Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 23

Neutrality issues
This section is now open to discuss neutrality issues. (Have at it!) – S. Rich (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The following text in the lede:


 * "Anarcho-capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist."

describing a POV of anCap from the left, has been revised to the following:


 * "Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who would advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and from anti-capitalist anarchists and socialists who advocate cooperative ownership and worker management of resources."

which takes a neutral stand on the philosophy, and places it in a political context.

Certain editors would like to reintroduce the disputed text in its original form in the lede. The dispute is briefly explored in the body of the article. So the question is not whether the article is neutral, but rather at which point other views of the philosophy of anCap are discussed. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your conclusion. As I wrote at WP:ANEW, the disputed sentence is well-referenced "true-but-not-very-flattering" response regarding what non-capitalist anarchists think of anarcho-capitalists. The material was added to the article body by on 8 May 2014 with these two edits based on a number of quotes in reliable sources. I would have brought this material to the article differently than Chrisluft, with more context given in prose, but the basic idea is good. On 21 May 2014,  restored the disputed text, adding more context in the article body, and putting the unflattering summary in the lead section. Our friend Knight of BAAWA edit-warred to keep the text out, fighting against N-HH and an IP6 editor who insulted people as "ancap retards". This insult should bear upon the IP6 editor who was guilty of incivility, not on the text in dispute which is well-referenced.
 * I consider that the WP:LEAD guideline can be followed to the letter if we tell the reader about in-world anarcho-capitalist views along with the prominent external view of traditional anarchists:
 * This summary is pertinent to the article, true in every sense in the real world, and is therefore neutral. It is a significant viewpoint, and should remain in the article much as N-HH composed it. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This summary is pertinent to the article, true in every sense in the real world, and is therefore neutral. It is a significant viewpoint, and should remain in the article much as N-HH composed it. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This edit by User:Srich32977 was a bad edit which should be reverted, and I suggest that editors familiarize themselves with the article (particularly footnotes 58 through 63) and the talk page conversation rather than making claims in edit summaries ("Needs a source.") which are obviously false. &mdash; goethean 14:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My edit was no more "bad" than the edits done by other users. E.g., I did the exact same revert that they did with regard to the IP's addition. Suppose I said "revert unexplained edit by IP"? Or "revert edit by IP which lacks consensus"? I ask that you de-personalize the comment. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight. You falsely claim that sourced text has no sources, you remove the text, giving the reason that it has no sources, when it has five, and when I point this out, you say that I need to "de-personalize" my comment, and you completely ignore the fact that your edit summary and reason for removing content from the article rest on a plain falsehood. It is you who needs to examine his behavior. &mdash; goethean 19:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

– Per User:Goethean's most diplomatic and polite request above (posted 7 hours after the page received protection), please revert the edit I did least the version be seen as consensus and immutable. – S. Rich (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose this, the additional text is exactly what's been edit-warred about. The text has not gained consensus throughout multiple weeks of page protection, and so the default state is to leave it out, but in particular not to re-add it during page protection (The Wrong Version). Proponents should use this time to come up with a new alternative that can gain consensus. --Netoholic @  06:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Sorry, but I don't see a consensus here yet for any particular wording. Please reactivate the request when you've managed to find a consensus. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing the text for having "no source" was clearly a bad call, which seems to have been acknowledged. As for neutrality, ever since this kicked off there have been suggestions by those opposed to the content that it somehow is not neutral and/or prioritises a left-wing view. This is just muddying the waters. If the proposed content was sourced solely to partisan anarchist sources and said "Anarcho-capitalism is a bad idea and a rubbish theory", there might be a point here. But it isn't. It's sourced to objective and academic sources, reports a widely held view and is simply about categorisation, classification and use of terminology. What is instrinsically negative about saying "this is often not seen as a form of anarchism, but as right-wing libertarianism"? The onus, as it always has been, is on those opposing it to explain why this fundamental, well-sourced and substantively unchallenged information about definition and context should not be included in the lead, to reflect the body. If anything, the POV seems to be coming from the other side, who are quite open in calling those that disagree with them "statists" and seem to believe that this page is here to allow the political philosophy in question to promote itself rather than to be a neutral explanation of what it is and how it fits into the wider political context, as described, especially, in third-party secondary sources. And as a side point, the page is clearly not FA-worthy. This status appears to have been awarded in 2005. Standards are higher now, and the scrappiness of the content together with this ongoing dispute clearly invalidate it.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And as for a possible consensus text, I agree that having both the sentences together could work: it puts anarcho-capitalism in context in relation to both other forms of right-wing libertarianism and anarchism proper (or "other forms of anarchism", if you wish), from different perspectives. I don't see them as either/or alternatives, not least because the proposed replacement, as noted previously, still assumes and takes for granted that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, when whether it is or not is the crux of the problem. It adds useful detail and perspective, but it is neither a more neutral nor a direct replacement.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Anarchism proper" is as ridiculous a concept as "left-anarchism". There is no "official" school of anarchism, and anarchism via forced redistribution of wealth is self-contradictory. If anything, if anarcho-capitalists are not "permitted" into the anarchist "group" it would be more a point in their favor as far as legitimacy is concerned. The POV of left-leaning "anarchists" is a side note of the anarcho-capitalist movement. Please remove the NPOV tag, and keep this excellent article protected from further malicious edits. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * N-HH is correct: this is not a safe space for anarcho-capitalists to dress up their philosophy as they see fit, ignoring well-sourced and relevant facts because they don't like it. Anyone who reads the reasons given in the RfC survey or the uncivil comments aimed at other editors would make this same conclusion.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The only dress-up that's being imposed on this article by editors is its relationship with other schools of thought. The "well-sourced" facts through which those who wish to advocate their POV to discolor the article are quotes from said advocates. Anarcho-capitalism is first and foremost an economic liberation movement, and has little to do with the inevitably statist socialism of the left. In terms of objectivity, leftists are in no position to pass judgement on the anarcho-capitalist movement. The topic of the article is anarcho-capitalism. POVs are at best ancillary. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That comment is a perfect example of the POV problem occurring here: blatantly biased, derogatory remarks toward the left are substituted for rational justifications based on sources or policy. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Justifications for what? JLMadrigal (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you not familiar with the subject at hand? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * N-HH is correct, this article in its current condition is very, very different from the 2006 FAR version, the version which resulted after a lot of different viewpoints were applied to the article during the 2006 FAR discussion. The 2006 FAR version told the reader a lot about what non-ancap viewpoints were in relation to ancap views, giving a much greater level of objectivity. Since then it had degraded at the hands of ancap proponents. The current article is aligned toward rah-rah positivism about how ancap is so good. It seems there is sentiment here for starting another FAR, with the goal of making the article more objective, or removing its FA status. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * MisterDub, our job as editors is not to justify anything, but to define - in this case, to define anarcho-capitalism. Am I familiar? Extremely. Binksternet, the article has (not surprisingly) evolved a lot over the last nine years. But even the linked version that you hold as an example does not take the POV position that you advocate. As I mentioned previously, I would like to see the Nolan chart introduced (which is very similar to the one in the version discussed), because it provides a clearer picture of the distinct views in question. Nolan's chart (which is well-known among American libertarians) puts anarcho-capitalists at the apex of the libertarian quadrant, because they advocate absolute liberty in both person and property. JLMadrigal (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but your "definition" seems to be "we are the true anarchists" and any reliable and authoritative third-party source that questions the nature of the relationship with anarchism as a simple matter of standard definition – note, again, not "partisan leftist source" that "denies" the relationship – is apparently to be excluded on the say-so of one or two anonymous WP editors who are very clearly of a partisan bent. Sorry, this doesn't wash. Again, if you think it's "POV" to simply note quite fundamental and widely reported definitional and classification disputes, or to place one political philosophy in the context of others, based on sources other than those from within that camp, you don't understand the policy. And, as also previously noted, if you're so adamant that anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with the socialism of the left – which indeed is correct – I'm struggling to understand why you're objecting to further clarification of this fact; which inevitably also entails a brief note of the uncontroversial fact that anarchism has traditionally been seen as a movement of the left. This is simply about clarity, explanation of the historical record and context, not about arguing for – or against – anarcho-capitalism as a theory of "economic liberation" or of anything else.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * By Nolan's definition of liberty, anCaps (and American libertarians in general) place many who call themselves "anarchists" (but advocate for redistribution of wealth) to the left - which, by said definition, implies that they are not truly anarchist. Whether an interpretation is popular - or endorsed by an "authority" does not make it correct (particularly in the case of a movement against hierarchy). This is the crux of the issue regarding editors who are attempting to subject the article to the point of view (POV) that social anarchists "are the true anarchists", and that anarcho-capitalism is therefor 'illegitimate'. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is you, only you, and no reliable sources which equates anarchism solely with an-cap. On the contrary, multiple reliable sources have been presented which call this identity into question. In response to the presentation of these sources, you've offered nothing but name-calling. &mdash; goethean 13:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * JLMadrigal, you seem to have misunderstood. I was not asking if you were familiar with anarcho-capitalism, but the current dispute.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion is impossible. No direct response or engagement is forthcoming in respect of any points that are put related to WP policy or third-party evidence, and every reasoned point is simply ignored and talked past. All we are getting is repeated assertion that one personal interpretation of anything and everything is the definitively correct one and the apparent belief that the purpose of this page is to allow anarcho-capitalists to present the case, in an almost cult-like fashion, for anarcho-capitalism not only being a good thing but also the only true manifestation of anarchism, as understood by those who really get it. There also seems to be a confused perception that they are heroically battling people trying to do the mirror-image opposite, ie discredit the substantive philosophy of anarcho-capitalism and/or write the entire page as if Bakunin is the one true prophet, when of course that is not the point either – all that is being asked for is, per policy and practice, the representative incorporation of the range of secondary views, without taking sides at all. Unfortunately, this is how WP pages, especially those about politics, drive themselves into the dirt.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "All that is being asked for is, per policy and practice, the representative incorporation of the range of secondary views, without taking sides at all." If that were the case, I would have no objection. Unfortunately, it is not. These views are already in the document. They do not belong in the lede, since they are, as you mention, secondary. The existing compromise paragraph - which has already been incorporated into the lead - sets the stage. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. &mdash; goethean 14:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And secondary doesn't mean tangential... it means, "Look! Wikipedia is built on secondary views!"  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The only controversy of note in anarcho-capitalism is the Friedmanite versus Rothbardian ethical basis for argumentation. But it's minor enough not to be included in the lede. Regardless, even if the debate over the birthright to the "anarchist" title were notable enough to be included in the lede, omission from the lede would still not violate neutrality since it is discussed in the body. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny you would say such a thing, when you obviously don't believe it yourself:  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's just pretend that the reliable sources which say otherwise don't exist. &mdash; goethean 16:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And let's pretend that if it is in the body, it should/need not be in the lead – whereas of course that is entirely back to front, given that the lead, as noted, is meant to reflect and summarise the body as well as defining the topic and putting it in context. If the lead did not assert, pretty much outright, that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, you could argue that noting the widespread querying of that need not be there either. But of course it is there, in black and white in the name, the alternative names and the Anarchism template. Thanks to others for pointing out the gross confusion about the meaning and relevance of the term "secondary" in this context as well btw. Finally, of course, a "controversy of note" is not the one and only one, internal to anarcho-capitalism that JLMadrigal declares exists but what secondary [sic] sources note as significant, as pointed out ad nauseam.


 * Finally, finally, the "compromise" text on its own is entirely inadequate, for reasons explained; nor should it have been unilaterally inserted as a supposed replacement/repair of the text in issue without independent discussion mid-RfC (it's now of course set in stone for the time at least, while the discussed-in-detail and so-far majority-supported text remains out, due to the inevitable randomness of page protection). If we can get agreement on the combined text incorporating both internal and third-party views, as suggested above, that might at long last sort this pointless dispute out.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposed text is redundant, since the previous sentence already establishes that there is a difference regarding capitalism among anarchists. Further, it asserts that the traditional view is still a majority view without submitting or referencing any numbers as evidence. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the text you personally object to is sourced as a statement/assessment – numbers have nothing to do with it. Secondly, the text you are insisting should be there instead as an alternative/replacement not only presents the view from one, in-world, perspective as opposed to an objective third-party position but does not address at all the definition/classification point (which you continue to ignore on this talk page as well by referring to the differences "among anarchists"). Thirdly, unlike the orginal text, that text was not made subject to discussion or debate but simply unilaterally declared, mid-RfC, to be the ideal solution and then inserted as a fait accompli ahead of the latest page protection. I can keep repeating all this and you can keep ignoring it if you wish.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Anarcho-capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist." "Most" is a fraction (>.5). Such a claim needs to be verified if it is to be included in an objective document. This might lend credence to inclusion of a POV of 'orthodox' anarchists. JLMadrigal (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources provided above sufficiently verify the text. &mdash; goethean 16:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Goethean: we do not need exact figures so long as we have many strong sources which more than justify the claim's inclusion. The proposed addition could probably be phrased better, but we need to accurately reflect the fact that capitalist anarchism is a relatively new development that many other anarchists (i.e. the communists, syndicalists, and mutualists representative of "traditional anarchism") reject because capitalism is viewed as intrinsically hierarchical.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

JLMadrigal (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see that being obfuscating in an attempt to hide information from readers is productive. The proposed content that you removed is clear, well-sourced, and true. &mdash; goethean 12:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for working toward a compromise, JLMadrigal. I think your proposal is fair, but could use some copy editing.  How about something like the following?

Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who would advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and from anti-capitalist anarchists and socialists who advocate cooperative ownership and worker management of resources. Conversely, traditional anarchists, who typically reject private property and market processes, viewing them as hierarchical.


 * A couple thoughts: 1) I think it'd be easier to say that traditional anarchists "typically reject capitalism as intrinsically hierarchical" or something similar... is there a reason why this wouldn't be acceptable? 2) Given my quote above, I don't think the last bit ("viewing them as hierarchical") is necessary; distinguishing these two groups by showing that traditional anarchists reject private property and markets should suffice.  Thanks!  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and traditional anarchists, who typically reject private property and market processes, viewing them as hierarchical preferring communal property arrangements.


 * No need to delete reference to communal ownership. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I think it'd read better if it said they "reject private property... in favor of cooperative ownership arrangements," but let's see what others have to say.  Thanks again!  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I notice you've changed cooperative to communal... is there any reason for this? My concern here is that communal may be true for communists, but isn't (or is less so) for syndicalists and mutualists.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The term "cooperative" is used in a special way by traditional anarchists, which may be confusing as anCaps believe that market relationships are cooperative. Perhaps "collective property arrangements" would be more accurate. JLMadrigal (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Although fine as far as it goes, and the information contained is useful for the lead (although FWIW I'd prefer "co-operative" to "communal" or "collective"), this is simply an embellishment of the alternative text parachuted in mid-RfC and is still skirting round the fundamental point: this is not just about describing a dispute on matters of detail/execution between different schools of anarchism but about noting the widely acknowledged and more fundamental definitional dispute as to whether anarcho-capitalism is or should be considered as anarchism at all. Whatever detail is added, this well-sourced information about context and definition is still being entirely excluded in the above proposal. Nor is the text getting the same level of oversight that the proposed addition in the still-open RfC has had (which is currently running 5-4 I think in favour of including that addition). The proposal that merges both observations, as already suggested, subject to minor tweaks to the precise text, would seem to be a more genuine compromise than a suggestion from one party who has always wanted the point under debate in the RfC to be excluded that it should continue to be excluded.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * N-HH, I'm hoping we can work toward a compromise "that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution". From what you are saying, it sounds like we ought to have a different separation between sentences... perhaps something like the following?


 * "Anarchism is usually considered a radical left-wing ideology which promotes cooperative ownership and worker management of resources, and anarchists from this tradition typically believe capitalism to be antithetical to anarchism. Amongst right-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists can be distinguished from minarchists, who advocate a night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection."


 * -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * One step forward, two steps back. This article is about anarcho-capitalism - not left-anarchism. Further, as discussed prior, anarcho-capitalists are not right-libertarians. Those would be the minarchists. The following addition addresses the definitional concern without a meat-ax.

JLMadrigal (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * JLMadrigal, you say that "This article is about anarcho-capitalism - not left-anarchism." I agree, but... so?  What point are you trying to make here?  You also say that "anarcho-capitalists are not right-libertarians," which is provably false (see Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism).  Please try to be clear and accurate, and maybe we can get through this dispute.  Thanks!  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 20:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this latest suggestion is absolutely terrible; we can't insert false information into the article. — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 16:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And which information exactly is "false", MisterDub? JLMadrigal (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, pretty much that entire last sentence. 1) It doesn't seem appropriate to inject a new term (left-anarchists) without an explicit connection to the previous term (traditional anarchists); 2) left-anarchists do not believe "economic relationships tend to be hierarchical," they believe that capitalist economic relations are necessarily hierarchical; and 3) anarcho-capitalists think hierarchy is permissible as long as it's voluntary and so don't care to attack hierarchical relationships.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 14:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This last proposal is every bit as bad as the others. The reader needs to be told plainly that ancaps are not considered properly anarchist. The "disagreement" is an absolute one about inclusion, not about the "nature" of anarchy. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm open to revision of the last sentence. JLMadrigal (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree – we appear to be veering into some fairly subjective essay-style analysis about what anarchists and/or anarcho-capitalists believe in terms of detailed theory, while at the same time avoiding the key issue that this has been about from the start, which is that of definition and classification. Despite the "idontlikeit" complaints of one or two editors about including it, as endlessly pointed out, the original content succinctly reflects – and cites – material directly found in sources on that point. Furthermore, the RfC on that has been closed with the conclusion that it should be included in the form originally proposed. I would happily see the brief point about AC vs minarchism etc also added as a separate – and equally uncontroversial – observation.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) And regarding left-anarchists, there is consensus among traditional anarchists that they self-identify as left of center, so that shouldn't be an issue. 2) Since leftists have a limited understanding of the laws of the marketplace (property, capital, and business relationships in general) they tend to distrust it. "Capitalism" as they define it - rather than the state - is their bogeyman. 3) Leftists also tend to conflate hierarchy and inequality - thus equating "capitalism" with oppression. Inequality is the natural state of affairs in all animal and plant kingdoms. JLMadrigal (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's hard to respect your edits when you chop down leftists in this manner. Let's try to steer clear of such global statements. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just describing the context, Binksternet. JLMadrigal (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the proper context is that we're not here to debate you! This is an academic encyclopaedia built upon reliable sources, and the sources are clear.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 13:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The context of anarcho-capitalism IS the issue. Advocates of another strain of "anarchism", who wish to insert their foreign viewpoint (regardless of how well sourced) into the article are seeking to muddy a clear definition of anarcho-capitalism which presupposes the accuracy of said viewpoints. JLMadrigal (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A deeply amusing comment. User:JLMadrigal's apparent stance is that this article should lack all reference to the world beyond the minds of anarcho-captalists. This stance is untenable and directly contradicts core Wikipedia policy, such as WP:NPOV. &mdash; goethean 15:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A deeply amusing comment. User:JLMadrigal's apparent stance is that this article should lack all reference to the world beyond the minds of anarcho-captalists. This stance is untenable and directly contradicts core Wikipedia policy, such as WP:NPOV. &mdash; goethean 15:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Post-RFC
OK, so this was closed a few days ago now with approval to include the content re disputed classification. I'm therefore going to add it back in. I will leave the recently added text about minarchism and the anarcho-capitalist perspective, which links into the point if not directly covering it, preceding it. That leaves us in effect with the composite compromise text initially floated above – which, separately from the support for the RfC text alone, had the backing of at least two editors and no outright objections. If anyone still wants to object to the RfC text specifically, they should not edit-war it out but take it to review or whatever, if they really think it's necessary. There's been more than enough squabbling over material that is fairly uncontroversial in the real world.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have posted this anarchist POV issue on the NPOV noticeboard in order to remedy the persistent insertion of the disputed POV text in its original form: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Featured_Anarcho-capitalism_article_is_being_held_captive_to_left-anarchist_editors JLMadrigal (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Edit warring without discussion now? Classy, fellas!  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speaking of stealth, it would seem that the following discussion is relevent to editors of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Anarcho-capitalism/archive1 JLMadrigal (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, no one was speaking of "stealth", nor has there been any as far as I can see when it comes to that discussion. As noted in an edit summary, I will go to ANI and report everyone who is still trying to edit war the sentence out the next time any of you remove it. That means User:JLMadrigal, User:Netoholic – who has form when it comes to simply ignoring RfC conclusions – and User:Knight of BAAWA. You are fairly likely to end up blocked I'd have thought. This has gotten beyond boring now.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And now we are, as promised, at ANI. More bureaucratic hoop-jumping required, unfortunately, because one or two invested people insist that they, and they alone, are right even when the real-world sources, WP policy and WP consensus are all against them.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the real-world sources and policy are with us, and there was no consensus. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Dissection of The Sentence
"'Anarcho-capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist.'" This exact sentence seems to be the locus of the storm which has lead to 3 separate page protections, an RfC, a FA review, and an Admin noticeboard post. Now, let's take some time to really dissect what is specifically wrong with this sentence, so that those who keep insisting on this precise wording are no longer mystified as to why it is unacceptable and keeps being removed.
 * "not usually", "most"
 * These assertions are pretty much classic weasel wording, with no backing or context. How would one determine "not usually" or "most"? Have there been surveys? Have reliable sources used this phrasing, and what do they base that on? Is there really a preponderance of evidence in the literature of this viewpoint, or is just cherry-picking? How can we know it isn't cherry-picking?


 * "recognized"
 * I feel like this is simply the wrong word being used here. I have no idea why recognition of a viewpoint matters as to the viewpoint itself. I don't "recognize" certain musicians as being good, but who cares? Those musicians are still successful and I can acknowledge their success by empirical evidence. Opinions exist on their own and are not dependent on the recognition of others. Is the assertion being made here that there is some strict definition of "anarchism", which anarcho-capitalism doesn't fit definitionally? If that were true then it would be obvious. We would not say that "circles are not usually recognized as a form of squares", because circles cannot be squares. If you can't say with confidence "anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism", then you also can't say it "is not usually recognized". And if you could say "...is 'not...", then we would just simply say it in the article. The way its used enhances the weasel wording effect mentioned above.


 * "traditional"
 * If there is one segment of the population that the word "traditional" doesn't apply to, it is anarchists. By their nature, they generally reject blanket terms or definitions. But Wikipedia needs clear context. Right now, the word "traditional" within the context of anarchists has no grounding.  If this point needs to be made, then it should be made by directly referring to specific, prominent anarchists that hold this view. Let the reader decide who is "traditional" or whether that label is even important at all. I think this word also fits MoS/Words to watch § Relative time references ("traditionally" is mentioned there as an example of words to avoid).


 * "historically"
 * Why is the historical meaning of anarchism being given preferential weight here? Anarcho-capitalism as a philosophy has only been formalized for a few decades, and anarchism as a philosophy has also changed from its historical foundations. This is like saying that a modern viewpoint on civil liberties is invalid because "historically" minorities and women have not had such liberties. Again, its the wrong word and wrong perspective, and I think it too falls within WP:RELTIME. The point should be made by referencing specific, prominent viewpoints from any time period, and let the reader decide how to weigh the "historical" value of such viewpoints.

All in all, we cannot use this specific phrase as a summary of the viewpoint in the lead because of these problems. -- Netoholic @ 18:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your parsing of the phrasing and your personal judgment that it is somehow flawed or wrong are both all very interesting, but as noted ad nauseam, this is what reliable and authoritative sources say. I know you and others like doing this kind of thing but, as it happens, the role of WP editors is not to second-guess and argue with such sources, or to suggest that we somehow know better. The point here is clear, widely recorded and was agreed in an RfC. Start a blog if you think you have a more interesting analysis of reality.  N-HH   talk / edits  20:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Usually: The sources demonstrate that most anarchists are anti-capitalists. Colin Ward states that "The mainstream of anarchist propaganda for more than a century has been anarchist-communism."  "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice."  (Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism)
 * Recognized: You ask "Is the assertion being made here that there is some strict definition of 'anarchism', which anarcho-capitalism doesn't fit definitionally?" and the answer is yes. Peter Marshall writes that anarchism "emerged at the end of the eighteenth century in its modern form as a response partly to the rise of centralized States and nationalism, and partly to industrialization and capitalism.  Anarchism thus took up the dual challenge of overthrowing both Capital and the State."  "Godwin was one of the first to describe clearly the intimate link between property and power which has made the anarchists enemies of capitalism as well as of the state."  (George Woodcock's Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements)
 * Traditional: Anarcho-capitalism is a recent development, developing ~100 years after anarchism. "However, much more recently the word [libertarian] 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."  (Colin Ward's Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction)
 * Historically: Again, anarcho-capitalism is a recent development... see above.


 * Of course I'm open to rephrasing (as I've stated before), but the core of the argument is that we need to make clear that 1) anarchism developed in the mid-19th century as an anti-capitalist ideology, 2) anarcho-capitalism is a recent development (at least a century after Godwin and Proudhon first espoused anarchism), and 3) the anarchists in point #1—those who had been theorizing and practicing anti-capitalism as an integral characteristic of anarchism for a century before American individualists appropriated libertarian terminology—don't accept anarcho-capitalists as anarchists. — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 21:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * For about a thousand years, the only form of Christianity was Roman Catholicism. The article on Christianity mentions the Protestant/Catholic schism in the lede. However: it does NOT state that some in each camp did not recognize the other as Christian--and in fact some of that still holds sway today, e.g. the anti-Catholic Jack Chick tracts. So we have the idea of historically something has been, but does not state that those adherents do not usually recognize the other side as being part of them. The upshot: Argument from Antiquity is a fallacy no matter how you try to word it. Same with Argument from Numbers.
 * We could also look at the page on atheism. Nowhere in that lede does it talk about communism (as many people still equate atheism with communism) or wickedness (as even some dictionaries include that in the definition of atheism). So what "most" might "usually" "recognize" as "traditional" isn't necessarily what it actually is, now is it? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We prefer citing sources to making stuff up. &mdash; goethean 03:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That's nice. I cited sources too. Whee! We're even! Now stop trying to marginalize anarchocapitalism just because you hate whatever misconception of capitalism you have. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "those who had been theorizing and practicing anti-capitalism as an integral characteristic of anarchism for a century before American individualists appropriated libertarian terminology" were dead long before anarcho-capitalism was developed. They cannot be used to make an assertion as to whether AnCap "counts" as anarchism. -- Netoholic @ 02:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, but the reliable sources can (and do). — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 13:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And just to make it clear, contrary to Netoholic's edit summary, the point has not been incorporated "in an acceptable way in the prior sentence," as it fails to address the core argument I've enumerated above. Rather, the impression is that these suggestions are purpose-built to avoid the main issue.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 21:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure it has. We now make a brief summary ("Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from ... anti-capitalist anarchists and socialists") of the distinction between AnCaps and anti-capitalist anarchists in the lead. All the other expansion on that should be made in the article body where references, context, and opposing viewpoints can be explained further. -- Netoholic @ 02:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The current phrasing doesn't make known that there is a controversy as to whether or not anarcho-capitalists are even anarchists, as the sources all relate.
 * It seems clear that these rationalizations are just that; they are not supported by reliable sources, nor do they comport with Wikipedia policy. I guess I will wait to see how the NPOV noticeboard shakes out.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 13:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This goes back to the question I posted above: How can we know that the selection of sources isn't just cherry-picking? -- Netoholic @ 18:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you'd actually have to know about the subject. I suggest reading some of the robust secondary sources on anarchism, many of which I have already referenced above, or political philosophy in general.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 20:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a good enough answer for editors, let alone readers. If you can't explain how we can know that those sources aren't cherry-picked, then we can't rely on them. There are a lot of sources which also talk about states of anarchy without ever mentioning capitalism. There are plenty likewise that see capitalism as inevitable. Unless you can demonstrate how you know that "usually" "most" "traditional" anarchist thinkers reject capitalism, then we cannot make such an assertion. We can reference what specific thinkers say on the issue, but we cannot imply that they speak for the majority of anarchists. -- Netoholic @  20:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like someone to explain why communists are editing anarcho-capitalism? Wolf DeVoon (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC) 06:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Because (and unfortunately this means good-faith cannot be assumed, especially given such tactics as Eduen's use of scarce-quotes and other sundry examples of incivility which I never bother to report because I'm not petty) they wish to marginalize it due to their hatred of whatever misconceptions they have about capitalism. They tend to confuse capitalism with the current mercantilist/fascist/welfare-warfare socialist state system which holds sway in many places. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI – Laissez Faire City redirects to List of Anarchist Communities, 100% edited by commies, and there is zero information, not even a mention about ancap LFC on the page. Orlin Grabbe, Patri Friedman, Andre Goldman, Tibor Machan, Alberto Mingardi and many others were intimately involved. Writers and full-text articles about LFC at archive.org — Wolf DeVoon (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ancap legal systems
It is intensely annoying that Andre Goldman is mentioned without reference or link to his vaporware Common Economic Protocols. His cyberspace law firm (International Contract Administration) has likewise vanished, after he conducted an amateurish investigation into the collapse of Laissez Faire City and its Dubai based spin-off Digital Monetary Trust over ten years ago.

As far as I'm concerned, Goldman's intellectual contribution was about 1/4" deep and consisted in the main of incoherent attacks on my work. Bottom line: "Andre Goldman" can't be found anywhere on the web. I certainly can be. Wolf DeVoon (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Bylund
The main section relating to the relationship with other anarchist schools has a detailed exposition, including a huge block quote, of the views of someone who appears to be a non-notable commentator (and has an odd reference and link to "anarchism without adjectives"). Arguably his views should not be there at all, but the full quote is definitely OTT and undue. In terms of explanation I'm not sure it adds much to the Rothbard material that follows. Could we agree t lose some, if not all, of it?  N-HH   talk / edits  09:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this section needs to be pared down significantly. Per Bylund should be removed entirely as non-notable.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 14:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll wait to see if anyone comes up to defend it and will then remove or at least trim it (if no one else does first). I don't want to dive in and just wipe it all too quickly, given the recent history here.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * How is he non-notable? Please explain. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's your burden to explain how he is notable... but let's start with the fact that the article introduces him as a webmaster (which conveys no special status or knowledge), and end with the deletion of his Wiki article because "[t]he notability of this topic has not been established." — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 13:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually it's not my burden. So please: show how he is non-notable. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Remove Per Bylund. Wikipedia has twice voted to delete a biography about him, once in February then again in March 2008. The guy is a Mises Institute columnist. Outside of Mises he is not quoted by mainstream authors. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well there you go! A real argument for removal has been advanced. Wonderful. However, some of the quote can remain. The 3rd paragraph, beginning with the 2nd word, clearly needs to remain. After all: it is verifiable (which is wikipedia's standard) and helps intro the Rothbard section. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)