![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
Is mentioned nowhere above it's mention on how individualist anarchism is not. The reason I was confused was that I thought that 'social movement' was being used as a qualifier for what was anarchist and what wasn't. Perhaps that should be re-worded. Zazaban ( talk) 03:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as we're dealing with a matter of international variations in terminology in the above discussion, the following extract from the Manual of Style may also have some bearing on this discussion. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin ( talk) 18:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
From WP:MOS:
Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English.
I would say that the work is citeable, but that the claim is obviously partisan and the distinction it makes is not sufficiently clear or self-evident for inclusion here. The issue is really undue weight. Libertatia ( talk) 21:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
In light of the now fully-quoted references, I'd like to conduct a straw poll to gauge consensus on the insertion of "libertarianism" as a synonym for anarchism in the lede. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin ( talk) 16:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Below are some examples of effective ledes incorporating synonyms elsewhere on Wikipedia. I believe we should model these. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin ( talk) 18:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong support 'Abolishment of the state' is mentioned under Libertarianism. As long as that's there, libertarianism should be mentioned here. Zazaban ( talk) 18:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> If the meaning of the word is totally different in the U.S, this needs to be made very clear in the article. This is the English language Wikipedia and there are many people in the United States. So there understanding of the terms and how they're used shouldn't be ignored. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence from the article:
For the following reasons:
For sure, the Collectivists were prevalent at the time of the most notorious Propaganda by the Deed stuff, but that's not the same as saying that "collectivism was to be brought about by violence initiated by small groups" - that sounds more like a definition of Insurrectionism. It might be shown (with sources) to be part of either Bakunin's thought, or (more likely) Nechaev, or the Russian Anarchists, or the Nihilists.
Given that this period was a time of open class warfare, it's not accurate to say what the removed sentence says without strong sources, i.e. that it was an defining part of the ideology, not a tactic / response engaged in by Collectivists.
Chaikney ( talk) 19:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
"however, anarchism has always included an individualist strain,[7][8] including those who support capitalism (for example anarcho-capitalists, agorists, and other free-market anarchists) or similar market-oriented economic structures; for example, mutualists.[9][10][11]"
This sentence cannot be true. As written it says that anarchism has always included anarcho-capitalism and agorism. One dates from the 1960s, the other the 1980s. The article dates anarchism from the start of the 19th-C (taoism aside). This brings up an issue of undue weight (why mention these more than mutualism?) as well as priority / which came first.
There's also an issue with the definition of capitalism - anarcho-capitalists have a different definition of capitalism from most anarchists (including individualists). Saying "anarchism has always included those who support capitalism" is at best confusing and more lkely to actively mislead readers. 19th-C individualists did not identify as capitalist. Issues of whether what they meant was the same as what anarcho-capitalists call capitalism are way too much for the intro.
So I'm changing this to:
however anarchism has always included an individualist strain including those who support market-oriented economic structures; for example, mutualists. Current day Anarcho-capitalists, agorists and other free-market anarchists claim their lineage from elements of this tradition.
Excuse my not explaining this more fully before. Chaikney ( talk) 23:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the anarchist approach? What, for example, should happen to murderers and rapists? 75.118.170.35 ( talk) 18:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The anarchist approach to justice is not to have a government monopoly in judicial matters. Beyond that, it depends on which school of anarchism. Individual anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and modern anarcho-capitalists would have justice/arbitration services provided by a free market, i.e. private courts. Whether they be firms, mutuals, or coops is up to the voluntary arrangement people choose for themselves. Cf: Defense Services on the Free Market by Murray Rothbard. At the other extreme are the utopians, who believe that crime will essentially disappear once the State is gone. Classical anarcho-socialist thought tends toward the latter, and thus has little to say about justice. PhilLiberty ( talk) 01:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The intro says "Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist strain, with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property (like classical mutualism or today's anarcho-capitalism and agorism)."
This dilineates mutualism as being not of the left wing. Is this really what you want to say? Introman ( talk) 02:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Another problem is that the article says, in the Mutualism section, that Mutualism is in between individualism and collectivism, yet the intro is saying that mutualism is individualist. Not to mention, it's also saying that it's not left wing. Introman ( talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Mutualism is market and property, and the semmatics of that line of the intro is explaining about market anarchisms, anyway market and property usually is considered economic invidividualism. And left o socialist -in sense of socialization of property- usually is considered economic collectivism. I mean, is an intro, and an intro should be general, not so specific (we have many lines below the intro to be more speciffic and make nuances). -- Nihilo 01 ( talk) 14:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The intro says "Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist strain, with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property (like classical mutualism or today's anarcho-capitalism and agorism)."
This dilineates mutualism as being not of the left wing. Is this really what you want to say? Introman ( talk) 02:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Another problem is that the article says, in the Mutualism section, that Mutualism is in between individualism and collectivism, yet the intro is saying that mutualism is individualist. Not to mention, it's also saying that it's not left wing. Introman ( talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Mutualism is market and property, and the semmatics of that line of the intro is explaining about market anarchisms, anyway market and property usually is considered economic invidividualism. And left o socialist -in sense of socialization of property- usually is considered economic collectivism. I mean, is an intro, and an intro should be general, not so specific (we have many lines below the intro to be more speciffic and make nuances). -- Nihilo 01 ( talk) 14:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Mutualism is economic and legal individualism, and in this way it isn't collectivist. Also, we should use general deffinitions to help the readers and not to confuse them with very very nounces from many interpretations. Not only in anarchism, but in economics and political sciences collectivism is socialization and individualism is market, I mean, in a political order sense (in a philophical way you could be more abstract and even contradictory, but in this case is better to beging with politics).-- 200.69.186.152 ( talk) 04:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it was before. Zazaban ( talk) 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah why is that? - free2resist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.67.29 ( talk) 17:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Will someone please second the proposal for deletion of the oxymoronic article on Anarcho-totalitarianism? PhilLiberty ( talk) 06:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on finally getting a balanced set of introductory paragraphs! The last few sentences of the last paragraph of the intro gets a little mushy, but overall great job. I know how long you--and occasionally I--have been fighting over these words, but this version manages to clearly communicate most of the ambiguities raised by various parties within and outside of anarchism. Way to go! Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin ( talk) 16:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
As you can see I have found some cases of clear bias in this article which have been talked about in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. A tour around wikipedias in other languages and their articles on "anarchism" might show you that the article "anarchism" in wikipedia in English suffers from too much concentration on the USA experience. I will proceed in explaining each case where i found a problem:
-individualist anarchism: From what this article is showing Individualist anarchism is and was, it makes one think individualist anarchism was mostly a USA phenomenon with two individuals who are not american who were Max Stiner and Proudhon. Also it makes one think individualist anarchists are people mostly concentrated on economics. Of course this is not the case as one can see by checking the articles on the following european individualist anarchists from different countries: France: Anselme Bellegarrigue, Émile Armand, Han Ryner, Albert Libertad, Zo d'Axa, Michel Onfray, Illegalism Italy: Renzo Novatore, Illegalism. Here´s a link to articles from individualist anarchist magazines from france [ [4]] and one to a historical account on female french individualist anarchist [5] UK/Germany: John Henry Mackay Russia: Lev Chernyi Spain: A strong scene of individualist anarchism influenced by the french currents and in this way by positions such as free love, and naturism as can be seen in this scholarly article [6]which later was expanded as a book [7].
Individualist anarchism has to be considered one on the major schools of anarchist thought alongside anarcho-communism, collectivism, and anarchosyndicalism. The section on individualist anarchism in this page must be significantly changed from what we have now and of course with a shortening on the treatment of american individualist anarchism. It must also show how individualist anarchism was a diverse current with a big emphasis on lifestyle.
-Postclassical schools of thought and "anarcho" capitalism: Here we have a strong bias towards "anarcho" capitalism. Why does "anarcho" capitalism have one very long paragraph and another smaller one while other currents such as anarcho-primitivism, insurrectionary anarchism, and postanarchism, only brief mentions.
From the beginning we can say we are clearly having a big bias. And now on top of that it happens that while inssurrectionary anarchism and anarcho-primitivism exists in many countries and have strong historical precedents in illegalism in the first case and anarchist naturism in the second place, "anarcho" capitalism is seriously controversial as many times it has been said to be outside anarchism while being in fact a form of right wing neoliberalism with a null or almost non existent historical connection with the history of anarchism and on top of recent invention and lets not forget that it doesnt seem to exist outside the United States.
If we decided anyway to accept "anarcho" capitalism inside anarchism, there´s no good reason to give it such big coverage on this article. There´s also no good reason for it to be mentioned in the introduction as it is clear that it is too much of a controversial current (all the rest of anarchism is anti-capitalist) and on top geographically restricted to the USA. In this line of thought lets consider Wikipedia:Neutral point of view when it states clearly: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.""Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." With the exception of "anarcho" capitalism the opinion in all anarchism is that anarchism can only be anti-capitalist and that pro-capitalist anarchism cannot exist and that shows why anarchism is identified as an anti-capitalist ideology alongside communism and marxism and in many places it is shown as a part of socialism. This includes individualist anarchism (Benjamin Tucker, Proudhon, Émile Armand, Renzo Novatore and Max Stirner).
This undue coverage of "anarcho" capitalism in this article also might be caused by too much concentration on the USA experience.
I am waiting for comments on this controversy. I plan to start correcting this problems in the following days. Hopefully we can have a rational discussion based on evidence.-- Eduen ( talk) 07:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I have restore the bias tag, but not made it USA specific. I have also removed the reference to Stirner espousing individualist anarchism - he didn't! Harrypotter ( talk) 12:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
¿Stirner didn´t expose individualist anarchism? wow. and according to you who does? If I have already heard that i´m scared what you will say next.-- Eduen ( talk) 23:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Well. i wish that the people reverting what i contributed come here and discuss the specific issues. Otherwise this is going to be a silly edit war. Harrypotter, if you want proofs Stirner is perhaps the most important and influential individualist anarchist i can do that.-- Eduen ( talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Nihilo erased the part of european individualist anarchism without explanation. Nihilo can come here and discuss the specific things he disagrees with my contributions as anyone. All the changes i have made i have explained before and im ready to support them and discuss them and alos i am open to come to agreements.-- Eduen ( talk) 03:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not doubt that Stirner was influential on followers who promoted him as an an individualist anarchist, but that does not mean he ever promoted anarchism. Perhaps if you read, or re-read his writings you can search for one passage where he promotes anarchism. Whether you find such a passage is another matter! Harrypotter ( talk) 09:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
"anarcho" capitalism doesnt exist outside the USA. there is no reason why it should have more impotance in this article than other non classical new schools like insurectionalism or postanarchism. i admit that i dont think "anarcho" capitalism is part of anarchism. "anarcho" capitalism is part of neoliberalism. anyway i didnt erase references to it in this article. i just think if wikipedia decides to accept it within anarchism in this article it has to go as a minor mention within non classical schools as it is clear all anarchism before it an now is anticapitalist.-- Eduen ( talk) 09:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
but anyway. if you want to discuss things im open to do it. a different thing is if you just come here and you change things without having a support or an argument. that is very close to vandalism. i want to have a rational discussion supported in evidence.-- Eduen ( talk) 09:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I was a bit shocked to read on this page the contention that the original christian church was catholic! This is completely untrue. Catholicism did not emerge until the First Council of Nicaea in 325, long after all the original Christians had been well dead. I don't think Editor Knight of BAAWA has really helped things forward with this kind of comment at all! Harrypotter ( talk) 15:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
Is mentioned nowhere above it's mention on how individualist anarchism is not. The reason I was confused was that I thought that 'social movement' was being used as a qualifier for what was anarchist and what wasn't. Perhaps that should be re-worded. Zazaban ( talk) 03:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as we're dealing with a matter of international variations in terminology in the above discussion, the following extract from the Manual of Style may also have some bearing on this discussion. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin ( talk) 18:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
From WP:MOS:
Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English.
I would say that the work is citeable, but that the claim is obviously partisan and the distinction it makes is not sufficiently clear or self-evident for inclusion here. The issue is really undue weight. Libertatia ( talk) 21:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
In light of the now fully-quoted references, I'd like to conduct a straw poll to gauge consensus on the insertion of "libertarianism" as a synonym for anarchism in the lede. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin ( talk) 16:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Below are some examples of effective ledes incorporating synonyms elsewhere on Wikipedia. I believe we should model these. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin ( talk) 18:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong support 'Abolishment of the state' is mentioned under Libertarianism. As long as that's there, libertarianism should be mentioned here. Zazaban ( talk) 18:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> If the meaning of the word is totally different in the U.S, this needs to be made very clear in the article. This is the English language Wikipedia and there are many people in the United States. So there understanding of the terms and how they're used shouldn't be ignored. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence from the article:
For the following reasons:
For sure, the Collectivists were prevalent at the time of the most notorious Propaganda by the Deed stuff, but that's not the same as saying that "collectivism was to be brought about by violence initiated by small groups" - that sounds more like a definition of Insurrectionism. It might be shown (with sources) to be part of either Bakunin's thought, or (more likely) Nechaev, or the Russian Anarchists, or the Nihilists.
Given that this period was a time of open class warfare, it's not accurate to say what the removed sentence says without strong sources, i.e. that it was an defining part of the ideology, not a tactic / response engaged in by Collectivists.
Chaikney ( talk) 19:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
"however, anarchism has always included an individualist strain,[7][8] including those who support capitalism (for example anarcho-capitalists, agorists, and other free-market anarchists) or similar market-oriented economic structures; for example, mutualists.[9][10][11]"
This sentence cannot be true. As written it says that anarchism has always included anarcho-capitalism and agorism. One dates from the 1960s, the other the 1980s. The article dates anarchism from the start of the 19th-C (taoism aside). This brings up an issue of undue weight (why mention these more than mutualism?) as well as priority / which came first.
There's also an issue with the definition of capitalism - anarcho-capitalists have a different definition of capitalism from most anarchists (including individualists). Saying "anarchism has always included those who support capitalism" is at best confusing and more lkely to actively mislead readers. 19th-C individualists did not identify as capitalist. Issues of whether what they meant was the same as what anarcho-capitalists call capitalism are way too much for the intro.
So I'm changing this to:
however anarchism has always included an individualist strain including those who support market-oriented economic structures; for example, mutualists. Current day Anarcho-capitalists, agorists and other free-market anarchists claim their lineage from elements of this tradition.
Excuse my not explaining this more fully before. Chaikney ( talk) 23:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the anarchist approach? What, for example, should happen to murderers and rapists? 75.118.170.35 ( talk) 18:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The anarchist approach to justice is not to have a government monopoly in judicial matters. Beyond that, it depends on which school of anarchism. Individual anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and modern anarcho-capitalists would have justice/arbitration services provided by a free market, i.e. private courts. Whether they be firms, mutuals, or coops is up to the voluntary arrangement people choose for themselves. Cf: Defense Services on the Free Market by Murray Rothbard. At the other extreme are the utopians, who believe that crime will essentially disappear once the State is gone. Classical anarcho-socialist thought tends toward the latter, and thus has little to say about justice. PhilLiberty ( talk) 01:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The intro says "Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist strain, with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property (like classical mutualism or today's anarcho-capitalism and agorism)."
This dilineates mutualism as being not of the left wing. Is this really what you want to say? Introman ( talk) 02:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Another problem is that the article says, in the Mutualism section, that Mutualism is in between individualism and collectivism, yet the intro is saying that mutualism is individualist. Not to mention, it's also saying that it's not left wing. Introman ( talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Mutualism is market and property, and the semmatics of that line of the intro is explaining about market anarchisms, anyway market and property usually is considered economic invidividualism. And left o socialist -in sense of socialization of property- usually is considered economic collectivism. I mean, is an intro, and an intro should be general, not so specific (we have many lines below the intro to be more speciffic and make nuances). -- Nihilo 01 ( talk) 14:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The intro says "Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist strain, with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property (like classical mutualism or today's anarcho-capitalism and agorism)."
This dilineates mutualism as being not of the left wing. Is this really what you want to say? Introman ( talk) 02:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Another problem is that the article says, in the Mutualism section, that Mutualism is in between individualism and collectivism, yet the intro is saying that mutualism is individualist. Not to mention, it's also saying that it's not left wing. Introman ( talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Mutualism is market and property, and the semmatics of that line of the intro is explaining about market anarchisms, anyway market and property usually is considered economic invidividualism. And left o socialist -in sense of socialization of property- usually is considered economic collectivism. I mean, is an intro, and an intro should be general, not so specific (we have many lines below the intro to be more speciffic and make nuances). -- Nihilo 01 ( talk) 14:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Mutualism is economic and legal individualism, and in this way it isn't collectivist. Also, we should use general deffinitions to help the readers and not to confuse them with very very nounces from many interpretations. Not only in anarchism, but in economics and political sciences collectivism is socialization and individualism is market, I mean, in a political order sense (in a philophical way you could be more abstract and even contradictory, but in this case is better to beging with politics).-- 200.69.186.152 ( talk) 04:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it was before. Zazaban ( talk) 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah why is that? - free2resist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.67.29 ( talk) 17:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Will someone please second the proposal for deletion of the oxymoronic article on Anarcho-totalitarianism? PhilLiberty ( talk) 06:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on finally getting a balanced set of introductory paragraphs! The last few sentences of the last paragraph of the intro gets a little mushy, but overall great job. I know how long you--and occasionally I--have been fighting over these words, but this version manages to clearly communicate most of the ambiguities raised by various parties within and outside of anarchism. Way to go! Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin ( talk) 16:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
As you can see I have found some cases of clear bias in this article which have been talked about in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. A tour around wikipedias in other languages and their articles on "anarchism" might show you that the article "anarchism" in wikipedia in English suffers from too much concentration on the USA experience. I will proceed in explaining each case where i found a problem:
-individualist anarchism: From what this article is showing Individualist anarchism is and was, it makes one think individualist anarchism was mostly a USA phenomenon with two individuals who are not american who were Max Stiner and Proudhon. Also it makes one think individualist anarchists are people mostly concentrated on economics. Of course this is not the case as one can see by checking the articles on the following european individualist anarchists from different countries: France: Anselme Bellegarrigue, Émile Armand, Han Ryner, Albert Libertad, Zo d'Axa, Michel Onfray, Illegalism Italy: Renzo Novatore, Illegalism. Here´s a link to articles from individualist anarchist magazines from france [ [4]] and one to a historical account on female french individualist anarchist [5] UK/Germany: John Henry Mackay Russia: Lev Chernyi Spain: A strong scene of individualist anarchism influenced by the french currents and in this way by positions such as free love, and naturism as can be seen in this scholarly article [6]which later was expanded as a book [7].
Individualist anarchism has to be considered one on the major schools of anarchist thought alongside anarcho-communism, collectivism, and anarchosyndicalism. The section on individualist anarchism in this page must be significantly changed from what we have now and of course with a shortening on the treatment of american individualist anarchism. It must also show how individualist anarchism was a diverse current with a big emphasis on lifestyle.
-Postclassical schools of thought and "anarcho" capitalism: Here we have a strong bias towards "anarcho" capitalism. Why does "anarcho" capitalism have one very long paragraph and another smaller one while other currents such as anarcho-primitivism, insurrectionary anarchism, and postanarchism, only brief mentions.
From the beginning we can say we are clearly having a big bias. And now on top of that it happens that while inssurrectionary anarchism and anarcho-primitivism exists in many countries and have strong historical precedents in illegalism in the first case and anarchist naturism in the second place, "anarcho" capitalism is seriously controversial as many times it has been said to be outside anarchism while being in fact a form of right wing neoliberalism with a null or almost non existent historical connection with the history of anarchism and on top of recent invention and lets not forget that it doesnt seem to exist outside the United States.
If we decided anyway to accept "anarcho" capitalism inside anarchism, there´s no good reason to give it such big coverage on this article. There´s also no good reason for it to be mentioned in the introduction as it is clear that it is too much of a controversial current (all the rest of anarchism is anti-capitalist) and on top geographically restricted to the USA. In this line of thought lets consider Wikipedia:Neutral point of view when it states clearly: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.""Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." With the exception of "anarcho" capitalism the opinion in all anarchism is that anarchism can only be anti-capitalist and that pro-capitalist anarchism cannot exist and that shows why anarchism is identified as an anti-capitalist ideology alongside communism and marxism and in many places it is shown as a part of socialism. This includes individualist anarchism (Benjamin Tucker, Proudhon, Émile Armand, Renzo Novatore and Max Stirner).
This undue coverage of "anarcho" capitalism in this article also might be caused by too much concentration on the USA experience.
I am waiting for comments on this controversy. I plan to start correcting this problems in the following days. Hopefully we can have a rational discussion based on evidence.-- Eduen ( talk) 07:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I have restore the bias tag, but not made it USA specific. I have also removed the reference to Stirner espousing individualist anarchism - he didn't! Harrypotter ( talk) 12:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
¿Stirner didn´t expose individualist anarchism? wow. and according to you who does? If I have already heard that i´m scared what you will say next.-- Eduen ( talk) 23:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Well. i wish that the people reverting what i contributed come here and discuss the specific issues. Otherwise this is going to be a silly edit war. Harrypotter, if you want proofs Stirner is perhaps the most important and influential individualist anarchist i can do that.-- Eduen ( talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Nihilo erased the part of european individualist anarchism without explanation. Nihilo can come here and discuss the specific things he disagrees with my contributions as anyone. All the changes i have made i have explained before and im ready to support them and discuss them and alos i am open to come to agreements.-- Eduen ( talk) 03:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not doubt that Stirner was influential on followers who promoted him as an an individualist anarchist, but that does not mean he ever promoted anarchism. Perhaps if you read, or re-read his writings you can search for one passage where he promotes anarchism. Whether you find such a passage is another matter! Harrypotter ( talk) 09:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
"anarcho" capitalism doesnt exist outside the USA. there is no reason why it should have more impotance in this article than other non classical new schools like insurectionalism or postanarchism. i admit that i dont think "anarcho" capitalism is part of anarchism. "anarcho" capitalism is part of neoliberalism. anyway i didnt erase references to it in this article. i just think if wikipedia decides to accept it within anarchism in this article it has to go as a minor mention within non classical schools as it is clear all anarchism before it an now is anticapitalist.-- Eduen ( talk) 09:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
but anyway. if you want to discuss things im open to do it. a different thing is if you just come here and you change things without having a support or an argument. that is very close to vandalism. i want to have a rational discussion supported in evidence.-- Eduen ( talk) 09:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I was a bit shocked to read on this page the contention that the original christian church was catholic! This is completely untrue. Catholicism did not emerge until the First Council of Nicaea in 325, long after all the original Christians had been well dead. I don't think Editor Knight of BAAWA has really helped things forward with this kind of comment at all! Harrypotter ( talk) 15:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)