Wikipedia:Featured article review/Anarcho-capitalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Article is still a featured article

Review commentary[edit]

This article has extensive problems that have existed before and after its recieving featured status:

  • 2(a) The article continues to suffer from many copyedit issues as evidenced by continuous fixing, 23:45, 14 July, 19:14, 14 July, 15:17, 7 July, 13:10, 5 July, 14:18, 22, 16:44, 21 June, 01:45, 20 June. Many of the passages are long-winded or tangential due to multiple editors adding one line at a time in response to each other, rather than writing a coherent passage. These issues call into question the status of its prose as "compelling, even brilliant".
  • 2(c) The article fails to cite proper sources and in some cases even misrepresents them, I removed 8 already today. Many of these sources where placed by two editors (RJII and Hogeye) who have since been banned for intentionally disrupting wikipedia, in part by continuously misrepresenting what they cite. Some of the sources that remain are not peer-reviewed, are secondary sources that do not use primary sources themselves, are not independent, and have conflict of interest in representing the issues they discuss, violating reliable sources guidelines.
  • 2(d) It is not uncontroversial in its neutrality, with the discussion page displaying a prominent warning that it is a controversial topic next to 14 pages of archives dealing with many POV objections that have been resolved/ignored/dismissed to various degrees.
  • 2(e) The article has changed considerably both from when it was first nominated and on a day to day basis, with many editors making extensive changes on a semi-daily basis. It is also occasionally the subjet of ongoing edit wars, both of these issues compromise its stability.
  • Several previous calls by myself and other editors (172, Revcat, AaronS, infinity0) to address these and other issues have largely been ignored or dismissed by editors, and while some issues have been slowly resolved, others have resurfaced or never been addressed. This page is simply not up to the standard of being the best wikipedia has to offer, the controversial nature of its subject matter seems to draw edit warriors to it like a magnet.

Blahblahblahblahblahblah 10:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree, I'd add that the whole "Modern Somalia" is uncited. - FrancisTyers · 12:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. I've been trying to clean up this article, removing a lot of fluff and theoretical speculation. I'll add more when I have time. I'm not sure why it was ever given FA status. --AaronS 18:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V problems. Not our best work. Jkelly 19:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. I'd also note the content problems noted above are likely symptoms of the article's overall poorly laid out structure. 172 | Talk 11:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, the article at present is a mess, and featured status reflects poorly on Wikipedia. Sarge Baldy 01:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with all of the above. The article's lack of stability and the constant disputes regarding its neutrality and factual accuracy, alone, are enough to remove its FA status. These problems have been exacerbated by the recent influx of anarcho-capitalist partisans, some of them sockpuppets. -- WGee 00:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Blahblahblahblahblahblah's comment:

  • 2(a) You showed that copyedit problems were fixed, not that this article suffers from them.
  • 2(c) I don't see any unreliable sources [1]. Can you point out which sources are you contesting?
  • 2(d) There is no POV tag on the article or on any of its sections; taking into account number of the people who strongly oppose anarcho-capitalism as an ideology, that's quite a proof of its neutrality.
  • 2(e) This version of the article was featured. Article remained basically the same. Only difference is that objections regarding size, neutrality and verifiability were taken into account; so the article only gained on its quality and readability.
  • Their objections were taken into account. 172 and Revcat were skeptical about Modern Somalia section – that section is now removed since it was largely based on original research. AaronS complained about article's length of "nearly 70KB", article in now long 51KB (40KB in readable prose). Infinity0 complained about presence of personal webpages, blogs and podcast links in the "External links" section. After short discussion, they were removed [2].-- Vision Thing -- 13:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a review that focuses on the article content and issues, rather than editors involved and past edit history. There is a lot of detail provided in the review request about editors and edit history, but little in the way of actual examples of the current problems with the article. Please provide specific examples of the following mentioned above:

  • The article continues to suffer from many copyedit issues ... Can you list some examples of current issues.
  • The article fails to cite proper sources and in some cases even misrepresents them, Can you list some current examples of sources that aren't "proper".
  • Some of the sources that remain are not peer-reviewed, are secondary sources that do not use primary sources themselves, are not independent, and have conflict of interest in representing the issues they discuss, Rather than discussing banned editors and their edit history, please give concrete examples of current sources which are problematic.
  • It is not uncontroversial in its neutrality ... 14 pages of archives dealing with many POV objections. Examples, please, of current POV problems.

Also, have you notified the authors who originally brought the article to FA status? And can you give us a link to the article when it attained FA status? Sandy 14:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I see VisionThing provided that link. Sandy 14:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can oblige your requests. The reason I gave evidence of recent problems in the article, rather than current ones, is that the moment I see a problem in the article I fix it. My evidence was not meant to point out particulars that could be easily remedied, but a series of problems with the entire article that are ongoing. As evidenced by my numerous examples above, all the copyedit and source problems that I have found I have done what I could to fix, rather than simply complain about them here, my goal is not to remove from FA status an article that could be easily fixed. I would encourage anyone who is interested in verifying the status of the page to just give it a quick read themselves and check the current sources and external links that are still there (and are currently being added even now), to see if they accord with the explicit standards of FA status for wikipedia, or if like myself and others you feel this is an article that still needs a good deal of work. If nothing else, the major edits and somewhat frequent edit wars that are added or removed on a regular basis call into question the stability of the page.
One thing I can at least address is the POV problems, as they are more systemic than particular and more difficult for me to fix. For example, the page includes a box which gives a series of definitions that anarcho-capitalists use in non-normative ways. Many of these definitions are highly selective and do not match those used in dictionaries or even in the field of socio-politics. Because these anarcho-capitalist definitions are then used as such in the article, it thus transforms the article from a neutral wiki presentation of anarcho-capitalism into a pov anarcho-capitalist presentation of anarcho-capitalism every time they use one of these words. Any subsequent criticism of their use of terminology can then be immediately removed by citing "the box" as evidence that the article is upfront concerning its bias. This may be the case, but the fact that it readily admits bias does not make for a neutral description of the subject matter.
In addition, there is a strong tendency by editors of this article to remove sourced evidence that is critical of anarcho-capitalism or contradicts statements made by anarcho-capitalists, and insert in their place highly selective quotes from particular sources rather than ones which represent the field they are taken from. For example, in the last day alone Vision Thing has removed quotes by E Armand (citing that he is only an individualist and not an american individualist), Joe Peacott (claiming it was "not important"). He then included a series of quotes that he has carefully farmed from various sources to suggest that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, while specifically (and I would guess willfully) ignoring those that contradict his prefered conclusion.
There is also a strong tendency to give summaries of all issues in anarcho-capitalist terms, for example explaining individualist anarchism primarily in terms of the labor theory of value, which is an anarcho-capitalist method and not one generally used by historians or individualist anarchists themselves. Of course, most anarcho-capitalist editors on the discussion pages immediately dismiss these concerns, and I imagine Vision Thing will attempt to give a quick response that dismissed them here, but the fact that they exist (and in most cases have been brought up repeatedly) demonstrates that the page is not "uncontroversial in its neutrality". I hope that helps Sandy. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the long explanation. Besides the problems you mention, the article is a blooming link farm and a subsidiary of, which is a tipoff the POV issues that are occurring.Sandy 01:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, his explanation is not an objective one. All problems he mentioned above are more or less fabricated. Also, if you look into his contributions list on the day he started this review, you will notice that he had left a note about it only on a talk pages of editors with a negative stance towards anarcho-capitalism. [3][4][5][6][7]
What do you mean by subsidiary of Amazon? -- Vision Thing -- 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd ignore that comment about us awful editors. Vision Thing has a tendency to characterize anybody who does not endorse an anarcho-capitalist point-of-view as being a hardline communist with dark ulterior motives. I for one could care less about anarcho-capitalism in itself. What I do care about is the accuracy of the encyclopaedia. I'm not here to endorse a viewpoint. Wikipedia is the worst place for that, not only because it ruins the project, but because, unless you're looking to raise an army of pimply-faced technogeek revolutionaries, you're better off evangelizing in the real world. --AaronS 13:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
And if I were to ask you to show me were I characterized anybody as "a hardline communist with dark ulterior motives" you, just like Blah..., couldn't do that because that claim is made up. -- Vision Thing -- 20:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Sandy 21:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Blahblahblahblahblahblah's comment:

1) Can you show examples in which are words from box used in a non-normative ways?
2) For example, I removed [8] Joe Peacott claim from section "Dispute over the name "anarchism"" because he doesn't deny that anarcho-capitalists are anarchists and his claim was already mentioned in part of the article about Individualist anarchism.
3) I don't know how you can claim that article describes individualist anarchism primarily in terms of the labor theory of value when labor theory of value is mentioned exactly one time in the whole section about Individualist anarchism, and even then only in a context of differentiating individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Given Vision Thing's history on this issue and the quality/tone of his responses I'm happy to let my previous comments stand. I believe I have provided sufficient evidence for any reasonable person to take the time to review the page themselves and come to their own conclusions. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 07:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
article review[edit]

I would like to see that those who argue that anarcho-capitalism should loose its featured article status, present their arguments based on the diff of the current article in respect to the version of the article when it was given featured article status [9]. Thanks! Intangible 17:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposition and Extreme Objection to this Review

I agree with Intangible and oppose this review for the following reasons:

The Anarcho-capitalism article meets the requirements for a featured article by easily passing each and every one of the criteria necessary to pass it's tests.

  1. [10] here,
  2. [11] here,
  3. [12] here,
  4. [13] where User:Blahblahblahblahblahblah makes 15 edits on July 13 alone. here,
  5. [14] where User: AaronS makes 7 edits on July 12 and 8 edits on July 6, and User:Blahblahblahblahblahblah makes 6 edits on June 27.

As far as an attempt at sabotaging this article goes I find it a bit odd that User:Blahblahblahblahblahblah joined Wikipedia as an editor on June 27, [15] and went straight to work at editing this article on that date.

This looks like not only a clear case of a group of editors who are pointedly against the notion of anarcho-capitalism, going out of their way to degrade the quality of the article, and then starting on a deliberate campaign to lower it's high quality. This extreme vandalism having been done, these same editors then suggest that this article lose it's featured article status. I suggest that this entire case be dropped by the aforementioned evidence, all of which are in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. Shannonduck talk 20:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As the current article stands, I do not see any inaccuracies or slander that would require any changes at this time. - MSTCrow 22:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it is easy enough to answer Shannon's criticism of my attempts to "sabotage" the article. Look through any of the edits that Shannon listed, or any of my other edits, and see if the article is better or worse for it, rather than simply criticising my number of edits (whose purpose was to improve the article).
As for it being "a bit odd" that I edited the article right after joining, this explaination is also pretty easy, I was a user of wikipedia (Kevehs) for several years previously. I left, waiting until users Hogeye and RJII got themselves banned with their abusive behavior, so that some resemblance of civility could be brought back to the pages I edit. I created a new identity, in accordance with wiki policy to avoid being harassed by the sockpuppets of RJII and Hogeye that continue to plague these articles. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 01:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

*** Shannon (User:Lingeron): do not censor the comments of other editors. The following comments have been replaced. ***

Perhaps you should provide diffs to my edits. If I am so opposed to "the notion of anarcho-capitalism," why were all of my edits working towards improving the article? I removed fluff, made sections more concise, fixed grammar, fixed references, moved long sections to their own articles, deleted theoretical speculation, and made the article more like a featured article candidate. I think that this article should be here and that every article should work towards this status. Before throwing around words like "sabotage," "deliberate campaign," "extreme vandalism," and the like, provide some evidence. I think that you just don't like the idea that this article is being reviewed. Well, if it's a great article, then this review won't matter, and it can certainly stand for itself without you attacking various editors. Next time you want to throw around accusations, provide some actual proof. If anybody takes the time (but why would they?) to look at the diffs in question (which you did not link to), they would see that my edits improved the article. Anarcho-capitalism is monitored by many, many anarcho-capitalists and interested parties; if my edits were so terrible, they would have been reverted. Of course, they were not. --AaronS 20:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, here is the diff that you didn't provide. All of my edits improved the article. All of my edit summaries explained what I was doing. I discussed them on the talk page. So, please, these accusations are starting to get silly. If you don't stop, I'll have my secret cabal of Communist henchmen make you stop. --AaronS 21:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This article already has this status. Apparantly you have no faith in those who make these decisions. Shannonduck talk 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Blind faith in authority never helped anybody. --AaronS 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Oppose: As one of the editors who worked hard to get this article to FA status, including doing my damndest to get individual claims cited correctly, I think I can say that the article has not degraded from its original FA state. In fact, I think some parts are better. (The lead section I think has turned out very good, and efforts by subsequent editors to trim the fat off of quite a few sections has been to the good without losing content.) The current problem it seems (which is the perennial problem) is the fact that ancaps and anarchists do not use a common lexicon (both of which subtly diverge from common usage). This is the reason for the sidebars. You just can't adequately discuss a philosophy with out using the terms as used by that philosophy-- and the article is being very up front about that. To gain some perspective, try and imagine an article about Marxist Theory that doesn't involve at least some idiosyncratic definitions. I don't think it's possible. --Saswann 17:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that not all articles on wikipedia have to be featured articles. The problem you point out of "requiring" use of specialized anarcho-capitalist definitions for common terms to describe the subject just speaks to me that the article cannot be uncontroversial in its neutrality, you are saying that the only way it can be presented is to present it, literally, in anarcho-capitalist terms. I actually disagree with you that this is a necessity, but if it is then I would say it precludes featured article status. Besides, I think it is a bit of a stretch to compare use of specialized marxist terms like, I dunno, "dialectical materialism" to non-normative uses of much more common terms like "voluntary".
In addition, just recently the criticism section (and external links) has been all but removed, that section being referanced by two of the support voters during FAC. The external links that remain still have ones in violation of wikipedia policy on appropriate links as do many of the sources, and I'm getting less and less motivated to fix these issues given the "we refuse to accept that there is anything wrong with this article at all" attitude I keep getting on the talk page.
I simply can't agree that all the changes since FA status are improvements, or even that the article as it was originally submitted was good to go. I respect your professional editing Saswann, and I readily admit to having bias as concerns this subject, but you really pushed to have this article put up for featured status and I'm not sure you have enough distance from it to avoid being, understandibly, defensive. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well there's obviously a disagreement between us as far as terminology goes. IMO it is very hard to describe the subject in a neutral way without using terms as ancaps define them, otherwise you head straight into the POV thicket of qualifying every statement in the article again and again and again, to the point where the article presents a clear anti-ancap bias. It made a lot more sense to me (and it still does) to present the terms as they're defined by the ancap usage, and present clearly what the terms mean in ancap philosophy in a prominent manner, once. The alternative seems a whole lot uglier to me, both aesthetically, and in terms of POV problems. Also, I didn't say all the changes were improvements, just that some were. I'm afraid I just don't see the wasteland of Ancap Advocacy<-->Rampant Vandalism everyone else does. Most of the arguments seem more tangential and, in the grand scheme of things not nearly as important as everyone makes them out to be. --Saswann 20:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Then again, I can't help but feel that if you are correct, this article will never be featured status quality. You say that it would be POV and ugly to point out when and where the anarcho-capitalists are using terms in non-normative ways, but I can't imagine how it would be NPOV to make a small box on the left hand corner as a cheat that allows editors to then proceed to use the voice of wikipedia to describe anarcho-captialism as the anarcho-captialists would most want it described. There really is a problem with having the article go on and on about anarcho-capitalism being the height of voluntary, non-coercive philosophy, and side-stepping rather large issues like the fact that if we used normative definitions anarcho-capitalism would entail the very things it claims to be against. You used the example of marxism to show that some ideologies need to be presented with specialized terms. That is fair. But how about if I used the example of white nationalism to show that some ideologies, if presented in their own terms, will do so to the detriment of a balanced presentation for wiki readers? Blahblahblahblahblahblah 08:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That's just it. If you refuse to present white nationalism in its own terms, and insist on qualifying their statements, you are essentially enforcing an anti-white supremacist POV on the article. Now, I don't see many people becoming upset over that particular bias, but it's still a bias, against the whole idea of NPOV, no mater how many people agree with the sentiment. Also, I think you're severly underestimating the reader's intelligence in parsing the article. It is quite obvious, not only from the sidebar, but from the context of the article, what's being talked about. And, to put an even finer point on it, the "anarchist" definitions of the terms "voluntary," "coercive," and "capitalism" aren't any more normative than the ancap ones. If I were to walk up to anyone in my office here and suggested their employment was somehow not a voluntary arrangement on their part, they'd think I was nuts-- but by the "anarchist" definition of voluntary, that's exactly what it is.--Saswann 17:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
While I don't want to get into theoretical speculation, that's really only at first glance, and it does depend on the circumstance. Perhaps that's the case in your nice, air-conditioned office, but it is certainly not the case everywhere. Some people feel compelled to accept poor employment because their circumstances demand it. Quite differently from you, I could very easily ask my friend who earns minimum wage at a supermarket and who has no health insurance whether or not he felt coerced into his situation, and he would respond with a hearty "hell yes."
This isn't the point, though. I think that what Blah is saying is that the way the article presented right now might be a bit too advocative (is that a word? It is now). --AaronS 18:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because an article achieved featured article status does not mean it is "done" by any means. To believe so is foolish, counterproductive, and generally in opposition to the way Wikipedia works. If featured articles deserved to remain in the state they were when they became featured, they would be locked then and there. The review process exists to continue to examine such articles, and simply being a featured article is not sufficient evidence for not revising an article. Shannon's reverts to the article have made significant progress on the revision difficult to achieve. In fact at one point, as nearly as I can tell, she reverted the whole article to its revision as of when it gained featured article status. While her edits may have been in good faith, she has shown noteworthy inability to assume good faith herself.--Rosicrucian 12:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that in general it is headed in the right direction, though the removal of the entire criticism section and the all criticism external links was a step in the wrong direction, imho. Still, work needs to be done with the external links that remain, which do not meet wiki standards and seem too numerous. I also think it is important to continue checking the validity of the referances section, since several of the referances were not reliable and added by now banned uses. I don't currently have access to a university library, so I've only been able to remove those that were obviously invalid on the surface. Last, I think both the "definitions" box and the "other names for anarcho-capitalism" box still have reasonable standing objections, I don't agree with saswann that the only way to present a subject in NPOV is to tacitly accept anarcho-capitalist definitions by having wikipedia's voice use them in its presentation. Other than that remaining problems are pretty minor from what I can tell, some grammar and the use of two templates, for example. In short I still think it could use some work. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 15:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, I think that User:TheIndividualist is pushing it in the wrong direction by inserting highly contentious claims like "anarcho-capitlaism is a form of individualist anarchism" in the very first sentence of the article. Those are the kinds of claims that we're trying to avoid, and which have dubious sources at best. --AaronS 15:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It does definitely seem like an effort to make an assertion that as of yet has achieved no consensus in Template Talk:Anarchism. As such, I'd agree that it's premature to call Anarcho-Capitalism anarchism in the political sense. Given Individualist's edits in the template talk it's evident which side he weighs in on, but it has no place in the article until it's resolved--Rosicrucian 16:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The introductory section of the article is rather dense with information, perhaps needlessly so. If one can't see the ToC without scrolling at 1024x768, I think things may have gone somewhat awry. I'd favor coming up with a more concise introductory paragraph, with any other information moved to the appropriate section of the article as needed. It fits Wikipedia:Lead section better that way.--Rosicrucian 21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Worked this. Rlevse 00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Main FA criteria concerns are prose writing quality (2a), sources (2c), POV (2d), stability (2e). Marskell 08:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. There does seem to have been a lot of work done on this—about 240 edits since nomination on just over two weeks ago; this compares with roughly the same number of edits between the start of April and nomination (three and a half months). Blah, do you think it should be saved? Tony 13:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think a lot of positive contributions have happened over a short time, so the review seems to have had a good effect on the quality of the article. However, there have also been some backwards steps as I noted above. A lot of the unfortunate changes have been the direct result of edits by now banned sockpuppets (shannon and individualistanarchist), and one of the better editors twobitsprite has recently had enough of the partisan bickering and given up. I'm on the verge myself actually. I would really like to see someone like saswann or radgeek return to the article and work on it. At the moment I would say it definately fails to meet featured article status, but I'm certainly not the least biased individual for making such a determination. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 15:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that under circumstances, there's not enough firm evidence to remove it, and significant work has been done on the article since nomination. Tony 10:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the reviewers may have exhausted themselves with all the comments early in this FAR :). Taking a look, I think this is quite a fine article and agree much work has been done. I would only add that the TOC is a touch verbose—could we shorten "Real world systems with characteristics similar to anarcho-capitalism", for instance? Marskell 17:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject for now, mainly on the grounds of (2e). Removing the FA status of this article would not be a sleight towards the many people who have worked on it; it's quite a good article, but the topic is too contentious for some people. There are many good articles on controversial topics that aren't featured articles for this very reason. --AaronS 23:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The only problem I currently see is the top heavy verbose lead, which should be re-written. It shouldn't be too difficult to correct. Most of the description of the article's problems appeared aimed at *editors* of the article, rather than the actual article or its content. I haven't seen a good argument for delisting an article of this quality. Sandy 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject for NPOV concerns and some troublesome citing. While the article is a fine (in fact, hyper-enthusiastic) description of AnCap, it terribly misrepresents everything else. The article as it stands make's good use of exploiting first appearances, stating matter-as-factly things that are actually hugely contentious (the best part about this article is the sidebar that states that they use terms differently from others - fair enough, but a red flag). The article can do without ad-hominem attacks on those who disagree with central tenets of AnCap (the highly troublesome Anarcho-capitalism#Individualist_anarchism_in_the_United_States is the best example). Also problematic is the tone of argument through intimidation, with reams of texts being cited at any point where AnCap isn't assumed to be the political theory-of-everything, without the same courtesy extended to the better represented POV that contest these claims. The best example of this is the line "Several scholars see anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism" with 13 citations, all lined up, of which one stated the opposite of what it claimed (till I pointed that out and it was removed). This isn't a good thing - it's clumsy and betrays an overly aggressive bearing. It's especially bad because this phrase has worked itself into every article tangentially related to the question of whether AnCap has a place in the anarchist tradition.
If I can summarise my problems with it: I would not oppose this article's FA status, I'd probably even endorse it, if it didn't attempt to contextualise itself into other traditions (which it shouldn't do in the first place) and change those traditions to fit. There is a group of editors who have been very aggressively pushing an AnCap POV over Wikipedia (and elsewhere) especially within the Anarchism series which keeps a group of editors like myself busy with trying to defend the articles of more modest pretentions. Let this article say what it wants about AnCap - it is what it's there for, and does it well - but let it keep quiet about everything else except as to how it directly ascertains to AnCap (for instance, name and influence but neglect to attack the influence for not being AnCap enough). When this attempt at theory-of-everything POV violation falls away the dodgy citations and contamination of other articles will as well, and we will actually have worked towards an agreement.--Marinus 23:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the "definition box" is a bit troublesome. Namely, if anarcho-capitalists use or interpret terms differently, that should be explained in the article. I'm sure that there must be criticisms of anarcho-capitalism based upon their unique interpretations of these words. At this point, the article assumes that the infobox is enough; or, worse yet, it presents itself as if it is using those terms in their every day sense. The lead is also troublesome. Note that the lead of socialism, for instance, does not say "Socialism is an ideology seeking to overthrow the ruling class as an oppressive means of exploitation and replace it with a system where every individual is free." The lead for this article, however, tends to take an advocate's stance. --AaronS 03:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

... the article has seemed to stabalize, most of the editors who have filed complaints about the article have seemed reduce their edits, disruptive users have been dealt with for the most part. Most of the complaints filed above have been rectified. What do you all think now? I'll start with my vote:

  • Keep. The article has gone under significant reworking since the review began, and most of the complaints filed have been resolved. Two-Bit Sprite 14:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

*Reject. Comment. This article will never be stable. While there are many good editors working on it, there are a few bad apples who will always be around, and it will always be undergoing edit wars and significant changes. I might support a future nomination. --AaronS 14:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

AaronS has entered a duplicate vote, please strike. Sandy 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this a re-vote? --AaronS 18:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Votes entered above still stand unless the editor who entered the vote strikes the vote. Sandy 18:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. --AaronS 18:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No need :-) Sandy 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
That's an awefully negative view point, to say that this article will never reach some amount of relative stability. I'm sure there are plenty of featured articles that get vandalized often enough; the fact that there are people who will try to use wikipedia as a platform for thier beliefs should not nullify the fact that the article as it stands is of high enough quality to be considered one of the best articles on wikipedia from an encyclopedic stance... —Two-Bit Sprite 15:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure it does. It may be a negative belief, but some articles on Wikipedia are just like that. See George W. Bush for an example. --AaronS 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I also think it would be unfortunate to remove on the basis of "cannot be stable". GWB is the exception of exceptions. Look, for instance at abortion—it gets hit by mass vandal/anon edits, yet the core article has remained stable. If we can do it there... More pertinently, is there POV issue in this article at this moment that needs to be addressed before closing the FAR? Marskell 08:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe there is - not in the way the article represents AnCap, but in how it represents other movements. This is especially troublesome because these POV misrepresentations are repeated in various other articles. --Marinus 23:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Premature closing of vote[edit]

Most of the people originally involved in this review have not even voted, yet. Was there a discussion about closing it that I missed? --AaronS 16:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There was more than a full month review period, and the article was at FARC for more than two weeks. There were no requests to extend the review period due to unusual circumstances, the article had stabilized, and yours was the only vote to remove. All editors had more than two weeks to enter a vote. Sandy 16:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes there are circumstances in real life which prevent people from monitoring Wikipedia. I can think of 3 or 4, perhaps 5, editors who would be interested in this vote, if they were around. --AaronS 16:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My reasons for closing:

  • Original concerns were addressed.
  • There was a concensus for keeping the article's featured status.
  • Work was not being done on the article at the time of closing.
  • Article had been stable for more than four days.
  • Article had been in review for a month with no outstanding requests for extension.
  • I understand that not everyone can check Wikipedia every day, however the FARC was open for 2 weeks. We cannot have a FARC open until everyone votes. Joelito (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Those are good reasons, and I wasn't assuming that you didn't have any. :) It's just that I happen to know that a few people haven't been active in a few weeks, but were originally very active in the FAR. A recent rise in sock puppetry regarding anarchism-related articles has driven them off for a bit. To date, I am the only original person who thought that the article should be reviewed to have voted. --AaronS 18:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, nobody has counted Blah's vote, so that makes two of us. The vote currently stands at 4 to keep and 2 to reject. --AaronS 18:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a vote from Blah. Sandy 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"At the moment I would say it definately fails to meet featured article status" --AaronS 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a vote there, and FARCs are closed based on consensus on the issues raised. There was never a strong argument in this FAR that the article did not meet FA criteria. The nomination and subsequent discussion read as an issue with the *editors*, not the actual article. Sandy 18:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
There isn't a consensus, yet, is there? The fact that some of the discussion was marred by sock puppets and banned users does not devalue the points raised by some of the original editors questioning the article's status. Forgive me, but I do not understand the motivation or reasoning behind closing this discussion, other than "that's just the way it is, and that's the way I think it should be." --AaronS 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A wee extension[edit]

I have notified interested parties of the closing of the vote. I request that there be a wee extension while they consider whether or not they would like to vote or add anything to the discussion. This includes editors who I believe might vote to reject as well as editors who I believe might vote to keep. Due to the controversiality that often surrounds this article, I feel that it's important that we make sure that the issue will be settled when it is settled. --AaronS 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's unusual to canvas editors after the FARC has closed, considering it had a two-week review period. I don't see a vote above from Blah. And I was wondering why you didn't also canvas Intanglible, MSTCrow, and Saswann ?Sandy 18:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I notified the main editors on the first page of the histories of anarcho-capitalism and anarchism, as well as those who I could remember off of the top of my head. I'll notify those editors, as well.
It may be unusual, but during this FAR, there was a great deal of edit warring and sock puppetry going on with regard to the anarchism-related articles, discouraging quite a few editors and causing them to take a bit of a leave. I'm one of them, although I've stuck around for things like this.
I don't see any harm in leaving it open a bit longer while all of these people have their say. The harm in closing it, right now, would be the continual questioning of the legitimacy of the FA status of the article. I wish that there had been some kind of notification before close, akin to a little "well, are we ready?" for everybody. --AaronS 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I would support an extension of the FARC. Blockader 15:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's legit to call for an extension for something after the fact... I mean, I suppose you have the option of openning a new FARC... It has been a month, after all; if you were going to canvas and get more votes, you probably should have done it sooner. Two-Bit Sprite 18:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Bad faith F.A.R.[edit]

I know all about "assuming good faith," and I do, but after looking this over, I suspect that the attempt to remove this article from Featured Article Status was not done in good faith. I can't help thinking that this comes from the typical anti-capitalist psychology of wanting to destroy or discredit what others have built through their hard work. Not only is the article itself the fruit of enormous intellectual and physical labor but the article itself is about a philosophy that supports profiting from one's achievments. On top of that, the article is awarded with a Gold Star. It fills the anti-capitalists with envy and resentment. Instead of building anything of value themselves, they work destroy what others create. (Compare to the attack on the World Trade Center). DTC 18:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my. --AaronS 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It read that way to me as well (that is, the nomination was not about the article, rather editors of the article). Sandy 18:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
If you truly believe that, then I question your neutrality in deciding whether or not this issue should be closed. --AaronS 18:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
My vote counts no more or less than yours. The FA criteria are clearly defined: this FAR never showed that the article failed to meet the criteria. Sandy 18:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I also believe that it meets all criteria, except that it is unstable, and that there are issues regarding NPOV. Just take a look at Template talk:Anarchism. --AaronS 19:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
DTS: you scold me, Aaron, and others for assuming bad faith, yet here you are assumimg that we "work [to] destroy what others create? Outrageous. -- WGee 01:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
DTS: Didn't lingeron use that exact same phrase? Or maybe it was one of the other banned users. I can't keep you all straight anymore. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 09:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, are we voting on something that was already voted on? I'm confused. - MSTCrow 02:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)