Talk:Jeremy Sapienza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] Anarchist/Libertarian or Socialist/Communist?

Reading over Sapienza's materials I don't see how anyone could consider him to be a socialist or communist. Just the opposite - he argues against socialism and statism. If anyone feels differently, please discuss here before re-adding that designation. -Willmcw 21:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Liberterian: Sapienza writes for libertarian webistes, (such as lewrockwell.com) and appears to consider himself a libertarian. Is there any reaosn to think that he is not one? -Willmcw 23:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Libertarianism: Jeremy is not a libertarian because it implies a moral philosophy, and he is not a moralist. He's said this many times on anti-state.com. His views have changed since he was young and idealistic and writing on lewrockwell.

Do you have a source? Where does he reject the Libertarian label? -Willmcw 21:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• However, he rejects the libertarian label, seeing it as a moral philosophy to which he does not subscribe.

I searched on [Jeremy Sapienza "moral philosophy"] in Google and got nothing. As I mentioned above, he writes for known libertarian websites, and makes references to libertarianism as if it were his own belief, or at least he used to. Before we strike out "libertarian" I'd like to see a definitive quote. If the quote is contemporary, then he still might be considered a former libertarian. (Do we have a category for Huffington's "4th dimension" of politics yet?) Can we find the right term to describe Sapienza's current beliefs based, on his own statements or those of others about him? -Willmcw 10:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Having been alerted to this discussion, I'm here to set the record straight. :)

> http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=14906;start=0#msg316284 (second quote)

> http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=14804;start=20#msg314585 (here's me saying I don't even READ libertarian websites -- I USED TO write for them, like 4-5 years ago)

> http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=14727;start=20#msg312777 (this one takes the cake)

Some people still say I am a libertarian even though I shun the label. It can stay or go. My current beliefs are closer to David Friedman's but control decay is a main part of it.

Thanks for defending my dumb article against vandals, man...unapologetic/declared homosexual...and EXECUTED!? Wow. Oh also, I swwwwear I didn't write this, EH Munro did. He already got in trouble with M. Griffis over the same thing. But I am going to be helping expand the Control Decay article, and I don't think it's right to have it merged into this article (small as it is). It would be better if my name was taken off it altogether. --Jeremy

Let me get this straight - Sapienza edits his forum using the name of "Apolonia Rudell de Serrano", with the avatar picture of some pretty girl? The quotes you mention are just tossed-off forum comments, are those the best reference for Sapienza's beliefs that we can find?

Regarding the Control Decay theory, if it is your won theory then you should not edit the article. Please read carefully our policies on no original research and wikipedia:verifiability. Finally, please also be aware of our guideline wikipedia:autobiography, which strongly discourages subjects from editing their biographies. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality

I changed the POV "unapologetic homosexual" to "declared homosexual", but I don't like that wording, either. Is his homosexuality something he addresses or is it just there? Is he a gay activist? If not, does the article need to address his sexuality at all? RickK 08:27, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

He's definately not a "gay activist"... but considering how little actually biographical information the article contains I'd be hesitant to remove it.

• * * * *

Article begins with "Jeremy Sapienza is an openly gay American political writer and thinker." In this year 2005, it strikes me as rather odd to imply that the most important fact about a political writer (who is not explicitly a gender-politics activist) is his sexual orientation. Can we revise this somehow? -- 19 December 2005.

[edit] merge Control Decay Theory

Control Decay Theory appears to be a very minor political theory which is not notable enough for its own article. Since this theory was created by Sapienza, and has no other known proponents, it would seem best to merge it here. Thoughts? -Willmcw 22:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

--This is an article that is still being worked on and the language to describe it developed. As it exists now it's just a footnote, but it should be at least twice as long when it's done. There are plans to include modern Somalia as a main example, and real-life examples around the world, as well as people who adhere to the theory who are not anarchists (William Lind and his Fourth Generation Warfare theories). It's a collaboration tha will include more than one person. It's at least as important as, say, anarcha-feminism is to anarchism in general, in its capacity as a distinct subset of market anarchism/anarcho-capitalism.

At least, if it's merged now, there should be the option to split it off later, because it doesn't just belong to Jeremy -- he's just the most vocal adherent.

--ASCer

There's no indication that the theory is notable in and of itself. When is this development going to happen? It currently sounds like an idea that a pundit had while blogging that hasn't gone beyond his webforum. The article should include some reference to the spread and notability of this theory, including other proponents or critics. It may be important, but right now there's nothing in the article to show that. If the article isn't developed soon then we should go ahead with the merger. They can always be split again. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I apologize - I didn't realize that the article had been written just moments before. Yes, take your time to develop it. Thanks for contributing. -Willmcw 09:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a merge is appropriate. If the theory takes off and gains support outside of its originator, there's always the option to split it off again. Also, if anyone disagrees, please discuss it instead of just removing the merge tag. Friday (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The Control Decay section should be deleted. It never was a formal theory, Sapienza is not an academic, and it's just silly to even have it on wikipedia when it's at best something just batted about on anti-state.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.174.158.201 (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC).