but moved it forward in time. And incorporated yr 'liberal anarchism' into ancapism section - these liberals are only claimed to be anarchist forebears by the ancaps, so putting them in as their own section in the 19th century is very POV. I personally am fine with taking out the historical/contemporary divide - we can then just have one timeline for the whole thing. But, as was discussed ad infinitum before, I'm certainly not the only editor who's very much against splitting it into individualism vs collectivism meta-schools.Bengalski 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, cool - you convinced me. Actually, the article is looking pretty good now. Hogeye 06:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Max Stirner - Egoist or Anarchist?

Frankly, I don't consider Stirner to be an anarchist, strictly speaking. He's kind of like Godwin - a very influential precursor. Two points:

• Stirner did not consider himself an anarchist. He considered himself an egoist.
• Stirner offered no anarchist theory. To him, the State was just one mental "spook" example out of many.

I suggest we put Stirner in the Precursor/Origins section. Hogeye 06:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But there's plenty of sources that say he is an individualist anarchist. Also, how about the European Stirnerite individualist anarchists? That's individualist anarchism too --it's just not the American form of individualist anarchism. RJII 06:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we have an American individualist section due to the much more social nature of non-US individualisms. See Japan where Egoism and Syndicalism were considered compatible by leaders of the day (Bowen Raddeker, Hecate, 2005). Australian individualism was much more social than US individualism, it was effectively a form of social anarchism which focused its activist efforts on rationalism, humanism and militant atheism. My deeper suspicion is that these currently lie within US anarchism too, and we're seeing a retconning of US individualism into Rothbard's catagories: a solipsistic error.Fifelfoo 06:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Weighting

Although it's perhaps a symptom of growing up in a very environmental area (and a half hour from Zerzan), but green and primitivist anarchism seem extremely minimized in the new arrangement. I'd consider it worth at least as much space as anarcho-capitalism is getting, being one of the most active trends in anarchism today. Anarchism without adjectives seems severely underplayed as well, because as far as I can tell that's how most anarchists identify today. Many are even unaware of the existence of factions. Of course that relates more to anarchists than anarchist theory, but it's hardly something to overlook. Sarge Baldy 08:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Your experience is geographically limited. Look at the CGT (Spain) stats, their 70 year historical record as anarchists, versus their volume of coverage of their subject. As far as the an-caps go, the only way to seek redress is to demand satisfaction of them, examine their edit history and conclude if you have the ability to be awake often enough to out-edit them. Examine the article history for their habits. The entire article is about 50k (down from the 90s). The aim should be to achieve something in the 30s or 40s.Fifelfoo 10:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd agree exact weighting is pretty impossible, and anarcho-syndicalism does seem to get a lot of weight as the article is. I think putting the green and primitivist sub-sections together (as they are pretty related) and giving them a moderate amount of space in the main body would not be unfair. Sarge Baldy 19:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree - Green/Eco anarchism, like anarcho-capitalism, is one of the newer forms of anarchism, which shouldn't be denigrated by the traditionalists. I think it should have a section, say, just before "Religious Anarchism" in this version of the article. It should cover Green-a, Eco-a, and Primitivist-a. I invite you to organize it that way. Hogeye 17:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the best spot is probably below "Anarchism and feminism" in the current version. And actually, I think the article is working out pretty well. Sarge Baldy 19:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"Dictionary" note

This is a good example of an appeal to authority fallacy. Particularly when you consider there is no good reason to see a dictionary as a viable authority at defining a philosophy they undoubtably are not interested in. Citing definitions by early anarchists is equally problematic, particularly when you ignore constant remarks that anarchism is a form of socialism. The best source comes from secondary sources, including modern anarchists and political scientists who have made it a point to map these philosophies out. I'm willing to agree to disagree on the point, but the current notice is pushing a contested POV. Sarge Baldy 08:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A dictionary is an extraordinarily good source for a definition. The reason is that the definitions they present are the result of a lot of research on how the term is used by educated people, including "modern anarchists and political scientists." So instead of us having to conduct a huge amount of research compiling hundreds of usages and finding a commonality (which would be something akin to "original research"), the researchers have already done this for us. The dictionary IS exactly the secondary source that you want for this kind of dispute. The dictionary definitions of anarchism present what the word is most often understood to mean among educated people --and that's exactly the kind of definition we should have to head the article. It's the most NPOV way to do it. (Look at the definitions of anarchism that head the anarchism article on other contemporary encyclopedias --they could have come straight out of any of the various dictionaries out there).RJII 15:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

proudhon

Begalski, do you have a source for this assertion: "it should be noted that in later works Proudhon modified his ideas on property" ? As far as I can tell, his positions on property did not change in any important way. Do you have a secondary source that says they did actually change? RJII 16:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

critics of anarchism

Hey I know you'll all be pleased that someone's finally made everything far less POV by including some opening remarks about what ctitics of anarchims say - particularly the Petit bourgeois one which Marxists like so much.Harrypotter 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty POV to rework half the introductory paragraph to work in criticism. Also, many of these points of criticism actually come from anarchists: the thesis of L. Susan Brown's best known work is that anarchist communism is essentially individualist and built out of liberalism; Saul Newman's best know work is almost strictly a critique of anarchism, showing it both as an extension of liberalism and also agreeing strongly with Stirner that revolution enevitably results in a new state (points which all have my complete agreement). Sarge Baldy 20:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all against discussing criticisms of anarchism in the article - actually I think it's only right, as no one can deny anarchism is much abused and criticised from many sides. I'm not sure the way this has been done is very informative however - if I was coming to this ignorant of the subject Harrypotter's comments would make little sense to me - 'petit bourgeois' - what does that mean? (need to at least mention this comes from marxism, and point to sources); 'socially maladjusted' just sounds like a slander - who said this, and why? See Sterner - where, what , why? And I would think actually the most common criticisms of anarchists is that they are smelly judeo/slavic bomb-throwing terrorists (19th-early 20th century) or macdonalds-window-smashing middle class yobs with silly haircuts (contemporary). Should we stick some of that in? If so, how do we make this a serious part of the introduction that actually informs and points to useful information and debate? And does it actually belong in the intro? Or perhaps just a brief pointer to discussion of criticisms further down the page? Should there maybe be a special section on criticism of anarchism, or should we just try to be more balanced in presentation of existing sections, if they're not at present?Bengalski 21:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. I think it needs to be sourced information (who is criticizing?) and probably placed in a special section rather than in the introduction. It's actually kind of embarassing not to have a "criticism" section on one of the most controversial political philosophies in existence. Sarge Baldy 21:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Briefly looking at pages on other major political ideologies (eg. socialism, liberalism, conservatism) that seems to be the most common wikipedia approach. (Not that this means it's necessarily the right one or that we should follow it.) I.e., the intro section presents some kind of summary of the self-professed 'philosophy' or ideals of the movement, and maybe some key history; there are dedicated sections on critique later on. Even the fascism article doesn't open with criticisms, though the intro discusses the common use of the term as a pejorative.Bengalski 21:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, since it's hard to criticize something before you've adequately explained it. I would think the best place is near the bottom, or possibly above "cultural phenomena". Sarge Baldy 21:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I've done just that - the criticisms need sourcing, though. Or I'm thinking maybe to avoid making the page massive again we could direct to a page just for details of criticisms and counters. Perhaps Harrypotter will help. AaronS I guess this is why you've put up the NPOV tags - good if you could put a note on the talk page when you do so. If you feel strongly that we shouldn't discuss the criticisms until they're sourced then I won't object if you take them down for now. But I don't think you can argue it is POV to mention that people criticise anarchism. They certainly do, and we need to deal with it not ignore it.Bengalski 18:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the "tacit authoritarianism" point. Post-anarchists, at least, have critiqued rather than criticized anarchism, not as an attempt to reject it but so as to refine fundamental faults. I don't know about the Situationists. I'm also not sure how widespread the Marxist criticisms mentioned are. It might be nice to get into the historical criticisms posited by Marx, Lenin, et. al towards anarchism (such as that you need to give the weak power to reshape society before you can abandon government). Sarge Baldy 21:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-titled "anarchism at work" section

The section name has always bugged me. It looks like it's trying to be "clever" by making a pun on "at work" (which can mean "in the workplace" or "in practice"). It just seems unprofessional in an encyclopedia. MrVoluntarist 02:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've always felt the same way, good edit. The Ungovernable Force 05:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving towards Featurable status

In order to reclaim featured article status there's a number of projects which we need to do

Notes and citations

A few reminders here. Remember that we're not searching out for minority view-points in order to cook the article. The Taoism stuff is only notable because of a) Its a non-western claim b) Its so damn early c) Its made by leftists and rightists. With mainline citations we need to make sure they come from

1. Primary sources: the authors themselves, or newspapers / diaries of the day etc.
2. Credible commentators: this means someone with a Research Doctorate or Masters in a social science or history. It could also be from a monograph published from an academic press (OUP) or a credible peer reviewed journal specialising in social science or history

Secondly, as regards notes, the {{ref|refname}} {{note|refname}} system is a bit clunky. We'll have to watch note ordering as new and old notes come and go. Fifelfoo 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add, I think it was a great idea to go through and put a marker where someone needs to put a citation. That should speed up the process, and everyone should put one of these markers in if they think something needs citation, but can't currently find one. MrVoluntarist 05:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say that Fifelfoo is doing a pretty good job --he seems dedicated to NPOV. RJII 05:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Academic qualifications don't make credibility. The publication requirements are a better indicator.Bengalski 11:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree that the ordering is a bit clunky, my apologies. My preference would be to have them in the form of {{ref|<author><date>([a-z])}}, where author and date are obvious and a-z is for if there are two from the same author in the same year. Obviously this isn't always possible as some sources come without an author. There are also a number of dead links in the Reference section, I didn't remove them, but they are likely to need to be removed or replaced. You can tell them because they don't have a description, only a number. - FrancisTyers 17:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-communism is not anarchism?!!!

RJII, the edit war on this page is not about anarcho-communism, it's about anarcho-capitalism. Everyone on this page knows that anarcho-communism is one of the most well-recognized forms anarchism, so why are you putting in a claim that anarcho-communism is not real anarchism. Excuse me, but most academic sources seem to think anarchism is inherently or almost always communist (or some other form of anti-capitalist), most self-identified anarchists would call themselves communists (or some other form of anti-capitalist) and the entire history of anarchism as a social movement has been about anarcho-communism (or some other form of anti-capitalism). Anarcho-capitalism has a section about its unanarchistic nature because the majority of anarchists don't consider it anarchism, but the same cannot be said about anarcho-communism and I'm sure you know that. I will revert one more time, but I myself will not carry it on past that point unless someone else agrees with me, because I don't want to start another edit war. Anarcho-capitalism is the rogue ideology with little support, not the other way around The Ungovernable Force 06:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ungov, the problem isn't that there was an 19th C attack on anarcho-communism by US individualists. Its the quotes in full. The article is very tight at the moment (16kb over what we should be aiming at). Saying that there was 19th c opposition to communist-anarchism is fine. Citing 3 primary sources is great. Having all 3 quotes in full isn't. Fifelfoo 06:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, just footnoting the quotes would be fine, and maybe keeping the "pseudo-anarchism" quote because that's from the most noted individualist and it's an extremely short quote. RJII 06:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually thought Appleton's was better, as it summarised the anti-communist nature, didn't involve cheap arguing through repetition or attempts to fiat reality, and expressed the propertarian interests of the 19thc individualists. Unfortunately the front page isn't the appropriate venue for detailed criticism of tendencies. Non-propertarian opposition to anarcho-communism (anti-communal stuff) from non-US individualists isn't as cogent. Fifelfoo 06:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ungovernable, it's an historically important fact that individualist anarchists opposed anarcho-communism, and believed private property was necessary for true liberty (as they still believe today). RJII 06:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"TheUngovernableForce" is deleting sourced information. also, i'm not sure if someone "ungovernable" should be working on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has rules. One of them is NPOV.

I don't appreciate your patronizing edit summary. BTW, as I have pointed out numerous times, civility is also one of those rules, but you seem to be quite "ungovernable" in that respect. And I'm deleting sourced info b/c someone can find a source for anything, and as I said earlier, anarcho-communism is not the school of thought that is constantly having its anarchist credentials called into question. This seems like a distraction from the real issue we are trying to work out. Anyway, I won't do anything else with it until more people comment. The Ungovernable Force 06:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously anarchists have criticised each others' ideas in different areas, and where this is particularly notable as here it should be mentioned. But RJII's claim is very strong - it's not saying just that the US individualists opposed the idea of communism within anarchism, but that they (all of them? a general consensus?) believed communist anarchism was not anarchism, and was even the enemy of anarchism. Is that right? Was there never any co-operation or overlap between any of the two groups?Bengalski 11:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that RJII may have an exclusionary definition of "19th century American individualist anarchist," such that any American anarchist in the 19th century who was individualist, but was for collective property forms, is excluded from the specific definition "19th century American individualist anarchist". However, RJII is right that there was a very specific anti-collective property trend in the individualism in the US in the 19th century. Maybe its time to include weasil words like "some" "many" or "a tendency within"

There aren't any American individualists who were for "collective property forms" --they wouldn't be called individualists if they did. What makes them individualist anarchists is they believe individualism in person and property. It was inconceivable to them that you could be truly free while not having private property --freedom and individual ownership of the product of labor are inseparable. RJII 14:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII your point is well made with a general statement that some anarchists, eg. americans x y and z, thought communism was incompatible with anarchism, with maybe one representative quote - pick your favourite. Three quotes in the text is overkill. I think you can see if we're to stick in three quotes to support every point in the page the thing'll quadruple in size.Bengalski 21:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind just one quote, but I do mind the deletion of additional sources for the claim. As you can see, someone comes along and deletes the sources except one, and in doing so, deletes evidence that it was a position of several individualists. Then, the text gets changed to say that Benjamin Tucker thought it was fake anarchism. Then, if it's noted that this was the position of several of them, someone asks for sources. I put in sources and then someone comes along and says it's too many sources and only leaves one or two. This continues ad infinitum. People like Infinity need to stop deleting sources. RJII 21:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Books

I didn't think this was going to be necessary, but do we really need a huge list of books in this article? It is long enough already, I took care to produce a list from the major schools in the article and then moved the rest out to list of anarchist books. It seems someone has readded many and split them into specious "anarcho-socialist" (isn't this a neologism?) and "anarcho-capitalist" sections. I have reverted back to my version for the time being, I would welcome constructive discussion here. - FrancisTyers 17:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Hogeye added them. Your list is more concise, I think it's better, tho you could start a separate article with them all on. Infinity0 ^talk 17:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at list of anarchist books ;) - FrancisTyers 17:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhhhh... :D Infinity0 ^talk 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I changed the Rothbard book to a relevant one about anarcho-capitalism, rather than the economic treatise. Hogeye 18:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of a very short list as well (mostly because it helps to ensure a safe weighting). But perhaps we should mention The Dispossessed or The Monkey Wrench Gang as a representation of anarchism in literature? Sarge Baldy 20:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to add a couple of fictional books relating to Anarchism, it might also be worth mentioning a couple of the most popular books that are histories or overviews of the subject. I think Woodcock and Marshall are pretty popular, but you can probably find the most popular ones on Amazon or something. - FrancisTyers 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I think it's important not to limit ourselves to the works of the philosophers and theorists themselves. Clearly there's other important books related to the topic that should be touched on. Sarge Baldy 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Infinity deleting sources

Infinity, you need to stop deleting sources. You're becoming increasingly destructive on Wikipedia. RJII 20:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII, I sorted the fricking sources. Shut up and stop being difficult just because I listed your article for deletion. Infinity0 ^talk

That's another sign of your destructiveness. You've put up individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism for deletion for totally bogus reasons. It's another sign of you wanting to censor information. RJII 20:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Infinity0 ^talk 20:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not ad hominem. It's not to prove that validity of any argument other than that you have a habit of censorship, and I'm requesting that you stop censoring things and deleting sources. RJII 21:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is censorship? Get outta here. Infinity0 ^talk 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleting sources because you don't like what they say is POV. RJII 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding sources because you like what they say is equally (if not more) POV. Sarge Baldy 03:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding sources because they're being requested. Then Infinity comes along and deletes them along with the claims. I add back the claim without the sources and sources are requested. I add the sources then he deletes the claims and sources. It's absurd. Maybe he's upset that there are so many links about individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, but that's the way it's going to be if those are the sections that are the subject of the most dispute. RJII 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If that was the case, why did I leave at least one in in each section? Infinity0 ^talk 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Because you don't want too much information released. And, so that you could ask for sources for claims that you deleted the sources for, then delete the claims and sources when they're added to the article --as you've been doing. RJII 23:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, except I only asked for a source once, and I've only deleted sources which don't add new information. RJII, stop making up crap about me being a "censor". You're the one that has suppressed all mention of anarchism's left-wing links. Infinity0 ^talk 23:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cooperation vs Competition

RJII added competition to the list of things anarchists want a society built upon. I know I am not alone in not considering competition to be a major part of my ideal future society, and to add competition without qualifications as to which anarchists support that is a bad idea, especially since it also said we wanted cooperation, which is contradictory and will confuse most people unfamiliar with anarachism (and some who are familiar). As such I removed both until we can work this out. The Ungovernable Force 03:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Individualist anarchists tend to be big on competition. For instance, Voltairine de Cleyre: "Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and authority, whereby the right of property, the true right in that which is proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes that co-operation would entirely supplant competition; I hold that competition in one form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should." Benjamin Tucker was also a firm proponent of competition. He believe competition was what could reduce profit to make prices accord with labor-value. RJII 03:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So say that some individualists support it, because not all anarchists do (and I can cite that if you want) The Ungovernable Force 03:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

That's fine. I know that collectivist anarchists don't like competition. Apparently, the only thing all anarchists agree on is opposition to the State. RJII 03:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that a variety of individualists agreed that cooperation was valuable, the mutual meeting of like-minded individuals for the purposes of mutual benefit etc. Similarly there is a strain within anarchism which says that competition is a good and natural impulse (for an example, Le Guin is big on friendly competition in Dispossessed). I'm not hep up about including "competition" in the list at all. Its not nearly as important as other issues. Like getting the article size down to 40kb, having copyright acceptable images for the major points, and having apposite and appropriate citation. Fifelfoo 04:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism in India

Is there any record of anarchist activity in India?Can anyone of the contributors enlighten me on this? sumal 11:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist "tree"

This clearly violate's Wikipedia's policy regarding original research, and is also disupted. I don't think I'm the only one who sees it simply an attempt to legitimize anarcho-capitalism's place within anarchism. Sarge Baldy 21:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism's place within anarchism is already legitimized. All the chart does is show what influenced what. Everybody who has researched it knows that Tucker and Spooner influenced Rothbard. RJII 21:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And you don't see yourself as POV? Clearly it is not a settled matter, as evidenced by it's clearly contentious relation to anarchism. Too often you exhibit symptoms of an MPOV, which is worrisome. Sarge Baldy 21:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not "settled" but it's legitimized. It's not settled that individualist anarchism is true anarchism. It's not settled that anarcho-communism is true anarchism. Whether it's settled or not is beside the point. If some notable historians and political scientists say something is anarchism, then it needs to be in the article. That's all it takes to "legitimize" something as anarchism. RJII 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If you take any arrow pair in the article and say "X influenced Y", it is well-documented and well-sourced on Wikipedia. The article puts these Wikipedia-acceptable facts into graph form. That's it. If it was claiming which philosophy grew out of which other one, then you'd have a case. MrVoluntarist 00:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to point out that you have yet to provide the names and quotations of any "notable" historians and political scientists, or any non-originally researched reliable sources to back up your claims. --AaronS 22:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, because you keep re-constraining the request to the point where you couldn't do the same for socialist forms of anarchism. MrVoluntarist 00:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Give sources to Aaron at your own risk. He finds some twisted way to dismiss every one. Or, if he does find one acceptable, he demands another to back it up, ad infinitum. It's fruitless and ridulcous. RJII 01:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

MrVoluntarist and RJII, I ask that you try to assume good faith. My requests have been reasonable. So far, RJII has only provided original research and two main sources -- where do you see 'infinity'? -- Ralph Raico and Carl Levy. Levy's source has already been shown to not back up many of the claims made, here. Raico's neutrality is questionable. So, are you going to produce everything, or are you just going to continue to attack me personally contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and policies? I would truly appreciate if the both of you tried to keep the discussion civil. Thanks! --AaronS 02:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I did assume good faith with you. It's just that I'm convinced now that you're not acting in good faith. You won't accept sources no matter how credible they are. It appears to me that you have no genuine interest in bringing information to light, but rather, the reverse. RJII 03:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you were initially immediately very hostile or uncivil towards me. Please provide here a list of sources that you think that I've ignored, "no matter how credible they are." Honestly, I would like to know. Thanks. --AaronS 04:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Furthermore, even if you do believe that I'm acting in bad faith (I would like some evidence of that), that does not give you the right to treat me uncivilly. If you have a problem with me, I would be happy to talk to you about it. --AaronS 04:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please list sources disputing any of the links on the tree. So far, the only argument against the tree seems to be the old braindead POV anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism claim. Weak. Hogeye 14:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that when you make an unsourced positive claim, the burden of proof is on you, not anybody else. --AaronS 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the claim that you'd like sourced? Hogeye 15:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: Both of the images are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. - FrancisTyers 15:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism in India

Is there any record of anarchist activity in India?Can anyone of the contributors enlighten me on this? sumal 11:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A google search bought up this list of books. I'm pretty sure Peter Marshall covers India in Demanding the Impossible, but I don't have it with me at the moment. - FrancisTyers 11:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, seems to have been an anarcho-primitivist gathering in India not long ago [2]. - N1h1l 17:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye and 3RR

Hogeye, it appears that you have violated Wikipedia policy in breaking the WP:3RR. I know that, in the past, you and RJII have stated that you have no problem with edit wars, and will happily create them; however, we try to avoid them as much as possible, and they certainly go against what Wikipedia is about. I am simply going to caution you this time, and ask that you please review the three revert rule policy. One more revert, and I'm going to request that an administrator review what is going on, here. I hate to be harsh, but you're being very disruptive, in my opinion. Thanks. --AaronS 15:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a little ironic for an "anarchism" article --calling in the police (authority). RJII 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You've made that claim many times before, but this isn't anarchy, it's Wikipedia. And you agreed to abide by certain rules when you decided to participate. --AaronS 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not anarchy. There are no "true anarchists" who would bring in authority. You know, people say the same thing about nations, such as "You agree to abide by the rules if you live here. If you don't like it you can leave." Is that something a "true anarchist" would say? I doubt it. RJII 15:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have heard ancaps use that exact reasoning, but then it was something "If you don't like your boss you can get another job". // Liftarn

What does that have to do with anything? --AaronS 15:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you're lying about me again. When have I said that I'm happy to create edit wars? RJII 15:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's all in your RfC and RfA cases. I'm not lying one bit, and never have lied about you. Please stop accusing me of dishonesty, it's tasteless. --AaronS 15:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Cite it then. When have I ever said I'm happy to create edit war? Your sleazy dishonest tactics are reprehensible. RJII 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My, my, what a mouth you have. It was in one of your former RfCs, I believe. It's kind of hard to find, but I'm sure that you know where it is. Could you provide me links to them? Thanks. Also, again, please be civil. It's incendiary to refer to fellow editors as "sleazy" and "dishonest". --AaronS 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm responding to your dishonesty. Lying about another editor is "incendiary" and "uncivil." You've started the fire, but you don't want to burn it do you? RJII 15:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but that's just cheesy. What was that RfC or RfA that was never resolved, sort of left hanging? It was that one, I believe. Do you have a link to it, or are you going to make me find it myself? If you choose the latter, I'm not going to be able to respond for a while, because I've got better things to do. But, I will eventually. --AaronS 15:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There was an RFA against me based on a claim that I didn't source something I said in Talk (not something I posted in an article). It was absurd and full of lies, so of course the administrators closed the case. RJII 15:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, do you have the link? I don't remember the administrators closing the case. I'm assuming that you're not talking about the one that is currently open on you. --AaronS 15:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No I don't have the link. Go find it yourself. RJII 15:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Was that the one with User:Slrubenstein? Infinity0 ^talk 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do. You'll just have to wait, then, unfortunately. --AaronS 16:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's do wait then. In the meantime don't initiate any assaults on me than you can't back up. Your continual attempts to start fights with me is "uncivil." And, the use of dishonesty in doing it is downright sleazy. I remind of the policy: be civil. RJII 16:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Come now, RJII, I have never tried to start conflict with you. You eagerly create and seek out conflict, it seems. By the way, it wasn't too hard to find, so you might be interested remembering these incidents: [3], "So what if there is going to be warring on what the common dictionary definitions represent? At least it narrows it down greatly. I see nothing wrong with fine tuning it through edit warring, or even eternal conflict" [4], "Exactly, edit warring is fun" [5], "Reverting Badly written POV again. You want an edit war, you have one" [6]. Now, I don't expect an apology from you for calling me a liar, but let's just let the evidence speak for itself. --AaronS 16:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, that RfA was not rejected by the administrators, and the case was only closed because it seemed as if the problem had been resolved. Apparently it hasn't: RJII v. Firebug. --AaronS 16:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. You lied. I did not say I enjoyed starting edit wars. I said that there is nothing wrong with eternal edit warring --it's preferable than stability (which assumes infallibility). And, sure, battling is enjoyable. But, I have never said that I enjoy starting edit wars or intentionally start edit wars. That's patently false. You owe me an apology (as if your apoligies are worth anything anymore). RJII 16:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll just let this thread speak for itself. --AaronS 16:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's do. It's a great example of hypocrisy. RJII 16:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

RfAr of a main editor of this article

There is currently a request for arbitration open for a main editor of this article, RJII. I encourage anybody who believes that RJII has violated Wikipedia policy to speak up; or, conversely, speak on his behalf if you believe that this RfA is unjust. I know that many editors of this article have had problems with RJII, and that a few support him, so I think that it is important that we all know about this.

• Here is the proposed decision (with votes): [7]
• Here is where you can add your own evidence (for or against): [8]

Just providing information. --AaronS 17:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The model anarchist you are aren't you? Trying to get someone banned from Wikipedia by goading him on with insults and lies so that he can attack you back so you can accuse him of being "uncivil," all for the purpose of censoring his edits. Great job, man. How about if we start an arbitration case against you? RJII 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I said that I was interested in anarchism, not that I was an anarchist. Go ahead and start a case on me, if that will make you happy. I don't think that you'll find much evidence of insults and lies on my part. Also, your reaction is strange, considering that I posted this to give your supporters an opportunity to respond, as well. --AaronS 17:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on. We all know why you advertised that. Don't insult our intelligence. You're hoping to help foment a mob attack on RJII to get him banned. Good luck! RJII 17:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Question: why do you often refer to yourself in the third person? Anyway, you can insinuate anything you want about me. It doesn't bother me, and, if you want to talk about intelligence, well, I think that most people can distinguish between bitter insinuations and clear and straightforward evidence. --AaronS 17:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Most people who come here are civil. I can't say the same for you. There are many who I have disagreements with here who I respect very much. They treat me civily and I reciprocate. Why can't you be more civilized? RJII 17:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't play that "you're the only problem" game with me. It seems that you just turn everybody's concerns about you into a conspiracy and then accuse them of the same things. That's false. If you can find any occasion where I have treated you uncivilly in the recent past (or in the not-so-recent past that I haven't apologized for), then, by all means, show me. Or do you just accuse others of lying and sleaze? --AaronS 18:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You are the only problem in this article. Everyone else is pretty civil and honest (actually there is one other person that's not, but I'm not going to name names). As evidence of your uncivility and dishonesty one only need to consult the record of how many times you've apoligized. But, I'm telling you now that there have been one too many apologies. I'm not accepting them anymore. They're insincere. As soon as you apologize for one thing, you proceed with another attack. I don't trust and I don't respect you. RJII 18:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy shit dude, how many RfAr cases have you been through?? Infinity0 ^talk 17:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

One, and it was dropped because it was nonsense. This is the second. It will also be dropped. RJII 17:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that makes two RfArs and one RfC. --AaronS 17:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Both cases have been initiated because they want to censor RJII --to keep him from editing Wikipedia because the sourced information he's providing conflicts with their POV --the "uncivility" claims and other such nonsense are just a convenient tool to help accomplish that. By the way, the RFC is nothing but a forum for the accusers and nitpickers to make fools of themselves. RJII 17:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You should realise though, that most of the "sourced" information you enter ARE POV themselves, since they come from people. You might not like it, but it is your responsibility too to bring in conflicting sources. NPOV isn't about gathering contributors together and mashing all their POVs into one hopefully NPOV article. Infinity0 ^talk 17:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to bring in conflicting sources. It's not my responsibility to edit Wikipedia, period. If you think there are conflicting sources to be found, then you find them, and add them to the articles. That's how Wikipedia works. RJII 18:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but when you edit Wikipedia, you're supposed to present a neutral point of view. You're writing an encyclopaedia article. You need conflicting sources, especially when requested. --AaronS 18:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said, NPOV isn't about gathering contributors together and mashing all their POVs into one hopefully NPOV article. All users have a responsibility for NPOV. If you only enter in right-wing sources, and you know that there are no left-wing sources, you shouldn't just think "Oh well, it's not my responsibility, somebody else should do it" and be done with it, since you KNOW that the article is now POV. Also, what did you mean by It's not my responsibility to edit Wikipedia, period.??? Infinity0 ^talk 18:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)