Template talk:Anarchism sidebar

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)

Rather it is those who hate anarchocapitalism who are emotionally invested; I'm simply trying to help keep them from editing in bad faith and marginalizing a valid school of anarchism. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:33, 13 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)

Yes, we get into No True Scotsman if we kick out the "unpopular". The decision was made long ago to embrace all the forms of anarchism--and that is a decision I agree with. Wikipedia isn't about popularity; it's about verifiability, facts, and vetted sources. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I have been editing anarchism related articles for some years now and i don´t know what decision to "embraces all forms of anarchism" user Knight of BAAWA is talking about. It seems from what i read here that there is no consensus to keep anarchocapitalism in the schools of thought section of this template. I already gave my reasons before for not incluiding that thing here.--Eduen (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

So you never saw this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Anarchism_sidebar/Archive_1#anarcho-capitalism ? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Couldn't be bothered to check the archives? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm? And that's just ONE example, Eduen. Just one example. All one has to do is check the archives for this page and the main anarchism page. Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarchism/Archive_51#anarcho-capitalism . Seriously: you couldn't be bothered to check the archives? Really? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you read your own citations? Those archives clearly show consensus against including it. -24.197.253.43 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.49.1.3 (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No, they actually don't. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I filed this for dispute resolution two days ago, but it was closed for what appears to be reasons of improper paperwork. Should I refile; and if so would someone be so kind as to explain what I did improperly? 24.197.253.43 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The "dispute" is being resolved here. With discourse. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I would contend that it is not. You seem intent to promote your own ideology rather than to examine whether or not it is of significant relevance to the core thought of anarchism to include in 'schools of thought'. Furthermore, you misunderstand the concept of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy and incessantly repeat it as if it is an "I win" card in any debate. I agree that the sources you cite do in fact contain a description of anarchism, but neither they nor the overwhelming body of evidence, as shown by N-HH, agree that anarcho-capitalism is a school of thought of anarchism as a whole. Most sources instead label it as being a branch of Libertarianism. Interrexconsul (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

But the body of evidence DOES show that anarchocapitalism is a school of thought of anarchism. That there are people with an ideological axe to grind (such as yourself and Eduen) matters little to sources, verifiability, and wikipolicy. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems we have no consensus for keeping "anarcho-capitalism" in this template. My reasons were given here before.--Eduen (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

We do have a consensus: the history of the discussion on the schools of thought shows that we don't just kick things out of the tree because we have some ideological axe to grind, Eduen. End your hate and edit war against anarchocapitalism. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I would hardly call an ideology that neither anarchists themselves, nor scholars who study the topic, describe as a type of anrachism a school of thought. If anyone here has an ideological ax to grind it is certainly you. Furthermore, regardless of whether or not the previous statement is true, how has anarcho-capitalism affected historical events? How has it as a philosophy affected the outside world? As far most modern (Non ancap) observers can tell it is a purely internet-based ideology that has had little to no effect on real world events. So really Anarcho-capitalism needs to prove both its notability and relevancy to anarchism as a whole. Interrexconsul (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This thing is being kept here now only by the force of Knight of BAAWA´s edit warring. He is the only one here who things we have to keep the bizarre radical right wing ideology called "anarcho" capitalism in this template. Wikipedia works through a consensus procedure and clearly the consensus here is not towards keeping anarchocapitalism in schools of thought as anyone can see in this talk section. Taking a vote here we have 4 users who do not think anarcho-capitalism is well supported by sources as a "school of thought" within anarchism againts one. --Eduen (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work on majority vote. -24.197.253.43 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.49.1.3 (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No, but it also doesn't exist to promote a single crusading user's ideology either. Knight of BAWA has repeatedly shown they are not willing to come to any sort of agreement and that they will simply continue to call those who disagree with them 'haters'. Outside of that single user there is not significant disagreement on this issue. Interrexconsul (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

And yet the hatred is clear, e.g. the calling of the inclusion of anarchocapitalism here "vandalism" and the use of scarce-quotes. Please don't play the victim when you clearly don't deserve to. I have provided links to two of the instances of discussion of anarchocapitalism--one from the archives of this page and one from the anarchism page--where it was talked about not kicking things out of the tree and being inclusive (and those are just two of many where it was decided as such). THAT is what Wikipedia is for. What it is NOT is a soapbox for the haters to marginalize whatever they hate. Nor for them to carry out a decade-long edit-war against anarchocapitalism. It's clear that people like Eduen won't rest until it is purged and thrown into a memory hole. That is not editing in good faith.

Now then, as mentioned above: Wikipedia does not operate by majority vote. And it's amusing that self-professed "anarchist" (such as Eduen) would want to vote on anything, really! That smacks of heirarchy (shockhorrorshock).

The haters have piled on, as I predicted. Please: just stop trying to push your hate via a narrow POV, guys. It's not constructive, and not good for Wikipedia. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

We heard you the first 600 times. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)