Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Delete, 16 delete 5 keep 2 merge. Ingoolemo  talk  04:27, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist)
Both are POV forks of Anarchism. Delete both. --cesarb 01:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: If Anarchism (anti-state) is deleted, Template:Anarchism should go to TFD. --cesarb 01:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: One editor wants to link the expression "POV forks" above to POV fork. Please do not edit other people's comments; put a comment below it (like this one). --cesarb 17:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: Another POV fork is at Anarchism (theory) (see Votes for deletion/Anarchism (theory)). --cesarb 22:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep both. RJII 01:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep both. Use the Neutral Disambiguation Page and let the Wiki user choose the meaning (s)he intends. Both Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist) are (more or less) NPOV wrt the definition of "anarchism" specified on the Neutral Disambiguation Page. --Hogeye 01:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete both. They are both redundant, and were only created by copying a previously existing article and changing a few words for the purpose of importing a particular POV.  Kev 01:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * One was created from the favored anarcho-socialist version, the other from the favored anarcho-capitalist version, in a recent edit war. If you want to avoid the definitional feud, then the Neutral Disambiguation Page seems the only way.  But if you like edit wars, and you think your tag team has more people...  --Hogeye 02:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge into Anarchism whatever NPOV factual information isn't there already. Most of it seems redundant. -R. fiend 03:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Although both pages, as well as various related pages, requiring a great deal of editing on several counts, and some need to be merged as well (this arrangement, for instance, vitiates the need for anarchism (disambiguation) and left anarchism), I do not believe that they need to be deleted outright. I vote keep for both. After the dust has settled, it will probably be advisable to merge the edit histories of one of these pages with that of anarchism, though. I disagree that these qualify as POV forks. The Wikipedia page on that topic says the following:
 * The controversial aspect of new forks can be reduced to three elements:


 * the necessity for a fork,
 * the new article's scope, title, or premise
 * the manner in which the article is written


 * The necessity for a fork is the obvious problem arising from different senses of the word anarchism. The scope and premise of these articles is quite reasonable given the definitions they are using. The manner the articles are written in is not always great, but that can be solved through editing. - Nat Krause 05:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete both and replace the anarchism page with what was there before. Anarchism has a long history of anti-state and anti-capitalism (whatever that is).  While there is a more recent arising of people calling themselves anarcho-capitalists, there is a page describing their beliefs.  A brief link to the other in each page should be sufficient.  These two pages repeat each other a lot, and repeat other pages on anarchist ideas.  Not only that they seem to be obviously POV towards minimal state capitalism (or anarcho-capitalism if you wish).--harrismw 06:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, I'm sorry, this is just getting silly Saswann 13:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge both into Anarchism. If there must be anti-state and socialist distinctions, they should be contained in headings for each pov (or a "different points of view within anarchism" heading) within the article. Jasonglchu 14:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Account created after VfD began --cesarb 19:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep both. Qadir 17:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first edit-R. fiend 17:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And this absolutely discredits my thoughts and diminishes my ability of reading comprehension? Please. Qadir 18:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It is customary in wikipedia to dismiss the votes of people that have made very very few contributions. Luis rib 18:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) No, it only means your vote will not count (however, your comments (had you added any) will). See the Guide to Votes for deletion. --cesarb 18:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Either solve the whole thing on Anarchism (currently a leftist propaganda page) by including some mention of anarcho-capitalism, or keep both in case the first solution is not viable. Maybe a vote on the future of Anarchism might be useful. Luis rib 18:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete both - forks. If there's something to salvage put it into Anarchism. Pavel Vozenilek 19:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge them back into Anarchism. Don't let the ancaps undermine the project for their own ends.  Policy is so clearly against the existence of these redundant POV forks that they should be deleted regardless of voting here.  &mdash; Chameleon 20:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jasonglchu> "If there must be anti-state and socialist distinctions, they should be contained in headings for each pov (or a "different points of view within anarchism" heading) within the article."

Sounds good in theory, but experience shows that this leads to a permanent edit war. Many/most anarcho-socialist editors routinely and automatically delete references to anarcho-capitalism, and/or claim that anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist. --Hogeye 23:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete both. POV forks. JamesBurns 07:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * please keep both - PK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.65.130 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 Jun 2005

Please merge into one anarchism page. . . or should we have a separate page for every individuals take on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.135.157.237 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 Jun 2005

Question: According to Wiki policy, the vote is just for show and there is an arbiter who decides. Who is the arbiter,or arbiters? Are they neutral? When do they decide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.26.242 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 9 Jun 2005 <-- a comment by anonymous #70.178.26.242


 * The answer to this question is that this vote is not just a show. An administrator will perform the actual deletion, but only if a large majority of the people voting vote to delete. Also, I'm not sure of the details, but I believe votes from people who just showed up to vote on this one issue are not normally counted. - Nat Krause 18:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Will the administrator/arbitor be unbiased? I mean, it's not going to be the same administrator that proposed deletion and voted, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogeye (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 Jun 2005


 * It could be me who will close the discussion, but it probably won't (and I can keep my biases in check; for instance, if this discussion were to be closed right now, it's a clear "no consensus" for both articles). --cesarb 20:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete the socialist entry. The government-and-censorship loving socialists need to keep their statist propaganda and censorship of genuine anti-statism off of the anarchism entry. Free-market anarchism has a much longer history and breadth of scholarship than does the statist "anarchism" of the socialists.--James Redford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiemichelle (talk • contribs) 16:02, 9 Jun 2005
 * User's first edit --cesarb 19:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge both into Anarchism. keep shared texts from both pages; keep factual info from either page, keep opinion from either page if shared among many ansocs AND ancaps. Add ancap section in middle of controversies without 'most important,' etc. language. OR add ancap section in a discussion of coerced, voluntary, and disputed hierarchies. OR ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Haller (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 Jun 2005
 * User's second edit --cesarb 19:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Correct all incorrect references to property in socialist text to references to possession. Add discussions of Mutualism/Individualism (i.e. socialist market anarchism) to socialist text. Expand discussions of economic systems. - Jacob Haller - 8 Jun 2005 17:41 GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Haller (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 Jun 2005
 * User's second edit --cesarb 19:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete both. Anarchism IS anti-statism - thats it. The state claims a monopoly on force. If the state enforces capitalism, then ALL (AC and AS) anarchists would be against that. A government, on the other hand, could mean your home owners association or even a democratic vote. It doesn't necessarily imply state-like powers since the option of secession (sell your home and move or find another union) is always available, though possibly not preferable. So I don't think ANY anarchist could be against government as long as it's voluntary (non-state sponsored). The free market implies all transactions are handled voluntarily absent any coercion. State sponsored capitalism would not be a truly free market. It seems to me that a simple definition of Anarchism would simply be anti-statism. It goes without saying that an anarchist would be against state sponsored capitalism, socialism, feminism, or communism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.102.176 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 9 Jun 2005


 * Delete Anarchism (Socialist). (The "Socialist Anarchists" are nothing but pro-state Marxists. They clearly love the state when it supports Marxist restrictions on capitalism.) TexasDawg  15:09 EDT, 9 Jun 2005
 * Sorry, we can't delete an article be cause you think their theories aren't sound. All anarchistic societies are purely theoretical anyway. -R. fiend 19:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * His reason wasn't that their theories aren't sound. His reason was that they are pro-state, therefore not anarchists.  IMO he is wrong, and there are anti-statist versions of both socialism and capitalism.  He's simply the other side of the 'ancaps aren't really anarchists' coin.  I.e. Some intolerant ansocs can't conceive of stateless capitalism, and some intolerant ancaps can't conceive of stateless socialism.  Here are some good acid tests for socialist anarchists:  Do you think the State should outlaw sweat shops?  Do you support minimum wage laws?  If they answer "yes" to either,  they are not really anarchists.  --Hogeye 20:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that's sort of the same thing, he thinks they aren't sounds anarchistic beliefs, which may or may not be true, but is irrelevent. Sort of like saying an article on National Socialism should be deleted because the ideas aren't socialist. Or Christian Science for not being scientific. -R. fiend 20:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've had to think about this quite a bit. Emotionally, I feel like socking it to the socialists in order to support the "capitalist team"... but that wouldn't be encyclopedically sound, or NPOV.  Thus...  Delete "Anarchism (anti-state)"... though I actually agree with the content of this article more than the socialist one, it just doesn't make logical sense to have an article of this title; is there an "Anarchism (pro-state)" to contrast it to?  But Keep "Anarchism (socialist)"; that's a distinctive political movement that deserves a page to itself, just not sole ownership of the unqualified "Anarchism" article.  Then, move "Anarchism (disambiguation)" to "Anarchism", and rework it so its two most prominent links are to the two main political movements that are referred to as anarchist: "Anarchism (socialist)" and "Anarcho-capitalism".  And then try to clean out some of the other debris the edit-wars have left. *Dan* 23:28, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * DELETE BOTH - Follow the books written on the subject. And keep original Anarchism article. POV aplenty with the articles being used as platforms for evangelical Anarcho-capitalists and Nazis. -max rspct 23:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete both. These are POV forks aimed at circumventing the normal editing process. No more needs to be said. Grace Note 08:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete both and take some inspiration from how Libertarianism was solved through mediation, arbitration, discussion and debate. Libertarianism now has US-style Libertarianism as the main entry, but an excellent top-of-page redirect to a disambiguation article. Anarchism has had far too many edit wars which acts strongly against gentle participation and article quality.  I remember at least five major restructures which have shuffled content in and out of the main article, eventually resulting in the deletion of useful added content because original editors had abandoned the page.  Additionally, a great many people on wikipedia need to lose their US-centric bias which has informed the anarchism debates.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the world, and in relation to society and history, of world society and world history.  Additionally, en.wikipedia is an encyclopedia written in international English, not exclusively in en-US. Fifelfoo 04:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Both I completely agree with Fifelfoo. millerc 12:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand. Good idea!  Using the Libertarianism article as a model, our article should begin like this:


 * Anarchism


 * The term anarchism is also claimed by anti-capitalist anarchism, (also called anarcho-socialism). For other usages, see anarchism (disambiguation). This article deals with the standard dictionary meaning of "anarchism".


 * Does everyone agree to that? --Hogeye 18:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Is that some kind of joke? He was saying to take inspiration from the dispute resolution process which generated that article, not to take inspiration from the article itself! --cesarb 18:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This is called 'talking to other parties involved.' Pure Wiki. I simply suggested an unbiased beginning to the article.  The standard dictionary definition is about as unbiased as you can get.  Do you agree that the suggested beginning is NPOV?   --Hogeye 19:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How about: The term anarchism is also claimed by anarcho-capitalists. This article deals with the predominant political usage of the term anarchism within international English. ? Fifelfoo 03:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats fine with me, subject to verification by English dictionaries that "predominant political usage of the term" is anti-capitalist. If most dictionaries don't reqire anarchism to be anti-capitalist, then of course we should go with this:


 * Anarchism
 * The term anarchism is also claimed by anti-capitalist anarchism, (also called anarcho-socialism). For other usages, see anarchism (disambiguation). This article deals with the standard dictionary meaning of "anarchism".


 * Let's be totally objective and unbiased, take the top ten hits in a dictionary search, and settle the "predominant political usage" once and for all. Here you go... --Hogeye 04:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete both. This is stupid.  The anarchism page has been developed over a long time with a lot of effort. This sudden introduction of two redundant, free market fundamentalist POV versions is unacceptable. AW 11:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * DELETE BOTH There's no reason to make a false disctinction between these flavours of anarchism (except anarcho-capitalism, which is a made-up term that no-one seriously believes in). This isn't stupid, or mundane, or a time-waste, but it is divisive. Fragmenting anarchism and anarchists benefits whom...? An An 11:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Plenty of people believe in anarcho-capitalism, and plenty of libertarian minarchists respect anarcho-capitalism as a more extreme version of what they believe in. Many regard anarcho-capitalism as being a lot more intellectually consistent and logical than the socialist forms of anarchism. *Dan* 12:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete both. This is one of the more aggressive attempts at controlling language I've witnessed so far on Wikipedia. 80.203.115.12 15:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete both after merging useful information to main article. – Kaihsu 12:58, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)


 * Keep both, bring in a horde of non-anarchist editors to help overhaul the anarchism pages. Sam Spade 14:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Both the editors holding up consensus on the Anarchism page created these in order to avoid/ignore the conflict resolution process. --albamuth 13:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete both. Would prefer to see User:Fifelfoo dab note on the top of Anarchism. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:00, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Commentary
What is at issue:
 * The definition of anarchism. Should it be defined according to its Greek roots, meaning "without political rule"?  Or should it be defined according to some 19th century proponents who happened to be anti-capitalist?


 * The Greek roots of anarchism means "without rulers", not "without political rule". Its an assumption that the -archy must refer  to state politics. millerc 12:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is not at issue:
 * The size or importance of anarcho-capitalism within the general movement.

What does this have to do with deleting Wiki articles? This is a little more complicated. Ideally, everyone could 'just get along' and create an unbiased article, with both definitions considered in a neutral manner. Practically, this approach hasn't worked well since too many people insist on their preferred definition by deleting any edits which are not in conformance. Most Wiki editors, regardless of which side of the definitional issue they support, agree to this:
 * There will be a permanent edit war if there is only one Anarchism article.

So here on this page, we are trying to decide whether to continue with the permanent edit war or 'split the question.' A vote to KEEP BOTH is saying that you think we should split the question, i.e. have a separate page for each definition. A vote for DELETE BOTH or MERGE is saying that you want to continue with a single hotly contested page, and continue the edit war. --Hogeye 20:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--cesarb 21:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * False premise :Nothing says a permanent edit war will continue if the page is kept the same. It is possible that a way of presenting the article which is considered agreeable by both sides is found.
 * False premise :Deleting and merging do not necessarily mean it will continue being a single page; first because it's already been split between Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism, and if a consensus is found to move Anarchism (disambiguation) to Anarchism you have a separate page for each definition.
 * Appeal to emotion :Most long-time editors have feelings against edit wars. You are trying to associate both delete and merge votes, to which you are opposed, with these negative feelings.
 * Appeal to motive :You are trying to guess the unstated motives of the voters. There are a lot of possible different motives (the motive of my delete both vote, for instance, is a belief that POV forks are wrong).
 * Well said, Cesar. &mdash; Chameleon 21:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cesar> "Nothing says a permanent edit war will continue if the page is kept the same. It is possible that a way of presenting the article which is considered agreeable by both sides is found."

Yes, it's possible, but evidence from past interactions indicate otherwise. See the history page. Your reason does not remotely prove the premise false - only that it is possibly false.


 * But you made it sound as if it would never be possible. That's what I was objecting to. --cesarb 01:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cesar> "Deleting and merging do not necessarily mean it will continue being a single page; first because it's already been split between Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism..."

You miss the point here. The point is to have an unbiased Anarchism article (or articles.) The Anarcho-capitalism article is irrelevant to this, as is any other article about a particular school.


 * It's not irrelevant. Since the dispute (from what I understood) is between the theory presented at Anarcho-capitalism and the theory currently presented at Anarchism, one possible solution (and the one the Anarchism side seems to be favoring) is to keep the current split. Another (which your side seems to be favoring) is to keep the current split but make it more symmetrical (making Anarchism into a disambiguation page to the two theories). --cesarb 01:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cesar>"... and if a consensus is found to move Anarchism (disambiguation) to Anarchism you have a separate page for each definition."

Here it sounds like you agree with my solution - to have a Neutral Ambiguation Page pointing to both definitions of anarchism - Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist) - each of which can be unbiased wrt that definition. I think it is legitimate to point out a likely consequence of deletion - an edit war. This is hardly a logical fallacy. --Hogeye 23:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like you still didn't get my point, which is that, again from what I understood, the article currently at Anarchism and the one you created at Anarchism (socialist) are about the same thing, while the article currently at Anarcho-capitalism and the one you created at Anarchism (anti-state) are also about the same thing. The ones you created are redundant with the ones which already existed, and deleting them would only lose a pointless split. If (notice I was presenting an hypothesis) the disambiguation page gets moved over the current article (which I believe won't happen, basically because it happened before and in the end it got moved where it is right now), you would then have two separate pages for the two definitions, even if your creations are deleted, because they are redundant with articles which already exist. --cesarb 01:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Cesar> "From what I understood, the article currently at Anarchism and the one you created at Anarchism (socialist) are about the same thing, while the article currently at Anarcho-capitalism and the one you created at Anarchism (anti-state) are also about the same thing."


 * Aha. Here is where we are not on the same page.  In my understanding (and I've worked on the articles in question) the Anarchism (anti-state) and the Anarcho-capitalism articles are two totally separate articles.  The former is about anarchism in general. It covers all major schools, and the history of anarchism including the socialist schools.  The latter is about one particular school of anarchism.  Look at the articles and you can see for yourself that they cover different subject matter.


 * The dispute as I see it, is about whether a general article on anarchism should use the narrow partisan socialist definition of anarchism - even though it goes against every dictionary on the planet. (Slight exaggeration, perhaps, but I've never ever seen a dictionary specifying that anarchism is anti-capitalist.) --Hogeye 04:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion there only needs to be one main anarchism page (with a disambiguation page as well). This would be a basically socialist one ('cause that is what anarchism is). However, there should be a link to the capitalist page in the first paragraph so that people can see it if that is what they are looking for.

It seems that many people are trying to claim that there is simply two types of anarchism, capitalist and socialists. This is quite wrong. That are a number of different sorts of anarchism, all of them socialist (unless you happen to think that anarchism does not mean no social hierarchy or rulers, but rather simply no state). However, many anarchist violently disagree whether other forms would even work or be anarchistic. --harrismw 01:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Lets say the state as we know it disappears tomorrow. If you have a centralized plan for how everyone SHOULD live and want that plan enforced, I'd question whether you're an anarchist. In my opinion, the AC crowd has no plan and would leave it up to individuals as to how they'd live. Their version would allow the AS crowd to live out their socialist dreams as they please. On the other hand, the AS crowd seems to have plans for everyone and wouldn't be tolerant of the AC. My hunch is they'd immediately talk about outlawing the AC lifestyle - and that would require state-like powers. Honestly, I question whether or not an AS is really an anarchist (anti-state). This could be why the ACs are so adamant - they don't see the AS as serious or credible in their anarchism, and not worthy of the title anarchist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.113.253 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 11 Jun 2005


 * Harris> "It seems that many people are trying to claim that there is simply two types of anarchism, capitalist and socialists."
 * No, no, no. The issue is not about that at all.  The issue is about whether the general Anarchism article should be about all types anarchism, or only anti-capitalist anarchism.


 * Perhaps you are an individualist anarchist, a la Benjamin Tucker. Suppose a bunch of Wiki editors got it in their heads to define anarchism as anti-individualist, wrote at the top of the page that all anarchists are anti-individualist, and deleted all individualist thought from the general article except a link labeled 'not-really-anarchist' pointing to the Individualist Anarchist article.  Would you find this satisfactory?  --Hogeye 04:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .