Talk:List of anarchist communities/Archive 2

Bad Faith article name change? to "List of anarchies"
Why, when we were discussiong other possible new titles for this page, did you go ahead and change it to one we weren't even discussing? Why is this not bad faith? Can you explain clearly and logically to me, why you aren't willing to build consenses, before acting? Lentower 04:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Be bold. What's wrong with the new name?  Past and present is unecessary, as there obviously aren't future anarchies.  Secondly, many of these aren't anarchist communities, as they weren't composed of anarchists.  So what's wrong with this new name?--Urthogie 04:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You weren't bold, it appears to me that you were rude. Please stop sidestepping my questions, and provide specific answers to my questions: Lentower 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why, when we were discussiong other possible new titles for this page, did you go ahead and change it to one we weren't even discussing? Lentower 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because this one is good.--Urthogie 04:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Usual inadequete answer from you. No, it is bad. It is just your personal POV on this article. It seems clear that your solitary POV is more important to you, then that of all the other editors who have contributed to this article. I also note, you have YET to provide any addition to the content of this article. Your POV is at odds with the consensus built by all the editors who built this list. Who also built a family of articles on "anarchism", and an Infobox to connect them, and allow easier navigation between them. I've pointed this out to you before, but it appears to not matter to you. If you had gone through the Infobox, you would notice that there are other lists, that should probably be considered in any renaming of the kind that you are the only editor desiring.  Requiring use of the  and  templates with discussion and consensus building necessary.  But it appears you are not capable of doing any of this - yet along doing it in a clear, logical, responsible mannner. Lentower 05:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Usual inadequete answer from you. No, it is bad. It is just your personal POV on this article. It seems clear that your solitary POV is more important to you, then that of all the other editors who have contributed to this article. I also note, you have YET to provide any addition to the content of this article. Your POV is at odds with the consensus built by all the editors who built this list. Who also built a family of articles on "anarchism", and an Infobox to connect them, and allow easier navigation between them. I've pointed this out to you before, but it appears to not matter to you. If you had gone through the Infobox, you would notice that there are other lists, that should probably be considered in any renaming of the kind that you are the only editor desiring.  Requiring use of the  and  templates with discussion and consensus building necessary.  But it appears you are not capable of doing any of this - yet along doing it in a clear, logical, responsible mannner. Lentower 05:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is this not "bad faith"? Lentower 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See above.--Urthogie 04:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Usual inadequete answer from you. Lentower 05:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you explain clearly and logically to me, why you aren't willing to build consenses, before acting? Lentower 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See above.--Urthogie 04:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Usual inadequete answer from you. Lentower 05:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that we had agreed on deleting "Past and present" from the title. We hadn't reached consensus on including the word "Notable".  There had been NO discussion of changing "anarchist communities" to "anarchies", which was appropriate for you to do. Lentower 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All articles on wikipedia are supposed to be notable.--Urthogie 04:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In the last month or so, I've noticed several lists, that have added "notable" to their titles. By editors, who seem to want it to be clear that they have considered notability when adding items to the list.  To me, this is OK, as the usual reader of Wikipedia, doesn't understand that Notability is an important criteria in editing. Lentower 05:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I am opposed to the change from "anarchist communities" to "anarchies". What. I've written above, in this and other sections, should be clear enough explanation. Lentower 05:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The appropriate thing for you to do is to reverse the change, until we reach consensus on this. Lentower 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh. I'll reverse it.--Urthogie 04:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Awaiting the reversal. Lentower 05:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You said we had consensus on removing "past or present". Why have me reverse further to that?  Stop being so po-faced.  There's no need to do all that template crap if you're bold and ignore all the rules. The templates are for when there are like 10 people arguing.  Have you noticed it's just me and you here discussing this..?--Urthogie 05:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You broke your word. You said you would revert to the old title. I agreed. You didn't. You broke your word. You went off and did what you pleased, not what you agreed to do - in your typical self-centered narrow POV manner.  And we hadn't finsihed discussing what the title should be. It you didn't want to revert, it would have been Good Faith, to discuss it further here, instead of going off and adding another redirect. You seem to only care for yourself and ego-gratification, not for Wikipedia. I have more to say to your paragraph here, but it will wait for another day. Lentower 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * .......... I reversed it partially... to the point we agreed on.--Urthogie 04:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Work undone on name change to "List of anarchies"
Help:Moving_a_page requires the editor doing a rename to:

Always check the What links here for your page, and if there are multiple levels of redirects, go fix the links to point to the new location directly.

Assuming you are a responsible editor: When do you plan to do this? Lentower 04:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll have a bot automatically do it, if that's alright with you..--Urthogie 04:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not yet, as I said in the last sub-section: ::The appropriate thing for you to do is to reverse the change, until we reach consensus on this. Lentower 04:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, back to business
Sorry for the miscommunication and the ensuing rudeness. Back to business, though. I think the stuff under the first two main headings are not anarchist communities, but rather anarchies or semi-anarchies. Anarchist communities are communities started by anarchists, meaning communities started by those with anarchism as their ideology or influencing their ideoology.--Urthogie 00:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Palestine and the Taliban communities
I've not seen any discussion of muslim communities as anarchist communities. I'm thinking of Palestine, in particular, which stands out in that it has never been a state, nor has it ever had a functioning government. The Taliban communities of Afghanistan also seem to fit the general discoussion, as do the separatist muslim communities within larger states such as Thailand. -- 154.20.137.51 16:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hierarchical communities that are ruled by restrictive traditional religious social systems and are economically based on private ownership are as distinct from any form of anarchism as night is from day. But I could be dead wrong here. Which aspects of these communities are 'anarchist?'24.184.136.137 21:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems crazy to me to suggest including totalitarian dictatorships like the Taliban and examples of anarchist communities.Clore 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Quilombos
I've read that quilombos (societies of escaped slaves in Brazil) had no government. Is this relevant and does anyone else know more?Ohjeeztower 04:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Landless Workers' Movement in Brazil
What about a bit on the Brazilian Landless Workers' Movement (MST) in the ' Examples of projects and other movements with anarchist qualities' section? This movement certainly has strong anarchist qualities. 24.184.136.137 21:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anything know much about the revolts of Magon in Baja California and Sandino in Nicaragua?
I'm not too familiar with either, but the former is often, and the latter is occasionally described as anarchist. (Of course the Fonseca FSLN is Marxist but that's another story.) Jacob Haller 02:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Mexico: Oaxaca and Chiapas
Has there been any thought of adding the uprising in Oaxaca to this list? Shadowfax37 18:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Or what about the Zapatistas in Chiapas?--84.178.251.60 (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Free Software Movement, References Needed
I'm not familiar with the Free Software Movement, but many anarchist advocates of gift economies point to it as an example of a gift economy. In addition, most anarchists oppose intellectual property and point to it to show that IP doesn't encourage creative work any more than non-IP does. However, I've only come accross such references in conversations or in anarchist literature which other editors have declared unsuitable for Wikipedia citations. Jacob Haller 18:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PS. It is still best to tag something as unreferenced, possibly raise the issue on the talk page, and only remove the section after reaching consensus or some time (perhaps 30 days) without reply. Jacob Haller 18:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Home Colony
Anybody want to work in Home Colony? Murderbike 02:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Abahlali baseMjondolo
Why is the Abahlali baseMjondolo african squatters' movement not even mentioned in the list? It clearly has an anarchist element in its non-centralized self government.Also what about the rich anarchist history of Africa in general? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yian (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Because no editor has written them up yet to encylopedic standards, including citations to quality secondary sources, Feel free to do so. Lentower (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)