Template talk:Anarchism sidebar

Makeover

I think the template needs a makeover. Look at the Communism and Maoism templates. Aren't they stylish? Aren't they sexy? We need to have a template like that. Sorry I can't really elaborate, I'm about to go out the door. Zazaban (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a makeover of Communism template, and I think that current Anarchism template is fine as it is. What's wrong with it in your opinion? -- Vision Thing -- 20:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The main difference seems to be that this template lacks background colour - we could make the text white on a black background if that sexified matters adequately. Skomorokh ^incite 21:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good, perhaps with circle-A bullets. It's just that the current template seems a bit.. generic. Zazaban (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Minimalism doesn't turn you on? OK, I kinda think white on black, with cirle-A bullets would nice. Unless someone else has a better idea. Murderbike (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally like the anarchism template as-is. Minimalistic seems to work for it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Circla-A bullets will not work on this template. Look at the lay-out, most of the links are positioned next to one another, rather than above and below one another.

And, personally, I like that aspect of this template as it is.

As for the colour scheme, I would definitely like to see a change. Currently, it's just black text against white background. I'd like to see the whole template black with white text.

Perhaps while we're at it, we could replace the black Circle-A no white background with a white Circle-A on black background.

That would be a cool template.

allixpeeke (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and made a model template here.

The Circle-A still needs to be rendered white, and I don't know how to get the show/hide toggle to change colours. But outside of that, I'm generally pleased with it. (If you think you can change the toggle colour, go ahead.) What do you all think of it (notwithstanding the need to render a white Circle-A)?

allixpeeke (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks stunning Alex, hopefully Cast might be able to help with the formatting. I think some photoshopping is necessary to invert the Circle-A. скоморохъ ^ѧ 09:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, white on black is so fine for my eyes! Murderbike (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I can assist with formatting, bit it seems Alex has that in hand. However, I cannot immediately assist with the creation of a white circle-a, as that would require .svg skills. Being unrelated to photoshop, I lack the necessary experience. Perhaps SwitChar would be able to assist in the matter. I know he has submitted several anarchist related .svg images.

I would also suggest that perhaps the whole template need not be black. Perhaps just the banners, such as in the libertarian template. This is because formatting all of the text white prevents previously opened links from registering a different color to denote this.--Cast (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Cast,

I thought about that. I don't know if there's a way on wikipedia to set previously-visited links a different colour from not-yet-visited links, but if there is a way, I would suggest we set the previously-visited links colour to a shade of gray (preferably light gray, but not so light that it can't be distingued from the unclicked white links).

When I was formatting the page, I didn't think it looked very good with just having the banner sections black. Something about that seemed...bothersome to me, for some reason. But perhaps it was just me. Feel free to play around with my design and see for yourself what you think.

Technically, one would not need to create an .svg for the white Circle-A, since this white Circle-A would only be used on the template, and would not be used to replace the black Circle-A in all the locations it would appear. Thus, we'd only need one size for the white Circle-A, which a .jpg or .gif could easily handle. (Of course, having an .svg couldn't hurt, and I, like you, do not have .svg-making capabilities.)

Murderbike and скоморохъ,

Glad you like it! :)

Sincerely,

allixpeeke (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I designed a white Circle-A. Check it out.

Yours,

allixpeeke (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So will these changes also be carried over to the horizontal navigation bar? Should we remove the circled-flag in it? I don't think it would be appropriate to swap it's colors, creating a circled white flag.--Cast (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I quite like Allix's latest version. Anyone opposed to implementing it? Skomorokh 20:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the circle-A symbol seems too neat and orderly to represent anarchism. Several people have commented on this at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Anarchy-symbol.svg . One active anarchist I spoke with 20 years ago in Exarchia, Athens was very emphatic that the "A" must cross the boundaries of the circle to represent anarchy breaking the bounds of order represented by the circle. I have created a new graphic http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AnarchySymbolInk.svg which I think gives a better representation of the idea of anarchy.Enon (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The symmetry and cleanliness of the existing image seems to me to represent the older, Proudhonian conception of "anarchy is order", in contrast to the punk-influenced aesthetic you promulgate. No offence, but it strikes me as a little Hot Topic to represent the concept in an encyclopaedia, though I'm open to hearing other interpretations. Skomorokh 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, and the old graphic does have a certain class. I was trying for something more dynamic with a hint of enso, rather than mall-punk T-shirts(!). I looked at AnarchySymbolInk.svg in context, and it did seem a little thin, so I tweaked a few things. Here's the new version in context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Anarchism_sidebar&oldid=419031383 Enon (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Class smash, I changed it. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the symmetric version only appears on Wiki WP:FORUM see Original research and Personal inventions. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Anarchism in India

I'm gonna post this at Portal:Anarchism as it seems more appropriate, but it doesn't seem like people pay much attention to it. But, if anyone's interested, Anarchism in India is up for deletion here, and for some pretty shoddy reasons, though the article does need some help. Murderbike (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Additions

Anyone think it would too much to add Anarchist Exclusion Act to the History section? Murderbike (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

At some point we're going to have to address overpopulation, but the Anarchist Exclusion Act is a paradigm for the kind of articles that should comprise that section. Skomorokh ^incite 08:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

category

This template includes the category Category:Anarchism, which means that every article gets added to Category:Anarchism. That works fine for a tagging system, but not as well for wikipedia's "category" system – it ends up leaving the Category:Anarchism very difficult to read and absorb. I'm been creating subcategories for articles and that structure can be built out more, but we ultimately need to remove Category:Anarchism from the template to clean up the category. Thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. I'd gone through the Category:Anarchism in its entirety about a month ago, redirecting articles into subcategories. However, someone came alone and undid all of that work, perhaps well intentioned, but ignorant of the purpose of subcategories. I'm going to go through the category again. In the meantime, the template is now under the anarchism task force category.--Cast (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Deprecate this template?

Considering that we have the much more thorough {{Anarchism}} template now, has anyone given any thought to deprecating this template, and fully converting to the other one? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "much more thorough"; the templates share 99% of the same content. There's a discussion on the talkpage as to which articles that template is appropriate for. I propose keeping this more prominent template on articles directly related to anarchism, where aesthetic considerations allow. Skomorokh ^incite 05:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Skomorokh. I did not create the horizontal template as a universal Anarchism navigational template. Anarchism mirrors the vertical template, and is essentially secondary to it. Further, the horizontal template carries a disadvantage which the vertical template does not suffer. The horizontal template cannot be placed in specific sections of an article, where it may be most appropriate. It will always be placed at the bottom of an article, irrespective of its relationship to the article subject. The vertical template may be arranged at the top of an article, or in a subsection according to necessity. An example is in the Emma Goldman article, in which the vertical template is appropriately placed in the Philosophy subsection. This would be impossible with the horizontal template.

I could propose other advantages the vertical template holds, but I cannot be pressed for this at the moment as I am busy. However, I think it safe to assume that these will present themselves in time. Each of these templates has a time and place for which it is most appropriate, and we should make proper use of each accordingly. --Cast (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why no info"anarchism"...

Have a look at the article Infoanarchism. Where does it mention opposition to hierarchy and authority?

This is just a stupid made up term. Just because you oppose copyright, doesn't mean you also oppose all government, capitalism etc. It just means you oppose copyright.

This isn't a school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.193.188 (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they mean anarchists who oppose copyright, as implied by the name. The anti-copyright movement has it's own article. Zazaban (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We have a policy on not making no true scotsman judgements on particular tendencies based on our individual interpretations of what "true" anarchism is. I'm restoring the link. скоморохъ ^ѧ 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The policy against not making any judgments on what constitutes "true" anarchism is absurd. That's precisely what we're all here to decide. That's what wikipedia is - a series of decisions on what certain things are or are not. We should get rid of the "info-anarchism" section. It isn't a school of thought, and so it doesn't belong in that section. Its that simple. 76.104.138.63 (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)andrew

I recommend moving infoanarchism from the "Schools of thought" section to the "Theory * Practice" section

Above, both 83.228.193.188 and 76.104.138.63 argue that infoanarchism is not a school.  They had recommended removing it from the Schools of thought section.  скоморохъ, however, argued that it should remain on the grounds that "individual interpretations of what 'true' anarchism is" should not play a role in what gets included in the list.

While I don't reject the notion that infoanarchism is related to "true" anarchism, that doesn't make it per se a "school of thought."  My recommendation is that we move infoanarchism from the Schools of thought section to the Theory * Practice section, as the problem with it does not seem to be its lack of congruity with anarchism so much as its single-issue focus making it more of a theory or practice than a school of thought.

Regards,
allixpeeke (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Collapsable sections

There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like this, such as {{Social democracy sidebar}}, {{Christian Democracy sidebar}} etc. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fade to black

I kinda liked the old version but I guess black is our color, eh? :) Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Most people seemed to be in favour of it (see first section above). The forces of light still have {{Anarchism}}. Skomorokh 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Anarch

Sorry my edit summary got cut off, but I have restored this article. It explicitly relates to anarchism, as a linguistic and conceptual fundament of "anarchy". Please discuss here before removing. We can't simply go removing articles because they also concern ideologies we don't like. Skomorokh 12:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they "also" concern other ideologies, it's that it doesn't concern anarchism at all:

* the article is a stub or dictionary definition

* it's an idea from a non-anarchist who claimed it as inspired by the writings of a dead anarchist

* the article doesn't say that it is (or how it could be) a "linguistic and conceptual fundament" of anarchy - it's a later development or offshoot

* It's not a common term amongst anarchists (I've never seen the term used outside of this template)

* It currently appears as the first term in "Theory" - this is really undue weight for a stub on a hardly-notable, hardly anarchist term

It can't be fundamental to anarchy if it first appeared 60-70 years later and hasn't been used in anarchist theory or practice since. As with all articles I know little about, I'm willing to be proved wrong but even without the apparent link to 3rd positionism I don't see a reason to keep it in the template.Chaikney (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As no responses, have removed it. Chaikney (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Archives have been killed

The move has broken all the links to the archives, can anyone fix that? Zazaban (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All fixed. With the move of the main title, the move function didn't also move the various archive pages, so I used the move function to move them all over. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Renaming Template:Anarchism footer

Hi. Would anyone object if I submitted Template:Anarchism footer for renaming to Template:Anarchism at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals? Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No problems here. Anarchism should become plain "Anarchism", and we should probably move away from using the sidebar template altogether. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? I personally prefer the sidebar to the footer. Zazaban (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Really. Sidebars tend to clutter up article bodies (especially when multiple sidebars exist in an article), which could be put to better use displaying images and such. The trend seems to be that such link boxes are going to the bottom of pages, which honestly is where they should be, along with the "see also" links and such. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've always found them an easy, immediately accessible resource for detail on the subject. I find it makes articles look complete. Zazaban (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've listed the template for renaming. I'd say it's easier to create clutter, squeeze text, etc with sidebars rather than navboxes, but well-designed and thoughtfully-placed sidebars are fine. Nearly all of those I've seen relating to political ideologies seem to work. Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This could have done with a lot longer discussion period than a day, as it affects hundreds (thousands?) of pages. We may have to go around correcting editors who type {{Anarchism}} expecting a sidebar to appear for months to come. the skomorokh 12:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with it, but recall I'm also of the opinion that the sidebar template needs to eventually go away. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be a question for sidebar templates generally...a political template would be a poor choice of test case as it could end up a fractious debate. the skomorokh 19:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• My apologies if putting the template forward for renaming was too fast. I'm about to update the links to it, which should flag the change to anyone who used the previous name on a page they're (still) watching. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Propose adding Class struggle

It's a big issue, central to syndicalism, communism and social anarchism generally. We should add it, probably under Theory / Practice. Any objections? Chaikney (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am Skomorokh and I approve this message. We could also use an article on class struggle anarchism. 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's done (the template not the article :) Chaikney (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cologne Blue skin

Honestly, I'm not sure how important this is. I noticed that this template does not look good in the Cologne Blue skin using my Internet Explorer browser. Some of the titles conflict with the [Show] links. This template looks good in all skins using Firefox. If you use Internet Explorer, you can see what I mean by clicking on this link. If it's important to look good across all nine skins, then editors may want to consider improving this template so that it looks good in the Cologne Blue skin.

One way to do this would be to increase the width of the template. The template used is the {{Ideology}} template. I've copied that template to my #7a sandbox and copied this template, Anarchism sidebar, to my #7 sandbox, so that I could see what width of the Ideology template was needed to make it look good in the Cologne Blue skin. Looks like "width:24em;" would do the duty. I have made no "live" changes yet, because I really have no idea how important it is for this template to look good in the Cologne Blue skin.

How important could it be?  —  Paine's Climax  10:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It could be quite important!Harrypotter (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

persons removal

I think we need to keep this list small and limited to the people who contributed most to anarchism. I have removed the follwing;

Noam Chomsky: an anarchist, but he doesn't consider himself an anarchist thinker but more of a "fellow traveller" to anarchism. He hasn't contributed much to anarchist theory.

Howard Zinn: like Chomsky, he isn't influencal in terms of anarchist thought.

Nestor Makhno: Ditto, mostly just an anarchist commander.

24.180.173.157 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you in the cases of Howard Zinn and Chomsky. Under the same criteria i dont think Lysander Spooner deserves to be in this list as he didnt make too much of a contribution to anarchist theory or activism or movements and also he is barely known outside the US. Also it happens that American individualist anarchism is already covered with the inclusion of Benjamin Tucker, a far more influential thinker even in European individualism and of course Henry David Thoreau who kind of started anarcho-pacifism and green anarchism. The case of Nestor Makhno is that he is a very important person for anarchist history as he lead one of the biggest anarchist led revolts in history and very likely the most well known anarchist in the Russian Revolution. So i will proceed to add Makhno again.--Eduen (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

i reverted to a previous version as the additions on people were bordering on the bizzare. it even had an addition which is in the process of being deleted.--Eduen (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

on the additions on people proposed by |Jfeen what i can say is that most of them are recent and with only regional or local relevance, in the end relevance in the USA mostly as it is clear they have not been translated to other languages. Now of course even though some of those people are contemporary to John Zerzan, the relevance of this later person is wider and in the case of Zerzan we have the most representative theorist on the recent but with important precedents school of thought which is of course anarcho-primitivism which is already present globally. So just as you want someone like Uri Gordon for example included, there are influential authors in Spain for example with longer and more extensive body of works published such as [Amoros] or Agustín García Calvo. There are also historical regionally important people such as Manuel González Prada, Ricardo Flores Magón and theres even some people with importance in wider debates such as Volin or Rudolf Rocker who are not included and who might actually deserve to be included instead of the people you want included.--Eduen (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing about removing people because they have not contributed to "anarchist thought" is meaningless unless you care to define exactly what is "anarchist thought". Anarchism has never been about pure philosophy, much of it is about action and linkage with other movements. One can argue that Bakunin, having published only a few pamphlets, has contributed nothing to this abstract "anarchist thought", but the fact that he has been in the first international and actually involved in the organising makes him a prominant anarchist. To clarify my position: Anarchism is not a religion and anarchists are not theologians. Beta M (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree here. Either the scope of the list needs to be more clearly delineated, or we need to accept more inclusion. I would prefer to narrow the scope to something which clearly indicated that this was about anarchist thinkers. That might necessitate having another section which covers other people. aprock (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

anarcho-queer

Can someone add anarcho-queer to the schools of thought? (Lenerd (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

bob black?

Under persons in the infobox, I was surprised to not see Bob Black. What gives? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

maybe you could try to support your suggestion by provinding some arguments for it first. As I see it, post left anarchy (a mostly USA tendency) is already represented in the anarchism sidebar by John Zerzan. There are also other recent influential authors such as Alfredo M. Bonanno and older personalities such as Rudolf Rocker and Ricardo Flores Magon who might also deserve inclusion.--Eduen (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Having editors make the judgement of which person best represents a particular strain is original research. It's clear that the people list criterion needs to be revamped with a clear criteria for inclusion. Picking and choosing who to include based on personal preference isn't the proper way to handle this. aprock (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As I see the list as it stands right now I think it is OK. I think I only have doubts about the inclusion of Alexander Berkman and Colin Ward since they didn´t create a particular school of thought and of course about Murray Rothbard since I alongside most anarchists don´t think anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism but a form of neoliberalism and/or liberalism. If you have any doubts about the other people you could tell us. For example there was a push for including Lysander Spooner and I argued againts that since US individualist anarchism was already represented with Josiah Warren, Henry David Thoreau and Benjamin Tucker. I also argued againts the inclusion of Noam Chomsky since he didn´t really pioneer a school even if he is a very famous contemporary person. I do support the inclusion of those 3 names because Warren´s work preceeds Proudhon, Thoreau represents both pionering green anarchism and non-violent/anarcho-pacifism as well as being a huge influential personality outside anarchism and Tucker can be seen the main representative of US individualist anarchism. Emile Armand is in the list as the main representative of the long tradition of european individualist anarchism. I included Rudolf Rocker as the main representative of anarcho-syndicalism since he was the main personality in the establishment of the IWA. Makhno and Durruti as leaders and/or most visible personalities of the two most important anarchist uprisings/revolutions (Makhno also for platformism). Volin as the main theorist of synthesis anarchism. Alfredo M. Bonanno for contemporary insurrectionary anarchism, John Zerzan for anarcho-primitivism, Johann Most for propaganda by the deed proto insurrectionarism, Murray Bookchin for green anarchism, Leo Tolstoy for christian anarchism and for being the main representative of anarcho-pacifism and Emma Goldman for anarcha-feminism. And now besides these names the rest are just the classics of anarchism Godwin, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta and Stirner.--Eduen (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about a particular person, but rather what the criteria for inclusion is. Without a clear criteria, there will be endless lobbying for inclusion or exclusion. aprock (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

adding epistemological anarchism and paul feyerabend, why not?

I added Epistemological anarchism to 'schools of thought' and Paul Feyerabend to people, and it was reverted by Skomorokh, he sent me a message saying this:

"Greetings, PoS. I am afraid I have had to revert your edits associating Paul Feyerabend and his ideas with the political philosophy of anarchism. Feyerabend was not an anarchist, and his philosophy of science did not advance anarchist political philosophy (he advocated democratic control of science). He used "anarchism" as part of the name of his epistemology as an intentionally provocative analogy, not meant to be taken at face value. Best, Skomorokh 16:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)"

The statement that feyerabend used the term anarchism as simple shock or provocation doesn't stand, he used it because he believed in pluralistic methodologies as opposed to tyrannical ideologies, which could only be expressed by the word 'anarchism'.

"Science is an essentially anarchic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives." - Paul Feyerabend

He wrote extensively on sciences role in the totalitarian society, and how anarchism in science would solve that problem. That he advocated democracy within the sciences is not a testament against his philosophical anarchism, Murray Bookchin advocated democracy, as do syndicalists- whether some anarchists disagree with that approach or not does not make it any less relevant to the topic of anarchism.

Feyerabend also advocated decentralization, deindustrialization, and a critique of the spread of western civilization akin to other anarchist writers like Bookchin, zerzan, and Jacques Ellul. He may have claimed that he was not an anarchist is 'public life', but that was because he felt that much of anarchism was becoming to puritanical(which was his only recorded detraction of anarchism at all); a criticism not unheard of among anarchist circles themselves. He was against tyranny through and through, and focused much of his anarchist thought on the sciences where no one had applied it before, and where it was much needed. He was also a self-proclaimed dadaist, which was one of the biggest anarchist art-movements in history.

Feyerabend's epistemological anarchism may have gone unnoticed by the larger anarchist circles, but that is because most are purely concerned with the abstract field of politics or economics, where as he applied anarchism to cultural and epistemological domains (and how this in turn effected political/public domains). There are other schools of thought in anarchism that do not go into politics, like zen anarchism. That his brand is different does not make it any less relevant to the subject.

(update)

and even if we dont add feyerabend to the people section of the sidebar, i still think it is very important that epistemological anarchism is. Many anarchists like like Terence Mckenna and Robert Anton Wilson (and myself) subscribe to epistemological anarchism and find it to be a very fitting application of anarchism to epistemology.

ProductofSociety (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is an application of anarchistic notions to epistemology, sure; it is not, however, anarchism, in this sense that our article and this template mean – an anti-state political philosophy, and so it cannot possibly be a school of thought within that political philosophy. Feyerabend was not an anarchist, Feyerabend rejected anarchism as is plain from the very preface of Against Method ("The following essay is written in the conviction that anarchism, while perhaps not the most attractive political philosophy, is certainly excellent medicine for epistemology, and for the philosophy of science."). Feyerabend took care to make clear that he was not espousing political anarchism. If you want a further exploration of the subject, see Farrell's Feyerabend and scientific values, p.56. Skomorokh 17:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we possibly add epistemological anarchism to the "Related topics" section

I am happy to see that epistemological anarchism was removed from the School of thought section, as it is actually a school of thought in the philosophy of science, not in the philosophy of anarchism.  That said, it might merit being added to the Related topics section—might.  allixpeeke (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Free Territory "of Ukraine"

I have never heard of Free Territory being called "Free Territory of Ukraine" anywhere but in this template. I am planning on changing the link unless somebody can provide sourced and rational reason for me not to do that. Beta M (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Anarchist Defendants

With the rise in visibility for anarchism/anarchists in contemporary political discourse, it seems to me that there should be a page or subcategory of "anarchists defendants" chronicling the history of north american anarchists brought to court by the state or other parties. Does anyone have experience with wikipedia that could help? There are both contemporary and historical articles elsewhere on wikipedia that detail these specific cases, and it seems notable and relevant to compile summaries of each onto one page, and link to it in the "anarchism" category portal. (Ahwoooga (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC))

I think this simply doesn´t belong here. It has almost nothing to do with the discussing about the wikipedia anarchism sidebar.--Eduen (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be a link within the "issues" tab. (Ahwoooga (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC))

Black Anarchism

I'd like to add Black Anarchism under "schools of thought", if no one has any objections. I find its absence a little odd. Somnambulent (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems this article is a little US centric. And what is the difference with African anarchism. Also there is a need to clarify up to what extent this is a "school of thought" within anarchism and not an "issue of anarchism".--Eduen (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I recommend moving black anarchism to another section

I suspect it might be worthwhile to move black anarchism from the School of thought section to the Theory * Practice section or the Culture section, as the article basically admits that the views it espouses are not unique to black anarchism; it seems to be more of a theoretical approach that focuses on black culture and the experience of blacks.

That said, perhaps the article does belong in the School of thought section and the only reason I'm suspecting it doesn't is that the article itself currently fails to distinguish the features that qualify it as per se a school of thought, in which case the article requires augmenting.

In any event, I wish to acknowledge that I tend to find myself in agreement with a comment Eduen made two years ago: "Also there is a need to clarify up to what extent this is a 'school of thought' within anarchism and not an 'issue of anarchism'."

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux

Someone keeps insisting on adding Stefan Molyneux under the Persons category. Even if you accept capitalism and being consistent with anarchism (something that cannot be done with intellectual honesty), he is both an outlier in the sidebar, and he has not added anything to "anarcho"-capitalist thought. Ross arctor (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone keeps insisting on pushing a very blatantly narrow POV, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Someone has decided to not edit in good faith via the use of scarce quotes. So someone's edits get reverted because of violations of Wikipedia policy. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

What's actually in Wikipedia policy is a neutral point of view, which means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Editing without bias means to respect the actual history of a theory. It is a fact that anarchism has always been anti-capitalist. Anarchism has not "evolved" to become compatible with capitalism, the word has just been appropriated. It's why you cannot, with intellectual honesty, say Bakunin or Kropotkin advocated for the same political theory as Molyneux, Mises, or whoever else. There is no "narrow point of view" to complain about, either you're being honest or you're not. Murray Rothbard even admitted this, writing that "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." It's also interesting as to why you would include Stefan Molyneux in the sidebar but not other anarcho-capitalists. If you want to have an "anarcho"-capitalist sidebar, then make one and stop being intellectually dishonest. Ross arctor (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

And you are clearly editing with a bias and without good faith, as shown by your use of scarce-quotes. More than one person has tried the shenanigans you're trying now; they've failed. It's not a fact that anarchism has always been anti-capitalist (by which you mean solely and only anti-capitalist), for there are capitalist anarchists (and only capitalists can be anarchists, if you want to be intellectually honest; all other claimed forms require a state). And I'm not the one including Molyneux; I'm simply reverting edits for which the intent from the summaries do not conform to wikipedia policy (an authority, by the way, which you have to deal with--shockhorrorshock). If you wish to remove Molyneux, be sure to have an edit summary which doesn't show your bias, nor shows that your edit in some other way violates wikipedia policy. Pretty simple. Think you can handle it? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"and only capitalists can be anarchists, if you want to be intellectually honest" And you try to claim to be the guardian of neutrality? Fuck off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.212.251 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Just mocking what Ross had written. I do that to all of the argument-from-antiquity-fallacy users. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, having Stefan Molyneux as one of the 30 people who represent anarchism is just embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:9A80:19C:EC57:7CDB:711E:8A37 (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this previous user. Knight of BAAWA seems to be arguing in the previous post that he re added this obscure canadian radio host because " And I'm not the one including Molyneux; I'm simply reverting edits for which the intent from the summaries do not conform to wikipedia policy (an authority, by the way, which you have to deal with--shockhorrorshock)." I don´t think that is a good reason for readding that name. Clearly Knight of BAAWA enjoys edit warring.--Eduen (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I just do my best to make sure that people like you don't abuse your ability to edit Wikipedia articles by deliberately trying to push your ultra-narrow POV in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. If that is too difficult for you to grasp, perhaps you should no longer edit pages here. After all: there are rules we are supposed to follow here. Rules from an authority (shockhorrorshock). And, given your edit history and the edit summaries of edits I've reverted: it's clear that you--and people like you--just want to violate Wikipedia policy to push your ultra-narrow POV (and then you whine and play the victim when you get caught). Look: you call Molyneux "obscure". Is he? I don't think so. I don't agree with some of what he says, but he's certainly not obscure. But you--and people like you--just want to marginalize anything which doesn't comport with your ultra-narrow POV. Seriously: this could have been avoided by the people removing Molyneux being adults: having edit summaries which do not show that they are deliberately trying to violate Wikipedia policy, and by talking about it here in an adult manner. But no, they didn't. So this is the result. Perhaps this will be a lesson to those people. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

talk again does not give actual arguments for the particular inclusion of that name. His inclusion is simply absurd, almost a joke. And on top i don´t know who he is speaking with since he does not individualize who he is talking with. And now he is teaching us children a "lesson". Two other users and me are againts the inclusion of this name if we need to take a vote here.--Eduen (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No one provided a valid reason for his removal, and as you'll recall: WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT OPERATE BY VOTE. You were told that before. It operates by verifiability. And if you don't know to whom I am speaking, you clearly don't understand how to properly indent for reply. My reply is indented under yours; it's quite clear that I'm speaking to you.

So let's talk about his inclusion or removal. Can it be verified that he is an anarchist? Yes. Is he notable enough? What is the standard for that? Do you really want to talk about it, or are you just going to use your usual scarce-quotes nonsense and show that you're not interested in good-faith editing. Ball's in your court--and the court of those like you. What say you? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

We should remove the entire people section, since the criteria for inclusion is apparently arbitrary. Frietjes (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

We already have 3 votes againts him againts inclusion of this name againts the vote of User talk:Knight of BAAWA. I ask User talk:Knight of BAAWA to bring outside support and arguments for the inclusion of Stefan Molyneux such as mentions of this person in contemporary works dealing with anarchism in general, otherwise this should not proceed. All this user has argued until now has had nothing to do with the actual merits of that particular name but just secondary indirect reasons which only amount by now to mere edit warring.--Eduen (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia. Does. Not. Operate. By. Vote. How. Many. Times. Must. You. Be. Told.

Now then, I personally don't care whether or not he is included; I care about edits being done according to Wikipedia policy. Which they haven't been. They have been done in the manner of non-neutral point of view edit-war against anarchocapitalism by you and those like you. He can be removed; the edit summary merely has to say something like "not notable enough" or "no citations" or some such. But it cannot contain any edit-warring against anarchocapitalism, Eduen. None. Of. It. You and those like you have been waging an edit-war against it for years, and then you and those like you try to play the victim when you get caught. ENOUGH! Edit according to Wikipolicy. End the edit-war against anarchocapitalism. It reminds me of the "Genesis vandal" on the Evolution page; it's that level of vandalism, Eduen. It really is. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"I personally don't care whether or not he is included" User:Knight of BAAWA

Then i think the disagreement has been solved and we can take out the name "Stefan Molyneux" from this template.--Eduen (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

IFF it is done for valid reasons, and NOT because of your hate of whatever misconception of capitalism you have. If it's done for the latter: it will be reverted. You and those like you WILL learn not to vandalize pages out of your hatred of whatever misconception of capitalism you have. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to calm down, stop rageposting, and stop with the ad-hominem -- frankly, made-up -- arguments. I think it's sensible, and I think everyone would agree, that there's a burden of proof for someone to be listed under the 'people' section of anarchism. I.e., there should be reasons given as to why someone should be included under the list. What has Stefan Molyneux contributed to anarchist thought? Why does he deserve to be here? Ross arctor (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Do learn what ad hominem really is. And given the fact that you said, and I quote, "Even if you accept capitalism and being consistent with anarchism (something that cannot be done with intellectual honesty)", I am clearly not making anything up. Which means: you just lied. No, that's not an "ad hominem". No, that's not "attacking a poster". That's showing the inconsistency between what you claim I'm doing and what you did. Now then: I have no problem with people being removed for VALID reasons; I do have a problem with people being removed for INVALID ones, such as hatred of something a person doesn't understand. If neither you, nor Eduen, nor anyone else cannot separate your hatred from your editing, I suggest you stop editing articles or templates or whathaveyou for which that is the case. Period. Because you WILL be violating Wikipolicy. And the edits will be reverted. That's how Wikipedia works, like it or not. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that. That disagreement has been going on for almost 10 years, I'm probably not going to get anywhere by bringing it up again. Here, now, we're saying that Stefan Molyneux has no real reason to be on this list, as he hasn't contributed anything to anarchist thought. You're saying that we're "vandaliz[ing] pages out of your hatred of whatever misconception of capitalism you have." That's ad-hominem -- about the editor, not the issue. Most of your post was ad-hominem, because you're suggesting that we're editing with irrational hatred, criticizing our "narrow point of view" (which, again, only a 'neutral' POV is required by wikipedia policy. Whether this is narrow or not doesn't matter). Stick to the issue, please, as that's what I'm trying to do. Again, why should Stefan Molyneux be listed here? The burden of proof is on you to justify his inclusion. Ross arctor (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Your words would be better suited to one who didn't admit to a bias, remove a bit of anarchism he doesn't like, and then try to play the victim when caught. And again: do learn what ad hominem actually is. You specifically stated your feelings about anarchocapitalism, so clearly what I said was not ad hom. You could have avoided all of this just by having the edit summary be "not notable enough" or such. In other words: something which comports with Wikipedia policy. Let's look at your edit summary: "Removed Stefan Molyneaux again. Like the previous editor wrote, he doesn't belong in this sidebar." Ok. What did that previous editor write? "Removed Stefan Molyneaux. Again, this sidebar is focused on actual anarchism, which is and has always been socialist." See the problem? Non-neutral editing. Pushing a point-of-view which doesn't stand up to verification. It wasn't about if he'd contributed anything; it was about someone trying to force the idea that anarchism is solely and only socialist. And you agreed with that person in your edit summary. So it got reverted. I really have no idea why this is so difficult for you, Eduen, and others to understand. Wikipedia is NOT your personal blog where you get to make up things just because you want them to be true. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not about your personal biases.

I wish it hadn't come to this, but sometimes these discussions need to happen so others won't try the same shenanigans later. Or at least they can be referred to the talk when they are warned about their behavior. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't edited this sidebar for a while. Moreover, I'm not arguing from that position any more. I asked for reasons why Stefan should be included on the persons section of the sidebar. You're responded by arguing against a position I'm no longer taking. To me, this translates into "I have no reasons why he should be included, so I will change the subject, avoiding the question." I'm saying that there ought to be provided reasons as to why Stefan should be included. You avoid the question by talking about a different subject. Do you see the problem with this? I'm arguing position X. You respond by arguing against position Y, thinking you have refuted position X when you have not addressed it. It does not matter if I previously argued position Y, because I am no longer arguing it, as it's unlikely to persuade anyone without them looking into the historical record themselves. Please do not respond by talking about personal bias, that's not a factor when asking for a justification for someone's inclusion. I could be a staunch anarcho-capitalist and ask that the burden of proof for Stefan's inclusion be met. I could be a staunch anarcho-communist and ask that the burden of proof be met for Kropotkin's inclusion. This isn't a hard question to answer, and if Stefan has contributed to anarchist thought, the answer should be very easy to give. Do you have a good reason why he should be included, yes or no? If yes, than so be it, he stays. If no, then he should be removed. This applies to anyone under the persons section. It's why Howard Zinn was removed -- while he may be a noteworthy historian, he hasn't contributed enough to anarchist thought in order to be included. The same applies to Stefan, while he may be a noteworthy podcaster, if he hasn't contributed enough (if any) to anarchist thought, he doesn't belong under the peoples section. A justification for Nestor Makhno's inclusion could be asked for, and the answer is that both his writings on platformism as an anarchist tactic, as well as his actions as an anarchist during the Russian Civil War, are enough for him to be included here. If you need to, pretend that I'm a different user asking for a justification. My own views on anarchism are separate from this question. I'm not sure if there are any others ways in which I can state this, so either respond to the argument or don't respond at all. It should be clear what I'm asking for. Ross arctor (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So you don't feel the same way you did just 30 short days ago (Feb 8) when you began editing on Wikipedia (yeah, you'll have to say that, otherwise it might look like sockpuppetry, right)? Well that's great. I guess you've realized that violating wikipolicy just because you don't like something isn't what you should be doing as an editor. Wonderful. Glad to see it. And you'll note that I did, in point of fact, ask for discussion about Molyneux (which it seems you're trying to imply that I didn't). Again: your words would be better suited to someone who isn't trying to pull a fast one and play the victim. So what you're asking for has already been asked for. By me. Earlier. Which you didn't provide in your original edit summary. And which your edit summary AND your words above clearly show a non-neutral point of view from which you are editing, i.e. that anarchocapitalism shouldn't be part of anarchism (for no reason other than your say-so). You even removed anarchocapitalism from the template! THAT is entirely relevant, for it violates wikipolicy. If people hadn't been violating wikipolicy: none of this would have happened. Here ends the lesson - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you have no reasons for his inclusion. We are done here. But this statement of yours: "You even removed anarchocapitalism from the template! THAT is entirely relevant" is false. I never did this, I only ever removed Stefan Molyneux from the people section. It's not relevant to what I was asking anyway, and neither was rest of your post. Ross arctor (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So this wasn't your edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Anarchism_sidebar&oldid=594576733 . Funny: Wikipedia says it is. Remember: people can check the edit history, Ross. Lying about what you did makes people not take you seriously. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I don't remember doing that, but capitalism is unlisted in the schools of thought list, so maybe I did and I just forgot. I wasn't trying to get you to "take me seriously". Your continuing replies to me show that you already do. I genuinely don't remember doing that edit. Oh well, we can probably close the Stefan Molyneux issue, now. Ross arctor (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that Chomsky be removed from the "People" list for the same reason as Molyneux and Zinn

I approve of Stefan Molyneux and Howard Zinn being both removed from the People section on the grounds that neither has contributed anything significantly new to anarchist thought.  But, in the same line of thinking, I believe Noam Chomsky should likewise be removed from the list, whose contributions are hardly significant or new.  allixpeeke (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Odd

Even though I am a member of the anarchism task force, and have been so for years, and even though I've made edits to this template in the past, it seems I am unable to do so currently.  Odd.  allixpeeke (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Allixpeeke: the template is fully protected due to the edit warring being discussed above. Frietjes (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

To Frietjes,

Having now read the discussion above about Stefan Molyneux, I see there was indeed an edit-war issue.  In any event, it appears that editing capabilities have been restored to this template, so my above concern is now pleasantly dissipated.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I recommend adding agorism to the "Schools of thought" section

I recommend we add agorism to the Schools of thought section, as it is a revolutionary school of anarchist thought that aims to generate a left-wing market anarchist society through counter-economic activity, non-voting, and other forms of civil disobedience.  allixpeeke (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest moving counter-economics from the "Economics" section to the "Theory * Practice" section

I suggest we move counter-economics from the Economics section to the Theory * Practice section, as counter-economics is a tactic for revolutionary change.

However, I do understand that some may have good reasons to leave this particular item in the Economics section.  If you believe it really is more appropriate in the Economics section than in the Theory * Practice section, I'd be interested in hearing your arguments.

allixpeeke (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I recommend adding Lysander Spooner to the "People" section

I believe that Lysander Spooner should be added to the People list.  He had a significant influence on all of the American anarchists of the latter half of the nineteenth century (especially, but not limited to, Benjamin R. Tucker), and his influence continues to excite anarchists and other libertarians to this day.  He's the first anarchist I know of to've explicitly linked natural law theory with anarchism, and although his essay on Natural Law; or The Science of Justice was short, the brevity of the essay does nothing to diminish its thoroughness nor its impact.  It is arguably the single most important contribution to natural-law anarchism ever penned.  Spooner also was an ardent abolitionist whose works were influential amongst abolitionists both within and outside of the anarchist movement.  Further, as a lawyer and an anarchist, he was in the perfect position to condemn even the Constitution has having no ultimate legitimacy.  His contribution to anarchist thought is certainly significant enough to merit inclusion.  allixpeeke (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I recommend adding Samuel Edward Konkin III to the "People" section

I believe Samuel Edward Konkin III should be added to the People list.  He was the founder of agorism and the conceiver of counter-economic activity as a tool for revolutionary change.  He also re-envisioned the notion of the black market while introducing new concepts such as the white market, the grey market, and the red market.  allixpeeke (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I recommend re-adding mutual aid and self-ownership to the "Theory * Practice" section

I suggest re-adding both mutual aid (which can also be described as voluntary socialism) and self-ownership (which can also be described as individual sovereignty) to the Theory * Practice section.  Both had been under Theory * Practice in the past, and I see no rational reason why they oughtn't be there now.  allixpeeke (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest possibly removing Henry David Thoreau from the "People" section

While I do not believe my above suggestions are controversial, this suggestion may be.  While I deeply respect Henry David Thoreau, I'm tempted to suggest we remove him from the People list.

It's obvious that Thoreau was a libertarian, but whether his libertarianism was radical enough for him to constitute an anarchist is what I question.  While Emma Goldman accepted Thoreau as an anarchist—indeed, "the greatest American Anarchist"—, and while Thoreau famously says in his essay on Civil Disobedience that "That government is best which governs not at all," he goes on to say that he is not a "no-government m[a]n."  He writes, "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.  Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it."

One would not find it unreasonable to suspect that this approach would stagnate any movement toward anarchism.

To be clear, I'm not saying that Thoreau was objectively not an anarchist; rather, my point is that it's a little unclear and ambiguous whether he was one, and only if we find ourselves concluding that he indeed was one should he remain on the list.  (And, since I like Thoreau, I hope a reasonable argument can be made, and will be made, that this suggestion on my part ought not be made.

Best,
allixpeeke (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest possibly adding Roderick T. Long, Voltairine de Cleyre, and Wendy McElroy to the "People" section

I'm tempted to suggest we add Professor Roderick T. Long to the People list as a preeminent expositor of left-wing market anarchism.  I'm also tempted to suggest adding Voltairine de Cleyre to the People list as a preeminent expositor of anarchism without adjectives.  Finally, I am tempted to suggest adding Wendy McElroy to to the People list as a preeminent expositor of individualist feminism, which is an ideological unification of anarcha-feminism with individualist anarchism.  A book she edited titled Freedom, Feminism, and the State is a must-read for any individualist anarchist or anarcha-feminist.  allixpeeke (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Agorism" edit warring

Neither of these things receive attention from recent general works on anarchism as a whole. If the user who added these names, namely User:Knight of BAAWA, wants the inclusion of that please bring that sort of reference support. He has not done that, or has not been able to do that, and instead he has turned to mere edit warring and some accusations which have only taken place in explanations to edits. As i read the wikipedia article on Samuel Edward Konkin III he has some notoriety within the very US centered political phenomenon of "libertarianism" and he might have to be mentioned within that article or perhaps within the Libertarianism in the United States article. As far as within the anarchism article his career and written work does not seem to have received any important attention within the specifically anarchist press or literature, even in the US, so to go as far as to suggest to include him alongside the major theorists of anarchism as Kropotkin, Proudhon, Stirner or Bakunin will clearly be a huge service of misinformation towards readers if not outright dishonesty as well as a bad case of lack of a minumum of rigurosity due to a complete lack of reliable reference support.--Eduen (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please cease your edit-war against all non-collectivist forms of anarchism. It is old and tired. You have been told about this for quite a while, Eduen. Just because you hate all non-collectivist forms of anarchism doesn't mean you get to try to marginalize them, nor that you get to try to remove them from Wikipedia. Stop it. You even use scarce quotes around libertarianism here! Seriously: if you can't keep your hate to yourself, you're probably better off not making edits to any pages about things that you hate.

As for your "demand", agorism is a recent idea. So there's not going to be much in the way of historical literature about it. Would you like to have everything about anarchism prior to 1900 removed, Eduen? Because that's pretty recent, too. Wouldn't have as much about it as what was written in the 1800s, right? So please: stop turning to edit-warring against all non-collectivist forms of anarchism, Eduen. Just because you hate something doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. Stop your edit-war. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The accussation that i have something againts "non collectivist" forms of anarchism could not be more absurd. This mainly since i have been the major recent contributor to the articles on individualist anarchism, egoist anarchism and, in fact the wikipedia article on individualism while also contributing to the article on the main personality of individualist anarchism, Max Stirner while i also started the article on Left-wing market anarchism. I can think of almost 10 contemporary names which could deserve more of a mention than this Samuel Konlkin one, someone who does not even seem to have self-identified as an anarchist anyway. Still i see no good general sources on anarchism supporting the inclusion of this name. In wikipedia we work with sources and not with personal preferences or capacity to sustain edit warring. As i see it this has to go since User:Knight of BAAWA has not brought any sources supporting this.--Eduen (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not absurd at all. The only reason you haven't tried to remove individualist anarchism is that you know you'd get banned for it. Seriously: you have no leg to stand on here. Your edit history is replete with you removing anything you don't like if you think you can get away with it--even when it is properly sourced (such as Murray Rothbard and anything else to do with anarchocapitalism). So please: start working with sources and NOT your personal preferences. Stop your edit war, Eduen. Stop it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I still don´t see User:Knight of BAAWA bringing in sources to support his propositions. I guess that clearly has to go.--Eduen (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the demand for sources. Stamboliyski (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources are in the agorism article. Feel free to look into it. And end your edit-war, Eduen. End it now. Start working with sources and not your personal feelings, Eduen. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

As i read the Agorism article, the few sources that support it refer to "libertarianism", which we know in the context of the US can even mean many people inside the conservative Republican Party, and as such something very non anarchist. Not a single one refers it to "anarchism". But even just a mention in any anarchist source is not good on itself but it should be in a source which deals with anarchism in general, something like a history of anarchism or a despcription of anarchism as a political philosophy. In the case of Samuel Konkin, in the "agorism" article there is not even a source coming from an explicit anarchist focused position of analysis. But not just that. That article can even be accused of trying to present something inside the writings of a particular author as some sort of liberal school of thought when it is hard to see, at least from the article itself, that it has inspired some sort of movement or tendency at all. But now that article is even asking for someone to translate things from the agorism article in italian to the english article (!) even though Konkin is from Canada. All this clearly does not belong at all inside an anarchist template but on itself it calls attention to the weakness of that article as an article of liberal economics.--Eduen (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As it is visible here, User Knight of BAAWA has not been able to bring any support for his proposals for this template and has not answered to what i just wrote as far as the highly questionable "agorism" article he defends. That article might not even have enough support for what is suggested there and, for the purposes of this article, it does not have any support that it is relevant to anarchism at all. Since he did not bring that, i proceeded to take out his proposals from the template after waiting almost a week for him to bring the reference support. User Knight of BAAWA was also asked for that reference support by another user besides me as can be seen above but he was never able to bring anything. He just proceeded to revert that and engage in mere edit warring. For anyone interested on how that user has proceeded to edit in this article, that person can check the sorts of responses he gives when asked for sources and not being able to provide them.--Eduen (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the above analysis. No sources have been provided, as requested, and I don't really see any connection between "agorism" and "anarchism" other than that some blogging individuals have expressed support for both online. Stamboliyski (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Two votes againts one.--Eduen (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Knight of BAAWA still has not brought out any sources or been able to respond to some arguments here. He has proceeded yet again to continue an edit war even though he has two users againts him in his position now and even though he is proposing the additions. Logically he did not raise any consensus for them and so they have to go.--Eduen (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Knight of BAAWA pretends that this is about "excluding" something i don´t agree with. As anyone can see in the above comments by myself, my main argument here has been that User:Knight of BAAWA has to bring good reliable sources to support the inclusion of these two additions he proposes. In this template our call is to include names which have either made a strong lasting impact in anarchism, whether as activists or as theorists. Samuel Konkin cannot even be said to be a part of anarchism and so logically he is not mentioned in important general works of anarchism. He does not even seem to have self-identifed as an anarchist. He belongs to the very US centered and specific political subculture of "libertarianism" which includes many people who belong to the Republican party which we know is a conservative party. So all of this clearly makes it absurd in order to mention him alongside people like Proudhon, Kropotkin, Malatesta or Goldman as the main personalities of anarchism. User:Knight of BAAWA is the person who proposed adding "agorism" and Samuel Konkin in this template. Of 3 users here discussing these proposals, he is the only one who supports it. Clearly he has not gained consensus on this and so he has been able to keep these things here only through edit warring.--Eduen (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And so it continues. Stamboliyski (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Knight of BAAWA´s edit warring has now achieved a new level towards the worst.--Eduen (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh? You're the one removing anything you can that you hate, Eduen. YOU are the one edit-warring, not me. And it was 2 for and 2 against. Check the suggestion, Eduen. That is a for. Ergo: 2 for and 2 against. Tie goes to inclusion. So sorry, Eduen. Guess you'll have to bring in some of your I-don't-know-what-capitalism-is-but-I-hate-it-because-my-Marxist-professors-hate-it buddies to break the tie. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, there is no consensus for your edits. Even if we count the above user, it is - as you say - a tie. No consensus in support of agorism's inclusion. You rampantly ignoring the sourcing question isn't helping. Stamboliyski (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Knight of BAAWA has only been able to articulate here the view that i have some kind of obscure "hate" agenda. As far as the actual forms of supporting proposals within wikipedia he has not been able to bring sources which support that Samuel Konkin is a very relevant or important name in current anarchism so as to deserve a mention in this template above other names. Details of the more intricate problematics of this can be seen by anyone in the above discussions which he has not been able to respond or which he has not wanted to respond to. And so he has not been able to gain consensus for his proposals while he continues to reach higher levels of irrationality and anger as his last comment in this talk section shows. He has only been able to bring back his proposals which have been taken out by two users who have evaluated that he never gained consensus for them here, through edit warring. I will think that he deserves some sort of administrative blocking of his editions in this article since he is not following at all wikipedia procedure as far as consensus.--Eduen (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sad that it had to go as far as locking the page. At least now it'll end. Stamboliyski (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Eduen's edit-war against anything he hates won't end until he is blocked. Check out his edit history. For some examples, he tried to remove the entire anarchocapitalism section from the anarchism article. He conveniently "forgot" to add back in the section about anarchocapitalism when he "undid" an edit in contemporary anarchism. He's removed Murray Rothbard from this template for no reason other than his hatred. He always uses scarce quotes around anarchocapitalism when he discusses it. HE is the one pursuing the edit war. And it's time he was shown that such behavior will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Further, it's clear that he brought no valid sources for his most recent addition, since he denied that my reference to the Konkin and agorism articles were sufficient. Eduen clearly has a double-standard, and again: that should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I couldn't give a damn about Eduen. They are not relevant to this issue, this issue of you trying to push a unsourced POV without consensus, and without engaging in discussion. Stamboliyski (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. Eduen is the one pushing his POV without consensus and without discussion. So yes: his actions and past are relevant to the discussion--whether or not you like it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 March 2015

Please add Free-market anarchism to the template. --Moosh88 (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Moosh88 (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. This way it will be very clear to the responding administrator exactly where and how you want the link added. Also, if appropriate, please provide a link to any discussions relevant to the adding of this link. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 March 2015

Hey, can edit out "Anarcho"-Capitalism, because it may confuse people and cause them to mistake "Anarcho"-Capitalism, Voluntaryism (or Volutarism), Propertarianism, Agorism, and even Right-Wing "Libertarianism" as real, true forms of Anarchism/Libertarianism and as real, true Schools of thought within Anarchism (or Libertarianism), when in fact, they really are NOT. MalcolmTron (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@MalcolmTron: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"Anarcho-Capitalism" should be removed from Schools of Thought

From Wikipedia:Notability: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

"Anarcho-capitalism" consists solely of contemporary theory. Adherents to the ideology have no history, no individuals who are notable outside of this field, and no contemporary presence in the real world.

In contrast, anti-capitalist Anarchism (henceforth referred to as "Anarchism") has a continuous tradition and has been historically very noteworthy, including strong and direct influence on several early 20th-century wars and social movements, adherents who have been cited frequently outside of purely-Anarchist subculture, lengthy Encyclopaedia entries, and organizations and projects which continue to generate news through the current day.

More importantly for our purposes, "Anarcho-capitalism" does not have any real connection to Anarchism in history or membership; and the only theoretical connection is etymological (which is, in my opinion, being generous); and the consensus among the Anarchist mainstream is that capitalism does not have anything to do with Anarchism. One needs only look through the lists in the other sections of this portal to see that "Anarcho-capitalism" is not part of Anarchism: Where is it in Practice, People (other than Rothbard, whose inclusion is also highly questionable), History (particularly!), Culture, Economics, Lists, or Related Topics? Its only other mention in the sidebar is, appropriately, under Issues.

For these reasons, "Anarcho-capitalism" should be eliminated from the Schools of thought section of this sidebar. It is sufficient that it be included in the category of Libertarianism, with which it has a great deal of similarity and historical and theoretical overlap; and it is generous that it be included under Issues on this sidebar. If it can be shown, with an extraordinary amount of evidence, that "Anarcho-capitalism" is indeed compatible with 'other' Anarchist tendencies, then and only then would it be appropriate to include it as a legitimate school of thought.

I do not apologize for the reversion war with User:Knight of BAAWA as I consider the inclusion of "Anarcho-capitalism" to be vandalism. S/he clearly has an ideological axe to grind and their claims of neutrality are laughable. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

That's really nice, but it's been decided already by the sources: it's a form of anarchism. And you will be running afoul of the rules if you continue with your No True Scotsman bend. Your ideological axe needs to be put away.

Now I realize the usual pack of haters will try to dogpile on here just so they can attempt to marginalize something they hate (which shows they don't edit in good faith), but none of that matters in the face of the sources. So rage against your own misconceptions, misunderstanding, and impotence: you won't get anywhere. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

What "sources"? 24.197.253.43 (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Try reading the sources provided on the main anarchism article, and in the anarcho-capitalism article. Do your research first before you try something which has been tried many times--and failed each time. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If these sources are so easy to find, it should not be difficult for you to identify exactly which ones you say are compelling. The burden of proof is with the person trying to make the positive claim, which is you.24.197.253.43 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This "No True Scotsman" argument is nonsense. Is a person who was born in Italy, speaks Italian, and later moved to Spain and died there a Scotsman just because he drank Whisky? Clearly not; but that is what you are trying to claim. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof here in Wikipedia is on the person going against the consensus. And the No True Scotsman and now strawman that you're using is clearly not going to work. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

What consensus? Look at how many times this has been fought over. You are basically the only person white knighting this. Your argument here amounts to "No, you"- WHY does the "No True Scotsman" argument (as you call it) not work? What about "Anarcho-capitalism" qualifies it to be considered part of Anarchism? If this is so important to you, put in the work. State exactly what sources you're referring to, and make a better argument for why a thought experiment which exists only on the Internet and in ideological writings be counted alongside traditions which have a 150+-year-old history, millions of adherents through history, widespread acknowledgement as an important political philosophy and movement, and adherents who are influential beyond their ideological subculture. So far your only argument is "Obviously it does," 'nuh uh,' and "Stop hating." 24.197.253.43 (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It's been fought over because people like you want to push your narrow POV in violation of Wikipolicy, that's why. What qualifies anarchocapitalism to be considered part of anarchism? It is anarchist! No government, period. That's ALL that is required. Not anti-capitalism. Not "socialism". Just no government. Period. Just because you want to blatantly push your narrow POV (which involves a No True Scotsman and argument from antiquity) doesn't mean they aren't. Please stop violating Wikipolicy just because you have some axe to grind. So far, your argument is "I don't like it because I want anarchists to only be anti-capitalist", which is like saying "I don't consider protestants to be christian, because only catholics can be christian, and they came first." Yeah, it's really like that. So please: end your hate. If you want to improve this template, you are of course welcome to. All are; that's what Wikipedia is for. But what is isn't for is to have people like you with an axe to grind to marginalize anything you don't like just because you don't like it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you would say something like "So far, your argument is "I don't like it because I want anarchists to only be anti-capitalist"" should be proof enough that you are not arguing with anything resembling good faith. I, and others, have made many other arguments, and several extremely reasonable requests for you to explain why your pet philosophy deserves inclusion, and you have done nothing but refuse, dodge, make ridiculous accusations, and make accusations of fallacies of which you are yourself guilty.

I am not arguing that protestantism should not be included in christianity. I'm arguing that the Branch Davidians should not be included as a denomination in the Christianity sidebar. As indeed it isn't. And neither should "Anarcho-capitalism" (nor "National Anarchism", and there are probably several others which do not pass muster- such as Black (not because it's not Anarchism, but because it's not particularly notable), Existentialist (the linked article suggests the term is mostly conjectural), Infoanarchism, Naturism (possibly; it doesn't really exist now but it has some historic notability), and Vegan) be included among Anarchist schools of thought in this sidebar. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You are arguing the same logically as "protestants can't be christians because catholics came first". Please stop it. The fact that you consider anarchocapitalism in the template as vandalism shows that you don't edit in good faith. You will not get anywhere. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, I am not arguing that "protestants can't be christians because catholics came first" but "Branch Davidianism should not be included in the Christianity sidebar because it is not sufficiently notable". There is no evidence that "Anarcho-capitalism" has any notability or real-world existence outside of theory. I even did your work for you and looked at the 'sources' in those articles, and they consist entirely of debate of whether or not "Anarcho-capitalism" counts as a branch of Anarchism. That qualifies it to be mentioned under "Issues" on this sidebar- not "Schools of thought". If you cannot come up with a better argument then I am going to make the edit again. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You are arguing that because "anarchists" were "originally anti-capitalist" it must always be that way. Argument from antiquity. And you can make the edit again if you want. But it will be reverted. Because there is enough precedent, sources, and notability of anarchocapitalism to do so. By the way: your usage of scarce-quotes shows that you aren't editing in good faith. Same with your statement that including anarchocapitalism here is vandalism. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say that anarchists were "originally anti-capitalist" and that is not the argument I'm making as to why "Anarcho-capitalism" should not be part of this section. You are a pro-"Anarcho-capitalism" ideologue and you cannot claim any high ground regarding motivation. I'm through with your misrepresentations and empty assertions. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

""Anarcho-capitalism" consists solely of contemporary theory. Adherents to the ideology have no history, no individuals who are notable outside of this field, and no contemporary presence in the real world. In contrast, anti-capitalist Anarchism (henceforth referred to as "Anarchism") has a continuous tradition and has been historically very noteworthy, including strong and direct influence on several early 20th-century wars and social movements, adherents who have been cited frequently outside of purely-Anarchist subculture, lengthy Encyclopaedia entries, and organizations and projects which continue to generate news through the current day. More importantly for our purposes, "Anarcho-capitalism" does not have any real connection to Anarchism in history or membership;" Those are your words. The upshot is that you believe that anarchists were originally anti-capitalist. Perhaps you're unaware that people can go back and read what you wrote before. And perhaps you're unaware that a lot of people can and do comprehend English. You're misrepresenting your own words now, dude. And that's sad. You'll probably get blocked soon due to your ideological axe-grinding causing you to violate 3RR. Oh well. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That's an extremely creative interpretation of what I said. I was contrasting the contents of the Schools of Thought section, which should have been made more clear by my later note of several other pages which should also be removed from that section of the sidebar. If you can show that "Anarcho-capitalism" is comparable in real-world influence to tendencies such as Syndicalism, Collectivism, Egoism, etc, then you might have an argument. As it is, you are giving your pet topic undue weight. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No, that's what you wrote. I quoted you. Further, you are violating NPOV. And undue weight does not apply. I realize that you're now trying to get the ops to do what you can't. But rest assured that your ideological axe-grinding will be noted via your own words. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

"undue weight does not apply"- Explain why not. Make an argument. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You have to explain the reason it does. Make a *real* argument, not just your scarce-quote-using, argument-from-antiquity-using, NPOV-violating (where you call the inclusion of anarchocapitalism "vandalism") stance. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

"Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources" "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." As I have repeatedly shown, the preponderance of Anarchism in terms of real-world presence is such that "Anarcho-capitalism" is vanishingly small and therefore it makes no sense to put it, as well as several other aforementioned tendencies, in a spot as prominent as the first entry of the sidebar. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You've shown nothing of the sort, though. What you have provided is a combination of argument from antiquity and hatred (calling the inclusion "vandalism"). What the sources in the anarchism and anarchocapitalism article shown is that it is a valid school of thought. And that's that. Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, 24.197.253.43, but you seriously misunderstand Wikipedia's notability guideline. Its purpose it solely to establish whether a subject is significant enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. The matter has been discussed in the past, and the overwhelming consensus is that "anarcho-capitalism" is notable. If you're going to argue against its inclusion in this template—a losing battle, in my opinion—you're going to have to try some other line of attack. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I find the arguments made in the linked discussion to be extremely weak. For example the Journal of Libertarian Studies is simply theorists talking to other theorists. It would be like including Star Trek fanfics in the Quantum Mechanics sidebar. So far nobody has explained how the ideology has any serious significance at all in the real world. Note that I am not arguing that the Anarcho-capitalism page be deleted entirely; just that it is not notable enough to be included in something as prominent as the Anarchism sidebar.24.197.253.43 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is certainly notable enough for its article and, even if a pretty obscure school, would arguably be significant enough to be listed here – but only if we accept it is a type of anarchism. Despite the claim above that the "sources" have "decided" on this point, actually there's a lot of dispute about it. Third party literature often excludes it, and even Rothbard disowned the connection at one point I believe. And also, as ever, "hate" has nothing to do with it. If anything, advocacy for anarcho-capitalism seems to be the problem here that is muddying the waters rather than opposition to it. Honestly, I for one don't care that much. N-HH talk/edits 17:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I support taking out of this template the strange idead called "anarcho-capitalism". Even if it is notable the consensus on general works on anarchism is to not mention it and if it is mentioned it tends to be denounced as a form of right wing politics which cannot be said to be a form of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism clearly has a place within the ideological spectrum and it is as a radical form of economic liberalism and of right wing politics. Also perhaps of the very US centered form of politics known as "libertarianism". There are other bizarre combinations of ideologies which do not get accepted in major works on ideologies. For example some people in Russia are proposing a combination of nazism and leninist communism called "national bolchevism" but that thing does not get mentioned in major works on socialism and communism. As such "national bolchevism" does not get mentioned in any work on socialism because it is mostly an idea very unorthodox to the point of being something akin to propose a satanist christianism or a catholic lutheranism. As such it sounds almost like a joke or a hoax. But also because the small amount of followers in it mostly exist within fascist spaces. Something similar happens with "anarcho-capitalism". It does not have any significant encounter with the rest of anarchism and it mostly just exists in the US within the right wing milieu of politics alongside conservatism. --Eduen (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal/compromise

How about keeping it, but moving it to the "related topics" section rather than retaining it as a confirmed anarchist "school of thought"? Also, on the related issue of "National Anarchism", I support removing that altogether. While anarcho-capitalism has some purchase as an ideology, at least in the US, and undoubtedly has links to anarchism proper, that seems to be just an utterly fringe far-right thing which no connection whatsoever to anarchism as commonly understood. N-HH talk/edits 09:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Anarchocapitalism is a confirmed anarchist school of thought despite what the haters, e.g. those like Eduen who use scarce-quotes, want to believe. It belongs in the list of schools of thought. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This is what I propose; and indeed it is already there under "Issues". 24.197.253.43 (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is only a 'confirmed' school of anarchist thought by its own adherents. No sources that discuss anarchism in general refer to it as a legitimate branch of anarchism other than perhaps to dismiss it. I agree it does belong in the 'issues' section, but not as a coherent school of anarchist thought. Knight of BAAWA apparently wants to promote Ancap-ism since it seems to be a topic of interest to them, but that does not increase its status as being a notable branch of anarchist thought. Interrexconsul (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

So the Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought dismisses it? Hmmmm. No. Or its Encyclopedia of Political Thought? Nope. Please don't just make up things when we can find the sources which show that you're wrong. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You really seem to have a heavy emotional investment in this issue. I'm not sure if the attitude you're looking at this with is constructive. And I never contended that the sources you list dismiss it as an ideology, merely that they don't align its belief system with anarchism as a whole. Lastly, nobody can be right or "wrong" as you described in as far as what ideology is part of a school of thought. You are clearly coming at this with a biased POV. Interrexconsul (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Knight of BAAWA; there is no reason to remove anarcho-capitalism from the template simply to satisfy those who dislike or disagree with it being characterized as a form of anarchism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I feel strongly that the template should include a link to Anarcho-capitalism, and I don't particularly like the idea that new or unpopular anarchist movements should be kicked off the template or moved to another section. What's next: should we debate whether one can be an anarchist and follow a religion (bye, bye, Christian anarchism) or whether former black nationalists can really be anarchists (bye, bye, Black anarchism). I look forward to the bloodletting. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that there is more to it than 'unpopularity', while Anarcho-capitalism is undoubtedly that amongst anarchists, the relevant issue is that the only group that purports it to be an actual school of anarchist thought are an-caps, not outside scholarly sources. It can certainly be linked as a relevant issue, but to include it as being a school of thought would be akin to include National Socialism as being a school of thought of Socialism simply because retains the same part of the name and it supports a strong centralized state. Anyone educated about the two philosophies would agree that while the two do share a handful of traits in the broadest of strokes, to claim they are related ideologies would be silly. The same goes for anarcho-capitalism and anarchism. While anarchism and anarcho-capitalism both share the trait of wanting to dissolve/minimize the state, the similarities end there. Anarchists of every other stripe believe in dissolving hierarchies and private property, while anarcho-capitalists believe in one or both of the two (depending on whose interpretation to which you subscribe). The philosophies simply aren't particularly related other than the controversy over whether they are. Interrexconsul (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The problems with anarcho-capitalism and "national anarchism", the latter especially, are more fundamental than people not liking them or being "new". This is a debate about classification, not about the – to be frank, slightly odd-sounding – refrain about "hate" that keeps coming up (for info, you're not doing a very good job of selling anarcho-capitalism). People can assert on WP talk pages that ancap is definitively anarchism, but that is simply not what the record says. Yes, it is sometimes bracketed with it, but there is always nuance or even uncertainty and disagreement on the point, and WP needs to reflect that. Even the Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, mentioned above in favour of the ancap-as-anarchism claim but not actually quoted from, describes it as "a tendency in the libertarian New Right", which as it happens is also "largely confined to the US" with "minimal" influence. Other sources are cited in this section of the ancap page, including Peter Marshall's A History of Anarchism – described by one newspaper reviewer as "the most comprehensive account of anarchist thought ever undertaken" – which has a small chapter on it but concludes that "few anarchists" would accept anarcho-capitalists as anarchists and that they might "best be called right-wing libertartians rather than anarchists". Even Murray Rothbard himself is quoted in that section disavowing the anarchist label, saying, per this piece: "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical". Also, @FreeKnowledgeCreator, the point of the proposal or compromise – hence why I described it in those terms – was not to remove it from the template but, as I explicitly said, to retain it but move it. N-HH talk/edits 08:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)