Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 21
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Relationship with anarchism in lead
The suggestion that anarcho-capitalism is not always seen, especially by anarchists, as being a part of anarchism proper is uncontroversial and well sourced. The nature of the relationship between anarcho-capitalism and anarchism as a whole is a key issue and relates to the fundamental definition of the terms. It is also documented throughout the main body, including in its own section. Despite those three points, one editor has taken to repeatedly and unilaterally removing reference to it in the lead, including again just now, in a blind-revert edit that also blanked content and sources from the main body. WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:WEIGHT are basic WP policies and the WP:LEAD guideline is also quite clear that the lead summarises the body. The idea that that principle of concise overview and explanation is not a "valid reason" for including this point in the lead or that to do so would be equivalent to mentioning creationism in the evolution lead is somewhat odd and certainly not a justification for removing sourced content. N-HH talk/edits 13:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- If it's a concise overview, why do none of the other anarchism articles have such a thing? After all, there have been massive infights between, say, Bakunin and Proudhonian anarchists. But the ledes of the articles of the respective ideas they espoused don't have such a concept in them as you're trying. Why is that? Could it be that you're just attempting disruptive editing to make a point? Sure looks that way. Until you perform the same "service" for all anarchism articles, you have nothing upon which to stand. Nothing.
- Further, if it is, as you say, a concise overview--why does the lede of evolution not mention anything about "the controversy"? It's mentioned in "social and cultural responses", but not the lede. Funny that. You'd think that if the lede was a "concise overview", that "the controversy" would be mentioned. But it's not. In fact, the "social and cultural responses" section is the "concise overview" of "the controversy", and links to other, fuller pages about it. Just as is warranted here. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- None of that addresses the questions or justifies your blind reverts, which have removed sourced material from the body as well as references to it the lead. Reference to other pages, whether about individual anarchists or wholly unrelated topics, are irrelevant to the point at hand, as is the suggestion that an improvement cannot be made on one page unless and until a purportedly equivalent change is made on every other article (and, just to humour you, of course followers of Proudhon and Bakunin disagree but neither has the fundamental and widely acknowledged definitional issue that we have here). Even though you seem to have been battling on this and related points for years against a succession of people who disagree with you, you have yet to come up with a convincing argument for your position or to demonstrate that you understand wikipedia policies or practice. Your flinging around the accusation of being disruptive against others is the icing on the cake. N-HH talk/edits 08:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- It actually does both address your "questions" and justifies the reverts. Please remember that disruptive editing to make a point is against Wikipolicy. As such, your edits were removed. If you do not like it: do not use disruptive editing to make a point. It will not be allowed. References on other pages are completely relevant to the point, as there's no valid reason to single out one specific article for the "treatment" you and a few others would like. You and those like you have yet to come up with a single convincing argument otherwise, and that you would try to evade that salient point is quite telling. Now would you like to attempt to justify your special "treatment" of this article? Remember: the lede of evolution does not, in any way, mention "the controversy", ID, or creationism. Looks like you have your work cut out for you. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Er, no, disruptive editing is a description rather obviously more accurately applied to the repeated unilateral removal – from both the body and lead – of well sourced, relevant and significant material, especially when at least two editors recently, and many more previously, clearly favour its inclusion in some form or other. I have no particular "point" to prove, while you have offered no justification for removing the material other than vague statements about not liking it as a "treatment" and vague assertions about what a wholly unrelated page with wholly different issues – and where WP:FRINGE applies, as it clearly does not in the same way here – might or might not do. The burden is on you to explain why such sourced and prima facie relevant material, which is commonly found in third-party analysis of anarcho-capitalism and related terminology, needs to be deleted with extreme prejudice.
- The idea that this page should not, in the section entitled "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools", mention the widely recorded fact that other schools do not even consider it to be anarchism at all or that the page should suggest in the lead, without qualifiction at all, that it is a form of anarchism (eg through the side-bar and alternative names) without some reference to that significant debate is nonsensical as well as a rather obvious breach of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. N-HH talk/edits 14:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it fits what you did perfectly. No other anarchism page has such. It has no bearing on anarchocapitalism at all. There's no valid reason for it to be there. None. Putting it in is a breach of NPOV and LEAD as well. If it is not, then clearly "teach the controversy" MUST be included in the same for evolution. But it isn't. And there's a good reason: it's not the place for such, nor has it any bearing. Similarly, the idea of anarchocapitalism and other forms of anarchism are not germane to the lede. At all. Nor does it have any bearing. At all. That you are trying desperately to ignore those salient facts is telling.
- Er, no, disruptive editing is a description rather obviously more accurately applied to the repeated unilateral removal – from both the body and lead – of well sourced, relevant and significant material, especially when at least two editors recently, and many more previously, clearly favour its inclusion in some form or other. I have no particular "point" to prove, while you have offered no justification for removing the material other than vague statements about not liking it as a "treatment" and vague assertions about what a wholly unrelated page with wholly different issues – and where WP:FRINGE applies, as it clearly does not in the same way here – might or might not do. The burden is on you to explain why such sourced and prima facie relevant material, which is commonly found in third-party analysis of anarcho-capitalism and related terminology, needs to be deleted with extreme prejudice.
- It actually does both address your "questions" and justifies the reverts. Please remember that disruptive editing to make a point is against Wikipolicy. As such, your edits were removed. If you do not like it: do not use disruptive editing to make a point. It will not be allowed. References on other pages are completely relevant to the point, as there's no valid reason to single out one specific article for the "treatment" you and a few others would like. You and those like you have yet to come up with a single convincing argument otherwise, and that you would try to evade that salient point is quite telling. Now would you like to attempt to justify your special "treatment" of this article? Remember: the lede of evolution does not, in any way, mention "the controversy", ID, or creationism. Looks like you have your work cut out for you. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- None of that addresses the questions or justifies your blind reverts, which have removed sourced material from the body as well as references to it the lead. Reference to other pages, whether about individual anarchists or wholly unrelated topics, are irrelevant to the point at hand, as is the suggestion that an improvement cannot be made on one page unless and until a purportedly equivalent change is made on every other article (and, just to humour you, of course followers of Proudhon and Bakunin disagree but neither has the fundamental and widely acknowledged definitional issue that we have here). Even though you seem to have been battling on this and related points for years against a succession of people who disagree with you, you have yet to come up with a convincing argument for your position or to demonstrate that you understand wikipedia policies or practice. Your flinging around the accusation of being disruptive against others is the icing on the cake. N-HH talk/edits 08:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Like it or not: you won't get to push your POV, try to make a point, or anything like that. You have offered no valid reasons for your inclusions. Offer some if you can. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Right, so one pseudonymous wikipedia editor and zealous self-appointed page-guardian gets to wield their veto and declare that an observation taken from a book described as "An exhaustive and authoritative study which is bound to become the standard account" of anarchism – ie that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice .. even if they do reject the State, [they] might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists" – is out of bounds for both the lead and the body of this page, and a "massive change", even if the content just briefly reports that assessment rather than opens the page with it or endorses it. My justification for including the observation, as pointed out from the outset, is simply and precisely that it is there in black and white in an authoritative source and is a key issue relating to the classification and description of the subject-matter of the page – which currently is described, without any qualification, from the lead onwards, as definitely being a form of anarchism, such that the issue has already been introduced, but incompletely. Your just ignoring that and continuing to repeat "I don't like this content or 'treatment'" is not a rebuttal of the justification I actually have provided. Who set you up above established sources and authorities and above WP rules on sourced/verifiable content, neutral point of view and due weight?
And please quit with the "POV" nonsense. It is not "a breach of NPOV" to note such differences in opinion, if significant enough; indeed, it's a breach not to of course. And, as noted, I have no underlying point to prove or "POV" to "push" here. By contrast, I'm not sure the same can be said for someone using a username that appears all over the internet posting on various Austrian and anarcho-capitalist boards with a rather transparent point of view and agenda.
As for other pages, I can only repeat that it doesn’t matter what they do and that the evolution example is particularly off-beam, as the issue there is about a substantive dispute of fact and how much weight to give to fringe controversy. Here, we are talking about a relatively subjective and non-marginal difference of opinion about categorisation and description. And if you insist on debating this in terms of other pages, here are some that are at least vaguely comparable and in some cases directly relevant, where the lead - and this is not just about the lead of course anyway, something you've been neatly sidestepping – does indeed note equivalent contention and debates about taxonomy and/or classification: Red panda, Koala, Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and, er, National Anarchism.
I'm not sure you could get every single argument, and the burden of justification, more back to front than you have here. But that's WP politics pages for you, policed as they often are by the Lone Warrior of Truth who knows better than everyone else trying to contribute and than published authorities and writers and prepared to edit-war endlessly over it. When I have time I'll RFC this or bring in outside eyes somehow. No one here gets to own a page and repeatedly blind-revert entirely reasonable – and hardly extensive – sourced additions like this, even if they don't personally like them. N-HH talk/edits 13:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I notice that for all of your words you failed to justify what you want to be included. Please stop vandalizing the page. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't edited it for several days, precisely because I'd rather avoid the edit war you seem to be happily engaging in currently with a different editor or editors and would rather rely instead on "words" to convey points – none of which you have explicitly responded to, let alone rebutted, in the stonewalling above. Plus the edit adding the content in question, whether made by me or anyone else, is rather obviously not vandalism. Equally, while I am aware that I have "failed to justify" the content in your eyes, that is not the same thing as actually failing to justify it. Not that it should really be necessary anyway – the idea that an observation about the relationship between anarcho-capitalism and most other anarchist currents, sourced from one of the leading published overviews of anarchism as well as to other sources, is appropriate for a section titled "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" would be obvious to most people, one would have thought. Also entirely appropriate is a brief reference to the issue in the lead in turn, given that: that entire section exists; it is a salient point re categorisation/description; and WP:LEAD rather explicitly states that the lead should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". N-HH talk/edits 17:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Then CLEARLY "teach the controversy" should be in the lede for evolution. It's a very prominent controversy. But it's not in the lede. So clearly: You. Are. Wrong. And yes: bringing up other articles is perfectly fine when you quote from an article about wikipolicy. Why? Because that applies to ALL articles. So please don't try to handwave away that "teach the controversy" is not in the lede for evolution, as you will have no leg to stand on. You have failed to justify your additions (which are solely about whatever hate you have for capitalism). Please stop introducing your non-neutral point of view into the article. And as for an edit-war: you're the one reverting under different IPv6 addresses. Not me. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- WTF? I have not accused you of edit-warring – against yourself – from the IP addresses but using your own account, which you are, with a third party. And, no, the IP addresses are not me: they are US-based AT&T addresses. Jesus. And quit banging on about the evolution page, which has nothing to do with anything here, and making convoluted leaps of logic based on that. As for your bizarre assertions that this is about the "hate" I supposedly have for capitalism, and the suggestion that including content that reflects real-world views as recorded in reliable sources is not neutral, words fail me. This has nothing to do with my views on anything. N-HH talk/edits 15:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- The evolution page has everything to do with here, since you cited a wikipedia policy WHICH AFFECTS ALL PAGES. Do you not get that? The page explains how the lede is supposed to work, and that means FOR ALL PAGES. If you don't like that fact--not my problem. Can't do anything about it. Host. Petard. Your own. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no idea what any of that is meant to be saying or what it has to do with any of the points raised here. N-HH talk/edits 22:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- And as for "edit-warring", unless you're still labouring under the delusion that all these different US-based IPs are actually me, you're surely aware that you are currently up to ten knee-jerk reverts in a month, against what may well genuinely be a range of other editors? By contrast, I have made a total of three edits to the actual page in that period, while trying to explain to you on this talk page, in often extensive and reasoned detail – which you have never directly responded to in kind – what should be obvious anyway about this content. The last post above of yours is a shining example of the limitations, to say the least, of your responses. As noted previously, you do not own this page. N-HH talk/edits 17:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, there have been zero knee-jerk reverts from me. I have simply reverted vandalism and NPOV as outlined in wikipolicy. Nor did you try to explain anything in extensive detail; you tried to rationalize your edits by handwaving away the problems I pointed out. Please stop trying to play the victim; it does not suit you. Tell me: when are you going to make edits to every single lede for which there is a controversy listed in the body? Hmmmm? Yeah, didn't think so. In other words: you and your buddies wanted to marginalize anarchocapitalism, got caught, and now you're misusing RfC to try to keep your vandalism of the page in place. That's not what a good wikipedia editor does. - Knight of BAAWA (talk)
- Vandalism on WP has a pretty specific meaning which this clearly does not fall under (the POV point is similarly spurious), and your bandying the accusation around is getting a little tedious, as are your other bizarre comments about people being "caught" or their supposedly playing the "victim". Nor are improvements to one page barred until the same editors proposing them make them to every other purportedly similar page – and, in any event of course, I have linked to several pages where exactly this kind of debate about classification and terminology are already included, including in the lead. Your only objections to reasoned explanations and cited sources are pretty much to close your eyes, say "I don't like this content" and impugn the motives of anyone who disagrees with you, while raising issues about other pages, as if that has anything to do with anything. The hostility and stonewalling – and, yes, knee-jerk reverting – on display here is more than enough material for the next RfC, on user conduct. As for whether I am misusing the process here, others will judge that. Even if some others answer "no" to the question, I can't think many people would argue it was inappropriate to ask it or that it represents a bid to smuggle vandalism into the page. N-HH talk/edits 16:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- The evolution page has everything to do with here, since you cited a wikipedia policy WHICH AFFECTS ALL PAGES. Do you not get that? The page explains how the lede is supposed to work, and that means FOR ALL PAGES. If you don't like that fact--not my problem. Can't do anything about it. Host. Petard. Your own. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- WTF? I have not accused you of edit-warring – against yourself – from the IP addresses but using your own account, which you are, with a third party. And, no, the IP addresses are not me: they are US-based AT&T addresses. Jesus. And quit banging on about the evolution page, which has nothing to do with anything here, and making convoluted leaps of logic based on that. As for your bizarre assertions that this is about the "hate" I supposedly have for capitalism, and the suggestion that including content that reflects real-world views as recorded in reliable sources is not neutral, words fail me. This has nothing to do with my views on anything. N-HH talk/edits 15:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Then CLEARLY "teach the controversy" should be in the lede for evolution. It's a very prominent controversy. But it's not in the lede. So clearly: You. Are. Wrong. And yes: bringing up other articles is perfectly fine when you quote from an article about wikipolicy. Why? Because that applies to ALL articles. So please don't try to handwave away that "teach the controversy" is not in the lede for evolution, as you will have no leg to stand on. You have failed to justify your additions (which are solely about whatever hate you have for capitalism). Please stop introducing your non-neutral point of view into the article. And as for an edit-war: you're the one reverting under different IPv6 addresses. Not me. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't edited it for several days, precisely because I'd rather avoid the edit war you seem to be happily engaging in currently with a different editor or editors and would rather rely instead on "words" to convey points – none of which you have explicitly responded to, let alone rebutted, in the stonewalling above. Plus the edit adding the content in question, whether made by me or anyone else, is rather obviously not vandalism. Equally, while I am aware that I have "failed to justify" the content in your eyes, that is not the same thing as actually failing to justify it. Not that it should really be necessary anyway – the idea that an observation about the relationship between anarcho-capitalism and most other anarchist currents, sourced from one of the leading published overviews of anarchism as well as to other sources, is appropriate for a section titled "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" would be obvious to most people, one would have thought. Also entirely appropriate is a brief reference to the issue in the lead in turn, given that: that entire section exists; it is a salient point re categorisation/description; and WP:LEAD rather explicitly states that the lead should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". N-HH talk/edits 17:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Edit request
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove merge template. Discussion failed to garner consensus and was archived. Template from other page already removed. – S. Rich (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Page protection requested
Sorry to see that we have an on-going, albeit slow moving edit war disrupting the article. I've requested page protection. – S. Rich (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- The article has been fully protected for one month per the request at WP:RFPP. If this RfC reaches a conclusion the protection might be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Observations: Comments about vandalism and not-vandalism are not helpful; Page protection will not be lifted so that one version prevails over another for any period of time. The two editors in this should consider WP:3O or another dispute resolution method, but before doing so they ought to layout the arguments in a KISS [added: Keep It Simple Student] format. – S. Rich (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)15:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I assume you are not suggesting that fairly wild and repeated accusations of vandalism in respect of the addition of widely and reliably sourced, and directly relevant, material is of the same order as any subsequent and simple denial of that allegation? I'm not familiar with the KISS format, but the bottom line here is that we have, as noted, a common and well referenced observation about problems relating simply to the definition, terminology and classification of the subject-matter of the page – which does not endorse one side or other of that debate and which is not about the fundamental validity or otherwise of anarcho-capitalism as a political theory – which several editors (yes, including some likely IP sockpuppets) have attempted to include. Prima facie, that is surely legitimate content, and it is up to the one person currently opposing its inclusion to explain precisely why it is not, eg by showing that the sources are not reliable or authoritative, that the content misrepresents those sources or that the information is not presented neutrally or with due weight. There simply has not been that level of engagement or explanation. Btw I previously posted on the anarchism project page to get wider input; this RfC was the next step. I did think of 30 but thought going straight to an RfC was a more efficient way of getting a broader input from a range of other editors as quickly as possible (not that that is how it has turned out to date ...) N-HH talk/edits 09:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- The page should be protected in its original form, since the dispute is whether the controversy about "true anarchism" should be expanded. Please revert - at least until the dispute is resolved. JLMadrigal (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- When I saw the slow moving, but persistent edit war going on I simply asked for protection. It is my experience that such requests are granted based upon the edit warring and not with regard to what version is up at the moment. If another edit had been made before the request was granted, you would have had that version. I do not think the previous version will be restored even if you post an {{edit protected}} request. But feel free to make the request. – S. Rich (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Further suggestion. This page is of interest to at least 3 WikiProjects. The RFC should be publicized on their talk pages. Other WikiProjects, such as Politics or Capitalism, may be interested too. – S. Rich (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I've notified four project pages – anarchism, politics, capitalism and socialism – although as ever, I'm not sure how active or well-watched any of them are. As for the form of the page, there are always disputes about the "wrong version" in these cases. It's a legitimate content dispute with no actual consensus either way pending the result of this RfC so it's surely hard to claim one version is more "correct" than any other currently. N-HH talk/edits 08:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- How about the other two projects? – S. Rich (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think reporting this to WikiProject Socialism (which this article is clearly not a part of), yet failing to report it to WP Liberalism or WP Libertarianism (which it has long been part of and are listed on this very talk page), shows a clear attempt on the part of the OP to push a skewed agenda in this RfC. -- Netoholic @ 18:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- It did not take me much effort to post RFC notices on the other pages. Also, I posted on Feature Article talk page. If there are other Projects or notices that the discussion should be advertised on, editors are welcome to WP:DIY. – S. Rich (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- It was a genuine oversight – I didn't even check at the top of the page which projects had already "claimed" the page, I just went for the obvious ones that occurred to me and to the ones Srich specifically named. As noted, it was and is open to anyone to alert any other project they want to. Given that anarchism is traditionally thought of as a sort of socialism, or at least related to it – indeed that's part of the underlying issue around the content in question – that seemed a reasonable nod to me, and balanced by the notification given on the capitalism project page. N-HH talk/edits 19:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- It did not take me much effort to post RFC notices on the other pages. Also, I posted on Feature Article talk page. If there are other Projects or notices that the discussion should be advertised on, editors are welcome to WP:DIY. – S. Rich (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I've notified four project pages – anarchism, politics, capitalism and socialism – although as ever, I'm not sure how active or well-watched any of them are. As for the form of the page, there are always disputes about the "wrong version" in these cases. It's a legitimate content dispute with no actual consensus either way pending the result of this RfC so it's surely hard to claim one version is more "correct" than any other currently. N-HH talk/edits 08:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- The page should be protected in its original form, since the dispute is whether the controversy about "true anarchism" should be expanded. Please revert - at least until the dispute is resolved. JLMadrigal (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- I assume you are not suggesting that fairly wild and repeated accusations of vandalism in respect of the addition of widely and reliably sourced, and directly relevant, material is of the same order as any subsequent and simple denial of that allegation? I'm not familiar with the KISS format, but the bottom line here is that we have, as noted, a common and well referenced observation about problems relating simply to the definition, terminology and classification of the subject-matter of the page – which does not endorse one side or other of that debate and which is not about the fundamental validity or otherwise of anarcho-capitalism as a political theory – which several editors (yes, including some likely IP sockpuppets) have attempted to include. Prima facie, that is surely legitimate content, and it is up to the one person currently opposing its inclusion to explain precisely why it is not, eg by showing that the sources are not reliable or authoritative, that the content misrepresents those sources or that the information is not presented neutrally or with due weight. There simply has not been that level of engagement or explanation. Btw I previously posted on the anarchism project page to get wider input; this RfC was the next step. I did think of 30 but thought going straight to an RfC was a more efficient way of getting a broader input from a range of other editors as quickly as possible (not that that is how it has turned out to date ...) N-HH talk/edits 09:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Observations: Comments about vandalism and not-vandalism are not helpful; Page protection will not be lifted so that one version prevails over another for any period of time. The two editors in this should consider WP:3O or another dispute resolution method, but before doing so they ought to layout the arguments in a KISS [added: Keep It Simple Student] format. – S. Rich (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)15:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Has anyone looked into the use of various anonymous editors that seemed to be involved in this edit war (in particular that they repeatedly tried to insert the same desired text as N-HH & Chrisluft? -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. They're certainly nothing to do with me (as I repeatedly had to point out to Knight of BAAWA, and I'm going to get bored of doing soon, they are US IPs – I'm in the UK). Also, for the record, I changed Chrisluft's original edit rather than simply reverting it back in – the material was not exactly the same (but got repeatedly reverted anyway without even an acknowledgement of that). The UIP editing has not helped the case, but let's not leap to the conclusion that this is total sockpuppetry all round or that only one person is on the side of inclusion. N-HH talk/edits 19:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Edit request
| | This edit request to Anarcho-capitalism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The content of this article (which has been featured for many years) has only recently seen attempted alterations by certain editors who wish to expand on a parallel debate, and add content regarding said debate in the lede. Since the debate regarding inclusion of this debate concerns justification for such alteration, it would make sense to omit them from the article until the inclusion debate is settled. Thus, my suggestion is to revert the article to pre-debate content - clearly 22:27, 6 May 2014. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the questionable content is largely derogatory, and the debate over inclusion is trending against. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
JLMadrigal (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- As noted, this is the old "wrong version" argument. An RfC is in progress. We should wait for the conclusion of that rather than guessing half-way – and in any event the discussion is not really "trending against" inclusion, but seems fairly evenly balanced. Furthermore, I don't quite see in what way the content is "derogatory", something others have suggested as well. It's a fairly bland and factual exposition of a widely reported terminological debate. N-HH talk/edits 19:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Not done: N-HH has a point - we should wait for the RfC to finish before we make any edits concerning its subject. Once the RfC reaches a consensus, feel free to make another edit request. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- As noted, this is the old "wrong version" argument. An RfC is in progress. We should wait for the conclusion of that rather than guessing half-way – and in any event the discussion is not really "trending against" inclusion, but seems fairly evenly balanced. Furthermore, I don't quite see in what way the content is "derogatory", something others have suggested as well. It's a fairly bland and factual exposition of a widely reported terminological debate. N-HH talk/edits 19:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Edit request
| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following to the external links section:
Non-controversial addition. Suggest posting as first item in section. – S. Rich (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Edit request
| | This edit request to Anarcho-capitalism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like the following disputed text in the lede:
"Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist."
...to be provisionally changed to the following (pending move to the "Criticism" section):
- While anarcho-capitalists clearly would prefer to omit the state from the orchestration of capital and markets, many old-school anarchists have less faith in the free market, and would prefer not to allow the unhindered accumulation of wealth, associating capitalism with wage slavery.
JLMadrigal (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- This, again, is the part of the content at issue at the RfC. Edit requests are surely meant for minor edits or those needed to correct obvious errors, not for major rewrites of existing content, especialy the very content which brought page protection? Anyway, post-RfC, I'd be open to looking at re-phrasing the content in question, but I think it should retain some explicit focus on the fundamental classification/terminology point. The issue is deeper than simply some anarchists being a bit less partial to the free market and/or capitalism than others. N-HH talk/edits 09:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit protected}}template. per N-HH. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)