Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Objectiveness of article

 * By deep link, I meant that one follows on naturally from the other, like logic. Obviously, they have similarities. Infinity0 talk 20:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, they have similarites and differences. That's all the article does, is point out the similarities and differences. Obviously anarcho-capitalism is not identical or labor-value individualist anarchism or the latter would also be called anarcho-capitalism. RJII 20:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not enough to warrant a whole article exclusively for them both. They share characteristics with other types of anarchism too. Infinity0 talk 20:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, apparently it is enough to warrant a whole article. It's a full article and very informative. If you want two compare and contrast two other kinds of anarchism, feel free to create an article. You're objections are so bogus. RJII 20:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * RJII, I'm not saying it's not a good article. I'm saying it shouldn't exist on an objective encyclopedia. Infinity0 talk 20:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a good article because it's objective. It definitely belongs in Wikipedia. RJII 20:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Objectivity considers all views. The object of the article, to compare ind.anarchism and a-capitalism, is not objective. Infinity0 talk 21:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's got to be one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. Do you even know what you're saying? RJII 21:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Consider this example: "Our mission is to convert people to Islam." - The object of the mission is to convert people; but is that object objective? Infinity0 talk 21:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The object behind the creation of every article is subjective. Afterall, a person creates an article. That's beside the point. What matters is that the article is NPOV and sourced. This one is. It's a legitimate subject of examination --what the similarities and differences are between labor-value individualism and anarcho-capitalism. A connection is indisputable, and it's the subject of much analyses by many political historians. RJII 21:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * RJII, does this mean that if I create the article How to convert people to Islam, make it properly sourced and containing lots of relevant information, that it should stay?? Infinity0 talk 21:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. So political historians don't compare other types of anarchism, right? I can see it now "Masters degree at Oxford, subject: Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism." Infinity0 talk 21:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course they do. You can compare and contrast two differnet philosophies in another article --create one if you'd like. There is no reason that every kind of anarchism has to be compared and contrasted with every other kind of anarchism in one article. Do you realize how complicated and confusing of an article that would be? You're objections are absolutely insane. RJII 21:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Complexity is irrelevant to objectiveness. Simplicity does not make this article objective. Infinity0 talk 21:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What you're saying has nothing to do with objectiveness. If you're comparing and contrasting X to Y, does it mean you're not being objective because you're not comparing and contrasting X to Y, X to Z, and Y to X?  You're objections are patently absurd. RJII 23:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You might be objective; but the thing isn't objective. See my point on How to convert people to Islam. Infinity0 talk 23:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment The word you're looking for, Infinity0, is "objectivity". Also, I'd like to see you list one specific section of the article that is POV, wrong, or original research. Please pick the best example to avoid wasting our time like you tried on the Capitalism article. MrVoluntarist 00:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The article leaves out major, opposing views, giving the impression that the view it's pushing is the right one. Got it? My argument really isn't hard to understand, stop coming back and repeating the same old stuff I've already countered. Infinity0 talk 16:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So, because you think it's lacking information you try to delete the entire article instead of just entering in more information? That's despicable. RJII 16:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've explained many times, the necessary information to make the article NPOV doesn't fit the title of the article. There's nothing stopping you from entering the same information as part of any new article with an NPOV title that gets created. Infinity0 talk 16:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's the title that was bothering you, then why didn't you just move the article to another title? Are you not aware of the MOVE button on the top of the screen? To change the name of an article, you don't delete it. You try to get consensus as to a name change, then you move the article to a new title. RJII 17:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not just a name change, though, is it? An NPOV article needs completely new information from what is already currently in the article. Infinity0 talk 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Bull. RJII 17:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying what you wrote is crap. But it's just not the right sort of NPOV article that is right for an encyclopedia. The link between these two subjects are better explored amongst other links too. Infinity0 talk 18:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is nothing POV about comparing and constrasting two different philosophies without having to to compare and contrast both of them with every other kind of philosophy. The whole point is to isolate the two in order to focus on them. If you had an article comparing and contrasting every anarchist philosophy with every other one, it would eventually be so large that you would have to create offshoot articles such as this one. This article is an offshoot of sections in other articles that compare and contrast the two. There is too much information and detail to fit into one article. I don't understand why you don't get it. RJII 18:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There would only be offshoots if two subjects were much more closely related to each other than any other subjects. This is not true here. Infinity0 talk 18:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're not familiar with the background, but anarcho-capitalism and labor-value individualism are the subject of much comparison and contrast among political historians. It's only natural that there's going to be an article devoted to something of so much attention. In case you didn't know, Rothbard, who coined the term anarcho-capitalism was inspired by the labor-value individualists: "There is, in the body of thought known as 'Austrian economics', a scientific explanation of the workings of the free market (and of the consequences of government intervention in that market) which individualist anarchists could easily incorporate into their political and social Weltanschauung" RJII 18:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not denying the existence of links. But, you haven't considered the other side, that ind-anarchism, has roots in left-anarchism, such as Proudhon et al. Ind-anarchists criticise exploitation of workers, just like left-anarchists, yet right-anarchists support it. NPOV requires this side of the story too. In fact, ind-anarchism and anarchism in general has always been associated more with the left, until very recently, with market fundmentalist theorists trying to associate themselves with them. Infinity0 talk 19:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The article makes it abundantly clear that the labor-value individualists oppose profiting from labor, and the anarcho-capitalists support it. RJII 19:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see nothing linking that to left-anarchism. Infinity0 talk 19:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should try reading an article before you put it up for deletion, and before you make claims about it. It says right there in the intro: "The 19th century individualist anarchists held that value in goods is derived fundamentally from labor (see labor theory of value) and therefore find profit to be exploitation that is made possible by various forms of "monopoly" and "privilege" that severely reduce or eliminate the possibility of competition....anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, believe value to be a matter of subjective individual judgement (see subjective theory of value), and therefore have no opposition to profit." The idea that profit from labor is exploitative isn't from anarcho-communism. It came directly from American individualist anarchism from Josiah Warren. RJII 19:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How does that say anything about links with other types of anarchism? LTOV and exploitation are only concepts. Infinity0 talk 20:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is not ABOUT comparing and contrasting with other types of anarchism, and it shouldn't be. The article is confined to comparing and contrasting TWO philosophies. If you want to compare and contrast labor-value individualist anarchism with, say, anarcho-commmunism then create an article that does so. There is not enough space in one article to compare every anarchistic philosophy IN DEPTH with every other one --such an article would be HUGE. It would have to be simplified and offshoots would have to be created to examine each comparison in depth. Do you realize how many types of anarchism there are? RJII 20:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Man, we're going around in circles... the point is it should be, since two isn't objective. There is no need for a ultra-deep examination, to answer your space constraints. Infinity0 talk 20:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you even know what objective means? Apparently you don't. There is nothing less objective about comparing two philosophies than there is of comparining three philosophes. There is nothing less objective about comparing three philosophies than there is of comparing four philosophies, and so on. What the hell do you mean by objective!? If an article sets out to compare and contrast two philosophies and that's what it does, what's wrong with that?  And, of course there's no need for an "ultra-deep examination" but it's certianly more informative than a cursory examination --and that whole point of Wikipedia is bringing information to light. Your whole point seems to censor it. RJII 20:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * ABC are all related. Writing about B and C without the context of A takes away the objectivity. Infinity0 talk 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. That's what I thought. You don't know what objectivity means. RJII 20:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Then enlighten me. What is NPOV about supressing the links to left-anarchism, pushing the theories of a few right-wingers and making it seem like a major topic? Infinity0 talk 16:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the object of an NPOV encyclopedia is to present all views. Infinity0 talk 20:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In one article? That's insane. Article are separated according to what subject is being considered, as they should be. RJII 21:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * RJII, you must have a PhD in circular logic or something. ABC are all related. Writing about B and C without the context of A takes away the objectivity. - in this case, ABC is "how other types of anarchism draw from individualist anarchism". Infinity0 talk
 * No, it doesn't. Learn what "objectivity" means before you use the term. What you're saying is incoherent. RJII 06:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Helpful policies
Please review the following policies: I think that it would be good if everybody considered these helpful guidelines and policies. --AaronS 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Be civil to your fellow editors, and do not attack them personally;
 * Wikipedia is not the place for original research;
 * Sources must be cited, especially when requested of you;
 * The only good sources are reliable ones, and some articles have a higher standard of verifiability;
 * No single editor owns any article (even though it may be the produce of your own labor!)


 * It's not true that "sources must be cited." The rule is that what is entered into Wikipedia must be sourceABLE. They only need to be cited if someone requests a source. If someone thinks a statement is not true, all he has to do is ask for a source. If no one can come up with one, then he's justified in deleting or altering the statement. RJII 15:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * ahem* That is essentially what I wrote. --AaronS 15:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you said "Sources must be cited, especially when requested of you." That's not true. Sources must be cited ONLY if they're requested. RJII 16:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Not that it matters. --AaronS 16:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you're wrong. And, it does matter. Things don't have to be sourced. Rather, they have to be sourceABLE. "Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." (policy) It doesn't mean that there has to be recorded citations in an article for statements. It just means that sources for any particular statement must be provided upon request, unless they'll be removed. RJII 16:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)