Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Lead

Goethean, I agree with your edit here, as the material you removed was indeed editorializing. The edit summary was unfortunate, however. Editors shouldn't swear at each other in edit summaries. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"anarcho referring to the lack of a state, and capitalism referring to the corresponding liberation of capital" is helpful to the reader, because it distinguishes anarcho-capitalism from other forms of "anarchism". Ancaps use "anarcho" strictly in the sense of the lack of the state, and "capitalism" to refer to the liberation of capital. This is in contrast to the use of the terms by leftists, who include market hierarchies among their enemies, and define capitalism differently than do ancaps. JLMadrigal @ 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The lead already states clearly that anarcho-capitalism is distinct from standard anarchism right there in the bottom of the lead. Just like how anarcho-capitalism isn't minarchist libertarianism either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it now clarifies the fundamental uniqueness of ancap among anarchists and capitalists. JLMadrigal @ 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia article on anarchism, "anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.". Seems pretty clear to me. Jp16103 (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Given how many anarchists like sports (which have heirarchies in the form of the referees/players), this is clearly wrong. And adding the editorial comments really smells of OR. So please don't do it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Historically anarchists have been against hierarchies. This is a FACT. What is OR? Also, I dont see why this is editorializing, anarcho in every other sense of the word means, anti-state and ant-hierarchy. Why should this be an exception? Jp16103 (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No, no they haven't. Anarcho- only means anti-state. No rulers, not no hierarchies. So tell me why this page should be the exception that it would be the only one with that comment, and not the other "anarcho-" pages? Are you going to be consistent and edit all the others that way, or is it just THIS one in particular? Because if it is this one in particular: you need some serious support to take it out-of-line with the rest of the "anarcho-" pages. Dazzle us with your argument for making this page an exception to the other "anarcho-" pages. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Why do we even include the definitions in the lead then? Also, anarchist with the exception of anarcho-capitalists support a society based on non-hierarchial free associations. Do some research on anarcho-syndicalism,communism,primitivism,etc. and you will quickly find out that this is true. The anarcho in "anarcho-capitalism" means something totally different than anarcho in any other "strain" of anarchist ideology.Jp16103 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists claim their society would be non-hierarchical but that individuals could voluntarily join non-coercive hierarchies. TFD (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If they do support non-hierarchical free associations, why then do some support sports where there are referees--WHICH CLEARLY CONSTITUTES A HIERARCHY! In other words: it doesn't require being against hierarchies, and you still haven't shown the reason that this page--among all of the "anarcho-" pages--should be out-of-line with the rest. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

From the an-com wiki page: "Anarchist communism[1] (also known as anarcho-communism, free communism, libertarian communism,[2][3][4][5][6] and communist anarchism[7][8]) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wages and private property (while retaining respect for personal property),[9] and in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[10][11] direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"." Ancaps are different in this regard because they do support hierarchy and a "vertical system" where there is a BOSS and EMPLOYEES. Anarchists support common ownership over property unlike "anarcho"-capitalists. Also, before you say this is only with anarcho-communism it should be noted that syndicalist, primivitist, mutualist, and individualist all share nearly identical beliefs regarding this. Anarcho-capitalism is an invention of the late 20th century and is contrary to anarchist ideology that has been established for centuries. For example, a primitivist, a syndicalist, a communist, and a mutualist would all agree on the basic principles of anarchism they would NOT agree with the anacp definition of anarcho. It should also be noted that anarchism in the US, means something totally different in the rest of the world. Jp16103 (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, and? Still waiting for you to show reason that this page--among all of the "anarcho-" pages--should be out-of-line with the rest. Because that quote doesn't do it. Also: the fallacy of ad antiquitatem is still a fallacy. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

While anarcho-capitalists in general do not attempt to forcefully abolish natural hierarchies, they focus on compulsory hierarchy (i.e. the state). JLMadrigal @ 01:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the indents since it was bothering me. Jp16103 (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't ad antiquitem because you cant just change the definition of something because you use it for your own political gain. Just because you call your philosophy anarchist because it has some anarchist elements it does not mean that it is anarchist. Anarcho is short for anarchist, yes? An anarchist is someone who: oppose authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system". It cannot get any clearer than that. Lets be honest here, the anarcho in anarcho-capitalism refers to opposition to the state NOT the opposition to hierarchy that EVERY SINGLE OTHER ANARCHIST IDEOLOGY IS OPPOSED TO. So lets give due weight here and clearly state that ancaps are anti state, not anti hierarchy. That is all that I am asking for in the lead. Also I don't know how much more you want. Do you want me to give you quotes from the first internationale from Bakunin explaining anarchist ideology because I will. Or would you rather I dive into Proudhon (the "founding father" of anarchism) and find his opinions on the topic? This page "should be out of line with the rest" because anarcho-capitalism is "out-of-line" with every other form of anarchism. We need to be fair here and explain why their definition of anarcho is not the same as an ancoms definition.Jp16103 (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It is antiquitatem because the definition of anarchism only includes anti-state. What people like you try is no different from the people who try to say that atheism entails communism or wickedness: you add to the definition something which isn't truly there. So let's be fair and honest and not make this article out-of-line with the rest of the "anarcho-" articles. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, ancoms' and ancaps' definitions differ. That's the point - and why an early clarification of ancap definitions is helpful to the student of anarcho-capitalism. Of course, the biggest difference is that ancaps hold that natural property relationships guide civilization, and that anything approaching equality can only be achieved via competitive market relationships - not wealth redistribution or confiscation of property (which requires a state). JLMadrigal @ 11:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

If you truly think that anarchism is only anti-state then you clearly have no understanding of anarchist ideology. Anarchists have always until the rise of "anarcho" capitalism been against the state,property,and hierarchy. Ancaps have a different definition of anarcho, thats why in the lead we should state the differences in the definition of anarcho. Im not trying to add anything to the definition, because the definition of anarchism has been clearly defined since its inception! When Proudhon created the term anarchism, he described his philosophy as being against private property and vertical production! Ancaps were the groups who changed the definition of anarchism (and libertarian btw)! I don't see how i can make this anymore clear. Ancaps have their own distinct version of "anarchism" that is out of touch with every other anarchist philosophy! To say that the anarcho is anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism means the same things is WRONG. 'Yes, ancoms' and ancaps' definitions differ. That's the point - and why an early clarification of ancap definitions is helpful to the student of anarcho-capitalism. "This is exactly my point! Jp16103 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thinking that "anarcho-" also includes anti-hierarchy is just like thinking that atheism involves wickedness just because it used to be defined that way by theists. Or that anarchism is "chaos" because statists are terrified of anarchy. By the way: Proudhon didn't create the idea of anarchism (no matter how much you might want to scream that he did). Anarchists and anarchism were around before him, just as atheists and atheism were around long before the term arose. The wide definition of "anarchism" (including regular and philosophy dictionaries) simply use the idea of no rulers/anti-state. So please let's not editorialize. Let's not make this article out-of-line with the other "anarcho-" articles. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Seeing that this isnt going anywhere Im not going to fight for this anymore. You win, I wont try to change the obviously one-sided lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp16103 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

initial paragraph

I like this :

Anarcho-capitalism, also known as free-market anarchism,[2] market anarchism,[3] private-property anarchism,[4] libertarian anarchism,[5] among others (see below), and "ancap" is a political philosophy that advocates the elimination the state and the privatization of government services.

instead of this section of the first pargraph

'Anarcho-capitalism (anarcho referring to the lack of a state, and capitalism referring to the corresponding liberation of capital and markets, also known as free-market anarchism,[2] market anarchism,[3] private-property anarchism,[4] libertarian anarchism,[5] among others (see below), and the short term "ancap") is a political philosophy that advocates the elimination of political government - which distorts market signals, breeds corruption, and institutionalizes monopoly - in favor of individual sovereignty, absence of invasive private property policies and open markets (laissez-faire capitalism).' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.233.20.164 (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead

A new user made drastic changes to the lead here. I reverted it because the changes had not been discussed first, and any changes as radical as that ought to be discussed. However, I think the user does have a point. The lead is overly-complicated and something shorter would be better. Suggestions? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The current opening sentence is needlessly convoluted and reader-unfriendly and certainly needs trimming. The lead also has problems in the sentences that follow, with loaded phrasing ("invasive private property policies", "liberation of capital" etc) and assertions stated as fact (eg that government "breeds corruption"). And of course it is, as argued about endlessly in the past, wholly misleading about the relationship between anarcho-capitalism and anarchism. The problem is that it has mostly been edited recently by veto-wielding partisan supporters of the ideology, some of whom are quite open about the fact that they think this page should more or less advocate for anarcho-capitalism rather than be a sober, encyclopedic summary of it, based on objective third-party sources. N-HH talk/edits 18:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

And if anyone thought the lead couldn't get more convoluted, subjective and even inaccurate than it already was, they were dead wrong. What a confusing and misleading mess. N-HH talk/edits 07:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, this article is continually worsening, and the trend will not stop with JLMadrigal and Knight of BAAWA protecting the article. 63.227.163.5 (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd support reverting the recent changes and going back to an August 2015 version. — goethean 16:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. It seems pretty convoluted and full of loaded phrasing even back then. Ideally, I think it should be scrapped and started over by disinterested editors who know what they're talking about and who know how to express ideas with clarity and objectivity. Sadly, that's unlikely to happen on WP of course. N-HH talk/edits 09:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Knight of BAAWA, please remember that you do not own this article. Tomboy Chan, myself, and I believe Goethean also, are in favour of removing all the excess synonyms for "Anarcho-capitalism" from the lead of this article. You are in absolutely no position to be reverting me when multiple editors disagree with your position. If you feel that those synonyms are valuable information, then please suggest a different and better way of including them in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I take back my cynicism. Going back to this version – so long as it sticks of course – is a definite improvement. It leaves the lead far less cluttered and relatively clear as to what anarcho-capitalism is and where it comes from. I still have reservations about how the (fairly weak) link to anarchism proper is explained in the last paragraph, and the unqualified inclusion of the Anarchism template, but we know what the page warriors think about that, and at least it tries. N-HH talk/edits 21:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Origin of flag?

I came here to look up the origin of the ancap flag (black and gold). I know the symbolism ("anarchy" and "gold"). But what's its history? Who came up with it when? - David Gerard (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Anarcho-capitalist symbolism#Yellow-black bisected flag -- Netoholic @ 13:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I was wondering because of the other ANCAP, whose logo is also black and yellow ... clearly based on the black and yellow calibration markers used on crash test dummies, and I was wondering which came first - David Gerard (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism

I removed this section, as it was an almost exact word-for-word copy of the article at Criticism of anarcho-capitalism. Doing so also removed the counter-arguments to that criticism added by JLMadrigal, which at the time I was not entirely aware of- sorry about that! I still think removing the section while the other article exists was the correct move. The counter-arguments could be placed at the other article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of anarcho-capitalism is a very short article. I think a case could be made that there is little point in preserving it as a separate article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why 'Criticisms...' is a separate article- I think it'd probably be better included in this article, but there's little point doing so until the separate article is deleted. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree. If the content would improve this article, then it might just as well be added here now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Note that there is also a link to the criticism article within this article. JLMadrigal @ 15:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms need to be in the main article. Whether it needs to be a second article, I'll leave to others to decide. I'll also note that PeterTheFourth appears to be stalking me. He made edits to three articles I've edited in short succession. His history shows no interest in this topic or topics like it. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator and SocialJusticeWarriors: Can we summarize the other article and add the relevant cites? The recent content dispute mentioned citations. I don't get why we couldn't just grab the citations from the editable link for the criticisms article. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Ya I think summarizing would be a good idea. That's what I originally did but it got reverted because I didn't include citations. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism sections are always poor style and should not be used. Instead criticism should be incorporated into the relevant sections of the article. For example the contents in "Economics and property" subsection of "Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism" should be included in "Property" and "Economics" subsections of "Philosophy." Furthermore, criticism should not be a random collection of negative comments by all and sundry but should be arranged according to their weight in reliable sources. For example, just how accepted is the view that rejection of positive rights is selfish? The U.S. Bill of Rights for example protects negative rights but not positive rights. TFD (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

In this case I think it should be it's own section. And should probably eventually be huge, like half the article or more. Because the most notable thing about anarcho-capitalism is how controversial it is and how idiotic and absurd many people find it as a political ideology. A very small number of people actually believe this stuff or take it seriously. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The same could be said about Nazism, and it manages to explain the topic without a "Criticism" section. But articles are not supposed to explain to readers what ideologies they should accept. Readers want to know what it is about, not be lectured about what is wrong with it. Your approach is anyway counterproductive. Lecturing readers may have the opposite effect and would make them question the fairness of Wikipedia articles in general. TFD (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. SocialJusticeWarriors, would it help to insert the most important or relevant critics within relevant sections of the article, as opposed to just dropping criticism like a big sack of potatoes in a separate section? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That is the way criticism should be included, if at all. WP pages are meant, as noted, to explain what something is, as explained in reliable and authoritative third-party sources, not to advocate for or against it. As also noted, specific Criticism sections are poor style and should certainly not be built up from the random thoughts of WP editors or from observations randomly culled from any old source. The separate Criticisms page should probably be deleted. N-HH talk/edits 11:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"WP pages are meant, as noted, to explain what something is, as explained in reliable and authoritative third-party sources" and what reliable third party sources say anarcho-capitalism is, is an absurd political theory that has very few supporters and has gotten tons of criticism. Bringing up other articles without a criticism section is WP:OSE. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Undone again. Please address the valid comments on this talk page rather than citing your personal opinion of being against the topic as justification for adding a laundry list of uncited objections. 216.9.184.69 (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

This page has suffered for ages from being owned by people who appear to be devoted partisans of anarcho-capitalism and want the page to reflect that; having people who appear to hate it joining the party is probably going to compound the problems with the page, not solve them. Anyway, as I am sure you noted, OSE is an essay and so does not trump WP:CRITICISM, which explicitly deprecates criticism sections. Plus OSE in fact acknowledges that of course precedent and wider practice are valid arguments re content and presentation. And, beyond that, perhaps the WP:SOAPBOX section of the policy page WP:What Wikipedia is not is the best place to look at to help clarify the underlying point. As for what serious third-party sources say, I am not sure they are quite as polemical and hostile as you suggest. And to the extent that there is significant and substantive criticism within such coverage, no one is saying it has to be excluded, just that it has to be presented, if at all, in an encyclopedic and balanced fashion (without descending into ever-expanding "he said, she said" argument/counterargument). N-HH talk/edits 12:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It was posted on reddit.com/r/anarcho_capitalism a few months ago. I warned the admins but they refused to protect the page.142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

Do you like apples, I would advise you to try to separate your minor edits to this article from the more drastic changes. You have more chance of getting them accepted into the article that way. If you insist on combining minor and uncontroversial edits with drastic, and controversial, changes to the article then it is likely that everything will be reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I have already done that. I made more than a dozen edits. You are just blindly rolling them all back. Do you like apples (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You were already reverted once by another user. You should have taken the issue to the talk page immediately instead of simply restoring your edits. As it now stands, you are edit warring against multiple users, and have probably violated WP:3RR. Any attempt you make to justify yourself while behaving this way is going to fall on deaf ears. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I made many separate edits to the article. If you have a problem with individual edits, revert those and then state your problem here and we'll attempt to work it out. Those you don't have a reason for contesting, don't revert. Blindly reverting all of my good faith edits is not constructive. Do you like apples (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your disruptive behavior - edit warring against multiple users - is objectionable in and of itself. It gives other users a perfectly good reason to roll back your edits. Since you are apparently a new user, you are perhaps not familiar with policies such as WP:3RR, but that does not provide you with immunity against being blocked for violating them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop making this personal and attacking me. We disagree about the content of this article. That should be the focus here. I have already addressed that twice and you've yet to respond. Do you like apples (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not attacking you by pointing out that your behavior is disruptive. I am pointing out the obvious. If you want to persuade other editors that you are editing in good faith, then you should revert your most recent changes, as they involve a WP:3RR violation. Have you read the policy yet? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop trying to make this about me. We disagree on content. I am asking you for about the 5th or 6th time to focus on the content. Which of my edits did you disagree with and why? Do you like apples (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll continue pointing out that your behaviour is problematic for as long as it continues being problematic. You will likely not be able to continue editing at all if you persist in behaving as you have thus far. To address your changes: they involve major and unexplained changes of meaning, and many do not seem to be improvements. For example, you altered the definition of anarcho-capitalism, changing it from advocating elimination of the state to advocating elimination of government. Government and the state are not the same thing, and I don't believe your change is correct. It should be reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If you'd like to change the definition back to how it was before, I wont revert you. Do you like apples (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

How nice of you. If I revert any of your other changes, would you revert me then? Do you accept that revert warring is not an acceptable way to try to improve articles? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Any individual change you disagree with, I'm fine with you reverting, if you state here why you reverted it, so we can discuss it. Do you like apples (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Forcing your changes into an article through revert warring is unacceptable regardless of whether or not other users discuss each and every one of your changes. I will take a look through your changes and consider which of them may be improvements, but any changes that don't seem to benefit the article will certainly be reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I ask you for about the 8th time to focus on the content and stop trying to make this personal. At this stage I feel this must be your strategy to contest my edits. There is no other reason you would keep repeatedly criticizing me. Do you like apples (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You have now reverted yet another user, despite being told that edit warring against multiple users is unacceptable, and despite being warned about WP:3RR. At this stage, you deserve a block. Keep behaving the way you have been behaving, and you will likely be indefinitely blocked. There is no point in discussing content until you accept that you cannot continue behaving in this fashion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"There is no point in discussing content" just as I suspected. Making this personal is your strategy for contesting my edits. Do you like apples (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You said you were going to individually revert edits you disagreed with. If you would do as you said, this would not be an issue. I should not have all of my edits blindly reverted because people are too lazy to review them individually. Do you like apples (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

|}

Collapse discussion thread started by sockpuppet of blocked editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
my edits People are rolling back all of my edits, rather than reviewing them individually. I'll list and explain them. Please note which you disagree with and why. edit 1 changed "advocates the elimination of the state" to "advocates the elimination of government" 'government' is the widely used and neutral term. 'state' is a term anarcho-capitalists have co-opted and use as a rallying cry, making it's usage not encyclopedic. in articles about North Korea or Nazi Germany, we don't use the propaganda terms of those regimes, we use encyclopedic terms. we should do the same here. The "state" or "Etat" is the common word to define the ruling construct in its entirety (i.e. a state is more then a government, but also related customs, respect, ext.), very common in socialist literature as well. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC) edit 2 changed "security services would be operated by privately funded competitors" to "security services would be operated by private companies" change to neutral and encyclopedia phrasing, from the anarcho-capitalist preferred characterization. the idea that there would even be competitors is theoretical. This states what anarcho-capitalist claim, you might not even agree that private companies by themselves are possible, it doesn't matter this is not stated as a historical fact. You seem to have a big misunderstanding regarding how to NPOV. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC) edit 3 Changed "would be privately and competitively provided in an open market" to "would also be provided by private companies." Means the same thing, without the anarcho-capitalism preferred phrasing (propaganda). See above. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC) edit 4 Changed "Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations]under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under political monopolies" to "Personal and economic activities would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment by governments." More encyclopedic and neutral and removes the propaganda phrasing. edit 5 Changed "would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment by governments." to "would be regulated by dispute resolution organizations rather than by governments." More encyclopedic and neutral and removes the propaganda phrasing. edit 6 Moved the section of the lede that explains how the name anarcho-capitalism came about, to it's own section at the top of the body of the article. Moved 'history' section up to just below this section. Lede was too big and this looks better. Style is also to have history at the top of an article like this. edit 7 Removed "Historical precedents similar to anarcho-capitalism" section. These are not similar to anarcho-capitalism and only serve to lend credibility to the ideas. This is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda tool. They are heavily referenced in anarcho capitalist literature. Removal, instead of using better wording, is just not good faith edits. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC) edit 8 Removed a lot of promotional external links that are not appropriate. edit 9 Removed 'further reading' list of pro-anarcho capitalism books and publications. If these are notable they can be used as references. edit 10 Removed flag as the source is not credible, it's some random website. The flag is correct, easily sourced from anywhere. This removal borders on non good faith edits. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC) edit 11 Changed 'statism' to 'government'. See edit 1: 'statism' is propaganda and not encyclopedic. Nope, it's just the correct word. Etatism in french is also common. Your change of government to state is also misguided. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC) edit 12 Removed unsourced paragraph at the top of 'Classical liberalism' section. I'm stopping reviewing your changes with this blatant vandalism. All you edits should be first removed. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC) edit 13 Changed 'led the attack against' to 'criticized' as this is more encyclopedic. edit 14 Removed non-encyclopedic words 'One notable was' and 'who' edit 15, 16 Change 'the state' to 'government'. See edit 1. Changed many more instances of 'state' to 'government'. Do you like apples (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "State" is the correct term. "Statism" as a term is NOT propaganda, and that you call it such means you are not editing in good faith. As such: you're not going to get anywhere with your obvious POV-pushing. If you would have made some suggestions FIRST and not just demanded that we kowtow to your POV, you might have gotten somewhere. But you didn't. You're going to have a really tough go of it now. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC) FWIW many of the edits look fine to me: some of the more minor ones are simple copyediting (eg edit 14), and I concur with the removal of many of the entries under further reading etc (eg edits 8 and 9), which seem to be simply promotion of fairly obscure essays and websites for the most part. Others, such as edits 2 and 3 which remove the stress on competition, and 1 re "state" vs "government", are more moot, since they are minor changes, with pretty much interchangeable phrasing/terms in the context. The attempted edits are certainly not clear evidence of blatant "POV" though (I think there's a saying about motes and eyes). Indeed, edits 11 and 13, which together rephrased talk about people "leading the attack against statism" in WP's voice are rather clearly de-POVing the text, one would have thought. I'd disagree with edit 6, which removes arguably relevant historical background out of the lead, but would agree that a lot of the material removed outright in edit 7 is speculative and/or too reliant on blog sources in part. N-HH talk/edits 19:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Some of the edits may be OK, but the edit warring user was trying to change the article in an inappropriate way. The removal of large parts of the article obviously needed to be discussed first. The change from "state" to "government" is not a minor change at all. It is a major change, and it is incorrect. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC) I'm not sure the distinction is as significant as that. They are not of course synonymous, but the terms "government" and "state" are often used pretty much interchangeably when discussing anarchism and anarcho-capitalism and in political discourse more generally. Indeed the dictionary I just looked at prefers "government" when defining what anarchism is against, as does Peter Marshall's history of anarchism. As for anarcho-capitalism itself, Rothbard for example seems to happily talk about "government" when talking about what he is against. The switch certainly doesn't flip the meaning of what's being said on its head. N-HH talk/edits 19:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Well, do you want the article to be accurate or not? There is a technical distinction between state and government and it is relevant to understanding anarcho-capitalism, so one term should not simply replace the other. What one dictionary says about "anarchism" generally is not relevant, as the article is about anarcho-capitalism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Of course I want the article to be accurate, hence why I cited some evidence as to usage; the point is that I think this is splitting hairs. My comment acknowledged of course that the terms are not universally synonymous – and also that there is a distinction between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism – but we just happen to disagree about how significant the difference between the two terms is in this context. It's not that you want the page to be accurate and I don't. Since I'm not favouring one term over the other anyway, further debate on the point is fairly redundant twice over. N-HH talk/edits 22:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC) From the opening paragraph of the Anarchism article: "While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system." Clearly--and I don't think you have an issue with it--statism as used by anarchists isn't propagandist in the least. Yet if we turn to one of the edit summaries of the edits-in-question, we find this "replaced 'state' with 'government' in most cases. government is the accepted term. 'state' is used as anarcho-capitalist propaganda." That's just one of the issues with this person. And then there's the question of removing a swath of the article without so much as discussing it here first! - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC) It is my position that all these edits should first be reverted as so many of them (though not all) are unencyclopedic. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC) They already have been. The user who made them posted on the talk page after they were (several times), trying to seek approval to have them reinstated. As suggested above, some of the reaction to the substance of the edits (as opposed to the edit-warring – and plenty of people have edit-warred over this page) is a little OTT. Most of them are not egregiously unencyclopedic or POV or whatever. Several of them have merit; others are of marginal import. N-HH talk/edits 10:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Sources "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered." WP:THIRDPARTY The only source in this article that meets that criteria seems to be Playboy Magazine. All the rest are primary and secondary sources that are unsuitable as references. That is, Anarcho-Capitalists writing about their own ideas or about topics they are not independent from. I suggest this article be deleted as 95% of the information in it is not properly sourced. A new article can be written, conforming to policy. EoT State (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC) In other words, this is article is not encyclopedic. It is Anarcho Capitalism, as defined and explained by Anarcho Capitalists. A violation of WP:NPOV. It needs instead to be Anarcho Capitalism, as defined and explained by neutral and reliable third parties. EoT State (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Note EoT State has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of DegenFarang [1]. --TFD (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC) (UTC) Mostly agree. However being independent does not mean not sharing the same ideas, it means having a financial interest. The sources nonetheless fail rs as secondary sources. Look forward to you re-writing the article with reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC) To be fair, there are a few more legitimate third-party sources than that currently being used. Plus primary sources are not barred altogether, it's just that you have to be wary of overinterpreting them. Rothbard's work can be cited and quoted directly, for example, as evidence of what his positions were. But the direction of the page is very much evangelical. N-HH talk/edits 10:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC) It's interesting that we have a brand new account proposing to remove most of the article's content starting up immediately after an older account was blocked for attempting something very similar. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC) The following are some independent, reliable sources that can be used in the article. , , , , , , , . For example, the Journal of Libertarian Studies, the source of the first, seventh and eighth references listed below, is quite reliable. North America1000 03:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC) References What leads you to believe these sources are reliable, with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? An Anarcho-Capitalist writing a book does not seem to meet that requirement. #7, from a University, may work. But #3, for example, clearly would not. I can write a book that says I'm Santa Claus. That doesn't mean I am or that Wikipedia should say in its voice that I am. EoT State (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Below is a partial summary about source #3 above, Political Ideology Today, from this source. The book is published by Manchester University Press, which is the university press of the University of Manchester, England and an academic publisher of academic books and journals. It is clearly an integral and reliable source. The book was written by Ian Adams. You assume that Adams is an anarcho-capitalist, but provide no qualification for your assumption. Are you sure about that? North America1000 03:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Political Ideology Today – This second edition of an established textbook on political ideology provides a comprehensive, up-to-date introduction to the powerful and persuasive ideas which have motivated the actions of both political leaders and the electorate. I'm not sure there is a lot of point explaining reliable sources to someone who does not want to be convinced. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC) You are the one pushing a clear POV. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. STOP ASSUMING BAD FAITH. EoT State (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC) It would be easier than it is to assume good faith if you could have provided a convincing answer to the question I put to you on your talk page; as it is, you are quite likely to be blocked for disruption. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC) I said I have no idea who that is. I'd like to improve this article. I'd appreciate it if you could either help or leave me alone. Your emotional drama does not interest me. 04:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC) I think that your most recent edits are not helpful, and should be reverted. I will probably revert them myself soon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC) I know you think the purpose of talk pages is to harass people, but actually they are intended to discuss disagreements with content. If you have an opinion on the sources in the article and why they are from reliable, independent third party sources known for fact checking and accuracy, this would be the place to share your views. Unilaterally declaring good faith edits "not helpful" is itself, not helpful. EoT State (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC) OK then, your edits seem unhelpful because they remove content based on what is apparently nothing more than ideological disagreement with the sources used. Thus, they should be reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC) @EoT State: I'm concerned about your analysis methods of what constitutes a reliable source, per discussion about source #3 listed above (Political Ideology Today). You state above that it is clearly not reliable, but my research and commentary above indicates that it is clearly entirely reliable. You also deemed the author to be an anarcho-capitalist, but provide absolutely no qualification to back up your opinion. You seem to base source reliability upon a preconception that supports your view about virtually none of the sources being reliable except for the Playboy Magazine source, per your statement above and at your nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-capitalism, which comes across as confirmation bias. So, it's understandable that people are questioning your removal of content from the article per your statements that the sources are not reliable, because per the above, it's unclear if you're familiar with identifying reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. North America1000 06:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC) You made a reasonable argument that #3 is an RS, noting things I hadn't seen. After looking closer at sources in the article, some of them do appear more reliable than my first impression indicated. There are still many sources in the article I do not think meet the requirements of a reliable source. Self published pro-Anarcho Capitalism material, for example. The article relies far too heavily on content from Anarcho Capitalists, in general. The result is a non-neutral article. We need to trim down the pro-Anarcho Capitalism sources and add neutral third party sources. EoT State (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Some of the examples cited above are clearly fine, but no 2 has rather obviously lifted the excerpt linked to from this very page. Much of the recent activity on the page has not been helpful, and has exaggerated the paucity of sources, but it has nonetheless highlighted the unsuitability of many of the sources currently used and hence of the material derived from them. Content should not be sourced to blogs or overreliant on anarcho-capitalist writings, which are arguably, in effect, primary sources and have an obvious bias – as noted above, that does not bar them, but it means they need to be used with caution and greater reliance placed on third-party analysis, esepcially academic writings on the topic (which do exist). If editors could assess each source and the derived content on its own terms, rather than reacting based on their views of other editors' activities and/or their own views on anarcho-capitalism, that would help, but it seems rather unlikely to happen. N-HH talk/edits 10:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Political Ideology Today is a tertiary source, an introductory politics textbook, and therefore not an ideal source either. There are no footnotes so if there are any disputes about what it says, there is no way to resolve it. @FreeKnowledgeCreator:, if you suspect another editor of sockpuppetry, you should take it to SPI instead of discussing it here. TFD (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC) how do we proceed? My edits to the article keep getting reverted, yet those reverting me are not participating in discussion here. How do we proceed? There appears to be consensus for removing at least some sources. It's not helping matters that the blatant POV pushers seem to think they are above consensus building and are content to simply tag-team revert any changes to the article. EoT State (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC) First, I'd suggest you stop edit-warring over the content (as should others). Even if you are "right" or have a plausible case, it rarely gets you anywhere, not least because others will, as you have noticed, start knee-jerk reverting on the assumption you are up to no good, whether justified or not. Secondly, you should take on board that sources do not have to be "neutral". Equally, Self-published and primary sources are both acceptable, with some limitations and qualifications. The writings of Murray Rothbard and other notable anarcho-capitalists or anarcho-capitalist sympathisers for example can be cited, directly if necessary. That said, I can't quite believe that people are repeatedly reverting this content back in for example, sourced to another wiki and a dead site of unclear repute respectively. But then we're back to the point about self-defeating actions. N-HH talk/edits 11:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)