Talk:Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 1, 2006 Articles for deletion No consensus
March 25, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept

Diamond-caution.svg

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

Note to editors:

  • Please keep your edits concise. Ie, do not overload the page. (eg. "anarcho-capitalism is individualist anarchism" section.)
  • Please do not spam sources promoting one view. (eg. "list of sources saying anarcho-capitalism is individualist anarchism".)
  • Try to Write for the enemy. (eg. do not write sections which wholly argue for the pro-ancap view.)

(This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

"Philosopher" Brad Spangler should be removed[edit]

http://c4ss.org/content/35256 http://christophercantwell.com/2015/01/23/brad-spangler-lefty-kid-toucher/ https://www.facebook.com/BradSpanglerMemes http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2015/01/23/brad-spangler-statement-by-thomas-knapp/ http://www.classicalite.com/articles/15493/20150123/kansas-city-libertarian-activist-confesses-child-molestation-according-facebook-post.htm http://www.davidmcelroy.org/?p=20441 http://www.tonyskansascity.com/2015/01/shame-kansas-city-area-cop-block-dude.html 66.87.75.189 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As Thomas Knapp wrote this morning, "The content he wrote ... either had value or it didn't. If it did have value, it still does .... If it doesn't have value, it never did ...." —Tamfang (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, you keep this guy quoted in your article then: https://youtube.com/watch?v=UbyZH-H79GE His ideas are obviously brilliant, and he suffers no IQ deficit whatsoever. Keep playing the Chris Hansen game; stay classy. 66.87.73.187 (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Above and beyond what I'm quoted as saying on the matter above (not in reference to Wikipedia), I find the whole notion pretty bizarre. I just went to check, and the Wikipedia article on Bill Clinton is still there, even though he was accused of some pretty creepy stuff. The notability of Brad Spangler and the cited material in this article are not dependent on whether or not he may have committed a crime. He and his work are either notable or they are not notable. Thomas L. Knapp (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Certainly, his work is not notable. He didn't only molest his own daughter, to his own admission. The children in the home he was staying in are his most recent accusers. I'll investigate the history of article and determine whether he added his own references. 72.214.170.197 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thomas Knapp — your logic is faulty and your analogy is severely wanting. Bill Clinton was not an active child sex offender, or else his wikipedia page would obviously admit as much. Or are you saying that since Brad is quoted here he needs a Wikipedia page of his own to document him as a child molester and treasured anarcho-capitalist theorist? 66.87.73.187 (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
What I am saying is that either Spangler (and/or the quoted content) is notable or it isn't, and that whether or not it's notable has absolutely, positively, nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not he's a child molester. If you find out tomorrow that Albert Einstein was a child molester, will you be over at the Wikipedia article on physics urging the removal of the Special Theory of Relativity? Thomas L. Knapp (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the removal of Brad Spangler's comments.[1] Regardless of his legal troubles, they have no bearing on whether he is a reliable source for a particular viewpoint. If you wish to dispute whether Spangler is a reliable source, then do so here or at WP:RSN basing arguments in how he does not fill the criteria at WP:SPS. —Farix (t | c) 15:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)