Talk:Anarchism/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

Anarchism and how long could it exist

Well I was thinking about anarchism this day and I've bumped into a problem:

1.) Anarchism from a Capitalist State

If there's a goodly working Capitalist Democracy, and then through a revolution it turns into Anarchism(wich is the abolishment of every law and governmental oppression) Companies would surely take the power because only they have enough money for weapons. So Anarchism will become "Capitalism Liber" wich isn't really better than the original government, because they could even kill the residents if they want to.

2.) Anarchism from a Communist State

Yes, I've already philosophised about how anarchism created from a socialist society would work(nearly everything is controlled by state and there's strict authority) then it would turn out like this: New groups would form and there would be a bloody competition for previously state-controlled facilities and they will taxatate the use of them so it's basically the same "Capitalism Liber".

3.) So how anarchism could be stable?

Well, I think that the strongest bond that could hold the people together in the state of absolute freedom is Religion. Maybe if there would be a religion wich STRICTLY OPPOSES CAPITALISM, and MONEY Anarchism could be maintained by the followers of that religion. And if there would be an ORGANIZED MILITARY just for DEFENCE, than this would hold people together also and defend from invasions, and it won't destroy the ABSOLUTLY FREE STATE OF SOCIETY.

What do You think about my opinion? I would gladly go into a philosophical argument.;)

SRY FOR MY BAD ENGLISH

Signature :Hoax —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.41.73 (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please see WP:NOT#FORUM

This isn't a message board for your debates. It's a space for addressing the improvement of this article. Take it to an anarchist/political forum, please.--Cast (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist International

May I have some help? User:Anna Quist is repeatedly removing a proposal for deletion and is refusing to enter discussion or even leave an edit summary. I cannot revert her without breaking 3RR. Zazaban (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Anarchy Defined

There are several problems with the new section added by SchfiftyThree:

• The claim that the English language is twisted in an Orwellian way to support hierarchy is controversial, to say the least.
• It contains headlines that don't follow Wikipedia formatting conventions.
• It is polemical and violates the NPOV rule.
• The claim that anarchism is a science contradicts the (much less controversial) claim in the intro that it is a political philosophy.

These are only the problems that are evident ten paragraphs in. Do I really need to go on? I'm going to reverse the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 23:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is every few words have a new citation number on it?

This is ridiculous and cluttering up the article, especially in the first few paragraphs.... WAY too many citation numbers. People need to stop liberally slopping these things on to every sentence, and in many cases, WITHIN A SENTENCE !!!! Just no need for it and it looks ridiculous in the extreme. its howdy doody time !!! (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sure the querent can find all sorts of articles on the internet which are not supported by rigourous citations, and perhaps its howdy doody time !!! might consider gazing at such pages when they wish to experience the sort of aesthetic experience which they find lacking when they look at this page. The profusion of citations is not some kind of sloppy liberalism, but a recognisation of the importance of citing suitable authorities for every element of the article - something particularly important bearing in mind the nature of the article.Harrypotter (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Valid references are important, especially for a controversial topic such as anarchism. But I have long thought that reference links should be a less conspicuous color, perhaps a pale blue-grey. -Pgan002 (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Anarcho-Syndicalism and Communism

It says under the An-Syn section that they want an economic system similar to Communism. This seems dubious to me. My understanding is that most forms of Communism believe that workers alone can't start, manage, and see through a revolution on their own. Communism argues that they need management by a vanguard class of some sort. And they believe that workers shouldn't directly own the means of production through direct democratic radical unions, but instead the means of production should be held in some sort of collective "escrow." Maybe Anarcho-syndicalism is more similar to council communism, or some other sort of left-communism. If that is the case, then the comparison should be a lot more specific, since there is a great deal of difference between left-communist/council communist thought, and traditional Marxism or Leninism (especially in the case of Lenin, who was overjoyed when Franco massacred the Spanish revolutionaries in the south of Spain). 72.78.13.96 (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Marxism is not the only version of Communism. (By the way, how could Lenin comment on the Spanish civil war when it didn't start until 14 years after his death?) Zazaban (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The "communist" reference was a reference to anarchist communism, but the author abbreviated the name of the link to "communism" because she/he thought anarchism was implied. I've removed the abbreviation, so it should be clearer now. Thanks for the comment, the skomorokh 13:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The goal of anarchy

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the goal of anarchy self defeating in that the success of destroying goverment serves to simply to wipe the stage clean for somebody else to just take power and therfor defeat anarchy? Even more so, the idea of anarchist groups is contradictory to the goal of anarchy. In reality, you cna see that anarchy is an impossibilty because goverment runs from things like the U.N to The smallest reasonable type of goverment, the Family Unit; the destruction of which leads to self-destruction.--Jakezing (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jakezing. Did you have a suggestion for the improvement of the article or a comment to make on its content? If you are looking for a discussion of the topic rather than the article, you might be better off inquiring at the humanities reference desk. Regards, the skomorokh 03:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

both--Jakezing (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your suggestion? Zazaban (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Jakezing basically just told us he has no idea what anarchism means lol! 212.139.85.134 (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Published!

While looking for sources to verify some of the unreferenced content in this article, I happened across an entry in Google Books, Anarchism for Know-It-Alls that seemed to confirm all the claims that needed verification. I looked a little closer and saw that the book was in fact a word-for-word copy of a previous version of this article! The book contains a reprint of the GFDL, although I couldn't confirm that Wikipedia was cited explicitly. The details are as follows:

• Know-It-Alls, For (2008). Anarchism for Know-It-Alls. Filiquarian Publishing. ISBN 1599862182.

So congratulations to all of you who have worked on this article, you are now published authors! Skomorokh 16:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

...have... have we just been exploited? ¯\(o_°)/¯ Furthermore, I demand to know that book's sources! ಠ_ಠ --Cast (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that a recent issue of Freedom reprinted an abridged version of the Postanarchism article. Mental note to self: You have now been published in the same journal as Kropotkin. Eek! I'm expecting my royalty checks any day now... Skomorokh 04:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel full of goodness and jelly beans. Zazaban (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol, that is cool. You can even review it at Amazon [http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Know-Alls/dp/1599862182/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228304644&sr=8-1]. -- Vision Thing -- 11:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Smygo

I added a link to my Smygo list like so:

• Smygo News & Views for Anarchists & Activists

An editor removed it as inappropriate and told me that if I want to include the link, I should start a discussion about it here.

The list is well established as a major source of news about anarchism (I put the link in the news section), with over 900 members.

I cannot see any reason to exclude the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clore (talk • contribs) 11:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yahoogroups cannot be a reliable source and thus cannot be used as an external link. It is also specifically mentioned under #10 of Links to be avoided. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Kraftlos has got it wrong on the reliable source issue (see criterion 4 here), but right on links to be avoided issue. There are thousands of websites about anarchism; what makes this one a unique and valuable resource of information? Skomorokh 11:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're right... Thanks for pointing that out. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What makes this one a unique and valuable resource is that I post news stories about anarchism and related topics to the list practically every day. (Other list members also contribute articles.) These stories are drawn from a wide variety of sources, many of them very obscure. It's true it's on YahooGroups (if I were starting over, it wouldn't be), but really, if A-Infos merits a link, then Smygo should as well. Clore (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It does not meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines by any stretch of the imagination. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I cannot imagine why you would say that. Most of the material posted to the list consists of newspaper stories, magazine articles, etc. In any case, if Smygo does not meet the reliable sources standard, then neither do the other three links in the news section. This is just ridiculous. Clore (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Clore. Since anarchism is an ideology with ongoing development and activity, it is appropriate to have references to web sites, mailing lists and other sources that reflect that development and activity. smygo appears to be one such source, and we are hardly inundated with such sources. Starry Gordon (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you realise how many people we get every year trying to add their own website to the external links section of this article? There are already far too many link here, and there is no hope of getting some fringe Yahoo Groups entry in there. I suggest you take your advertising campaign elsewhere. Skomorokh 21:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

At this point I can only repeat: This is just ridiculous. There aren't very many links here, and the Smygo news list, with over 900 members, is second only to A-Infos as an anarchist news list. Linking to it is no more an "advertising campaign" than linking to any other relevant website or news list. Maybe you have some good reason to oppose its inclusion, but you're not making it clear by making false statements about it like calling it a "discussion list". The charitable interpretation would be that you don't know what you're talking about and jumped to the wrong conclusion. 23:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clore (talk • contribs)

You say: "Links to lesser known sites or submovements will be routinely moved to the list page to keep this article free of clutter". What "list page" are you referring to? Would that be an appropriate place for a link to Smygo? Clore (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Yahoo groups is specifially mentioned as a link to avoid. What we're really looking for here would be links to reliable academic or journalistic resources on anarchism, such as a a page department of political science or a link to a well known anarchist essay. This isnt the place to plug your group. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Smygo meets your criteria just as well as the links that are included. It carries articles from the same sort of sources as the others do -- newspapers, magazines, etc. The sites you do include often take their material from Smygo, as a matter of fact. It sucks that it's on YahooGroups, but the wording is "normally avoided", which would seem to allow exceptions when appropriate. It seems to me that you guys want to exclude it arbitrarily. Clore (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Let's look at it this way, you are claiming that because the yahoogroup 1) has 900 members and 2) links to reliable sources; that it should be considered. I think that it also might be considered by criteria #4 of WP:ELMAYBE which states that "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." should be considered.

Let me start with the last one, then work my way back. #3 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID states that editors should avoid: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". Now stay with me here, I'm not saying that Smygo contains factual errors, so please don't jump on me. The definitions that they referred to state that a reliable source (for external links the term reliable sources is not as stringent of criteria as what wikipedia uses for sources in WP:RS) in this case might include:

"An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online."

I would agree that anarchists typically publish online and it is not well covered by print sources, so a web site might be what we're looking for. However, Smygo does not have identifiable moderators as the member lists are closed to non-members (I know how this works, I've modded a couple yahoogroups for about 8 years). I had no idea of the credentials of the group's owners or moderators, and I don't know what kind of fact-checking policies might be in place. I would say that Smygo should not be included for those reasons. And because all along the way, the policy keeps saying words like "exceptionally" and "normally to be avoided".

I've also done a quick look at the group; a large portion of posts were added by Clore; and while I don't know if he has status on the group, he does seem to be pretty involved, which also might be a potential conflict of interest. As far as the intital two claims, membership numbers on YahooGroups are really loose; in the groups I've worked with, its not uncommon for each member to have several email addresses listed separately. That fact aside, the membership is not indicative of the site's credibility. With regard to the site's content, I don't have time to do a thorough analysis, but from the 10-15 posts I read, only one was from a newspaper; the rest were from blogs or other web sites; on initial inspection it doesn't appear to be verifiable content.

So to summarize (most of this probably applies to the other two newslinks here too), I don't think this link should be included because, 1. It's not particularly unique 2. YahooGroups is specifically mentioned as a link to normally be avoided, 3. Clore is an active contributor of the group, presenting a potential conflict of interest. 4. It doesn't have identifiable credentialed moderators or a clear moderation policy. 5. The content that I saw also for the most part did not appear to be from credible or verifiable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I am the list owner of Smygo and I moderate the list. Only members can post and only a handful of members can post without approval. However, I try to be very lenient if the material is at least reasonably on-topic. Readers can judge sources for themselves. I do strive to either exclude inaccurate material or to identify it as such. As normally reliable sources such as newspapers frequently publish misinformation about anarchists and anarchism, one purpose of Smygo is actually to act as a media watchdog. So the issue of credibility is actually rather complex, and the list does carry other material that is irrelevant to the issue (calls to action, etc.), further muddying the waters.

Ok, then as owner you arent allowed to place the link to the group on wikipedia, it is a clear conflict of interest. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the guidelines say that you can add links despite this sort of conflict of interest, but that you should take special care when considering doing so. I'd probably better stop arguing now, before the entire entry has been deleted.Clore (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

On all of this, Smygo is in the same way as the other links that are included, as Kraftlos suggests. Clore (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, looks like I've succeeded in reverse; I pointed out that if the other links qualify, than so does Smygo -- so this Skomorokh character deletes the other links, too. Wikipedia gets more useful by the second. 21:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clore (talk • contribs)

Yes, the other "news" links are unlikely to qualify, so I removed them so that only those news sites which had consensus for inclusion were in that section. Skomorokh 21:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasnt arguing the Smygo being removed and keeping the others. I agree with Skomorokh, I dont think the others qualified either, so it's fine to remove them too. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Libertarianism = Anarchism

I've removed the passage stating that Anarchism is synonymous with Libertarianism, because the source (Colin Ward) says something else: Libertarian (not Libertarianism) has been used as a synonym to anarchist and this has changed with the emergence of Libertarianism. Note that libertarian remains to be a synonym to anarchist in other languages (Spanish, French, German etc.) but only partially in English. Here's what Colin Ward writes (p. 62):

"For a century, anarchists have used the word ‘libertarian’ as a synonym for ‘anarchist’, both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1895. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers – David Friedman, Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Paul Wolff – so it is necessary to examine the modern individualist ‘libertarian’ response from the standpoint of the anarchist tradition. [...]

--Koroesu (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of sources where "libertarianism" is used to refer to anarchism. As Ward says, for over a century anarchists have used the term to refer to anarchism. It's in plain english right there. Whether it's good or bad to use that term to refer to anarchism is irrelevant. Just the fact that it's used is good enough to warrant pointing that out. Note that what I put in the article does not say that libertarianism is always a synonym for anarchism. It just says it is sometimes used to refer to anarchism, which it is. I even took pains to note that the term has other uses as well to avoid objections like yours. Costho (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never read any sources where libertarianism is used to refer to anarchism. But if that's the case I think everyone will be perfectly happy to see this in the article, when correctly referenced. What I wanted to say is that the source says something else: Libertarian (not Libertarianism) has been used for a century by anarchists as a synonym for anarchist. That's a big difference.--Koroesu (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to having this supposed synonym mentioned in the opening line of the article. Not only is it not significant enough to mention in the lead, but the "libertarian" description used by anarchists is a completely different animal to the right-wing ideology libertarianism. Skomorokh 14:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not saying that it's the same animal as the right-wing ideology libertarianism. In fact it's explicitly saying that the term has other meanings too. There are lots of terms in the English language that have multiple meanings. Why keep everyone in the dark that the term is used to refer to anarchism? Costho (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You could also find plenty of reliable sources that attested to the fact that anarchism is also known as libertarian socialism; it would be just as bad an idea to include that in the opening line of the article. The problem with a topic like anarchism is that it is so written about, you can find support for almost any hypothesis. The point is, scholarly overviews of anarchism do not typically note in their opening lines that anarchism is also known as libertarianism.[1] It's undue weight. Skomorokh 18:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It is the norm with Wikipedia articles that alternate terms are included right there in the first sentence. The fact that quite a few people here didn't know it's used as a synonym is all the more reason that it should be there to inform them of this. Costho (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Not when the alternate terms are used so rarely, it's not. Anarchism (also known as libertarian socialism, libertarianism, democratic federalism, communitarian individualism, libertarian Marxism, anti-authoritarian democracy and anti-state liberalism) is a is not a balanced or representative way to start an encyclopaedia article. Skomorokh 18:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Goodway source says the term libertarianism is "frequently employed" as a synonym. I agree with that, as I've come across it many times. Costho (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, finding one source that supports a certain point does not make that point necessarily worthy of inclusion. Overviews of anarchism very rarely note that libertarianism is a synonym, and "the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources" per WP:LEDE. The first thing the reader encounters in this article is an entire line about the term libertarianism. That does not reflect its relative importance. As there is no consensus for the inclusion of the line, and two editors disputing it, I'm moving it here until consensus emerges. Skomorokh 18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

How about another one then? This overview of anarchism called The Encyclopedia of Political Anarchy says "the terms libertarian and anarchist have often been used synonymously." That's too sources that overrule your claim that it's "rarely" used as a snyonym. Should I go on? You speak of consensus as your last resort reason for removing it now, but there is not a consensus that it should be removed either as is evidenced by the fact that I'm putting it there. Costho (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, my friend, the objections stay the same:

1. libertarian=anarchist doesn't mean libertarianism=anarchism
2. Putting the term in the opening line doesn't reflect its relative importance
3. It isn't more relevant than other synonyms--Koroesu (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As Koroesu said. Consensus is not a "last resort", it is the core decision making principle of the encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 22:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well unfortunate for all of us, there is not a consensus either way. Therefore there is no justification for taking it out or putting it in with the excuse of consensus or lack thereof. You need a more substantial reason than that. I've countered all your arguments with sources. Costho (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Do the sources say that libertarian is used as a synonym for anarchist or that libertarianism is used as a synonym for anarchism? I'm familiar with the former usage, but I can't say I've ever come across the latter. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes they say libetarianISM. You can look them up in books.google.com Costho (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a huge volume of sources supporting the text, it should stay. Also, I can vouch from personal experience that it is often used as a synonym, and there are many anarchist pissed off that Big-L Libertarians have 'stolen' their name. But of course, that can't be used as a source. Zazaban (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it's mostly anarchists that use the term interchangeably with anarchism. Costho (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this discussion is getting nowhere... I beg you to address the points above that I have compiled from previous postings in this discussion (and have not been answered so far). I can assure you that this is not some sort of left-wing conspiracy against the term "libertarianism". It's just wrongly referenced and undue weight.--Koroesu (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Those points have already been addressed if you read my responses to the other guy, who basically had the same arguments. I would expect it to be a right wing conspiracy to take it out, than a left wing one, since it's mostly anachists that use the term libertarianism to refer to anarchism. Costho (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've checked the references now on Google Books and have to say that I was surprised to find the alleged synonym to be supported by some sources. Here is what I found out:

Gay reference: No (libertarian=anarchist)

Goodway reference: Yes (libertarianism=anarchism)

Ward reference: No (as mentioned earlier in this discussion)

MacDonald reference: It wasn't possible to access the page

Bufe reference: Yes

Woodcock reference: No pagenumber, if it refers to the title of the book: No

Skirda reference: No (libertarian=anarchist)

So in the end 2 sources support the claim. But at a closer look the sources turn out to be rather poor: In Chaz Bufes book it is merely mentioned in a short editors note to help the readers of the book understand what follows. In Goodways case it is not an exact synonym: "'libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives [...] But 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism' also tend to be used as softer, less extreme terms than 'anarchist' and 'anarchism'." In the light of this and the reasons mentioned earlier in this discussion, I am for the complete removal of the disputed line in its present form.--Koroesu (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. Every one of those sources explicitly says libertarianism is used to refer to anarchism, with the exception of the Woodcock reference which is simply implicit in the title. I'm not sure what you mean by "libertarianism=anarchism," but that's not the claim being made. And your claim that if libertarian refers to anarchist, that it doesn't follow that libetarianISM doesn't refer to anarchISM is ludicrous. By the way in Europe, libertarianism almost always refers to anarchism. Costho (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I wanted to make in this discussion: 'libertarian' is a synonym for anarchist (adjective) and anarchist (noun), but it doesn't follow that 'libertarianism' is a synonym for 'anarchism'. I can give you my word that in French, Italian and German 'libertarianism' is never used as a synonym for anarchism. From my experience the same is true for Russian. I don't think it's completely different in Spanish and Dutch. But the point is that you have to have a source that supports your claim "libertarianism is a synonym for anarchism". And I can only again point to the arguments mentioned by Skomorokh earlier in this discussion that have not been addressed adequatly so far.--Koroesu (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I know what your point was. That's why I said it was ludicrous. Of course if libertarian refers to anarchist that libertarianism refers to anarchism. The Anarchists Seeds in the Snow source actually even pointed that out explicitly, by saying both libertarian refers to anarchism and libertarianism refers to anarchism. Skomorokh's arguments have been overruled b y the sources. And so have yours. Costho (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The poor sources you cited overrule nothing and I made every effort to explain that (a waste of time as it turned out). As a matter of fact compiling more poor sources on GoogleBooks doesn't make a point better.

From the beginning it seemed to me like POV pushing and this "discussion" has just confirmed that feeling I had. You don't go into the objections I had, you show strong signs of disruptive editing and you avoid consensus efforts in a very rude way. I don't consider this as a base for further discussions. The three points I made above stay the same, that's all I can say.--Koroesu (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you assumed bad faith from the start you admit. This explains your irrationality. How could it be POV pushing anyway? What POV could possible be pushed by this? And how dare you accuse me of "disruptive editing." Why is a person deleting the sourced information not disruptive editing? Get a clue. Costho (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1) Anarchism is in fact a *type* of libertarianism, namely radical libertarianism (in fact, it's much more libertarian than the philosophy pushed by the US "Libetarian" party). While anarchism is more accurately described as a subset of libertarianism, the words "libertarian" and "libertarianism" have often inaccurately been used synonymously with "anarchist" and "anarchism". Thus, inaccurate as it might be, this should be listed as a synonym. 2) These synonyms have largely fallen out of use today, and this should be mentioned. 3) Even though the claim is true, in order to properly cite it, references *must* explicitly equate anarchism with libertarianism in order to be valid sources for the claim--there are plenty of cases in which a word does not mean the same as all of its derivatives (n.b. one would not argue that because popular=common therefore populist=communist). 4) If you include one common synonym, *must* include all other common synonyms (and some less common ones for good measure). Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You have it backwards. It's the American usage of the term that is wrong in a sense, in the view of anarchists, not the anarchist usage. Anarchism was called libertarianism before capitalist minarchists started using it. As one of the sources says, Ward I believe, libertarianism has been used since the 19th century as a synonym for anarchism. The first use of the term in a political sense meant anarchism. As the libertarianism article mentions, the French anarchist journalist Sébastien Faure, founder and editor of the four-volume Anarchist Encyclopedia, started the weekly paper Le Libertaire (The Libertarian) in 1895. The term has been used synonymously with anarchism ever since, mostly by anarchists themselves. They often complain that the Americans have stolen term. Regarding including other synonyms, the bar set for my inclusion of the libertarianism synonym was that it had to be used often as a synonym. I provided sources that explicitly said it is used "often" and "frequently" as a synonym. Since that prerequisite was demanded of me, I'm going to demand it of others as well. Costho (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The word "libertarian" dates to 1798, with the meaning "one who holds the doctrine of free will" [2] (see the article on metaphysical libertarianism). Clearly, this usage is MUCH more inclusive than the sense in which you use the term. The term was later (1878) applied to political philosophy with the meaning "person advocating liberty in thought and conduct", which both predates and is also a much broader category than the Sébastien Faure usage. Faure probably argued (as anarchists such as myself still argue) that anarchists were the only *true* libertarians because they're the only ones who advocate complete freedom in economic, political, and all other senses. While I consider this a persuasive argument, it is nonetheless clear that this is backmapping an anarchist POV onto a pre-existing term. I also agree that American "Libertarians" stole the term--not just from anarchists but from the entire libertarian branch of classical liberalism--a tradition which includes almost all modern political parties on both sides of the Atlantic. As for "libertarian socialism", I think it will be easy to show that it is commonly used as a synonym for "anarchism" and furthermore, that "libertarian socialism" is a 1-to-1 synonym, without any other significant uses. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This family tree illustrates the evolution and logical relationships between the various branches of politics as I understand them. It's a bit rough in the details, but you look at primary sources across the political spectrum, with an understanding of the intellectual context in which they wrote, I think this is the basic structure they show. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed line

Anarchism (often referred to as libertarianism, though that term sometimes has other meanings as well)

Note that both the Goodway and Gay sources above say that the terms are "often" used as synonyms. Costho (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If the consensus develops that the parenthetical phrase should stay, I strongly recommend that the number of footnotes be reduced. One approach is to include all the sources in a single footnote. Another is to keep only the strongest source(s). A third approach is to do both. See WP:POINT. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Link between anarchism and libertarianism in the article

I understand that there is an historical link between the two terms, and that we shouldn't censor that. But we are still talking about a term that is used as an opposed ideology (some people believe in libertarianism as standing for minimum government). I think it's clear that we shouldn't start an article about an ideology with a definition that involves the term of a different ideology. This can lead to confusion and it is misleading. I accept that this could come up in the introduction, but not in the opening line. The need to immediately include the clarification "though that term sometimes has other meanings as well" reveals an unnecessary ambiguity.

When writing an encyclopedia, trying to be true to facts is important, but it is not the only value. We have to consider issues of style and organization. Maziotis (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good to include "though that term sometimes has other meanings as well" so that no one confuses it with the mainstream American use of the term. Without that, then the complaint that comes up here is that "Libertarianism does not equal anarchism" from shortsighted people here who think it is saying libertarianism ALWAYS refers to anarchism. Maybe that could be put in a footnote though. Costho (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure you read what I wrote. My problem is neither the fact that libertarianism can be equal to anarchism, nor the fact that being there a difference it shouldn't be mentioned. My problem is that the article of anarchism now starts with a statement that obviously required 10 sources to dissuade people from removing it. There is clearly a problem of style and organization here. We shouldn't begin an article with such ambiguity. It is unnecessary. We can perfectly mention the historical connection of the terms far ahead in the article. It seems that for some people this debate only serves to prove how deep they are into political philosophy. As writers, we should try to present the ideas in the less misleading way possible. I am not disputing that the concerned statement is true. Maziotis (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: In the edit summary, my reference to "definition" is aimed at "anarchism". The article does intend to define "anarchism".

I think it's important to have synonyms right at the beginning because it illustrates just how contentious and ambiguous the term "anarchism" is in political discourse, and it keeps people from accepting Wikipedia's particular representation as gospel. However, there are several other synonyms for anarchism that should be mentioned in the same sentence. Namely, libertarian socialism, mutualism, bioregionalism and communalism, all of which are more or less frequently used as synonyms for anarchism. I agree with Mazoitis that this could lead to unnecessary ambiguity. However, I think we could remedy this by adding something this article has needed for a long time: a Terms & Definitions section, in which we cover 1) Differing definitions of the word "anarchism" and 2) Different terms and who they're used by. This should come immediately after the lede and would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion and, I dare say, lessening the animus between the traditional anarchists and the right-libertarian construction of the term by properly differentiating them rather than lumping them all under one blanket term with multiple meanings. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understood your proposal. Do you believe we should put "libertarian socialism" and "mutualism" in the same reference in which now stands "libertarianism"? I would vigorously oppose that, since some anarchists recognize those terms as specific branches in anarchism, with which they don't identify themselves with. I think it would be great to have a new section where we could explain anarchism in a new light, in the way you described. I still don't see what we benefit in starting the article this way. It's a little bit like defining a word using the very same word - people come here to, at least, get a broad view on a political philosophy with which they are not familiar with, and they immediately get another "ism" in the opening, defining line.

Also, I would like to hear a straightforward answer about the issue of opening an article with a link that seems to require so many sources to stick. Is this a "truth" that most people are not ready to accept?... Maziotis (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do think we need to supply all of the synonyms somewhere near the beginning of the article, though not necessarily in the first line. I think the best approach would be to open with something like "Anarchism is a broad concept which means different things to different people, and has gone under many labels." Then, we would outline the three basic definitions (i.e. chaos, anti-government, and anti-hierarchy). Next, we'd note the synonyms, how they are/were used (i.e. according to which definitions), by whom. As for the specific examples I gave, yes they should be placed in the list of synonyms (wherever we decide that should be) at the same rank as "libertarian", to the extent that they are referenced. In particular, "libertarian socialist" is probably the most common synonym today and as far as I know, is the only one that doesn't have any other significant meanings. As for "mutualism", I believe the only use of this as a synonym for anarchism was back when Proudhon was the only self-identified anarchist around. While this rarely used as a synonym any more, I believe it is significant because of its presence at the inception of political anarchism. "Proudhonism" and "Bakuninism" are other terms which started out as being synonymous with "anarchism" but have since taken on a narrower meaning. I think this is worth mentioning because many of those new to anarchism are likely to be digging through the old literature, and the changing meaning of these terms will throw them through a loop. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is an incomplete list of definitions & synonyms for anarchism that I think should be included in the section I'm proposing.

• Anarchism – 1. Chaos or anomie (as used in popular speech) 2. Anti-government (as used in popular speech and by some self-described anarchists) 3. Anti-hierarchy (as used by most self-described anarchists).
• Anocracy – occasional synonym used by some self-described anarchists
• Anti-authoritarianism – occasional synonym used by some self-described anarchists
• Anti-authoritarian anticapitalism – occasional synonym used by some self-described anarchists
• Bakuninism – obsolete synonym, now more commonly used with a narrower meaning
• Communalism – obsolete synonym, now more commonly used with a narrower meaning
• Cynic – obsolete synonym, now more commonly used with a narrower meaning
• Individualism – obsolete synonym, now more commonly used with a narrower meaning
• Mutualism – obsolete synonym, now more commonly used with a narrower meaning
• Libertarian socialism – common synonym anarchism used by many self-described anarchists
• Libertarianism – obsolete common synonym, now also commonly used with a narrower meaning
• Libertine – obsolete synonym, now more commonly used with a narrower meaning
• Mutualism – obsolete synonym, now more commonly used with a narrower meaning
• Nihilism – obsolete synonym, now more commonly used with a narrower meaning
• Proudhonism – obsolete synonym, now more commonly used with a narrower meaning

Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can find sources any of those that specifically says they're used "often" or "frequently" as synonyms, please add them to the the first line of the article. If they're obsolete synonyms and you have a source specifically saying that, then note them further down in the article if you want. Costho (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems absurd to me, for the reasons I already stated. As for placing the term "libertarian socialism", I find it particularly unacceptable. I believe that term has been used as a synonym of anarchism by libertarian socialists(!). I think you are stepping into muddy waters. It’s hard to define ideologies, such as “socialism”, and how they cross with one another. But given that some anarchist authors reject “socialism”, or even equality, for that matter, as a social value and a political goal, we aren't dealing with a synonym but a branch, and we would have to name them all.

Also, I don't remember to ever see the use of the term "anarchism" with the meaning of "chaos"; only "anarchy" - for which those distinctions are taken into account on its own article. Maziotis (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be surprising that libertarian socialists call themselves libertarian socialists. Of course, "libertarian socialist" is an American term. In the rest of the world, "libertarian" means "anti-authoritarian socialist", which is also a synonym for anarchism. As for doubting the association of anarchism with chaos... you're kidding, right? Yes, I understand that within the movement, we are fairly careful about making the distinction between "anarchy" and "anarchism", but do you really think the 5.99999 billion non-anarchists make that distinction? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe you have misinterpreted what I meant. It's not that I find surprising that libertarian socialists call themselves libertarian socialists, but that since they are anarchists, you would judge the term "libertarian socialism" as a synonym for anarchism. I would be more comfortable referring to this term as a "branch" or a "school" within anarchism. If you ask me, I really do believe that "primitivism" is just another word for anarchism. But not all anarchists see it this way. In keeping with the necessity to have a balanced article, we must take into account those authors that don't consider anarchism to be a form of socialism, of any kind. As for the meaning of "anarchism" in popular culture, I must say I have really never heard that way. I don't if it's my country that is more "sophisticated" than most, or what. Perhaps you can provide some sources. Maziotis (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at primary sources throughout anarchist history, you'll find that virtually all anarchist writers identify their philosophy with socialism. Within the anarchist movement, this is very clear. Unfortunately, the term "anarchism" has been misinterpreted by two groups of people are 1) Anarcho-capitalists and 2) Most non-anarchists. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not consider primary sources to be authoritative, so we have to rely mainly on the mischaracterizations of anarchism that are provided in most secondary sources. Historically, anarchism branched off of socialism, and socialism branched off of libertarianism. Hence: libertarian socialism. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Maziotis on the absurdity of listing supposed synonyms. Anarchism is one of the oldest and most fundamental political philosophies there is. Synonyms used by particular subgroups of scholars, acolytes and fellow travelers are of limited value and serve more to confuse the reader than anything else. It's plainly obvious that there is no consensus here for the inclusion of the disputed parenthetical phrase, and the argument that it should stay because there is no consensus against is completely spurious – on Wikipedia, the burden is firmly on the material added. So as to preserve the refs and give a seed from which Aelffin's proposed section may grow, I'll keep the line in a footnote but any contentious insertion at this point is tendentious. Skomorokh 02:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't put up a fight. Although anybody with access to a university library system and a fair amount of time on their hands could verify all of the examples I've given, and then some. The article will remain misleading until somebody steps up to the task of disentangling all the terms and definitions used/misused by anarchists and non-anarchists. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that it should stay because there's not a consensus that it should be deleted. I'm arguing it should stay because it's amply sourced. Costho (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources and the claim are present in the current version, without the undue weight towards libertarianism. Skomorokh 20:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're giving too little weight to it, as if it's a term that's rarely used. The sources indicate that it's a frequent synonym. Therefore it ought to be listed up there in plain sight for everyone to see. You've offered absolutely no rational justification for doing what you're doing. Costho (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is tantamount to trolling; you clearly have no interest in improving the article, reject both consensus and compromise as methods of dispute resolution and are content only to obfuscate and edit-war your way into having the entire first line of the mostly frequently accessed resource on anarchism devoted to a bloated and ill-thought out reference to an anachronistic term which the vast majority of readers will be thoroughly confused by.[3] Skomorokh 20:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Still no rational argument against the inclusion. There is nothing confusing about viewers seeing that the term is often used as synonym for anarchism. Become educated is not the same thing as becoming confused. And you keep speaking of consensus. What consensus? Costho (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You comment above that you don't think you need consensus to include this material, in spite of Wikipedia policy. The claim is at minimum misleading because of the overwhelmingly more common use of the term in relation to an entirely different ideology, and of undue weight (given all the other synonyms that have been used for anarchism that also don't deserve mention in the opening line). This has been explained to you over and over again and there are several more arguments in the section above whose existence you seem equally happy to ignore. It's completely telling that you would blindly revert unrelated improvements to the article in order to have libertarianism in the lede. Skomorokh 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course you need consensus for the material to STAY. You also need consensus for the material to stay deleted. This is obvious fact. Now I don't need consensus to put something in the article, just as you don't need consensus to take something of out the article because the very act of inserting or deleting something in proof of lack of consensus. What we do need consensus for is for our preferred version to stay. So this is the purpose of discussion, to convince the other that they have no rational basis for their actions. And that's why I'm here discussing this, in order for the material to stay by showing you that you're wrong or until you can show me that I'm wrong. This is the act of arriving at consensus. So please stop your irrelevant nonsense about needing consensus prior to making an edit, and discuss more substantial matters. Now, why would it matter if the term "libertartianism" is more commonly used to refer to something else (which I haven't seen a source for), as long as it's commonly used to refer to anarchism? How it undue weight to note the synonym at the outset if the sources say it's "often" and "frequently" used as a synonym? Costho (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not only what facts are presented in the article, but also in how they are organized. I've never disputed the fact that libertarianism is used as a synonym for anarchism, but I believe the inclusion in the open line creates an issue of unnecessary ambiguity. We should begin to give a basic definition of anarchism in the anarchism article, instead of immediately give other isms for the reader to chew. I don't know how more rational can I be. This change obviously is a big one, considering that concerns the first line of the article, and we should have consensus to change. I insist; style and organization are important. "Undue Weight" is a concept that should not only be considered about deleting statements. Maziotis (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with ambiguity? The English language as a lot of ambiguity. A lot of words mean more than one thing. It's not our responsibility to eliminate ambiguity if there ambiguity in the language. Leave it to the reader to learn that libertarianism refers to more than one thing. I think he can handle that fact and assimilate it. Costho (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is one of cultural bias. In the United States, "libertarianism" is almost never used as a synonym for anarchism. In Europe, "libertarianism" is fairly regularly used as a synonym for anarchism. In order to avoid confusion, this must be noted immediately when the synonyms are given. Given that there are many, many synonyms, and given that a first line with a dozen synonyms and explanations thereof would be virtually unreadable, I suggest that the only reasonable solution is to include a Terms & Definitions section immediately after the lede. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with ambiguity - that's why I'm all for the inclusion of that, and other, synonyms. What I don't agree is that we start the article with two isms (plus other eight, if they are found to be on the same level as libertarianism), but simply that we should explain it further down the article. I think it is a matter of organization. This article is about anarchism - in the most broaden sense. And the first lines should be confined to talk about state, authority and hierarchy; not about how it's also called this, but sometimes it is not, and have ten sources that claim that if it this is confusing or you feel like taking it off, it's because you are ignorant in political philosophy.

Yes, among other things, I am actually trying to make a point about how anarchism should be presented. It is a question of style. Trying to write a neutral article doesn't push that issue aside. Maziotis (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In some places libertarianism is a common synonym, but anarchism is the same everywhere. I do think we should put all of this into perspective in the article; just not on the first line. Maziotis (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that it couldn't be more obvious that libertarianism is used as a synonym for anarchism, by observing the term "libertarian socialism." That term was obviously created to distinguish state socialism and anarchist socialism by those who use "libertarianism" as a synonym for anarchism. Costho (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that libertarianism is a synonym for anarchism. However, I agree with Maziotis that the first line is not the best place to put the synonyms. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The first line isn't the place to include the myriad synonyms of anarchism. Costho, you're editing is becoming disruptive. Please stop before you're reported for edit-warring. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

One synonym is not a myriad of synonyms. That synonym is sourced to be a "often" and "frequent" synonym. All oftenly used synonyms should be there. If you want to report me for "edit warring" go right ahead. And please explain to whomever you report to how you're not edit warring when you remove the material. Costho (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point that no one is arguing that the term "libertarian socialism" hasn't been used by anarchists to refer to their own ideology.

The fact that we are dealing with one synonym just makes it less worst than the possibility of dealing with a myriad (which we may have to, if they reveal to be on the same level). Just read the posts above to see why we don't agree we should organize the article in your way.

The problem with the edit warring is that at this moment you are trying to change the article alone, imposing your views on others. Maziotis (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No one is pushing to put a myriad of synonyms there. Only synonyms that are used frequently. The term is sourced as being a term used "frequently" and "often." As far as changing the article alone, I have a right to do that. Just as you have a right to revert my changes. Wikipedia is not a democracy, fortunately. Costho (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just don't say you are on the same level than Malik, as you seem to have suggested before. I was just trying to explain where did the expression "edit warring" came from. As for the myriad of synonyms, I addressed the issue specifically concerning being just one. My last post was precisely about the possibility that there would be only one, and from where did the suggestion of there being a "myriad" came up. You still seem to be unwilling to address the arguments about the problem of including the one synonym at the top of the article. Maziotis (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread you as complaining about a "myriad of synonyms," but that was Malik. What are you saying is the problem with having the one synonym at the top of the article? Costho (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to be dragged into to this. You are now clearly being disruptive, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were banned for vandalism, at this point. You say there is no consensus either way, at edit summary, and you figure your way is better. You talk about the right to change things, but you seem to forget about everybody else's freedom, namely to get together as a community and push you aside. All the arguments are kept above, if you now want to really have a chance in discussing and changing things, you should address the arguments presented and stop "edit warring". Maziotis (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, I recognize everyone else's right to delete what I put in the article. I'm the one trying to argue more substantial points, but you and and a couple others keep bringing up "consensus." As is obvious, there is not a consensus, so that's moot. Costho (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The consensus we are talking about refers to the one which was found before this last change was brought up. There was consensus to have the article with the sentence in the way it was before, but there wasn't one to have it the way it is now. That's how we work in wikipedia. We need to find consensus to change things. Right now, this version only reflects the view of one editor. You talk about the right of others to delete it, but you keep changing the article into the way you want, and expecting everyone else to accept the burden of change on the side of what was already established. You can't use your own position to say that there is no consensus because of a change you want to bring. Do I really need to say that you are suspect regarding your own positions? You are not addressing any arguments. Maziotis (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly can use my own change as evidence that there is not consensus. It looks like you have a flawed understanding of Wikipedia. There does not need to be consensus to make a change in an article. There only needs to be consensus for that change to STAY there for a long period of time. That's the purpose of discussion here. The purpose is to convince each other that they other is right or wrong, or both are wrong and some other answer is correct so that it doesn't keep getting put in and taken out. The purpose of discussion is to arrive at a consensus. If you're starting out claiming that I can't make a change because there is not consensus, besides making a completely absurd claim false on its face, you're preventing us from coming to a consensus by discussing unsubstantial issues that have no bearing on whether or not that should be in the article. If all you can argue is that I can't put it there because there is not a consensus, then I have to conclude that you don't have any real reason to argue why it shouldn't be there. Costho (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We already explain to you why, but you seem to be merely interested in being disruptive. My point about consensus is that the original one is the version in which there is no reference to libertarianism. You can't come here, change things, and expect others to convince you to change your mind. Maziotis (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss consensus any further with you. This is ridiculous. If you have a valid reason why libertarianism should be there then let me know. If I agree with you, then I won't put it in. (By the way, thought it's not relevant, but it may be to you, I'm not the only one who has agreed that this should be there. For example: [4]. Costho (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Costho, you seem to be confusing consensus and unanimity. There is no need for unanimous agreement among editors, merely consensus. A lone holdout is just that, a holdout. Although I note that another editor has suggested including "libertarianism" at the end of the first paragraph (not in the middle of the first sentence). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is neither consensus nor unanimity either way. For example: [5] But the point is irrelevant. There is no rule on Wikipedia that there has to be consensus before someone make a change to an article. Consensus is what we strive for in order to try to KEEP a change in or out of an article for the longer term. So stop playing silly "consensus" games. Do you or do you not have a legitimate reason why the truth should be revealed to the public, out in the open and obviously, that libertarianism is often used as a synonym? Costho (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I already explained to you my reasons. Right now, I am discussing with you the fact that you want to keep the version you want while we have this discussion. You insist in saying there is no consensus either way, but you are wrong. The current version is the one which was agreed on previous discussions, on how the article on anarchism should look like. If you believe we need to change something, you have to discuss it first on the talk page. The burden of proof is on you side, so to speak. I will resume to discussing the previous points if you stop being disruptive. Maziotis (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said I wanted to "keep" the version I want while we're having this discussion. I just want to put it there until someone deletes it, and recognize you have a right to delete it. It doesn't matter what people agreed to before. This is not before. This is now. And even five minutes from now, it will be irrelevant to what we agree to now. We're not writing a book. This is Wikipedia. Consensus is fleeting. I am definitely not going to submit to having to get authorization from you or anyone else to put in the article. Wikipedia is set up so that anyone can make a change that wishes to. We don't need authorization from a dictatorship of the collective. Costho (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just like I don't have to discuss anything with you, nor an admin to ban you, if you keep being disruptive. Maziotis (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Then stop threatening and take action, because I'm going to keep arguing my case and making changes to the article. Or, better yet, start discussing something constructive in regard to actual reasons why you think it doesn't belong in the article. Costho (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've been doing all along, but you are not interested in addresing anyone's arguments. All I am telling you is that in order for editors to have the power to change things, they must go trough a certain process. Your views on wikipedia being a mirror of those who stay online and insist in editing (adding or removing) the longest is not going to fly. -Maziotis

I'm telling you that you're wrong that a person must go "through a certain process" before he changes something in an article. There is no such rule. Anyone can come in and edit articles without going through any process at all, and make the edit without permission, from anyone or any group. Costho (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Interpret your freedom to edit as you will. What I am telling you is that wikipedia has policies and that you might end up banned because of them. Maziotis (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No one seems to think that we should deal with this topic on the first line, but you just want to have things done your way. As a community, we have the right to protect ourselves from fascists like you. Maziotis (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Then do what you will. And you're calling me a fascist? Fascist is a collectivist philosophy, where the individual must subordinate his own interests to the interests of the collective. That's exactly what you're trying to tell me I have to do. So who's the fascist? Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a collectivist project. It's an individualist one. Each individual has the right to make an edit to the article that he thinks is best for the encylclopedia, even if he's the only one that wants to make the edit. Costho (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your vision of facism doesn't place you in the position of an ordinary individual, but the ruler. How convenient! You think that everyone else must surrender to you. And if you come here often, because you don't work or whatever, everyone has to read YOUR article. Those cheap formulas for regimes don't work here. This is not a society and such analogies end stinking. Maziotis (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not stopping your from deleting my edits. Go right ahead. That's your right, just as I have a right to put them back in. No one is ruling over anyone, yet. You certainly have been trying to rule over me though, through falsely claiming there's some kind of dicatorship of the collective. Costho (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You not stoping me from editing doesn't make us equals. How have I claimed any authority on you? All I am saying is that other individuals here are free, just as you, and they might want to protect themselves from editors who think they can stick around and earn a place in the article, for being quicker in the button. Maziotis (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You've been claiming that I have to have permission from the collective in order to make an edit, that I can't go against "the consensus." It's absurd and false. What do you mean you might want to protect "yourselves"? I'm not doing anything to you. If you don't like something in the article, DELETE IT. It's as simple as that. But don't demand that others agree with you and or try to command them to not put it back. That's not at all how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I have as much right to put it back as you do to delete it. If you want consensus to make sure it stays the way you want it, then you need to talk to the editor who you disagree with try to convince him why the material should stay out of the article. You may be successful convincing him. If you're not, so be it. But don't tell him he's not allowed to go against "consensus," or that he has to go through a "process" before he puts something in an article. It's just not true. Costho (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to believe that your intentions are pure. If everyone wants the article some way, you can't keep it different just because you stick around more often. This has got nothing to do with you being more free, passioned or smarter. So, it is you who have to convince the others. If, under this conditions, you insist in changing the way you want, you will be banned. Trust me, I have seen it a million times. Maziotis (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if you believe my intentions are pure or not, or you "we" is. The way articles are is dependent on who is around to edit them. If you're not around too bad. If you snooze, you lose. That's the way Wikipedia works. And don't tell me I have to convince others before I put something in an article. It's not true. I only need to convince others in order to persuade them to stop deleting it if I'm interested in my edit being a permanent fixture. There is no more burden on me to convince others to stop deleting it, than there is on you to convince others to delete it. I'm tired of this game with you. Respond if you want, but unless you're going to argue something substantial on why having my edit shouldnt be there then there's not point in responding to you. And, nevertheless, I HAVE been trying to convince others through rational arguments and sources why the edit should stay. So this is yet another moot point from you. 00:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Costho (talk • contribs)

It's not for me just because you say it is. It takes two to dance the tango. It sounds like you invent rules as you go along. You are absolutly right about all of us having the responsability to convince each other to change the article to the way it should be. But if you don't respect the policies on consensus, you are going to be branded a "vandal". I am just trying to explain why I believe that is right and it has nothing to do with wikipedia being fascist. All that talk about "snooze" would make sense if we were equals to begin with. Wikipedia has rules to protect itself from people who want to change things by clicking edit more than others, wheather you think it's right or not. The natural process for changing things in wikipedia when opposition emerges is to discuss things in the talk page and wait. That's why we have wikipedia:3rr and Wikipedia:Third opinion. Maziotis (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:CON, because you don't seem to have the slightest understanding of how consensus works. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Same to you. Costho (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the sentence is at the end of the lede at Libertarianism. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the reason it's not listed up next to "libertarianism" is because anarchism is not used as a synonym for libertarianism as libertarianism is presented in the article. The article is not about anarchism. So the reverse doesn't hold. Costho (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

...you'll find that virtually all anarchist writers identify their philosophy with socialism. Within the anarchist movement, this is very clear

In an ideological sense, doesn't socialism came prior to libertarianism? I'm sorry, I'm not sure if I understood correctly what you wrote about branching off. Anyway, I'm convinced that historically anarcho-capitalists are not the only "anti-socialist" anarchists. In modern times, you will only have to take a look at the "post-left anarchy" movement to see that to consider libertarian socialism as a synonym for anarchism it would mean a failure of the article to represent anarchism as a whole, in the first defining line. I think that we should be cautious about making such type of ideological links. Maziotis (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If "libertarian socialism" can be sourced to be a frequent, rather than rare synonym, then it should be listed up there in the opening line. I don't see it as making an ideological link. It just says some people call it libertarian socialism. It doesn't mean they're correct to call it that. If the reader is so dense that he thinks that because it's often called that that therefore all anarchism is socialism, that's not our problem. I don't think we're here to make the world make sense when it doesn't. Costho (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if libertarian socialism is the more popular form of anarchism, it is not fair to say that libertarian socialism is a synonym of anarchism, simply because some anarchists are not libertarian socialists. Obviously, some libertarian socialists refer to anarchism with the term libertarian socialism, but to conclude that that makes it a synonym is a clear case of WP:SYNTH

I agree with that. I would be incorrect to say it IS a synonym of anarchism. It was have to say it IS OFTEN used as a synonym for anarchism. That's why I worded the libertarianism one the way I did. Costho (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you claim that it is often used as a synonym, you are saying that at one point it is considered a synonym, for some people. Since we are dealing with a branch within anarchism, all you are doing is reflecting the representation the said branch has in the movement. It would also be true that all the other schools of thought would have their own terms used as synonyms. A synonym of anarchism would have to be one that is not associated with a particular view of anarchism. Hence, the discussion about what socialism means for a lot of anarchist authors. Maziotis (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Mazoitis, who asks (among other things) "In an ideological sense, doesn't socialism came prior to libertarianism?"...

Branching of movements: Yes, in a political sense socialism predates libertarianism, but not in an ideological sense. "Libertarian" in an ideological sense dates to 1789 [6], "socialist" dates to 1827 [7], and "libertarian" in a political sense dates to 1878 [8]. So, the wider libertarian ideology (as opposed to the narrower political philosophy) encompasses both socialism and political libertarianism. When I say "branch off", I mean specifically that members of one philosophy develop a new trend within that philosophy. In other words, the people who developed anarchist theory were socialists, the people who developed socialist theory were libertarians (in the ideological sense), and the people who developed libertarian theory (in the new political sense) were also libertarians (in the old ideological sense).

Anarchism and socialism: Yes, there have always been some self-described anarchists who have reinterpreted the meaning of the word anarchism. However, these have never been the mainstream of the movement--and by mainstream, I mean specifically the vast majority of self-proclaimed anarchist publications. In other words, you'll always have a John Zerzan or Hakim Bey or Murray Rothbard who wants to change the meaning of the word to suit their own philosophy, but they have also always viewed by the mainstream as either fringe (in the case of Zerzan and Bey), or outsiders to the movement altogether (in the case of Rothbard). Now, if the mainstream chooses to embrace Bey's "ontological anarchism", or Rothbard's "capitalist anarchism", then the meaning of the word will have changed. However, this has not happened, and the mainstream has always been self-identified as socialists (including the mainstream of individualist anarchism). And, of course in most cases, we'd say the mainstream are the ones who get to define the terms. (For example, there are those who consider “Creation science” to be a type of science, but since the mainstream of scientists--not necessarily of the general population--disagree, they are rightfully excluded from our articles on science. Likewise, Jews for Jesus, who are not accepted by mainstream Judaism, and thus are not listed as Jews in our articles.) However... the mainstream of anarchism is and always has been represented almost exclusively through zines, leaflets, newspapers and other literature that is considered less-than-reliable by Wikipedia policy. So, we're in the unfortunate situation where those few who disagree with the mainstream of anarchism (i.e. anarcho-capitalists and non-anarchists) are able to sway Wikipedia articles more heavily in their favor than would otherwise be acceptable. This situation will only change if a) consensus among editors is reached such that mainstream anarchist zines are considered reliable or b) mainstream anarchists start publishing more works in book form. This is a pretty major conundrum that, in my opinion, underlies the majority of the debates on this article. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As for claims that "libertarian socialism" represents only one branch of anarchism, I'll say it again: The mainstream of a movement is what defines the movement. I point once more to "Scientific creationists" who could make the same case that our evolution articles only represent one branch of science and "Jews for Jesus" who could make the claim that mainstream Judaism only represents one branch of Judaism. If anarchism is different in this respect, then I'd like somebody to explain the difference. I've been making this case for a looooong time and not a single editor has attempted to answer. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never disputed the fact that most anarchists consider themselves as part of the left, or that this shouldn't be reflected in the article. I do believe that most anarchists do not consider themselves "libertarian socialists", namely among the authors of reference, and so what I am saying is that this term shouldn't be strictly pointed out as a synonym for anarchism. That would be highly misleading. This has got nothing to do with ideological or political libertarianism, but anarchism as a social movement in the broadest sense. I mean, we are still talking about the first line. Right? Because history lessons about the use of terms must be explained in the article and carefully put into context. Also, when I said ideological, I meant it in a political sense. I know this words are not synonyms, but usually this term has mostly political implications; even if we are talking about religious doctrines. It doesn't really matter that the word libertarian had a previous use, or that politics from the XVIII have changed. I think it would be more honest to say that the political meaning of the term libertarian is hard to trace.Maziotis (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best to say "Anarchism is often referred to as libertarianism" at the end of first paragraph. Perhaps with clarification "in European literature" or something of that effect. -- Vision Thing -- 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)