Talk:Individualist anarchism

Anarchism Tree Diagram


It helps to have a diagram of the various schools of anarchism. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

BeŻet, you should discuss things rather than unilaterally deleting my edits. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop vandalizing pages using some diagrams you created. Per WP:BRD, you are making a bold change that warrants discussion. There is a large number of sources indicating that anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with anarchism, let alone individualist anarchism. If you disagree, discuss this first before engaging in an edit war. BeŻet (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm pretty good at the bold, revert, and discuss cycle. By the definitions given in Wikipedia articles and this article, anarcho-capitalism qualifies as individualist anarchism. This is supported by Benjamin Tucker and Voltairine de Cleyre among others. It is true that a large number of sources, virtually all sectarian anarcho-socialists, that cite the old "true Scotsman" aka dildo fallacy. I would say that this position was refuted long ago in essays like this: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/rg-anarcho-cap.html Now I will boldly revert again. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But that's not true. Benjamin Tucker wasn't even alive when Rothbard came up with his ideology. Stop edit warring, or you will be reported. BeŻet (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * AnarchismTree10.jpg

This article is an unreadable mess
I don't even know where to start with this. This article is so absurdly long due to its apparent commitment to throw everything but the kitchen sink in. There is no rhyme or reason to its structure, it just bounces randomly between sub-subjects, individuals and areas even remotely associated with the subject. The sources also appear to be a mix of clearly reliable sources, primary sources and random blog posts from even more random authors. I don't understand how any of this is remotely useful to anyone, whether they be unaffiliated casual readers or dyed-in-the-wool Stirner fans. Does anybody have any idea for how we could improve this article that doesn't involve just blowing it up and starting over? Grnrchst (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I don't see how it's salvagable. WP:TNT it is. czar  14:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)