This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Anarcho-capitalism was featured as the Anarchism portalselected article for March 2007.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved.
The "Private Property" section is slanted toward Rothbard. It neglects the consequentialist view of the topic - namely that markets dictate property distributions and assure order. JLMadrigal@ 12:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I still see no reason for it to be there other than to appease those who want there to be a government so that there isn't an edit-war. And that is not a valid reason for that sentence to be there. Unless a valid reason for it to be there is given, it should be removed--regardless of wanting to appease those who want there to be a government just so they won't engage in an edit-war to hijack this article. And if no valid reason is forthcoming: it will be removed. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Insults and ultimatums aren't appropriate on Wikipedia. "That sentence in the lede" situates anarcho-capitalism appropriately within the family tree of libertarianism, establishing context and noting prominent controversies (per WP:LEAD). Let us not also forget that this addition was the result of a RfC. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
What insults? And no--that addition was not the result of an RfC; it was the result of you holding the page hostage to your demands by your engaging in an edit-war. THAT is not allowable here in Wikipedia. Nor does that sentence have any appropriateness in the article per WP:LEAD. It needs to be removed. And without any valid support--it will be. THAT is how Wikipedia works. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It has been three weeks, and the only complaint is from the one who held this article hostage to his demands in order to hijack it for his own desires. That being the case, the sentence shall be removed, since his desire to own the article is in clear violation of Wikipedia principles and rules. Further, it the other "anarcho-" articles are any template (and they are), anarchocapitalism appears to be the only one with such a sentence. No reason for that; time to bring it in line with the other articles.
And yes: the one who wants to own the page will be reported for his attempt to own the article again when he engages in an edit-war to put back that which does not belong. He will not be permitted to own the article. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Your ridiculous bravado is amusing, but ineffectual. The reason anarcho-capitalism is the only article displaying the most prominent controversy in anarchism is because every other anarchist current is anti-capitalist, and therefore "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice". (Marshall p. 565) It's Wikipedia policy to make prominent controversies known and give due weight. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not the reason at all. You have made it clear that you want to marginalize anarchocapitalism in any possible way you can (in violation of Wikipedia policy), and have decided to own the anarchocapitalism article as a result (in violation of Wikipedia policy). Due weight? False. No other "anarcho-" article has such a sentence. I am simply bringing the article in line with them. Should you not like it I suggest you edit the other "anarcho-" articles with such a sentence. Otherwise: you are simply violating Wikipedia policy. And you will be reported for it. I am tired of your game. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You have apparently lost track of the larger picture in your wish to promote an-cap magical goodness to the world. The larger picture is that everybody else thinks it's ridiculously impractical, full of internal contradictions, terribly antisocial, and without a chance in hell of being widely implemented. The article must at least let the reader know that negative opinions exist. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You really don't understand WP:DUE WEIGHT, do you? "[Articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint] should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. ... In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."
If you feel the need to report me, go ahead. I have done nothing in violation of Wikipedia policy, and I won't be intimidated by your vacant threats. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The instructions for the process can be found at WP:FAR.
The FAR was initiated on July 29, 2014, and remained in the two to three-week review phase until 14 September.
The article moved to the Featured Article Candidate Removal (FARC) phase (typically lasting two to three weeks) on 14 September, where it remained for another three months before the article was delisted.
Every editor significantly involved in the article was notified on user talk (see notifications at the top of the FAR page).
The FAR Coordinator, Nikkimaria delisted the article on December 16, and because the bot which processes FAR closings is no longer operating, I did the final steps (updating articlehistory and removing the star) manually. I hope this clears up any questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I was never notified that the article had been moved to "Featured article removal candidate (FARC)" status. When was notification given? JLMadrigal@ 05:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
You (and every other significant contributor to the article) were notified when the FAR was opened; you commented at the page after the article was moved to the FARC phase.  Individual notification of FAR to FARC is not given; it is presumed at that stage that involved parties are watchlisting the FAR (as you apparently were). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
All issues regarding delisting were promptly resolved three months ago - within 24 hours after they were presented. Only four days before the article was delisted were new issues presented.  Smells like stealth to me. JLMadrigal@ 12:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yep--stealth on the part of those who want there to be a government. There was no consensus to delist. It needs to be IMMEDIATELY reinstated or action will be taken. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
"All issues regarding delisting were promptly resolved three months ago" ... Not true... :/ Shii(tock) 19:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The article can be relisted FA by nominating it at WP:FAC.
As to whether the action was "stealth on the part of those who want there to be a government", readers might note that I was a supporter of the article in its 2006 FAR (which btw is the only FAR I'm aware of in eight years that saw editors arguing after the close that it was wrongly Kept).
Submitting the article to FAC is the route to relisting it as a Featured article, but as a four-year former FAC delegate, I would suggest that it will be quickly denied status until/unless the issues relative to FA standards that caused its delisting be addressed first:
There is a good deal of uncited text.
There is a tagged section and multiple tags in the article (more needed, but I'm not going to tag bomb since it appears no one is working to correct those issues).
Evaluate whether any of the lengthy quotes can be re-expressed in Wikipedia's own words.
There is considerable Manual of style cleanup needed, including section headings (WP:MSH), WP:PUNC placement relative to quotes, WP:FN placement, WP:CAPTION (puncutation), inconsistent use of Em and En-dashes, and more
There is a lengthy See also section (when an article is comprehensive, most See alsos will have been worked into the text)
Further reading needs pruning
Citations are incomplete and inconsistent.
That provides a list of things to work on without even analyzing the quality of the sources or prose, which will be scrutinized at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
No, it can be relisted immediately, since the unilateral delisting without consensus clearly was wrong. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
It's unclear what your intended meaning of "unilateral delisting" is; see the instructions at WP:FAR:
"The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly."
In the many (overly generous IMO) months that the article remained at FAR, the issues were not corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not unclear what the meaning of "unilateral delisting" is, especially when taken with "without consensus". There. Was. No. Consensus. To. Delist. Ergo. The. Delisting. Was. Unilateral. Period. End of story. How this is difficult to grasp is beyond me. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, EVERY issue that elicited a "delist" during the FARC phase (that is, under the "FARC" heading in the talk page when it was typed in - since that action seems to be all that is required to convert it to this phase), was resolved - until four days before the entire article was delisted. That can hardly be considered "generous".
Furthermore, Binksternet, who initiated the review process, promised "...to more closely identify problems, and to rectify them. The first part of the process is to compare the present version of the article to past versions, to see what might current text might be changed or deleted, and to see what past text might be restored in some form. The second part of the process is to look at modern writings on the topic and see how the article can be changed to better reflect the literature."
It has become glaringly apparent (as I had suspected from the beginning) that his intention has always been to see to it that featured status was removed, rather than tune the article as he claimed. JLMadrigal@ 21:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The article does not satisfy the FA criteria. There are substantial sections that are not cited to a reliable source, numerous WP:MOS breaches, inconsistent citation styles and a host of other issues. Rather than whinge about its delisting, why not improve the article? As it stands, it would not have a snowball’s chance in hell for promotion at WP:FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with the user immediately above this post - I'm not a frequent editor of this article, but am interested in libertarianism and have also become cognizant recently that the bar for FA has increased significantly since 2005. There are a lot of fundamental issues with this article, and while it would be great to see this be FA again, the goal should be first and foremost to improve the article. The bullet points above cover the issues at a very fundamental level, and once those are addressed, a peer review will likely be in order. My recommendation is to address the points above, receive a peer review, obtain GA status, then FA. But I must regrettably concur with the previous poster that the current article would not stand a chance if taken directly to FAC as is. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment – I agree with Graham—and I would have made the same decision in Nikkimaria's place. Once the article moved to FARC, legitimate summary concerns were listed and went unaddressed. Shii posted concerns here on 29 September and DrKiernan posted concerns here on 11 December. So, I don't think it's accurate to argue that concerns were posted suddenly at the end and the closing was unilateral. --Laser brain(talk) 14:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
And yet there was no consensus. Ergo, unilateral delisting. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The FARC process does not require full consensus for delisting. Rather, a strong consensus is needed if the article is to keep its FA status, so you have it backward. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)