Template talk:Anarchism sidebar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Start of Anarchism Page

I think whoever is posting the "anarchism is a part of socialism", and is related to Spain, blah blah, etc, and also based on the writtings of Tucker, Bakunin, etc, should stop.

Firstly, I don't think that all anarchists are into being included within the "socialist" movement, that's a very big assumption to make. Also, I also don't think that we should simply write anarchism off as simply a political/social/economic idea that is based around two historicial events, and 5 dead white guys.

Please move post this comment on the anarchism talk page.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 22:32, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Horizontalism

Hehe, no, seriously, can we please put this template back on the sides? It looked so much sweeter there.--Che y Marijuana 17:58, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Looked at the last vertical edition and i must say that i like the footer version more... but that is just an aesthetic pov, i won't mind if the orientation changes. Beta m (talk)

Libertarian Socialism

While it is true that Anarchism is only a part of Libertarian Socialism, it also goes back the other way (Libertarian Socialism being only a part of Anarchism). The suggestion that the Anarchist movement is only a submovement of a larter lib socialist one is rediculous. Beta m (talk)

Wrong. Libertarian Marxism is a form of libertarian socialism too, so to call libsoc a school of Anarchism is incorrect. As for Anarcho-communism and Individualist anarchism, they are *also* forms of libertarian socialism. All anarchism is socialist.--Che y Marijuana 22:35, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Only when you self-servingly define it so as to exclude Anarcho-capitalism. Dtobias 23:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't make the definition, the movement does.--Che y Marijuana 03:00, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Commonly agreed way of perceiving Anarchist movement

No, Che y Marijuana, it actually sounds like you are making definitions out as you go along. So far every anarchist that i've spoken to would agree that the propper way of visualising the relation between Anarchism and Libertarian socialism is shown in this image. Beta m (talk)

Anarchism is a form of libertarian socialism, as is autonomist marxism, council communism, etc... leave your anecdotal evidence aside and read the anarchist FAQ, where they state clearly that every form of anarchism is a form of socialism. Regardless though, implying that libertarian socialism is a school of anarchism means you must show me that it is a distinct faction, with a specific set of ideas that differentiate it from other factions within anarchism. Even if you don't agree that anarchism is a faction within it, then you would have to relegate it to related articles as opposed to schools of anarchism unless you can show that it is a specific faction within anarchism.--Che y Marijuana 09:57, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Depends on whose FAQ you read... this one has a different view. -- Dan -- 18:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The view of majority of anarchists is anything but anecdotal. The view of Anarchism FAQ collective ("It is produced by a small collective of people" from their website), however, is. Just like http://www.nationalanarchist.com does not have a final word on defining National Anarchism neither should any website be allowed to so do. AK Press for example doesn't consider Green anarchism to be a form of Anarchism, so should we now exclude it from the schools of Anarchism also? Or maybe because Anarchist Federation in Britain has announced that Post-left anarchy is border-line fascist we should exclude them? As for your assertion that Libertarian socialism must be entirely within Anarchism in order for it to be considered a school of Anarchism, look at Anarcha-feminism large portions of that movement lie in the feminist movement, that is not completely Anarchist, although it's not the best example, since much more Anarcha-feminism is Anarchist, than Socialist Anarchism; and the LibSocialists are a separate faction, since they on many ocasions oppose the actions and views of Post-left anarchists, as well as extreme individualists. Beta m (talk)

I would imagine that the number of anarchists who refer to themselves also as libertarian socialists would likely only be a portion of the anarchist movement/community, even if we were to come to the conclusion that anarchism proper is a form of libertarian socialism (which we haven't done and probably won't do). Perhaps "mainstream" anarchists would identify themselves as libertarian socialists, but I'd imagine a lot of anarchists don't want anything to do with partisan labels such as "libertarian". --Corvun 18:01, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's important to understand that no matter what we believe in terms of whether or not anarchists are all libertarian socialists, in order to place it as a faction within anarchism, we need to show that it somehow is a seperate school with its own thinkers, organizations and historical differences. The reality is, there is no evidence to that. And the flagblackened.net site considers Daniel Guerrin, a Marxist, to be a libertarian socialist for example. As for the attacks on green anarchy and the post-left anarchy, they are infighting using big words. Green anarchy was infiltrated in the uk and overtaken by "national anarchists", going from a green anarchist and post-leftist scene to an out and out neo-nazi front. That's the history behind the attacks and accusations going back and forth. If you dig deeper, you'll find no one dismisses the ideologies themselves as non-anarchist, at least no one serious. Anyways, there's no evidence that libertarian socialism is faction within anarchism, though a few of you are attempting to prove that there is a crossover, none of the arguments support keeping it listed as a school. So I am removing it yet again.--Che y Marijuana 03:35, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

There must be a better place for the libertarian socialism link. --Corvun 06:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, i now tend to agree. Che y Marijuana is sort of right that it is not trully just a school of Anarchism, i was just disagreeing with the classification of Anarchism as a part of the socialist movement. I won't move LibSoc back to schools, but we do need to come up with the better classification for it. Beta m (talk)

The reason that anarchism is considered a part of the socialist movement is that by extension of the demands that all decisions be made using direct democracy, and control of society returned to people rather than the state or hierarchal structures, all forms of anarchism also demand that same democratic control for economics. Hence socialism, economics is not left to individual actors, but is social, controlled by the community. No matter what form it takes, that collective control remains. --Che y Marijuana 11:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Commonly agreed way of perceiving some political movements.

My two quatloos. // Liftarn

Horizontalism, again

Seriously, I liked the template vertically :( I think it should come back, the communist template is like that, as is the new libertarianism template.

For a verticalist template again!--Che y Marijuana 09:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why I didn't revert it immediately in the first place... it was really a thing of beauty, I was very proud of it.--Pharos 09:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where you the guy who made it originally? I liked it alot too, though I did change the colour to papaya :P I just did that with the horizontal one too. Anyways, I want it back! Let's wait till more people chime in, then let's put it back.--Che y Marijuana 12:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, I first made it in the context of a discussion (with you, I think) at Talk:Anarchism. The editor who changed it cited some archaic unfollowed 'rule' that vertical boxes should only be used for time-series.--Pharos 12:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The beauty of non-hierarchal structures is that rules are just guidelines, and the local collective has the final say. Aka, we can ignore such a guideline if that's agreed upon on this talk page.--Che y Marijuana 13:08, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • And if all the other political templates are breaking this guideline, it's obviously obsolete, so I've taken the liberty of going ahead and doing the work. What do you guys think?--Che y Marijuana 14:17, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

The guidelines are often not followed, but I think you should take it up at Naming Conventions, rather than making an exception in specific cases. What do you think? --Xiaopo ℑ 06:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the guidelines are *not* followed more often than they are followed, then de facto convention is to not follow the guidelines. Philwelch 06:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that Wikipedia is now copying the annoying methods of advertisers by introducing towers to its articles. Honestly, this "tower ad" for anarchism is taking up too much space on the articles it appears in and should be switched to being horizontal. It's especially bad when it appears in articles that are only related to anarchism (see WTO Meeting of 1999 for instance) and makes it seem like the article is about anarchists when they were only involved in the subject. Maybe this works for the articles that are about anarchism (I'm not complaining about info boxes that are directly related to the subject matter), but it is a detriment to anything outside of the subject that just happens to be related to it (such as the things found in the "Anarchism in history" section and the "Related Subjects" section of the template). This vertical template is just a form of POV forced on to an article the same way a tower ad is forced on to the viewer of a web site. We editors should be above using such tactics. -- LGagnon 05:01, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

anarcho-capitalism

Whether anarcho-capitalism constitutes anarchism is a question of POV, not fact. Anarcho-capitalist POV would state that anarcho-socialism is not true anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism POV would state that socialist anarchisms are not truly anarchic. In order for this template to remain NPOV, anarcho-capitalism must be included. In addition, masking your POV-mongering as a "minor edit" shows bad faith. Philwelch 03:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One line is a minor edit, especially when concerning minor internet clubs being listed as the first school of anarchism in that list. You have been pandered to enough. Anarchism is the rejection of hierarchy. Boss/employee relationships are hierarchal. Hence, ancaps are not a form of anarchism. All the historical figures of anarchism are anti-capitalist. The entire historical movement of anarchism is anti-capitalist. It would be improper for wikipedia to revise history and political reality to serve your needs. If ancaps are in the list, so too will the neo-nazis calling themselves "National Anarchists" be. It is you who is attempting to push a POV despite all the evidence opposing it.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 04:37, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This is naked POV-mongering, and your POV is obvious. I'm not even an anarcho-capitalist, incidentally. And removing the POV dispute header is also a sign of bad faith--the fact that *I*, the one who placed the header there, dispute the neutrality of the template is enough to establish that there is a dispute. Philwelch 05:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, your POV header goes on every page that has the template.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 05:29, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Phil, it would be best to put the POV notice inside the template box, which wouldn't confuse things so much.--Pharos 05:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Got it. Philwelch 05:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to do this, you should also manually alter the code so it reads the neutrality of the template is disputed and directing here to Template talk:Anarchism rather than the talk page of the article it is posted on. Also, you should probably move the NPOV disputes category to this talk page rather than the template itself to avoid branding all of the pages it is on in the NPOV disputes category.--Pharos 05:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know, it's not very anarchist of you to tell me what to do instead of doing it yourself. What is this, some sort of hierarchy? ;) Philwelch 05:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was just giving advice, and didn't think it was appropriate to alter your notice.--Pharos 05:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bah, I was joking. It's done anyway. Philwelch 05:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and therefore this should be about what anarchism is, instead of what Phil wants it be.  :) — Helpful Dave 00:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OMG, fuck capitalism!! Give up with your crap, how many hundreds of times must this issue be discussed? Anarchism is, has been, and always will be anti-capitalist, anarchism is against hierarchy with NO exception, PERIOD! In case you just got here, look at the Talk archives of Anarchism because this has been discussed many many many many many times and every single time it's been decided over and over again that capitalism is the opponent of anarchism. --Fatal

The fact that you can not discuss this topic rationally without resorting to expletives indicates to me that you are probably too POV to be changing it. The word anarchism only means "without government". That is what the root words means - and anarcho-capitalists surely fall into the category of those who oppose government. Capitalism as a form of hierarchy is debatable, and you may participate in that debate, but it is not advisable in a Wikipedia entry. The fact is that there have been capitalists in the anarchist movement throughout its history - they have merely been a minor presence. To exclude them merely because they are minor, but include people like the primitivists (who are at least as minor, if not moreso), is blatantly POV. --Academician 01:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added anarcho- - this should be enough to deal with the use of the prefix. -SV|t|th 05:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Until capitalism assume hierarchy, anarchism is not capitalist. If anyone give some reasonable argument which says that capitalism doesn't assume hierarchy, we can talk about it. Otherwise, please, don't behave as vandal. --Millosh 19:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The word Anarchism does not have anything to do with hierarchy. Only specific applications by certain anarchists have had to do with hierarchy. The word Anarchism itself only means "without a government" - and anarcho-capitalism certainly lacks a government. This all comes down to a definitional argument which really is not worth-while - the traditional Anarchist objections to anarcho-capitalism are included in the Anarchism and Capitalism article as well as the Anarcho-capitalism article itself, so they are now as NPOV as can be expected. Let's let the template become NPOV as well by including all ideas, shall we? --Academician 20:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm... You didn't described right words: --Millosh 22:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Anarchy means society without a government. Like monarchy, oligarchy, etc... describe the type of government. --Millosh 22:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Anarchism means specific contemporary political theory based on early works of Proudhon and Max Stirner (and so on). Even Proudhon was pro-free market, he didn't assume capitalist market; even Max Stirner was individualist, he was not pro any form of liberal economy. (We can go on up to the present...) If you put "anarcho"-capitalism inside of Template:Anarchism sidebar, it would be completely OK to put Marxism inside of Template:Liberalism sidebar. Because it can be treated that liberalism doesn't have anything with free (capitalist) market, but with individual freedom and Marxism is also pro-individual freedom. (Totalitarian systems with Marxism as "theoretical background" are completely different story.) --Millosh 22:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. "Anarcho"-capitalists are extreme liberals. Many of them are not even against the state, but for minarchy. Members of Libertarian Party (one of their factions) was working on Ronald Regan's political campaign. If something is named "anarcho-" it doesn't assume that it belongs to anarchism. I am wandering when you (in general) would start to call Anarchy Online as "the anarchist game" or "the game of anarchists" or "the game for anarchists" inside of this template in subsection "Anarchism and entertainment"; and to urge that it is NPOV... So, "anarcho"-capitalism belongs to Template:Liberalism sidebar, but not to this template. --Millosh 22:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. If 95% of people which claim for themselves that they are anarchists say that there is no any form of "anarchist" capitalism, then NPOV should respect it inside of templates related to anarchism. On the other hand, national-socialists can say that they have liberal origins and socialist name and that their ideology should stay inside of Template:Liberalism sidebar and Template:Socialism sidebar. Would you like something like that? --Millosh 22:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. This is correct. --Academician 23:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. This is inaccurate, and is merely the propaganda pushed by the traditional anarchist movement in order that they may closely define themselves beyond the rational meaning of the term (or the meaning that is recognized by most people - for those who believe in "no government"). And anarcho-capitalism shares far more in common with traditional anarchism than Marxism does with Liberalism, I am sorry - that analogy fails. --Academician 23:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No government easily rules out anarcho-capitalists, who support many governing institutions like a judiciary, police, and even debtors prisons. But the definition goes beyond no government, many definitions indicate that anarchism rejects authority itself, which is far more accurate with both its etymology and its history, and the very root meaning of the word makes clear that it goes beyond the mere statism that anarcho-capitalists reject, because a ruler can be anyone who uses authority to dominate another. That could be a prince using his army, a baron using a militia, a CEO using his security forces, or a land-lord using his hired thugs. Kev 01:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. This is totally backwards - Some anarcho-capitalists are members of the Libertarian Party, but very few members of the Libertarian Party are anarcho-capitalists. Minarchism and anarcho-capitalism are both related to the libertarian political philosophy - but minarchists are definitely NOT anarcho-capitalists, since they believe in government. Anarcho-capitalists by definition are against the state - that is why they use the prefix "anarcho-", and there is not a single example you can give me of a real anarcho-capitalist who believes in the State.. Also, the LP certainly did not campaign for Ronald Reagan - they had their own candidates in 1980 and 1984. Anarcho-capitalism belongs to both Template:Libertarianism sidebar AND Template:Anarchism sidebar, since it shares heritage in common with both. --Academician 23:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That there are not anarcho-capitalists who believe in the state is irrelevant, mere anti-statism is not anarchism. Anarchism is rejection of all forms of government, even private agencies hired by rich tycoons to govern accord to their propertarian policies. Kev 01:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. 95% of Christians say that Mormons are not Christian, but does that mean that the Mormons should be totally excluded from the Christianity article? After all, Mormons themselves DO believe they are Christians, and follow a good deal of the Christian tradition - even though they depart with Christianity, even on some very key principles. Anarcho-capitalism is similar - it shares a great deal in common with traditional anarchists in general, but does depart with them on some key principles. That is not grounds for their exclusion - but I do agree that caveats are in order on the articles themselves. These caveats are present, therefore there should be no problem. I also do not see why National Socialism should be kept out of Template:Socialism sidebar - since, after all, they were a Socialist movement, and the contoversy IS discussed on Socialism. Funny that the traditional "anarchists" don't want to even acknowledge Anarcho-capitalism's existence. I guess Minitrue is alive and well in the Anarchist tradition. --Academician 23:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists are not being excluded from the anarchism article, nor are they even being excluded from the template. They are, rather, not being listed under "schools of anarchism" because the question of whether or not they are a legitimate school of anarchism is controversial. To have wikipedia frame the issue according to the anarcho-capitalist POV is not appropriate.

I don't know of any anarchists that pretend that there are no people who call themselves anarcho-capitalists, you are clearly misrepresenting this issue on purpose. Rather, they deny the legitimacy of anarcho-capitalist claims on the matter, just as they would the legitimacy of anarcho-statist claims. Kev 01:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see thet you have the same problem as we have in Poland. There are around 10 "anarcho-"capitalists involved in UPR party (this is not even minarchist party, but radical conservative-liberal party). they do nothing in real life, except attacking anarchists on the internet. It's not enough when you're against government to be an anarchist. This is obvious. AFAIK in Somalia now we have no real functioning government, so can we say that this is "anarchist country"? I can even say that this is almost capitalist paradise, because no government controls market there. But there are still bosses with lot of money that control market (and from the economic point of view, player on the market who has more capital have appriopriate influence on market). So we have there capitalist paradise without government, and with bosses on the top and slaves below. Capitalist is a form of wielding power by those who have more capital, so can we call this anarchist? And another question: is it enough to call yourself anarchist to be considered as anarchist? AFAIK i know in poland one idiot who calls himself an anarcho-rasist. Is it enough to put this into "schools of anarchism"? If we can put in a word everything what we want, this word is meaningless and useless.--XaViER 19:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hehehe :) In Serbia exist one popular "anarcho"-nazi band called "Direktori" ("Directors", in Serbian in the meaning of "Managers"). I didn't hear for any "anarcho"-capitalist in Serbia, but rasists with "libertarian and socialist thoughts" are not so rare. However, I have to find the book (which I had) with claims about Libertarian Party and Ronald Regan's campain... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether "anarcho-"capitalism constitutes anarchism is a not question of POV, but a question of facts. AC is a new invention ("mid-20th century") developed independently of anarchism, but "inspired by" some parts of individualist anarchism. "Anarcho-"capitalism is a form of liberalism rather than a form of anarchism. // Liftarn

Since anarcho-capitalism satisfies the formal definition of anarchism, it should be a school in the template. It is POV to exclude any philosophy which holds the State to be an unecessary evil. Danneskjold 04:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome brand new user! Anarcho-capitalism does not satisfy the formal definition of anarchism, in addition to being hostile to all those movements which do, and having no links with those traditions. Kev 04:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this debate, but I should point out that I've blocked Danneskjold for being a probable sockpuppet of User:Hogeye (currently under a one-month block). I base my decision on the near-identical edits Danneskjold has made to anarchism. -- Hadal 04:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

According to your decision, I reverted his/her edits to the edit of Kevehs. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 05:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Dearest Hogeye - the reason it isn't under "Schools of Anarchism" here is because we can't include the necessary qualifying sentence in the template saying that most people think it's a load of shit, and therefore we contaminate the entire Wiki with wingnut POV. I don't oppose putting it somewhere in the template, however, since I'm a fair and reasonable man ;) --Tothebarricades 05:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia NPOV Tutorial:

A common source of obstinacy in NPOV disputes is the belief that one group "owns" a word and has sole authority to define it. In fact, many words have multiple meanings, and it's not just that one person sometimes uses "liberal" to refer to a political movement and sometimes to refer to generous use of an ingredient in a recipe. Sometimes it means that different people mean different things when they say the same word. I am restoring Anarcho-Capitalism to the template per this policy. rehpotsirhc 20:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Market Anarchism"

Reverted Sam Spade's little addition to the "School of Anarchism" section. Market anarchism should be considered a "school" of Amercian Libertarianism or Capitalist Economics -- in no form does it belong in the "anarchist" series template. --albamuth 14:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Soom we will se the addition of "anarcho-conservatism" or other bizarre combinations... // Liftarn

I can't wait until someone creates "anarcho-anarchism". :P --albamuth 17:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-archism? Anarcho-status quoism? Anarcho-anti-anarchism? Kev 19:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Market Anarchism" seems to be just another attempt to sneak ancap. Why not just create anarcho-statism just to make the entire definition of anarchism worthless. // Liftarn

Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989

What does this article have to do with anarchist movements? --albamuth 7 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)

Trimming

The template has gotten rather too long, and I think would benefit from a serious reduction. I suggest we cut out 'Anarchism in history' and at least three quarters of 'Related subjects'. The idea is to trim it to just articles that discuss more-or-less general topics in the context that they are specific to anarchism.--Pharos 7 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)

Seriously bloated template

The template is in dire need of some pretty drastic editing; it simply looks like really bad page layout right now. The amount of subjects need to be cut down to the bare minimum and it needs to be more tightly focused on the ideology and history of anarchism, not a gazillion different topics that are only indirectly associated with anarchy like squatting or anti-capitalism, which are not the least bit exclusive to anarchistic movements. "Related subjects" needs to go entirely (it's the equivalent of the dreaded "Miscellenous"-section in your average article) and the rest of the template needs to be cut down to at least half the current length. Preferably more.

Peter ^Isotalo 7 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)

Conflict

I would suggest to 72.21.32.122 that you cease your reversions. The current consensus is that "anarcho-capitalism" and "anarcho-nationalism" do not qualify as forms of anarchism. Thence your efforts to include them without further discussion are in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you would like to contest the matter, please feel free to do so via talk pages. At current your efforts are simply vandalism. Sarge Baldy 20:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

You need to look up the definition of anarchism. An-archism = without a state. Any philosophy consistent with statelessness is a form of anarchism. See the 20 archives of [anarchism] for more discussion.

You need to look up the Wiki rules and obey your ban, that is if you a certain Hogeye, which I do not doubt. --Tothebarricades 05:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Note that a dictionary definition is hardly an adequate way to explain a complex philosophical topic. Note also that that is not even a very common definition of anarchism. Also, words do not always mean the same thing as their elementary parts. Even if they did, "arkhos" is better translated as "ruler" than "state", and capitalism to any traditional form of anarchism serves as that dominator. I find it ironic you consider my actions POV, and then proceed to put a supposed school of anarchism that has generated, as you say yourself, a full 20 pages of controversy, at the very top of the list. However, as I see I'm currently acting alone in this matter and don't feel like violating the 4 reversion clause of the WP:3RR, I'll leave it alone. Sarge Baldy 05:16, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to worry about the 3RR for reverting vandalism, especially when the user in question is already banned. --Tothebarricades 05:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

proposal to eliminate all subtypes of anarchism from the template

I would like to suggest that the template simply omit the list of varieties of anarchism. Lots of intelligent people seem to have wasted an immense amount of time on edit wars about this. The plain truth is that based on google hits, essentially none of the flavors on the list is particularly important. I think the list is misleading, because it implies to the naive reader that anarchism lacks any coherence at all, whereas actually I think there is a very clear mainstream of anarchist thought. The template is prominently placed, and therefore should only be used for really useful stuff that many readers will want to know about. It doesn't really matter that some of these flavors, like "Christian anarchism," do have more adherents than could meet in a VW bug; they're still pitifully insignificant when seen against the backdrop of anarchism in general. They deserve their own articles, but they don't deserve special, prominent listing in this template. And just to lay my cards on the table, I'm not an anarchist myself, I'm a libertarian, and my primary focus on WP is historical stuff regarding racism in the U.S.--Bcrowell 22:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is a bad suggestion. I myself don't entirely subscribe to any of the various anarchist "schools", and I don't know if dropping them from the template would hurt anything. A similar case might also be made for the libertarianism template which chooses to focus entirely on right libertarianism. Sarge Baldy 00:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose this. --Tothebarricades 02:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Done.--Bcrowell 03:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Good points, good edit. --albamuth 03:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the point, but I think if you're going to have anything on an anarchism template, it should show some of the ideological varieties/approaches of anarchism. If you think another name would be better than "schools", that might be a good idea.--Pharos 21:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Is "approaches" a better description? It seems to me that anarchists all have a fairly similar concept of utopia, and calling them schools makes them sound somewhat distant from one another. In actuality they often work in collaboration with one another, just utilizing different "approaches" in reaching the reasonably coherent final aim of egalitarian society, if that makes sense. Or maybe "focuses", since some people find some issues (i.e. environment, gender equality) more important than others? Sarge Baldy 23:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for "focuses" it has a good unified sound to it, but at the same time implies the diversity... Beta m (talk)

"I appreciate the point, but I think if you're going to have anything on an anarchism template, it should show some of the ideological varieties/approaches of anarchism." I disagree with Pharos here. I think these unimportant schools of thought on the fringe of anarchism don't belong in a prominently placed template. Including them in it has led to a series of silly and time-consuming edit wars. To me, the issue isn't whether to call them "schools" or "approaches" or "focuses," the issue is that they're simply not that important, and shouldn't be promoted in way that's out of proportion to their importance. I've met a lot of anarchists, and none of them believed in Christianity, racism, or capitalism. The google hits for all of these flavors are extremely low. IMO, they're notable enough to have articles, but that's it. I also think the anarchism article's text itself devotes way too much space to a discussion of obscure flavors of anarchism, which is misleading to the reader; maybe these should all be spun off into an article with a title like Alternative models of anarchism.--Bcrowell 16:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm in total disagreement with the Alternative models of anarchism idea, most of the flavours of anarchism are not "alternatives" to each other. You wouldn't call your nose, ear, and eye "alternative body parts". They are all part of anarchist movement and as such do belong in the template... just need to organise some space for them. Beta m (talk)

I can see how you could say that anarcha-feminism, for instance, is a natural part of anarchism, like my nose is a natural part of my face. I disagree, however, when it comes to stuff like Christian, capitalist, national, or black anarchism; the mainstream of anarchism is all about eliminating capitalism, for instance.--Bcrowell 18:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course those aren't related. They're working largely in opposition to the broader anarchist movement, whereas most of these focuses simply highlight one form of inequality and attempt to counter it. Those that want the state reduced but wish to retain some conservative principle (such as capitalism, nationalism, Christianity, etc) are not focusing on a domination but simply allowing an exception. To coninue Beta's metaphor, you might call those other forms rashes or tumors. Black anarchism I would disagree on, since although a misnomer it is interested in restoring "racial" equality. Sarge Baldy 22:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

In this case i must say that i see Christian Anarchism as more anarchic than Atheism. I don't consider myself a Christian, but Leo Tolstoy was much more of an anarchist "leader" than Noam Chomsky will ever become. I will agree with you that the idea of a nation is incopatible with anarchy, and as such must be abolished, but i don't think that this abolishion should start with the wikipedia template. Beta m (talk)

Schools of Thought Reinstatement

I don't know what to think about this. I realise the concern with perhaps the idea that anarchism has a "lack of coherence," but Wikipedia is not an exercise in trying to portray Anarchism in the best possible light. I am an eclectic anarchist, as I describe myself, and I believe you have hindered the function of the template by removing the schools. How are they not relevant? I myself, although rejecting anarcho-capitalism as a farce and not a form of anarchism, realise that it is valid to link to it as well. Why do us Anarchist Wikipedians get our personal feelings in the way of NPOV? If you want to talk about all subjects relating to anarchism, people claiming they are anarchists is an issue that is related and most certainly deserves to be in the template. I propose reinstatement of the 'schools of thought,' perhaps with a more PC separation of AC from the list into another section "controversial anarchism? white national anarchism could be included). It is a shame that being "PC" even has to be proposed for anarchists to be sane about their edits.

The template is supposed to be useful. I want to be able to click on anarcho-communism, anarcha-feminism, etc. They're not irrelevant by any means. And if you're removing schools of thought, why is crypto-anarchism kept? This is all very confusing and unnecessary. Once again, I believe for the sake of pragmaticism, we should reinstate the schools of thought. Lockeownzj00 18:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. This template is useless without the schools of anarchism. I am an Anarchist and I believe Anarcho-Capitalism to be a profound contradiction, but as a believer in the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, I think it should be listed. I think this template was a lot more useful back when it was "bloated".

64.12.116.135 16:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Will no one debate this? Please. This template has been bastardised long enough. But I don't want to change it without consensus. Lockeownzj00 08:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that POV should not get in the way and that all schools of thought that represent themselves as anarchists should be included (all the "anarcho" philosophies). I disagree that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, but you can find people that disagree that each kind of anarchism listed is not real anarchism, including anarcho-communism. I don't understand the censorial attitude of some of these "anarchists" on Wikipedia. "It's an odd feature of the anarchist tradition over the years that it seems to have often bred highly authoritarian personality types, who legislate what the Doctrine IS, and with various degrees of fury (often great) denounce those who depart from what they have declared to be the True Principles. Odd form of anarchism." --Noam Chomsky RJII 17:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Really? I thought you might understand that "censorial attitude", since you seem to find libertarian socialism's segregation from the libertarianism article perfectly acceptable. Also the argument isn't that it isn't a "form" of anarchism, it's that it's grossly overrepresented as a "form", and a "form" by a definition completely incompatible with most other anarchist philosophies. In turn it's a definition then forced onto everything else so as to merit its own inclusion. Anarcho-capitalism is obviously huge, but it's hardly huge within the context of anarchism. I think you'd have difficulty locating an anarcho-capitalist who identified primarily as an anarchist. Almost all centrally consider themselves libertarian, and insisting that it be represented with regard to its own individual base of support rather than its contextual base is grossly biased. Sarge Baldy 08:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. What I don't get is this "true anarchism" thing. What true anarchism? Aren't unwavering, objective doctrines what we're against? Or have you (royal you, the POV editors here) so threatened by other forms of thought that you have to pretend they don't exist, and actually stick to the conservative notion that one has to stick to 'the roots?'

All this talk is good but I really do want to reinstate this as soon as possible :/

Lockeownzj00 17:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

If there is no decision within a few days, I am going to revert the template. Lockeownzj00 16:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I remain opposed, because I dislike the term "schools of thought", which is fairly conceived and anyway inaccurate with regard to most of them, which as I stated earlier might better be regarded as "focuses" or "approaches", or even just simply "philosophies". A number of them aren't complete philosophies and can work in conjunction with other forms (e.g. anarcha-feminism, christian anarchism, green anarchism, spiritual anarchism), so the term "school" seems inappropriate and anyway inaccurate. Sarge Baldy 08:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• I oppose usage of "Schools of Thought" How about "Anarchist Labels" or "Categories" or even "Memetic Sub-species"? A school implies an institution, as if anarchism is taught in any discernably codified fashion, pertaining to a particular branch of dogma, of which anarchism holds none. I've never two anarchists with the exact same ideas. --albamuth 05:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Our ideals are not incompatible. If it's a (very understandable) issue of semantics, we can change it: although I think there was no malicious intent of the use of the phrase "school of thought" nor do I think it is as biased as is being said, I still understand the points being made. The linsk to the articles are the core issue here: what we call them is also importnat, but I agree, a more accurate label might be appropriate.

If we, then, changed the label but with the same sort of links, would you (those opposing) still be opposed? I still maintain that the template is handicapped by just removing all those subjects. However, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia--pragmatic, not anal retentive. "Memtic sub-species," I think, despite being accurate, is too far for obvious reasons. It is obvious, too, I think, that there shouldnt be any kind of dogma: but the problem is people interpreting something as dogmatic when it's just a point of reference. These categories are not to be noted as law, and in fact, I believe the articles themselves consistently have a disclaimer saying that there is no one form of anarchism, and that there are many organic forms of anarchist theory. Categorising anything is dangerous, but I think it's still valid: for example, with music, I think it has come too far in some cases, where people die for their genre and stick (conservatively, I might add) to these imaginary 'roots' that they fabricate. However, referring to something as post-punk as a simple point of reference (as opposed to being belligerent when someone defines certain thing as post-punk) is not bad, in my opinion. These are just points of reference.

Perhaps "Divisions in Anarchist Thought" is more appropriate. I truly think there's nothing inherently wrong with the phrase "Anarchist Thought." It's not really that loaded at all. Lockeownzj00 01:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I was joking with the "memetic sub-species", How about anarchist strategies? After all, anarcho-communism really describes a practice more than a dogma -- creating a community of anarchists as a strategy, whereas anarcho-syndicalism describes the strategy of organizing labor, and so on and so forth. --albamuth 05:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that one best I think. It's just the idea of divisiveness I'm against, because there's a lot of overlap between most of the models which seems inappropriate. But maybe this doesn't apply quite so well to post-anarchism, since it doesn't really have a distinct strategy? Not that I'm sure it's large enough yet to warrant being here (Newman coined the term only in 2001), but just so we know we have a term that could fit everything. Sarge Baldy 17:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Still; you may not like the divisiveness, but what's better, admitting it's there, or rationalising out of existence (what the anarchism article itself suffers from right now)? "Strategies" may not be appropriate, though. It still sounds too much like a guerrilla warfare term.

Also, the article itself still uses "Schools of Thought." When we eventually decide (please soon!), we will have to change the article as well.

Lockeownzj00 02:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Template Symbol Change

Someone changed the symbol in the template from the "neat" circle-A to the "ragged" circle-A. I changed it back to the "neat" one, because the neat one is the basis for the "ragged one. The "ragged" one is more the symbol for Anarcho-punk rather than Anarchism as a whole. See Anarchist symbolism for more. --K@zhivlad 03:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who changed to the punk version, and I sympathize with those who would prefer something a little less overt. But isn't there some happy middle ground between the dull, crisp, black on white symbol and the bleeding-from-the-edges "I'm clearly a radical" splashed red? Revkat 08:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. This one. Hogeye 18:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC) File:CircleAsymbol01.gif

What happend with the template ¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?

I agree with K@zhivlad. I think that the "ragged" circle-A should be used on the Anarcho-punk page, and that the original "neat" one be used for the Anarchism page.

A note on libertarian socialism

Despite the name, it is a form of anarchism, not libertarianism. I ask all editors to please keep this in mind and do not remove libertarian socialism from the list of branches of anarchism in the future. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 03:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

actually it is libertarianism, it's just that american libertarianism is a complete warping of real libertarian ideas.

They come from two different sources. "US libertarianism" comes from The Libertarian Party. Their politics is more neo-liberalism, excapt that "liberal" has a different meaning in the US as well... // Liftarn

US libertarianism is definitely not neoliberalism, since it strongly opposes "the use of political power to open foreign nations to free trade," a defining characteristic of neoliberalism. US libertarianism favors laissez-faire. Hogeye 18:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the use of political power is not a defining characteristic of neoliberalism. // Liftarn

Float

Can we make this template float to the right side, like other such templates? The current style makes the page layout of pages that use it look bad. – Mipadi 00:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the anarchism template too long?

The anarchism template seems to be getting overly long. At this rate the template will end up longer than the articles, see Christian anarchism. Any ideas? --nirvana2013 10:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Reorganize Template PLEASE READ BEFORE COMPLAINING

Here are some of the changes I've made and why:

1) Articles that incorporate the 'Libertarianism' template and not the anarchism template have no place on this template. Assumedly, every article on here should refer back to the template. There's point on including articles that don't. Another example. Autonomist marxism references communism and not anarchism, at all. It shouldn't be listed as an anarchist school, and it isn't anywhere but here. I moved it to the "see also" section.

2) I've removed links to stubs that have no information on them and are dubious already. Maybe include later.

3) Some of the 'schools' listed are not schools but tactics.

4) Half of the things in anarchism and culture have nothing to do with culture. I've split the sections --FluteyFlakes88 00:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm considering taking out eco-anarchism. I don't see any difference between it and green anarchism. Both articles even list the same authors as their theorists. Any thoughts? --FluteyFlakes88 16:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, green anarchism and eco-anarchism are the same thing. Go for it. Hogeye 17:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal/Edit Summary

I'm goal with my recent set of edits is to tighten up the template, maybe reduce its size, and include a section on history. One idea is to create a meta-list for anarchist lists so we only have to include one link to it on here. I'm moving around some of the schools that aren't really schools at all but a theoretical point (post-leftism). Some questions we should discuss:

• Is anarcha-feminism a school or just a theoretical point. IE, does it have any exclutsive ideology attached to it or is it something incorporated by all other schools listed?
• Should Social Ecology be listed?
• (will add more here as I work) --FluteyFlakes88 19:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the term "school" at all, but anarcha-feminism probably isn't a "complete" anarchist theory (though it might be a complete feminist theory) because it generally leans on anarchist communism et al for a number of points, (even as it remains critical of them). But still, most of these "schools" are hardly all that independent. Christian anarchism is making a similar point (that anarchism is a necessary component of Christianity), as is post-anarchism (which is more-or-less a post-stucturalist revision of anarchist communism). Green anarchism is another blanket term, often tied to others, making its own point. Black anarchism (or anarchist people of color) (not listed here) also makes a similar statement. Libertarian socialist is a very broad term, and probably shouldn't be listed as a school or anything else. Individualist anarchism is again very broad. I'm not sure how the Situationists relate to anarchism exactly, or whether they should be included here at all. To put it short, I'm pretty uncomfortable with the list in general. Sarge Baldy 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism and using Wikipedia as a soapbox

I removed agorism and anarcho-capitalism. There is a hot discussion on the anarchist talk page that needs to be resolved before some of the more evangelical anarcho-capitalists begin inserting their ideology into all things anarchist. On the anarchism page, it still has not been resolved as to whether or not include anarcho-capitalism at all. Most people seem to agree that it is a libertarian philosophy with some anarchist influences, but not a school of anarchist thought.--AaronS 19:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add that, if it is decided that anarcho-capitalism should be included, it should not be placed on the top of the list, like it was before, since it is by far one of the smallest movements that could be considered to be anarchist, and hardly the most important.--AaronS 19:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Censorship of schools you don't like is POV. Alphabetized is fine by me. Aaron, look up the definition of anarchism! Hogeye 14:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The anarcho-capitalism page doesn't even use this template. Or should we include anarcho-communism in the libertarianism template?

It has used it in the past, and will again. Hogeye 16:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add anarcho-communism to the libetarianism template, then?

Through discussion on the anarchist talk page, most people came to the conclusion that anarcho-capitalism was better suited under the umbrella of libertarianism. --AaronS 15:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha! You and your two friends may have so decided, but it is obviously not a consensus. Hogeye 16:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It is me and 7 other people that I don't even know. Your paranoia is astounding. --AaronS 16:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye's reverts

I'm not going to bother reverting Hogeye's reverts now that I've read the policy on the three revert rule. I placed a notice on his user talk page asking him to stop, but he keeps deleting it along with another complaint from another user. Since he hasn't participated in any discussion, I'm going to report him to an administrator. --AaronS 18:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it particularly entertaining how he changed "anarchist communism" to "anarcho-communism" just so anarcho-capitalism would be sorted above it. How completely childish. Sarge Baldy 10:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

CrimethInc. a "school"?

From the article on CrimethInc. it is stated that CrimethInc. is a mindset rather than a group or organization. Judging from this statement, I propose that CrimethInc. should be added under the "Schools" section of the template. Kazhivlad 02:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Regardless of what CrimethInc. says, hardly anybody considers them to be a school of anarchist thought. If anything, they fall under post-left anarchy. --AaronS 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

agreed, they are post-left. They are also really cool, I suggest everyone read Days of War, Nights of Love, and Recipes for Disaster is awesome. Their fic is decent, I like Off the Map more than Evasion. But they are not a school, no way. The Ungovernable Force 06:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Crimethinc is actually the antithesis of a "school" since they disavow all ideology, labels, and artificial culture. You can call that pretense, bcrimethinc publications often contradict one another, sometimes on purpose, sometimes not. For instance there is an assault on the concept of the city in Days of War but a celebration of it in Anarchy in the Age of Dinosaurs. Different collectives and individuals under the crimethinc banner have different ideas. The whole point behind post-left sort of thought, crimethinc or not, is to move away from ideology and embrace questioning, contradiction, and self-analysis. --Tothebarricades 10:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

e.g. postmodernist crap :) *joke* - FrancisTyers 01:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked?

I'm not that old on wikipedia so I'm wondering why I can no longer edit the template. Have I been blocked? There is no mention of this on my talk page, or on anywhere else. Thanks for the help. --FluteyFlakes88 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The template has been blocked by an administrator, per my request, due to a revert war initiated by Hogeye (talk). Please see the Wikipedia policy known as the three revert rule for more information. While you're at it, take a look at the guideline for wikiquette. It will save you a lot of trouble. :) --AaronS 21:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved. Collective decision multiple time on this page have agreed that Hogeye's edits are simple POV trolling. We've already discussed this. Blocking the template only prevents us honest participants from working on it. Hogeye has already been blocked here twice before for trolling against a collective agreement. I say just block him for good. --FluteyFlakes88 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to voice your concerns to Voice of All, the user who blocked the page. Hogeye is indeed very disruptive. The rare occasions during which he actually engages in discussion, he usually only incites flame wars. I've voiced my concerns on his user talk page, but he keeps erasing them. By all means, complain to an administrator. --AaronS 22:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

if it's protected, why is an-cap back on?!!!! The Ungovernable Force 04:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, why didn't he list the protection, and why did he revert it before protecting it. This all seems sketchy to me. --FluteyFlakes88 05:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

He didn't list the protection because putting a protected message on the template would make it occur in all articles with the template. And Voice of All didn't revert anything here so far as I can tell. I do think he's a bit easy on the trigger finger though, there wasn't a whole lot of a "dispute" here. Sarge Baldy 05:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Your indeed right. I apologize to VoA. --FluteyFlakes88 05:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

==Unprotect== + - I'm not sure of the official procedure but I propose that we unprotect this page. Furthermore, I propose that we request a block/ban of some months time on user:Hogeye, seeing as his last month ban taught him nothing and he is still as anti-social as ever. I would like to get back to re-organizing this template in a logical and concordent manner. Thoughts? --FluteyFlakes88 05:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just unprotected the template. Sarge Baldy 04:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Geolibertarianism

Ok, people. Let's talk it out and stop the revert wars. My two quatloos is that since it's defined (see geolibertarianism) as a form of US libertarianism. I've skimmed the FAQs and it seems to have no common history with any kind of anarchism. // Liftarn

Judging by google hits it's much less notable than many forms of anarchism not listed here already, such as post-anarchism, utopian anarchism, insurrectionism, or even spiritual anarchism. In short, even if it is connected to anarchism in some secret or spurious way it just isn't nearly of enough note for inclusion here. Sarge Baldy 09:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Much of Hogeye's edits come from his own personal views -- you can read them on his web page. --AaronS 16:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Geoism is more popular than you think (as if popularity is a good criteria.) The anarchism of Georgism is intermingled with the minarchism, so it's hard to get a good google reading. Try googling "geoism" (17900) or Georgism (17200). It's kind of like what would have happened if Rothbard hadn't popularized the term "anarcho-capitalism" - you still would have had a bunch of them, but they would all be calling themselves "libertarian" and be hard to find in the mass of minarchist libertarians.

Re common history: Leo Tolstoy was greatly influenced by Georgism, and could be considered a Georgist. Then theres Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov. What's with you guys? Do you read one commie disinformation site (Infoshop Anarchist FAQ) and think you know something? Hogeye 16:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

MPOV. --AaronS 18:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Try to order template

I recomend a most little template, see wikipedia in spanish: [www.es.wikipedia.org/Anarquismo Anarquismo]

Nihilism?

How is nihilism a school of anarchism? Some anarchists are nihilists, and some nihilists are anarchists, but one is hardly a school of the other.Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Clickable picture

Wääh. I don't like it. It looks... odd. Here (using Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.3) a little blue thingummywut shows up underneath the A... and none of the OTHER templates have links! :O Not very good arguing here, but hey, I don't like it. I'd revert it but that'd be evil. What does everyone else think? Jobjörn 20:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like it either. How I have things set up I get an underline beneath it, and it's rather annoying. Although the anti-war template does the link but not the underline? So maybe if someone fixed that it'd be OK. Sarge Baldy 20:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Goddamnit. Go away blue line. LINES AWAY! Sesame, open! ARGH! Experts on templates required here, obviously. Jobjörn 20:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I put it in. I'll get rid of it. -- The pic in Template:Anti-war topicsis smaller. I could fix this one. Some other time though. -- ActiveSelective 21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. Try it. Wanna keep it or better lose it? -- ActiveSelective 04:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Now it's great. Let's leave it at that for now. Jobjörn 08:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote strongly to NOT link the picture. As Jobjörn mentioned, none of the other templates have such image links; and not just templates, the entire encyclopedia. There's no precedent for introducing this kind of inconsistency. I wanted to find the image that was used, and it required: viewing the source of the article to see what template was included, going to the template page, and looking through the template source to find the image tag. This should not be necessary. The wiki software is designed so that every image links to its image page; respect that, don't find ugly hacks to work around it. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 18:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

National Anarchism

I was under the impression that there was some sort of old consensus on NOT listing "national anarchism". Perhaps I am wrong. Until we have that figured out, however, I would suggest that 89.57.15.190 does not add it again, mmkay? Great. Jobjörn 19:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Image size

The question: Should this template use a smaller icon, or the large version?

I shrunk down the image because it doesn't really add much to the template's value. The icon is very simple, and all necessary detail is shown clearly in the smaller version. This template is already particularly tall, so I don't see shedding any height as a bad thing. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 21:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I think the icon is just too small. But maybe it is OK small. And you're right that it could use some shedding in length. If you want to change it back, feel free. Sarge Baldy 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Small is WAY too small. The full-size image looks far better. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that you reiteratate the length issue, here's what I'd really like to do: Make it a horizontal bottom-of-the-article template instead. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 06:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the look of those ones. Why don't we just get rid of anarcho-capitalism (just kidding, sort of)?

I wonder if we can't use dropdown menus for the sections? Where sections are small until you "expand" them? Do people know how I mean? I can't think of an example of a template with that feature offhand, although they're around. Because the size of the box is an issue, especially as there's more things that could be added but can't due to size limitations. Sarge Baldy 02:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There's an example of this in Seven Bridges of Königsberg, but I wouldn't advocate doing it. As with the image linking issue, of course, I prefer simplicity and standardization. But also, we don't want to force editors to consider how every level of expansion will affect article layout; an expanding template would be just as bad a hindrance as this large template is now. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 06:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, that doesn't seem like such a bad idea. We could at least try it, right? And if it messes up the formatting of an article, it will merely be temporary and only until the person unexpands the thing. The Ungovernable Force 07:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Centered text

I always thought that the whole block being left-aligned looked strange, so I changed it to a center alignment. What do you think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. I guess I don't really care either way. Sarge Baldy 02:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Disputed" section looks really cheesy

That "disputed" section to hold anarcho-capitalism looks really cheesy placed in there like that. The entry either needs to go in for real, or come out, but right now, it just looks downright bad. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to keep it in or out, because, well, it's disputed. If you mean visually, I think it looks just fine as it is. But it'd be interesting to hear what others think. Sarge Baldy 02:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's the best compromise, and seems pretty fair for both camps. And visually, I think it actually adds some pizzaz. The Ungovernable Force 03:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The borders might be a bit too big, but I think that it is a reasonable compromise. I mean, no-one can deny that it is disputed/controversial. - FrancisTyers · 08:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My main issue is actually that it interrupts our beautiful gray box. If we want to leave it out of the gray, we should move it to the bottom. Otherwise, the gray should be extended over it, or it should be put in as a regular entry with "(disputed)" beneath it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, it should still be listed next to traditions, without using the black line separation. How's this version? (Not that I like it better than the old one. I don't, particularly.) Sarge Baldy 22:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I stand by my first statement--I think the light color looks nice and adds some diversity to the other color of grey. The Ungovernable Force 22:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So do I, but I don't mind playing with a few styles. Sarge Baldy 22:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I de-emphasized it a little more, removing the white bars but still setting it off just a little, and placing "disputed" in parentheses beneath it. This way, the fact that people can't agree on whether to include it or not isn't so bold and out there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty big debate, so I don't see what's wrong with making it obvious. The Ungovernable Force 01:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I just see it as a bit of an embarrassment that we can't seem to come to a consensus on whether or not to include it outright, thus requiring the little marking in the first place. It also seems improper to bring a project issue out into the article namespace like that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that the main POV warrior who supported an-cap's inclusion is banned indefinitely, I think it's not going to take too long for a clear position to develope on the main page. And the debate is an academic debate as much as a project debate, and it should be understood by others that the inclusion of an-cap is highly controversial to most anarchists. The Ungovernable Force 01:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Still, it seems to me that a little footnote suffices. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I kind of like the one with the big white Disputed area, per 10:25, 27 June 2006 Sarge Baldy. If you're going to assert a POV against anarcho-capitalism, you might as well be up front and bold about it. - anon

Asserting a POV would be not including it. To say it's not disputed is ridiculous though. The Ungovernable Force 05:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, to say it's disputed, or to say it's not disputed, are both POV. The place for such disputation is in the articles, not on a template. The only non-POV way to handle it that I can see is to either include ancap alphabetically, or to make two lists of traditions/schools - one specifying anti-statist only, the other anti-statist plus anti-capitalist. 216.219.253.189

Now that's an interesting idea... what does everyone else think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Including it alphabetically is blatantly POV, because there's numerous non-anarchist academic sources that say things such as "The term 'anarcho-capitalism' for this domain of right wing libertarianism is generally regarded as a political oxymoron by anarchists" (Anarchism by Sean M. Sheehan, 2004). Not including it is also blatantly POV, because many anarcho-capitalists claim to be anarchist. The separation Hogeye suggests makes no sense, because anarcho-capitalists are the only group opposed to the state that don't oppose capitalism, and not only are they not against it, they embrace it with open arms. The most neutral approach is to list it, but marginalize it. Sarge Baldy 01:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --AaronS 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also agreed. The Ungovernable Force 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't quite have put it in those words, but I think it should be noted as disputed . - FrancisTyers · 08:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Late to the party, but the "disputed" still looks reaaaaaaaaaaly silly. I would definitely advocate the tag's removal. I am neither an anarchist nor an anarcho-capitalist, and it seems to me that the "standard" anarchists are confusing a legitimate disagreement with anarcho-capitalism with "and therefore it must not be anarchism." This can easily be dealt with by mentioning disagreements between "standard" anarchists and anarcho-capitalists- which it seems has already been done by the article Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.

To put it another way- the Merriam-Webster definition of anarchism is: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. If anarcho-capitalists really do advocate abolishing the government, that means they're anarchists, even if you disagree with them. Perhaps the best comparison might be religious debates; there are lots of Sunnis who think that Shias aren't "true" Muslims, and the reverse is true for zealots on the Shia side. Hardcore parts of both sides detest Sufis. Nevertheless, a neutral source should list all of them under an Islam list, and simply note the disageements within the article. There are all sorts of fringe Christian groups that cause mainstream Christians to wince; I don't see why anarchists should be able to exclude fellow anarchists just because they don't like them. If, god forbid, a large school of anarchist thought arose that believed in abolishing the government so that it would be easier to beat other anarchists over the head with baseball bats, then they should be included on the list too, even though other anarchists disagree with them. SnowFire 03:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad analogy, it isn't just hardcore parts, its all non-anarcho-capitalist parts think this way (with few exceptions to the rule). It really is disputed, just read a few books on anarchism. - FrancisTyers · 09:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not relevant to what I'm saying. Perhaps I should have used something stronger; take Fred Phelps instead, then. Nobody in the Christian community likes him (with few exceptions), including other fundamentalists and "conservatives." Heck, some of them have been loudest in calling him actually a Satanist in disguise. His theology only bears a vague resemblance to any other form of Christianity, with about the only similarity being the same holy books and the same "Jesus is God" thing. Nevertheless, the Category:Westboro Baptist Church he's in is under Christian fundamentalism, which I feel is correct. Gnostic Christianity, which is somewhat in vogue to look at now, bears very little resemblance to modern Christianity, with utterly different systems of morals and thoughts on what Christ was. For examples with more adherents, the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses have some practices that are very... odd, to mainstream Christianity. Nevertheless, they can and should be referenced when talking about Christian groups, because they're "close enough..." even as the Christian groups themselves say that Fred Phelps or whoever is being unchristian, perhaps correctly. I use the religious analogy because it's even more of a firestarter, and has been discussed in detail in other places.

My point is that while mainstream anarchists might (even universally) dislike anarcho-capitalists, it doesn't mean that they aren't anarchists, just that in the view of most that they're very bad at being anarchists and are undercutting their own anarchism. Again: the mainstream view of anarchism is "no, or at least very little, government." Do the anarcho-capitalists believe in this? My understanding is that they do. That's it, even if anarchists believe that other anarcho-capitalist beliefs are inconsistent with anarchism. It's no different from "Yes, we believe in Jesus too, but we come up with totally different conclusions as to what that means." SnowFire 04:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The church analogy would be good if we could take just one church and say "all the other churches say this isn't a real church", but they all agree that they are "real churches", but the fact is that churches all refute each other to a certain degree. Its not that they believe the same stuff, they believe the opposite, they are pro-usury, pro-rent, pro-police, pro-all-the-things-that-other-anarchists-are-against, that they are against the state is rather secondary to these points. They can be called anarchists in some narrow dictionary definitions of the word only, and this encyclopaedia is not built on such. Meaning does not come from dictionaries. - FrancisTyers · 07:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, we may have to agree to disagree. The dictionary was just a reference; my claim was that it is the popular usage of anarchism, and meaning does come from people. Moreover, the anarcho-capitalists themselves seem to say it, and you have to give the intent of the person/group claiming some belief weight. (In the United States) There are some Republicans who sure claim to be conservatives, and then act against conservatism whenever given the chance. The same is true of the Democrats and liberalism/progressivism. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they're just being really bad conservatives by stuffing the budget with pork and so on, at least in an encyclopedic context where it would be very bad form to add "and Sen. Smith proved his true nature when he abandoned fiscal conservatism to enrich his corporate buddies." If anarcho-capitalists wish to be associated with anarchism, let them, but then factually mention in the articles all the things that don't jibe (Sen. Smith claims to be a strong conservative. In the most recent budget bill, he succeeded in adding a rider that built a 300-foot tall statue of himself in his original district while a Representative...), mention the dispute, and trust readers to come to their own conclusions.

Just so it's clear, I would have no problem with removing anarcho-capitalism completely, or reorganizing the template to make it clear that it's its own branch; I don't think that's correct, but it would satisfy the main stylistic complaint about the "(disputed)" looking very silly. SnowFire 13:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, between those two I vote remove. The best option is still labelling it as disputed though. That seems like the most neutral way of going about it, since including it and not including it both make a judgement one way or the other. As for the church thing, there are differences in many idea, but they agree on the central point of Jesus being important if not divine. You say that since an-caps reject government, they share the same central point as real (IMO) anarchists, but as far as I'm concerned, this shows a lack of understanding of what anarchism is about. The popular meaning for the average Joe might be no government, but anarchism always has and still does claim as it's central tennet opposition to all authority, which is almost always taken to include capitalism. To then just say that a group of capitalists can call themselves anarchists and not even have it mentioned that it's disputed is ridiculous. That would be like a christian who said they didn't give a damn about Jesus. Another example is national socialism (sic), which most people agree is not a form of socialism. Just because they call themselves socialists doesn't mean they are. Any assertation that they belong within their respective group should at least be mentioned as disputed. The Ungovernable Force 05:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Logical grouping

Rather than alphabetized, isn't it better to use some reasonable categorization of traditions? Perhaps a Misc. Leftie category could be added, with post-left, postanarchism, etc. 72.204.5.50

I don't particularly like it, personally. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)