Talk:An Anarchist FAQ/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 The FAQ is anarchism from a "social anarchist" POV 2 Authors 3 All anarchists are socialist 4 Joke about anarcho-capitalism 5 who exactly disagrees? 6 POV 7 Social anarchists in majority 8 infinity removing notes that the writers reject individualist anarchism 9 Present the pan-anarchist 10 Reiterating the NPOV issue 11 author names 12 The Geocities site is the main one. 13 Why POV? 14 RJII's version 15 Current version 16 Removing talk

The FAQ is anarchism from a "social anarchist" POV

Before infinity deletes it, let me just make it clear for the record that the writers of the FAQ are self-labeled "social anarchists (communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and so on)...to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." [1], so don't ever let this article lead the reader to believe that they represent all anarchists. They explicly "reject individualist anarchism" [2]. Hence, the FAQ is anarchism from a social anarchist POV --individualists have no say. RJII 02:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I was getting around to it, RJII. I just copied and pasted the intro of the FAQ into here and wikified it. I knew it was POV, which is why I haven't wikilinked to this article from any others. -- infinity0 12:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure you were. You delete it every time I try to make it known in other articles. RJII 15:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Because you insert it in EVERY occurence. Which is why I started this article, so there was a central place to put the info. -- infinity0 15:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Untrue, you don't allow ONE occurence. You've been trying from the start to keep anyone from knowing that the FAQ is biased. The FAQ is useless. It's obviously written by people who have no clue what they're talking about. It certianly shouldn't be used as a source on Wikipedia. RJII 15:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, the writers know much much more than you do. I've allowed occurences in the notes, and small mentions that they are social anarchists. There's no point writing two sentences on your perceivement of their bias every time they are cited. -- infinity0 16:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. You've tried to hide it. You've put it in the notes only because I've forced the issue. And the writers of that FAQ do not know more about it than me. I know way more than they do about individualist anarchism. But, this isn't about me. It's about the source. It's garbage. Not a credible source by Wikipedia standards. Not published, and no reputable publisher would dare publish it. It's put together by a bunch if internet anarchists with the sole intent as a propaganda piece to push communist anarchism by any deception possible. RJII 16:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it was always in the notes to being with. Chuck Munson says the FAQ is being published by AK Press. Are you saying he's lying? -- infinity0 16:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I say he's wrong. Lots of rumours go around. I think he's really naive to think it would be published. Going to be published is not good enough, regardless. Either it's published or it's not. RJII 22:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Chuck is in direct contact with the main writer of the FAQ, who obviously knows if it's going to be published or not. -- infinity0 00:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Authors

I have a problem with the following: The authors of the FAQ call themselves "social anarchists" (or left anarchists). Hence, the FAQ is anarchism from the point of view of social anarchists, and does not necessarily represent the views of all schools of anarchism. For example, social anarchists "reject individualist anarchism."

This implies that the FAQ only shows the view of "social anarchists" when it clearly has many sections relating to individualist and mutalist views. The Anarchist FAQ has a problem with "anarcho"-capitalism because it diverges so much with the rest of anarchist theory that the authors want to show this distinction. This does not invalidate the FAQ as a legitimate source of material, because all of the claims it makes are cited and verifiable. I propose removing this bit entirely, because it is simply untrue. The Anarchist FAQ does not simply represent the "social anarchist" POV, and indeed, the link given to "support this claim" is simply spin, just because the writers are self-avowed "social anarchists" does not mean that the entirity of their writing is "social anarchist." They cite non-"social anarchist" writings throughout. --whynotanarchy 00:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'll go tone it down a bit. -- infinity0 00:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hence, the FAQ is anarchism from the point of view of social anarchists, and does may not necessarily represent the views of all schools of anarchism.

Is that better? I realise that still questions their bias, but it's the most NPOV way I can think of having it. RJII keeps saying they are biased. -- infinity0 00:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I find that the Anarchist FAQ attempts to be very NPOV throughout, while citing many examples of anarchist writings. RJII may have misgivings about the FAQ, but to state that they "don't represent the views of all schools of anarchism" *because* they're social anarchism is not true. They don't support "all schools of anarchism" because they find that "most schools of anarchism" diverge from "anarcho"-capitalism. If you read their disertion (sp) from "anarcho"-capitalism you will find that they, social anarchists, cite mutualist and individualist writings to make this claim. It would be better to say something like "Some schools of anarchism, almost exclusively that of anarcho-capitalism, are not necessarily represented by the Anarchist FAQ because the authors do not think that it fits within the sphere of anarchism. The FAQ goes to great lengths to illustrate this." --whynotanarchy 00:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'll go make the changes. :) -- infinity0 00:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It still seems to suggest that because they're social anarchists, they are not representing "all schools of anarchism." As if it is an intrinsic bias. The "hence," if not the complete "social anarchist" part should not even be relevant, in my opinion. Thse "social anarchists" represent mutualism and individualism, along with other forms of anarchism (such as primitivism) without interjecting their own bias. I see no reason that they should be called "social anarchists" (but I don't know if that claim is verifiable because the FAQ is written by many people). But to connect their "social anarchism" to the fact that they do not fit "some schools of anarchism" into their FAQ is not right I think. They don't fit "some schools of anarchism" into the FAQ because they, social anarchists, individualists, whatever, they simply don't believe it fits, and they use a lot of citations to show this.

It says in the FAQ "the authors of this FAQ place ourselves in the social strand of anarchism". I realise now that that probably was there from the start of the FAQ, when the main contributors were only social anarchists, but some individual anarchists probably have contributed to the FAQ too. -- infinity0 01:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In the relevant quote they say, "Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated with individualist anarchism, only that we think social anarchism is more appropriate for modern society, that it creates a stronger base for individual freedom, and that it more closely reflects the sort of society we would like to live in." The page that RJII cites, indeed, places relatively equal time on each of the various strands of anarchism. So do you think that it is relevant or not? Because I think that the critique on these "schools of anarchism" can come from every strand that the Anarchist FAQ represents, which makes it not a critique from "social anarchists" but rather a critique from "anarchists represented by the FAQ." --whynotanarchy 01:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I added the point that the authors cite individualist anarchists too. -- infinity0 01:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I like where it's going now! Responding to something else in a second (you can ignore my complaint above). --whynotanarchy 01:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Bah, I need to go. If you have anything to add, just edit the article yourself :) -- infinity0 01:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Not afraid to edit, just making sure that I got some backup here. I'm new to this whole thing, after all. I am changing the blurb to the following, let's try to communicate about our changes if you disagree with me, alright? Here's what I'm changing it to:

The main authors of the FAQ are "social anarchists" (or left anarchists), though they cite references from, and attempt to represent, most schools of anarchism, including mutualism, individualist anarchism, and even some lesser known theories like anarcho-primitivism. A few schools of anarchism (almost exclusively that of anarcho-capitalism) are not necessarily represented as "truly anarchist" by the FAQ, because its authors do not think that they fit within the sphere of anarchism. The FAQ goes to great lengths to illustrate this, even citing the writings of some invidualists, who are in a school of anarchism which anarchno-capitalists identify with. --whynotanarchy 01:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's good. I tweaked the last sentence a little to make it less clumsy. -- infinity0 14:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that this is as good as we'll get, perhaps someone might come along and fix the grammar a bit (I don't like the whole comma delimited "and attempt to represent" but I believe it is necessary to get the point across that they are represented and citing many schools of anarchist thought), but as of now I think it is as NPOV and as clear as you can get. I don't know who put in the "social anarchist" bit before, but I believe it was POV, which is why I had misgivings about it. On to some other articles, I suppose. Thanks infinity0. :) --whynotanarchy 20:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome :) -- infinity0 20:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

All anarchists are socialist

"and claim that all anarchists are socialists and anti-capitalist." - because the article explains already that the authors are against anarcho-capitalist, which is the only capitalist school of anarchism. This makes it seem like there are other capitalist schools of anarchism, or that anarcho-capitalist is a major school of anarchism. -- infinity0 17:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't, but if you feel that it does, say it isn't so in article. Also, anarcho-capitalists are not only capitalists around and authors are against capitalism in general. -- Vision Thing -- 18:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It says the FAQ is against anarcho-capitalism and that the FAQ tries to represent all other schools of anarchism. What's wrong with that? -- infinity0 18:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It’s not complete. The FAQ is against all capitalists, not just anarcho-capitalists. -- Vision Thing -- 09:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's because they represent anti-capitalist anarchists. They're against Marxism and authoritarian socialism too, putting everything they're supposedly against is pointless. -- infinity0 16:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn’t pointless if they are using the FAQ to present their views about it, and they are. -- Vision Thing -- 09:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Too many pronouns! Whose views about what? -- infinity0 16:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Authors views about capitalism. There are two sections(out of ten) about capitalism in the FAQ and both are critiques. It isn't pointless to say that they are anti-capitalists. -- Vision Thing -- 10:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is - because then to maintain equal weight you have to say everything they are against. -- infinity0 16:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Aww, crap, sorry about the "rvv" edit summary. I wasn't concentrating. I meant to write "why is that weasel words?" -- infinity0 16:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In that sentence expression "some" people is used twice. Who are they and how many people think that? Look at examples examples of weasel words. -- Vision Thing -- 10:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I added two examples. Is that fine now? -- infinity0 16:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's better but it's wrong. Writings of those individualists don't support the claim that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. Their writings just support the claim that anarcho-capitalism isn't individualist anarchism. So that sentence must be erased or rewritten. -- Vision Thing -- 11:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If it argues that a-capitalism isn't ind-anarchism, and it acknowledges that ind-anarchism is anarchism, then it also argues that a-capitalism isn't anarchism. Your objection is redundant, and suspiciously similar to the argument RJII made at Talk:Anarcho-capitalism. -- infinity0 11:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If A isn't B, and B is C, then A isn't C? LOL Then social, or any other school of anarchism, isn't anarchist because they aren't IA. -- Vision Thing -- 11:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

ARGGGGH HOW MANY PEOPLE DO NOT FUCKING UNDERSTAND SET THEORY??? Sorry :( Here:

• A isn't a subset of B
• B is a subset of C
• THEREFORE, A isn't a subset of C

Surely it's just blind common sense?? -- infinity0 11:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Nvmd, I take that back. -- infinity0 11:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Human (A) isn't an elephant (B)
• Elephant (B) is mammal (C)
• Therefore, Human (A) isn't mammal (C)

Common sense? -- Vision Thing -- 11:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I realised I assumed that a-capitalism isn't social anarchism, which is the non-ind-anarchism part of anarchism, which was blantantly obvious. -- infinity0 11:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Joke about anarcho-capitalism

The joke is a direct quote from them. It demonstrates their position quite nicely. We could editorialise it to something like "the authors ridicule anarcho-capitalism, claiming that "outside the net they are irrelevant"" or something. Would that be better? -- infinity0 17:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If the FAQ goal is to be pro-anarchist it's stupid that half of Content addresses private joke of authors about AC. -- Vision Thing -- 18:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's a good point. I'll go reduce the quote. -- infinity0 18:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

who exactly disagrees?

Would I be right in assuming that the anarho-capitalists are pretty much the only 'anarchists' that consider anarcho-capitalisam to be a type of anarchism??

To get back to FAQ, their presentation of individualist anarchism seems fair, and not horribly critical; they do criticise them, but not much more than, for eg anarcho-syndicalists, platformists etc; and they give them of course a lot of credit for the ideas. Think they give a pretty standard, 'orthodox' presentation of anarchism, admittadly leaving out discussions of contemporary opinions and debates, but giving a balanced and unbiased presentation of classic anarchism, without ecessively denouncing any type of anarchism, that can legitimately be considered anarchism.

I find this 'warnings' about the FAQ in the article waaay too much, however great you balanced it.and request they be removed, and if really necessary, put simply as one sentese like 'this faq doesnt consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism' and leave it at that. Its really not balanced to make the bulk of the discussion of a general FAQ about their, typical, attitute to anarcho-capitalism..

aryah 83.131.129.109 01:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

All individualist anarchists consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism. I've only seen "social anarchists" make such a claim. RJII 01:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? Can you point me to ref of relevant individualist anarchists that consider anacho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism? Are there notable exeptions? And 'only social anarchist' is quite a huge 'only', isnt it? aryah 83.131.129.109 01:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No individualist anarchist I know of makes any argument that ancap is anarchism --they just simply assume it. None says it is not anarchism. But, a few do happen to say it explicitly, which may relieve your doubts. For example, Joe Peacott: "the capitalist anarchists, like Wendy McElroy, Sam Konkin, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and the Voluntaryists, are individualists. However, there are other individualists, like myself and the individualists of the past, such as Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, and John Henry Mackay, who reject capitalism as much as they reject communism." [3] Individualist anarchists simply take it for granted that "anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism" [4] Individualist anarchism is a broad type of anarchism that includes various individualist philosophies, including anarcho-capitalism. RJII 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The "individualist anarchists" you've met are not valid source material for this entry. So it's BS. Every one of the "individualist anarchists" you cite are all more recent people who claim to be individualists whose ideas do not fit within individualism. It's their way to be "within" anarchism. But by no means does that mean that they agree with the original ideas of individualist anarchism. whynotanarchy 22:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Anarchist_FAQ&diff=45727345&oldid=45726310

RJII, you are putting undue weight on the fact that the writers are social anarchists. Similarly, you delete that they try to represent most schools of anarchism. -- infinity0 17:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not. You're putting undue weight. And, they do not represent individualist anarchists. They represent "social anarchists" who oppose individualist anarchists. RJII 17:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You are. That they are social anarchists is only mentioned twice the in whole FAQ. They try to represent social and individualist anarchists throughout.

No they do not try to represent individualist anarchists. They reject individualist anarchism. RJII 17:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That does not mean they are not trying to represent what individualist anarchism is about. -- infinity0 17:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

They're not trying to represent individualist anarchism at all. They're EXPLAINING some individualist anarchism. RJII 17:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That means the same thing. -- infinity0 17:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean the same thing. RJII 17:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Tucker does not think a-capitalism is true anarchism. And finally, the writers do not actually dedicate the FAQ to libertarian capitalists - they say "that would give them too much credit". -- infinity0 17:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I never stated anything about Tucker's beliefs in regard to anarcho-capitalism. RJII 17:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That diff shows you making this edit: "The FAQ writers also reject anarcho-capitalism, but unlike the individualist of Benjamin Tucker, they do not think that it is true form of anarchism." -- infinity0 17:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That's missing the world "anarchism" after "individualist." It's saying that the FAQ writers don't consider anarcho-capitalism to be a true form of anarchism, unlike the anarchism of Tucker. RJII 17:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That sentence implies Tucker thought a-capitalism is anarchism. -- infinity0 17:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. That's an improper reading of the sentence on your part. RJII 17:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It could, though, and half the readers, or more, will think it. It's how your sentence is constructed. -- infinity0 17:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That's why I put in the missing word. RJII 17:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, the article pretty much says that the FAQ writers are social anarchists, making them out to be inherently biased. This is undue weight. -- infinity0 17:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As it should. It is a baised FAQ and the writers admit that. We need to make that clear. RJII 17:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You are over-subscribing the bias. The bias is only against a-capitalism, not individualist anarchism. -- infinity0 18:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the bias is against individualist anarchism in general. They plainly say that and make it clear at the outset when they "put [their] cards on the table." They're honest about it, so we should be as well. RJII 18:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

They show no strong, if any, bias against individualist anarchism. They disagree with it, but do not attack it in any severe way. -- infinity0 18:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

They attack it. I wouldn't call it severe, but they attack it. I didn't state in the article that the attacked it anyway but that they "reject individualist anarchism." The clearly oppose it, and bias the article in that way. RJII 18:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ does represent anarchists in general, since social anarchists are the majority. They try to state all individualist anarchist theories clearly and without distortion - hence "represent". -- infinity0 18:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It represnts "social anarchists." And, if that's the way you're using the term "represent" then that's really bad grammar and is misleading to those who use the term correctly. If someone "represents" a certain ideology it means that that is their ideology --they stand as a representative of that ideology. You should say they "explain" individualist anarchism --they don't "represent" it. RJII 18:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Represent means you're trying to present information which represents their ideology. Asking for a source that "social anarchists" are the majority is deliberately abusing policy. You know very well they are the majority - even a-capitalists admit this. It's like asking for another source that one source is biased. -- infinity0 18:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. If one "represents" something, he's a representative of that thing. If it's so obviously to you that "social anarchists" are a majority then you should be able to provide a citation for that. We do not allow original research on Wikipeda. Do not dare accuse me of "deliberately abusing policy." I'm attempting to make sure that you abide by the original research policy. Don't make claims like that unless you can back them up with citations. I do not think "social anarchists" are the majority. I think there are more individualists than "social"-ists today. RJII 18:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Representative does not mean advocate; Example: Wikipedia:Write for the enemy. You are clearly being obtuse, since you know yourself that social anarchists are in the majority. -- infinity0 18:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No I not know that social anarchists are the majority. Now you're accusing me lying and you're violating the Assume Good Faith policy. I think social anarchism has lost it's popularity. Anarcho-communists and anarchosyndicalists are an anachronism. RJII 18:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're abusing policy. You use "cite sources" as a justification for misrepresenting AFAQ, especially putting undue weight on the fact that they are social anarchists. You ignore the fact that you are breaking NPOV. -- infinity0 18:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not putting "undue weight" on the fact that they're social anarchists. I'm just making it clear. The FAQ itself makes it clear that they're social anarchists to point out their bias. I am not breaking NPOV. You are. I'm here to bring this article to an NPOV state, and you're resisting. RJII 18:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You're over-stating the fact. In your version, you stated it about three times, clearly implied it clouded their judgement. [5] Of the two, social anarchists (communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and so on) have always been the vast majority. -- infinity0 18:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not overstating the fact. And, now you're using the FAQ itself in a self-referential way, as they claim that they are in the majority. That doesn't count for much at all. RJII 19:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which contradict the FAQ's claim that social anarchists are in the majority? -- infinity0 19:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, and I do not need to find any such sources, because I'm not making the claim in the article that they're not. The FAQ says that they represent the majority of anarchists, so that's all we have a source for --that THEY think they represent the majority of anarchists. We can't use them as a secondary source on the matter. Get real. RJII 19:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can't source that "social anarchists are majority" is disagreed with, then you can't include it in the article. They clearly state "they are the majority", not "we think they are the majority". -- infinity0 19:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't stated in the article that social anarchists are not the majority. You're the one making a claim in the article --not me. Yes the writers of the FAQ say that social anarchists are the majority, so say that --state that THEY SAY that social anarchists are the majority. Just because they say social anarchists are in the majority, it doesn't make it so. You can only use them as a primary source on this --not as a secondary source. They're not credible at all as a secondary source when they say that they're social anarchists and reject individualist anarchism. RJII 19:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Which third-party authors are you talking about? If you say Carl Levy, in MSN Encarta he says a-capitalism developed out of ind-anarchism, not a type of it. -- infinity0 19:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of the book Anti-Capitalism: A Beginner's Guide where it's stated that individualist anarchism can be both capitalist and anti-capitalist. By the way, the Levy article does indeed say that ancap is individualist anarchism. RJII 19:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. So what is POV with the article right now? -- infinity0 19:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The most glaring problem is the first line of the article that says the FAQ was written by "anarchists." That's very POV. It's written by "social anarchists," rather than anarchists in general. RJII 19:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What other problems are there? Could you list them all down, so we can deal with it all at once? -- infinity0 19:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, in light of this, we should dedicate this anarchist FAQ to the many on-line "libertarian" capitalists who, because of their inane arguments, prompted us to start this work. Then again, that would give them too much credit. - they dismiss the idea. -- infinity0 19:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dismiss what idea? I don't know what your point is here. RJII 19:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

They dismiss the idea of the dedication in the very next sentence, meaning they are only fooling around with the idea. -- infinity0 19:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but it's not a joke. It a serious personal attack on anarcho-capitalists. RJII 19:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's meant to be a humourous thing, to make the reader laugh. I doubt they are trying to be insulting, since not many anarcho-capitalists read it, so what's the point? -- infinity0 20:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It may well have been meant for anarcho-capitalists to see, in order to offend them. Just leave out that kind of editorializing, ok? We don't know their intentions for the person attack. But, it is a great quote that shows just how unscholarly the FAQ is. RJII 20:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The article already mentions an attack - "They ridicule anarcho-capitalists, claiming that "in the real world [these arguments against anarcho-capitalism] would not be required as almost all anarchists think that 'anarcho'-capitalism is an oxymoron." I don't think the other one is an attack, but if you are so keen on making out the FAQ to be "unscholarly", then that quote does it. -- infinity0 20:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, the fact that the FAQ [b]covers[/b] many varieties of anarchism does not mean that they "represent [b]only[/b] social anarchism." This is where your fault lies. Please refer to my arguments above about this. This is a very important distinction that needs to be made (and I won't let this point die, even though I'm absent at the moment I will be back to clear up the misconception that you are trying to create here). The Anarchist FAQ represents all anarchists which diverge from anarcho-capitalism. whynotanarchy 22:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no greater bias against individualist anarchism there, than there is against anarchosyndicalism, for eg, or platformism; in fact, there is much less. Its pretty difficult to show how their 'social anarchist' bais is set against individividualist in particular, since they have at least as much critique to forms of 'social anarchism'... They are social anarchists, they make a great deal of effort to make this a pan-anarchist FAQ - but clearly dont consider ancap, and only ancap, to be anarchism. Let me repeat, if anything at all should be said in this article about their bias, its simpy that they dont consider ancap to be anrchism. And nothing more.. aryah 83.131.147.106 09:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Im sure it will be reverted, but as a simple demonstration of how cleaner the article would look (though obviously lacking real content (for a change) of the 'content' subsection) without this unnecessary discussion about bias, ill delete what I saw as excessive. aryah 83.131.147.106 09:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, can anyone track down if authors ever called themselves 'left-anarchists' ? I would expect that term to be invented by ancap so they have something to contrast with their oxymoronic concept of 'right-anarchism'. If so, it they never used the term 'left anarchist' self-refferentially, if you revert the useless baggage I just deleted, at least remove the place where it says that autors called themselves so. aryah 83.131.147.106 09:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Social anarchists in majority

FAQ source, as above. Other sources:

• [6] the "individualists", which have always been a very small minority among us

This was written in 1924, when anarcho-communists became the majority. Before that, individualists were the majority. Today is a different time --anarcho-communism is not longer that popular. RJII 20:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• [7] - a whole section on the minority of individualist anarchism, such as "Hardly any anarcho-individualists exercised an influence on the emerging working class."

He is talking about the early 20th century when anarcho-communism overshadowed individualism. RJII 20:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• [8] - Only a minority of these periodicals were individualistic, for the dominant radical philosophy of the day was socialism in its many forms

Again, this is about history. RJII 20:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

-- infinity0 20:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The second source is from Murray Bookchin. If you read further, he talks about individualist anarchism as an "emergin phenomenon". All information comes from sources. The FAQ says social anarchists are the vast majority, so I can state that it is, because it is sourced. To say that it is only "opinion" requires a source with the opposite viewpoint. -- infinity0 21:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL. No you cannot state that social anarchists are the vast majority because the FAQ says they are. You can only use the FAQ as a primary source. RJII 21:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Primary source for views of anarchists - but there's no reason to use it as a secondary source for the proportion of anarchists. Furthermore, the Murray Bookchin source supports it. To say that it's "opnion" requires acknowledging the opposite viewpoint. I have not found anything claiming the opposite, so it must be a fact. -- infinity0 21:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's a fact. I suspect that RJII wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for the fact that the opinion he is espousing is in the minority. whynotanarchy 22:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Where the “fact” that social anarchist today represent majority of anarchists can be checked? -- Vision Thing -- 11:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the point of this 'mayority' thing is to show how the FAQ gives a presentation most anarchists would agree with. I suggest that the 'bias' of the authors is admitted, clearly, but breafly, but anlongside that, their (proclamed) intent of giving a general, pan-anarchist, and not a 'sectarian', social-anarchist (if that can ever be considered 'sectarian') should be mentioned. No explanations or clarifications, simply being upfront about both those facts, and let ppl draw their conclusions. I hope the note would be as short as possible, compared to the body of this article.

Though it was my experience too that most anarchists are social; I have never even met an individualist (though I know, by proxy, of existance of some small group), and think they are now mostly American phenomena, that kind of argument is imo totaly false; besides there not existing any relevant census of anarchist population afaik (luckly), and it being totaly offtopic, also, if the opinion of majority ment anything, then anarchism would be worthless altogether..

aryah 83.131.147.106 13:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, you take "reject" out of context. You make it seems like they specifically reject it, and therefore have a bias against it. -- infinity0 18:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

infinity removing notes that the writers reject individualist anarchism

It is important to note that the writers of the FAQ "reject individualist anarchism." This is a FUNDAMENTAL bias on the part of the FAQ. Why is infinity deleting this? RJII 18:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The writers do NOT specifically reject individualist anarchism. You're taking the quote out of context. The writers say social anarchists in general reject individualist anarchism. Saying "the writers reject" makes it sound like it's a bias on part of the writers. It's editorialising. -- infinity0 18:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do specifically reject individualist anarchism: "Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated with individualist anarchism, only that we think social anarchism is more appropriate for modern society, that it creates a stronger base for individual freedom, and that it more closely reflects the sort of society we would like to live in." [9] And, "social anarchists reject the individualists' conception of anarchy, simply because it can, unfortunately, allow hierarchy (i.e. government) back into a free society in the name of "liberty" and "free contracts." [10] I knew you were going to be deleting this important point; that's why it's the first thing I noted on this Talk page above. This article can never by NPOV unless it's made clear that these are anti-individualists. RJII 18:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

They don't say "we reject individualist anarchism" so you can't say they do. They say that social anarchists in general reject individualist anarchism. Something like "the authors classify anarchism into two schools major types, social and individualist anarchism, which disagree on some issues. the authors call themselves social anarchists." -- infinity0 18:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think that they're biased against ind-anarchism, think again. "This does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated with individualist anarchism" - saying "the authors "reject" ind-anarchism" does not make this clear - it makes them out to be too biased. -- infinity0 18:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You're grasping for straws. "However, while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of anarchism -- one with many flaws" [11] See the word "WE"??? They're talking about themselves when they say "social anarchists reject individualist anarchism." Stop trying to hide this bias of the FAQ and in doing so making this article POV. RJII 18:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

this is ridiculous; just because they identify with socialist anarchism, and speak of (stating that clearly) social anarchist critiques of individualist anarchism, does not by any streach of imagonation mean that they personally 'reject' individualist anarchism, exept in the sense that they are not themselves individualist. And again to stress this, individualist anarchism is not the only type of anarchism of which there are expressed critiques in the FAQ, so naming only individualist anarchism as criticised is not NPOV. It is also not NPOV to state every type of anarchism criticised; in fact it would be a less well rounded FAQ if it lacked such critiques, and if there are uncriticised types of anarchism there, in that much the FAQ is incomplete; i see no reason to believe that the authors would be especially hesitant to include such critiques. To say or imply the FAQ is anti-individualist is impossible by any strech of imagination. It may not be an FAQ attempting to hold to a wikipedia NPOV policy, but that wasnt their intention; it is however attempting to be as open and tolerant of all types of anarchism, while expressing, argumentedly and respectively, their reasons for disagreements. aryah 83.131.140.200 21:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Notice also the sentece in question - they cannot reasnobly claim that 'social anarchist' consider individualist anarchist to be a type of anarchism, cuz they are no spokesmen for 'social anarchist', and further, cuz its quite concievable there to be an entire spectrum of differing opinions amongst various social anarchist, and some marginal, extreme or ignorant views might indeed be that individualist anarchist are not a form of anarchism. Therefore the sentence doesnt read '..we (ie the social anarchist that disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists)...' , but 'while socialist anarchist (in general, as a 'school') disagree,...., we (i.e. in any case, the authors) consider...' So, it is clearly not the case that they are speaking about themselves as representatives of the social anarchists that disagree; there is no such equating; but where, after explaining general, inter-school criticisms, they also, added to it, shortly mention their, tolerant, but critical, view of them. --Aryah 08:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism?" - is clear, because it gives them a reason for disagreement. Saying "the writers reject individualist anarchism" makes them sound biased against individualist anarchism. If you say they reject it, you must make the implications lighter than what it would imply.

They say specifically "This does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated with individualist anarchism" - I suggest you include something like that to avoid the reader misinterpreting "rejects" as "completely disagrees with." -- infinity0 18:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's their words, not mine. Obviously they think individualism is flawed and they reject that philosophy in favor of "social anarchism." This is a systemic bias throughout the FAQ. RJII 18:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, but your wording makes it sound like that they have a major problem with it, which isn't the case - they still respect it. -- infinity0 18:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

They do have a major problem with. That's why they reject it. Of course there are some ideas from various individualists that they may find valuable. RJII 19:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

They do not "ignore the many important ideas associated with individualist anarchism" - ie. specifically associated with ind-anarchism. They don't have a major problem with it. -- infinity0 19:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do have a major problem with it. They've gone out of their way to discredit it. RJII 19:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, they don't try to discredit ind-anarchism. They only try to discredit a-capitalism. -- infinity0 19:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Try reading "Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism?" [12] I'm not going to argue with you any more on this. It's all right there. RJII 19:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, where do they say in this section that they accept, or reject individualist anarchism?? They simply present social anarchist critiques of individualist anarchism. Also, look at section J 3.3 and J 3.4 [13] , or section J.3.8 and J.3.9 [14].

You simply cannot prove a systematic bias agains individualist anarchism, and stating critiques of it, along with critiques of many other types of anarchism does not prove bias.

Let me restate; you can say they are socialist, yes. If a reader is intent in reading a bias in this fact, fine. They express a pan-anarchic intention, and you cannot ignore this either. You can stress they reject anarco-capitalism - but in the most neutral way that doesnt imply neither that it is or isnt a commonly held view. We can work on the details of a phrase, or wording, but I have the intention of removing any implications of authors biases, apart from these facts, and expect non-anarcho-capitalist quotes of relevant anarchists, of any type, that denounce or provide criticism of the FAQ if any more contraversy, apart from these facts, is to be made about their alleged bias.. aryah 83.131.140.200 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

But, they explain clearly that they think this, in the FAQ. I understand that their opposition to individualist anarchism should be stated, but it should also be stated that they respect it (unlike a-capitalism) and try to represent and explain it clearly. In the FAQ, their explanation and critique of individualist anarchism are clearly separated, and criticism clearly noted to be criticism, meaning the reader isn't misguided to what is fact and what is opinion. -- infinity0 19:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There are, in fact, two key critiques in the FAQ. One, the criticism of individualist anarchism, is "internal," as the authors consider individualist anarchists to be anarchists, but anarchists with an inadequate alternative to capitalism and the state. The other is "external," in that the authors reject the identification of ancaps as "anarchists" at all. The first criticism is a friendly family dispute, and the authors have been open to comments from individualist anarchists. It seems appropriate to mention both of these criticisms, with perhaps a brief account of their nature. But the meat of the FAQ is elsewhere. Libertatia 21:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

possibly a good suggestion, however, individualist anarchism is not singled out for critique here. But if there was at least a mention of the type 'individualist and some other' or similar, that could work. However expressing critiques is far from bias, but is an opinion; if someone has an idea how to express such critiques as 'friendly family disputes' no problem. aryah 83.131.140.200 21:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

My concern isn't to show "bias" in any negative way, but to correctly place the FAQ as a document. Individualist anarchism is presented as the alternative to social anarchism, and gets a specific rejection in section G.4. Compared to the gentle treatment of other parts of the tradition, that probably constitutes "singling out." Libertatia 21:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologise, i didnt mean to imply that you treated this as bias; but was reffering to an ongoing debate about this, above. Are you sure individualists are especially singled out for critique? Did you see my post above where I link their critiques of some types of social anarchism? Is this critique of individualist anarchism much rougher? Besies, in my proposal, their critique of individualist anarchism would still be stressed more clearly (the only one named), but more like a quantitative difference then 'singling them out'. Couldnt that work - in lines of- 'individualist and other'. But really, it should appear as a minor note, in comparison with the bulk of the article, so untill the article is written, apart from this problematic POV-qeustion stuff, its hard to say that any presentation of it will certanly be NPOV - and why Id advocate cutting down as much as possible on the number of words used to explain the question of their POV.. aryah 83.131.140.200 21:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For this reason, id suggest we either cut the fact that they use individualist etc references, or the quote about their intentions; or find a way to formulate this totaly differently - cuz it seems to me that both are simpy a different strategy to attempt to explain and demonstrate their pan-anarchist intentions, and so in the interest of succintness, one of those (or some new one) is suficcient. It doesnt help going to great lengths to 'justify' them either. aryah 83.131.140.200 21:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that they have "pan-anarchist intentions." They make it very clear that their intentions geared around promoting "social anarchism." RJII 00:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

expressed intentions, nothing more is said with the quote. And nothing more needs to be said - ppl are free to speculate whatever they want about their 'true motives', but editors are not. And in the introduction they do express such intentions (didnt I allready demonstrate this?). Now, Id really like to know on what grounds are you claiming that they are explicidly promoting 'social anarchism' - If I remember right, the idea of the FAQ was to promote anarchism, as an expansion of the idea to criticise anarcho-capitalism. aryah 83.131.140.200 02:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, they're not promoting individualist anarchism. That's self-evident in reading "Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism?" They're promoting social anarchism at the expense of individualist anarchism (including anarcho-capitalism). The difference between their attacks on Tuckerite individualism and anarcho-capitalism is that they will reluctantly grant that Tucker's form is a type of anarchism but allege that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. RJII 03:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is going nowhere; you just repeated yourself. First your logic is faulty. If you say they are obviously not promoting individualist anarchims, I agree with you. If you say they are promoting socialist anarchism at the expense of anything at all, I disagree; no knowledge of logic is needed to see how not promoting A does not imply promoting B. Ive shown the quote about their expressed intentions. Their 'attacks' ??? 'reluctantly'??? 'allege'?? Im sure you will be able to prove the apropriatness of the use of those words.. Aryah 04:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are promoting social anarchism at the expense of individualist anarchism. It's right there in the article [Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism? http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG4.html]. They're denigrating individualist anarchism to make the reader attracted to "social anarchism." RJII 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This was allready mentioned, on few places, you gave no answers to my answers there, I dont intend to repeat myself to infinity, so to make it really short, you are citing, again and again, the fact that they do present criticism of individualist anarhism,(as well as some other types of anarchism), and that they are not individualist themselves. Both these facts are clearly allready said in the article, so whats the issue here?? This is however miles apart from saying they are 'promoting' or 'denigrating' anything, and I have yet to see any examples of such criticism of the FAQ, that is absolutely necessary if this is to be shown as an issue at all. --Aryah 05:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted your changes, for the following reasons:

1)when you add that it was written by socialist anarchists across the world, this undermines what is explicitly claimed there; that individualist anarchists did infact contribute to the FAQ. This is under discussion, and should not be dismissed unless it really proves to be unpossible to prove; i see no reason to dismiss infinitys claim that it is the case, but there is a clear need of proof

They say straight out that "Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." [15] That's THEIR words. If individualist anarchists contributed to the FAQ where is your proof of that? RJII 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So, you have still not been able to provide anything but the same quote, repeted again and again? Tell me now, how does that quote contradict 1) ? Do you believe that absolutely every contributor of this massive FAQ wrote absolutely every page, and was of exactly the same convictions? Ridiculous; this is version 11 of this FAQ, it expanded over time, getting more contributors, these words prove only that the original creators and possibly main contributors were social anarchists, which has been rehashed here so many times that its incredibly tedious..

I have no proof of such contributors at all; I suggest that instead of this childish war, you join us in discussing this article; then youd see that in fact infinity made that claim, he originally proposed the wording which I implemeted, perhaps permaturely, and then slightly reworded; I asked that question and also hope to discover the answer. If it cannot be established, (well, if none of us are able to find out) I agree claims of there being such contributors should be removed. --Aryah 05:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

2)Your definition of social anarchist, first of all is not a proper definition(from the article definition: A definition delimits or describes the meaning of a concept or term by stating the essential properties of the entities or objects denoted by that concept or term. The word or phrase to be defined is the definiendum and the phrase defining it is the definiens. For example, in the definition "a bachelor is an unmarried man", the definiendum is "bachelor",), just an incomplete list. Secondly, its source is not claiming to be giving a definition. Thirdly, there is an article called social anarchism that can be linked if such clarification is of help; there is little reason to clarify used termes here, especially to clarify them so completely falsely. --Aryah 04:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone defines "social anarchism" the same. I defined it as THEY define it in the faq. It's THEIR words. Your reversions are completely unjustified. I'm giving verbatim information from the FAQ and you're deleting it. WHY?! RJII 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You have completely ignored what I said about definitions; this clearly is not a definition, and they do not say it is a definition, so when you clame they define 'social anarchism' thus, that is simply not true. Also, the fact that everyone on the planet dont define 'social anarchism' precisely the same (which is true for any term anyways) is no reason at all to add such definition, when explaining the type and extent of their bias. If this article ever gets written, besides this pov question, which is i hope nearing an end, the article can explain their views about differences of types of anarchism, within that context, along with explaing whatever else the author of the article invisioned to present from that FAQ. In either case, the only way types of anarchism can be presented, on the basis of the FAQ, is through commonality, stated in the quote above, and differences explained in detail below. The incomplete list of some social anarchist groups they gave preliminary in this text is neither definitive, nor significant --Aryah 05:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You and infinity are freaking me out. It's just a simple matter of reporting that they are "social anarchists." They say so right in the FAQ. And, that they "reject individualist anarchism." This shouldn't be an issue. Why try to hide these things that the FAQ writers themselves are stating right out in the open? RJII 06:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry, it wasnt my intention to make this issue any hotter than it allready was; I hoped only to provide another opinion of an article that seemed unbalanced to me. Now, the article does say they are social anarchist. It doesnt say that they reject individualist anarchism, because this is not true (quite the opposite); it does say they present critiques of it, which is. What is your specific objection? I await infinities opinions and hopefully reference, but hasnt this article allready acommodated all the facts you initially found objectionable? --Aryah 06:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you would read what's I've quoted here earlier. They explicitly say that they reject individualist anarchism. Read the section in the FAQ called Why do social anarchists rejects individualist anarchism? Look at the title! In that section that say "However, while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of anarchism -- one with many flaws..." They think individualist anarchism is flawed, so they reject it and choose "social anarchism." RJII 06:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read it, and they never say they reject individualist anarchism. They do not choose much at all in the FAQ; they rather present anarchism. Also, think why the word 'reject' is so necessary for your point - how does it differ in meaning from wording 'express criticism'? The way its used; they mean exactly the same thing, but if it is said that 'they reject id' this has a totaly different conotation; one totaly contrary to the expressed intentions of the entire FAQ. Your point therefore works only by pulling a quote out of context, and then misattributing it. The only way I see this point be neutrally presented, is similarly to 'express criticism of'. The real disagreement is that you present the FAQ to be a 'sectarian' social anarchist FAQ, while the FAQ declaratively attempts a more 'ecumenical' approach, while preserving a socialist identity. There is a huge difference between the two, and I have only your unsupported opinion to contradict such declarations of the FAQ. --Aryah 07:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ writers chose the term "reject" --not me. There is no more NPOV way to represent it then to use THEIR WORD. RJII 07:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Using a selective quote does not ensure NPOV at all, and you both took a quote out of context and misatributed it as attitude of the authors. You have also not adressed my further explanation of a POV difference, which I think is a shame. By this logic you could also say that they 'oppose' platformists, and that they consider syndicalist as inherently inclined to beccoming reformist. This can also be shown through quotes, but it firstly misrepresents their overall tolerant and positive attitude to them that is expressed through much more volumenous exposition of their attitudes, and expression of their ideas, secondly cuz their criticisms are respective and fair opinions, not some biased slander, thirdly because this is an article about the FAQ and defining its perspective, not about the personal attitudes either of authors or even less to generalised attitudes of schools of anarchism the authors feel most drawn towards. There is an explicit effort to giving a balanced overview of 'anarchism', and not just a presentation of one school's orthodoxy here, so there must be a significant difference between the FAQ presentation and their affiliations. The autors are hence leaning toward that school which they feel closest with, but not to the extent of misrepresenting, or being 'anti' any other school of anarchism.

It is simply bizzare that there is only a single, specific, vay a certain point must be made in order for it to seem NPOV to you. Pls think of alternative ways to express this same issue, that are not covered with 'present criticisms'; see if you can find any way to express your thoughts about this point about the FAQ without either being obviously NPOV or fixating on an isolated, contested quote as the only justification of your wording. I wonder if youll find anything. --Aryah 07:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, what's "bizarre" is that you don't want the article to use the very words that the writers of the FAQ want to use to represent themselves and their beliefs. You're doing a disservice to the writers of the FAQ and to the readers of this article. RJII 08:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They dont even use those words; its a streched copy-paste interpretative colague you constructed! And you simply ignored and dismissed all I said above? --83.131.140.200 16:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Present the pan-anarchist

How about something like "The main authors are social anarchists, like the vast majority of anarchists. However, they try to represent all aspects of anarchism, including minor schools, and in the writing of the FAQ, consulted many other anarchists, including non-social anarchists. They cite references from most anarchist theorists, and express their confidence that "quote""...? -- infinity0 21:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

bit long, though not bad, of course Id request removing 'like the vast majority of anarchists.' and 'including minor schools'. Is this 'consulting' to mean that they personally contacted some prominent individualist anarchists, or does consultation here mean simply using them as references? Cuz my impression when reading this was the former; think i hear such implications in the word 'consult' if not specifically used with relation to books etc. aryah 83.131.140.200 22:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, social anarchists are the vast majority of anarchists; leaving that out may cause the reader to think otherwise. Libertatia said up above that the authors had been open to comments from individual anarchists too. The FAQ was a collaborative project and the authors received many contributions from many anarchists. -- infinity0 22:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, might I suggest getting a wikipedia account? That'll you more identifiable, and you won't have to sign your name along with the four tildes every time. You get a user talk page, and a watchlist which shows you changes made to articles you are interested in. -- infinity0 22:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

 :) I opened it few months ago, but I allmost never use it; I have no desires to become an editor, or part of the wiki community, and am on dynamic IP.. I use wiki regularly, and though there are i think many issues with it, it is one of the most amazing thigs Ive seen; all of you regular editors have made a great job, thx! However, Im stretched in interests and obligations, and not particularly drawn to writing articles, so will keep my role simply as an 'active' user; commenting now and then in discussion pages, when seeing something wrong with some article, or having some suggestion/idea, etc, but nothing more than that. For this, registering is usually unnecessary.

I think that the only anarchist population that can be numbered is ppl in anarchist syndicates, but this is hardly a represenative sample. So its difficult to know how many anarchists of any kind live. So claiming 'wast majority' is not easily proven. It is true that such impression is commonplace, and even expressed on few places by anarchist, as you quoted. This makes it only a frequent view/experience (which I share), but not a proven fact. But like I said above, its simply making it harder to make it NPOV (and also appear as NPOV), and is an offtopic info in this article (maybe belonging to anarchism article?), and it doesnt mean much; think that your wording even without such claims shows their 'bias' in its proper relation to the content, so is unnecessary. --Aryah 02:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

also, I saw my mentioning that sections F & G are appendixes created some confusion; think this is interesting to note; along with the comment in the section history of the origins of this FAQ, think that its iteresting to note that those sections are numbered as appedixes, not as the main body of the current FAQ ; this, along with the quote of the authors of the consequences of its origin, paints a more complete picture of the role and extent opposition to anarcho-capitalism has in the FAQ, in comparison with the presentation of general anarchistic themes.--Aryah 02:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There! Think its not bad, though it would be really usefull if you could find exact names or other proof of indidivalist anarchist contributors to it. --Aryah 03:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Did some slight modifications to the wording of it, and added explicit reference to their presentation of critiques of 'individualist and other' types of anarchism. Im also getting a bit confused about how to call 'types' of anarchism - they use the term 'anarchist tendencies', but its a clumsy phrase, can one say types? schools? variants? traditions? something else? Aryah 03:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's good, at the moment. And - RJII, we DO mention that they are social anarchists. But it's just simply not a major issue, since they are trying to present all schools of anarchism, except one. -- infinity0 15:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV but not factual acuraccy tag? I think that NPOV cannot be put in question anymore; but factual accuracy can. It would be a great disservice to the presentation of 'bias' of the faq if there indeed were non-socialists that contributed, and this isnt mentioned; it is definitely worth finding out. However, it has not yet been shown that this is the case. Ill attempt to google up this fact, but an quite ignorant on this topic, so plz try to check it out yourself. Also, did you have in plan to speak more of the FAQ? For eg, the way its structured, or some specificums of how the material is presented. There are many facts about it that should yet be mentioned; first, its massiveness, its use of quotes etc. Its 'institutional affiliations' (I mean, for eg whats it relationship to infoshop.org?) It would be gread for its POV issue if its influence and reception could be mentioned, and demonstrated. Maybe it would be worth mentining in relation to the appendices how they are explicitly written as a responce to Anarchist Theory FAQ - maybe even a link to this faq too; the authors of these criticism give that reference clearly, we could too. Maybe present some overview of the material covered in the FAQ also. It seems to me the article needs much more 'meat'; the wery fact that the question of its bias is the only one mentioned, if its in general a non-issue, which I think is the case, makes issue of this presentation's NPOV, and its also simply a shame not to say more about it. Consider this a request for expansion :) --83.131.140.200 16:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Heres an interesting reference to it - Anarchist FAQ is a part of every stable Debian release [16] Aryah 17:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That's amazing. Should it be included in the article? -- infinity0 18:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Think we should, though not as a part of this 'justification' stuff, but, if there was more info, when speaking of its reception and influence. Look at what Ive found on a (large) individualist site, mutualist.org. When they state links to 'resources', this FAQ, named right at the top, after spunk, is presented like this: "Monumental compendium on anarchist history, theory and practice. Many hundreds of pages. The bibliography alone is incredible." Note also how they say 'anarchist', not 'social anarchist'. [17] Its also fundamental reference on numerous large anarchist sites, like the flag.blackend, of course infoshop.org, its on the zmags anarchist watch , and Ive seen a lot of ppls homepages and blogs speaking most highly of it. Will continue the search for more info.--Aryah 19:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Reiterating the NPOV issue

All I'm asking for the article to be NPOV is very simple.

• Note that the FAQ was written by "social anarchists" rather than simply "anarchists." Source: "Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated with individualist anarchism, only that we think social anarchism is more appropriate for modern society, that it creates a stronger base for individual freedom, and that it more closely reflects the sort of society we would like to live in." [18]

 ????? read the article, its noted. --Aryah 19:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note what they mean by "social anarchists." Source: "(communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and so on)" [19]

why? how is it relevant? and is there any source claiming communist-anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist are not social anarchists? Since it says and so on, there is nothing more this source says but that those two are social anarchists? --Aryah 19:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note that they reject individualist anarchism --because they think it is flawed. Source: "social anarchists reject the individualists' conception of anarchy, simply because it can, unfortunately, allow hierarchy (i.e. government) back into a free society in the name of "liberty" and "free contracts." Why Social Anarchists Reject Individualist Anarchism "However, while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of anarchism -- one with many flaws" [20]

this is false, your quote clearly shows they personally dont state any such rejection, what it states is that they personally think individualist anarchims is a form of anarchism with many flaws. read above my ansver to your misinterpretation of the 'we'. I see no reason at all to make a long teatrise about their supposed intensive bias, based only on your personal, and unsupported opinion that this is so --Aryah 19:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, they the writers of the FAQ are not speaking for all anarchists. They make this very clear. Why there is so much resistance from a couple people here to simply state what the FAQ writers found important to state is baffling. They're clearly being very honest by making their POV explicit when they "put [their] cards on the table." This article should be honest as well instead allowing of a couple people trying to obscure this information. RJII 19:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They speak (or try to) for most anarchists and saying they are social anarchists from the outset and making this the main point about the authors compromises the reader's view of that fact. -- infinity0 19:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They certainly aren't speaking for individualist anarchists. RJII 19:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

But they do. They clearly explain what individualist anarchism is about. -- infinity0 19:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In order to show that it's "flawed." RJII 19:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, their criticism is separate from their explanation. -- infinity0 19:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course. It makes sense to explain something before you criticize it. RJII 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They are clearly separated, 3 sections apart. -- infinity0 19:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your objections have allready been discussed. You have simply repeated yourself whenever any issue was made with your NPOV objections, broke off the discussion, and repeated the same objections on another place. This isnt going anywhere. Also check above about its acceptance by at least some individualist anarchists. --Aryah 19:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that treating the FAQ as "pan-anarchist" is entirely accurate or useful. I might even be siding with RJII on this one. While we're reiterating, let me give my own (mutualist/individualist) perspective on this one more time. It's up to those of you more invested in this article to decide if it matters. There are only two potential anarchisms which are given their own lettered sections in the FAQ. One, anarcho-capitalism, is rejected as non-anarchist. The other, individualism, is in fact "rejected" because it appears inadequate in its anti-capitalism. In fact, the authors of the FAQ give us individualists points for good intentions, but, as section G.4 makes clear, don't hold out much hope that individualist anarchists could actually create an anarchist society. If the premises of G.4 are correct, and the characterization of individualism is complete, the criticism found there is pretty damning. It's hard to read that section any other way. The misanthropy of certain kinds of "green anarchism" or the dangers of hierarchy sneaking back into religious anarchism are certainly not given the same attention. When the FAQ was written, individualist anarchism and mutualism were the battlefield. I started out as one of the left-anarchist researchers in those battles and ended up a mutualist. The FAQ writers ended up somewhere else. We're friends, but that does not change the fact that we're pursuing somewhat different agendas. The FAQ is a finely researched, finely argued document, with which I disagree in a variety of ways. For whatever that's worth... Libertatia 20:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So, it should be noted that the authors disagree with individualist anarchism - but in quite a different and less intensive way than they argue against anarcho-capitalism. They still try to represent what individualist anarchism is about, though; I think that while the whole FAQ is not pan-anarchist, the first few sections where the authors explain each type of anarchism thoroughly, is. -- infinity0 20:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, they try to represent what individualist anarchism is --but in a negative light, obviously. They are rejecting individualist anarchism because they think it's too similar to anarcho-capitalism or would lead to anarcho-capitalism, but they'll concede that it's anarchism. They reject anarcho-capitalism and allege that it's not a form of anarchism. RJII 20:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, they don't represent it in a negative light. They represent it fairly and thoroughly so that the reader knows what it is, then three sections later they explain why they are against it. -- infinity0 21:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And that criticism is putting it in a negative light, obviously. They're saying it's a philosophy "with many flaws." RJII 21:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, the FAQ is clearly POV. It's not an NPOV FAQ by any means, and, thankfully, the writers openly admit that. An NPOV FAQ wouldn't say one form of anarchism is better than another or that another is "flawed" or "dangerous," etc. RJII 21:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by POV? The FAQ contains the POV of the authors, but the sections which do not are not biased. The whole FAQ is not biased, there exist sections in it where the authors explain their own POV, and admit it. You can't say because of that that the "FAQ is clearly POV". -- infinity0 21:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They make a value judgement on which kind of anarchism is better to hold than another. They say they that social anarchism "has many flaws" and that "social anarchism" is "more appropriate." If that's not POV, I don't what is. There is no way we could get away with saying that on Wikipedia, because we have an NPOV policy. All I'm saying is to note what that POV is --that they "reject the individualists' conception of anarchy." RJII 21:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They clearly state that "they think this". "That they think this" is not POV, because nobody else thinks that they think otherwise. -- infinity0 21:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Why do social anarchists reject ind anarchism" is not POV, as social anarchists do reject ind-anarchism. They make it clear who thinks this, and so on. So, the FAQ is reliable in that it does not lie about who thinks what, and what is fact and what is opinion. -- infinity0 21:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You folks are arguing different points. RJII is quite correct that the authors of the FAQ have a non-neutral POV. In order to preserve the NPOV of the entry, it might be appropriate to note that fact. As RJII considers it important, and as it is entirely accurate to note their rejection, maybe you should just relent on this one. Libertatia 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

of course its not a wiki NPOV FAQ; there is no dispute here i believe; I specifically said so above. However, it is not 'anti' any anarchist ideology, its not 'sectarian'. It is fair in presentation of different ideologies, and respective in explaining where they disagree. There is a huge difference here, and this must be represented in the article for it to be a NPOV article about the FAQ. Btw, where does it say 'dangerous'? --83.131.145.94 21:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont think its pan-anarchist either. In any case, such label should definietly not be used in the article. I was loosly using 'pan-anarchist intentions' (never pan-anarchist) , just in this talk, to describe their presentation of a wide array of types of anarchism in an attempt to write, but from their pov, an comprasensive overview of all anarchism. I agree with most of what you said, Libertatia, (and infact am personally not yet decided between communist and mutualist) and want to ask how that fact should be presented. Currently, this fact is presented with the statemend 'However they present some critiques of individualist and other tendencies of anarchism.' or something like this, i was typing from my memory - check the article to make sure that this is exact wording there used. Is this nevertheless a too mild way of putting it? Can you think of a specific wording you would suggest as a NPOV way of explaining this?

Also, do you think that the way mutualist.org presents this FAQ (above) as a generall way mutualists would see this FAQ, if needing to present it in one sentence, or is this a particulary endorsing way to put it, for a mutualists? The last question is simply to have an idea what its NPOV would be; i have no intention of using this quote or its rephrase in the article. --83.131.145.94 21:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Libertatia that their critiques of individualist anarchism must be noted. I am only opposed to a specific way of expressing this fact. RJII is insisting on a specific wording, created by a creative mixing of a couple of different quotes, taken out of context. I have a problem on the NPOV only with that way of presenting it, especially if insisting that this is simply repeating what the FAQ itself says; this simply isnt true. FAQ's bias, but presented in its real extent must definitely be noted. I am simply interested in alternative ways of wording it. Also , that bias is currently reported; how should it be altered, why isnt the way its said NPOV enough?? aryah --83.131.145.94 21:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

author names

this is a list of authors and contributors:

     Iain McKay (main contributor and editor)
     Gary Elkin
     Dave Neal
     Ed Boraas

We would like to thank the following for their contributions and feedback:

     Andrew Flood
     Mike Ballard
     Francois Coquet
     Jamal Hannah
     Mike Huben
     Greg Alt
     Chuck Munson
     Pauline McCormack
     Nestor McNab

and our comrades on the anarchy, oneunion and organise! mailing lists.

Now, we should check each of those names. At least one should be proven as individualist for this article to be true. And check archives of named mailing lists; i find it more than likely that they found individualist contributions at least there --Aryah 23:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

alternatively, we can simpy mention the participation of ppl of those mailing lists(like in 'as well as imput from various anarchists from... mailing lists') (but this isnt a necessary interpretation of the words above!!), and add the quote, which is a consequence of the GPL-nature of this FAQ: The FAQ is not our "property" but belongs to the whole anarchist movement and so aims to be an organic, living creation. We desire to see it grow and expand with new ideas and inputs from as many people as possible.' We could also simply mail the authors of the FAQ? --Aryah 00:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I was wrong about apendices; I dont know how I missed it --Aryah 00:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed also the talk about their contributors - its still unsupported, but more importandly, it could be explained in the introduction, not the content, since there its authors are presented. Its also not quite true to say they 'consulted' them; there was some wider discussion, judging by the mailing lists references true, but i get an ownership connotation when I read 'consulted'; like they had only as much say as the authors permitted. This is strange, since its a GPL document, and in contradiction with the 'its own life' expressed intentions from the above quote. --Aryah 00:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved the 'present critiques', the most contraversial issue, after their 'most anarchists ..most of this..' quote; This way its not 'drowned' by being placed after 'present diverse..' and this quote, but it has the last word on this 'bias' topic. Also reworded it a bit to emphasize 'individualist' more. Think this strenghtenes the role of this individualist critique a lot. As counterbalance (and pure fact), I tried working in this 'not our property' and 'living creation' quote in the introduction, next to GPL explanation. Think thats also a potential place to put Debian reference. --Aryah 00:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

this is from a mutualist site, [21], linked on mutualist.org, and presented there as An individual anarchist site that stresses the socialist aspect of Tucker and Spooner. about this FAQ:

This is an excellent site. It is mainly from a social (rather than an individualist) anarchist viewpoint. Also with an excellent article on Lysander Spooner on the subject of how he was anti-capitalist. The specific link is at:http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secG7.html Also an article on the same subject of Benjamin Tucker and how he was certainly anti-capitalist at:.. I think even this is far far less a POV way of presenting it than stating they 'reject' individualist, though Im not sure, since I have a different presedant from a much larger mutualist website, above, that it is necessary. Its a simple matter of first simply stating 'from a social pov', and stopping at that, and continuing to explain its wastness, its inclusiveness, fair presentation, and all other things that make it an important document that it is. Though Id still keep, maybe even shortened, notice that they dont consider anarcho-capitalists to be anarchists, cuz clearly there are at least some (some individualists) anarchist that disagree --83.131.145.94 02:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Just like the Mutualist sight says, the FAQ is from a "social anarchist viewpoint." All this is very clear. They even say it themselves! You two guys need to stop deleting mention of this in the article. RJII 05:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This site is literary the only place on the internet where Ive found any mention of the bias of the FAQ, and even there it doesnt say from a 'social anarchist viewpoint', but 'mainly from a social anarchist viewpoint'. Its just a question of how that mention is worded. Its also important to note that a more important mutualist site saw no reason to say anything about any bias, and called the FAQ simply 'anarchist'. Also, this statement is a praise of the FAQ, not a dismissal on terms of its bias, the pov is only mentioned in passing. Also, in support of the claims of a NPOV presentation of individualist anarchism in the FAQ, where its presented, this mutualist site also references it as 'exelent presentation'. This demonstrates a thorough and fair presentation of non-socialist anarchisms, admitted even by the later criticised types of anarchism, and this has to be somehow presented in the article too. This was also my original idea when I commented about this article - sure, to be candid about their standing in the anarchist spectrum, but to make as little issue about their bias in the article as possible, cuz it is generally a non-issue. So, currently, their bias is stated on two ways; it says the authors are socialist anarchist, and, after mention of their inclusiveness, it says however they present criticisms of some.. particularly individualist. I think current presenation in general is pretty NPOV, all issues about it are adressed at least somehow, though exact balace may be still questioned, but it can be tweaked by minor changes, but its still possible that there could be a simpler and more elegant way of dealing with this (it does feel a bit clumsy, but thats no reason not to keep it at the end anyways). I hope more comments and suggestions about this will be presented here; this deliberative democracy thing seems to be an extremely slow process, but it is progressing. You are wrong about they saying exactly that its 'from a social pov', but i agree that at most what can be said is that this may be mainly true. So I will revert this, for two reasons; first you are multiplying both places and instances of mentions of their bias; if it is to be mentioned, and i think more discussion of it is first needed, it should be mentioned in the content, not in the introduction, and then both mentioning that it is written by socials and that they present critiques of individualist anarchism is superfluos, cuz its implied by simply stating 'mainly socialist pov' or whatever version of this, in such scenario, is accepted. Also, you mention in in a place where it is completely false; there is nothing to indicate that it was an attempt to present anarchist ideas and theory to those interested in it from a social pov - it was, according to the FAQ, and lacking any contradictory information, an atempt to present anarchist ideas and theory... Now, this attempt may have been written mainly from a social pov, but this quite is different from claiming that is was an attempt to present anarchist ideas and theory from a social pov. Plz, discuss ideas of alteration here first; since the wording its clearly a disputed, and therefore delicate, if you are altering simply to stress your point. I think the easiest way of seeing this progress more smoothly would be if much more ppl commented about it, and if ppl were more active.

A personal request, RJII; your contribution here, however well-intentioned and legitimate in claims it may be, was regularly not cooperative; i saw no effort to adress others ppls arguments and issues, but only great deal of effort in arguing your case. Im no wiki layer, but this seems to be in complete contrast with the spirit of this place, and would like to request you try to be a bit more self-reflexive in the future. Beleve me, though of course like the rest of us, I to have personal opinions and resulting bias, I am honestly trying to adress, raised issues about this as much as possible, have put forth varying proposals about the disputed issues of the article, of varying povs, and to mitigate my personal bias's influence on the resultant articles and views, through reflecting upon it, without loosing critical judgement in the process, but this can work only when a mutual effort. It may be that hostility that sometimes grew in this place was partly, uncosciously, due to a percieved lack of such effort of 'the other side' (frankly, yourself). Regardless of possibly differing views, its quite possible to work together on an article, if everyone makes a conscious effort not only in presenting an argument, but also in cooperating. Apologies if this is preaching, it sure sounds like that to me :) ; however i did felt it necessary to adress this, and knew no better way of expressing myself. aryah --83.131.145.94 06:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you really have to write an essay over such a simple matter? This is ridiculous. All I'm saying is to note that the FAQ is written by "social anarchists" and that they oppose individualist anarchism. They say this themselves. This should not be a matter of any substantial debate. At this point, I'm finding it really difficult to assume good faith of you. The other person fighting this, I'm way past assuming good faith. He's even deleting the NPOV banner and then deleting my comments about it from this talk page. RJII 08:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You have difficulty assuming good faith in me cuz I wrote an 'essay', which you completely ignore in your comment, because this 'simple matter' - and they you again repeat two now completely false points - the article does say it was written by social anarchists and they dont ever say that they oppose individualist anarchism, as Ive demonstrated in countless previous places where you claimed this - 'should not be a matter of any substantial debate' ???? I beg your pardon??? Also, note that this 'essay' didnt even talk about either of these two insistantly raised and never adressed non-issues. And then at the end, you adress to me the issuess you have with infinity?? How can they be relevant ?????? --Aryah 08:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How many times do I have to show you the same quotes from the FAQ over and over again? "to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." [22] "social anarchists reject the individualists conception of anarchy, simply because it can, unfortunately, allow hierarchy (i.e. government) back into a free society in the name of "liberty" and "free contracts....However, while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of anarchism -- one with many flaws" Why Social Anarchists Reject Individualist Anarchism RJII 08:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Are you still going to keep saying they don't reject individualist anarchism? It's right there in front of your eyes! RJII 09:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You can qoute them however many times you want, but they still wont mean what you want to make them to mean, to quote from prior discussion then, apologies for the volume, but there is simply so much volume of discussion about this quote that you avoided in previous discussions:

They don't say "we reject individualist anarchism" so you can't say they do. They say that social anarchists in general reject individualist anarchism. Something like "the authors classify anarchism into two schools major types, social and individualist anarchism, which disagree on some issues. the authors call themselves social anarchists." -- infinity0 18:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Notice also the sentence in question - they cannot reasnobly claim that 'social anarchist' consider individualist anarchist to be a type of anarchism, cuz they are no spokesmen for 'social anarchist', and further, cuz its quite concievable there to be an entire spectrum of differing opinions amongst various social anarchist, and some marginal, extreme or ignorant views might indeed be that individualist anarchist are not a form of anarchism. Therefore the sentence doesnt read '..we (ie the social anarchist that disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists)...' , but 'while socialist anarchist (in general, as a 'school') disagree,...., we (i.e. in any case, the authors) consider...' So, it is clearly not the case that they are speaking about themselves as representatives of the social anarchists that disagree; there is no such equating; but where, after explaining general, inter-school criticisms, they also, added to it, shortly mention their, tolerant, but critical, view of them.

this is false, your quote clearly shows they personally dont state any such rejection, what it states is that they personally think individualist anarchims is a form of anarchism with many flaws. read above my ansver to your misinterpretation of the 'we'. I see no reason at all to make a long teatrise about their supposed intensive bias, based only on your personal, and unsupported opinion that this is so --Aryah 19:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

this is ridiculous; just because they identify with socialist anarchism, and speak of (stating that clearly) social anarchist critiques of individualist anarchism, does not by any streach of imagonation mean that they personally 'reject' individualist anarchism, exept in the sense that they are not themselves individualist. And again to stress this, individualist anarchism is not the only type of anarchism of which there are expressed critiques in the FAQ, so naming only individualist anarchism as criticised is not NPOV. It is also not NPOV to state every type of anarchism criticised; in fact it would be a less well rounded FAQ if it lacked such critiques, and if there are uncriticised types of anarchism there, in that much the FAQ is incomplete; i see no reason to believe that the authors would be especially hesitant to include such critiques. To say or imply the FAQ is anti-individualist is impossible by any strech of imagination. It may not be an FAQ attempting to hold to a wikipedia NPOV policy, but that wasnt their intention; it is however attempting to be as open and tolerant of all types of anarchism, while expressing, argumentedly and respectively, their reasons for disagreements. aryah 83.131.140.200 21:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, where do they say in this section that they accept, or reject individualist anarchism?? They simply present social anarchist critiques of individualist anarchism. Also, look at section J 3.3 and J 3.4 [23] , or section J.3.8 and J.3.9 [24].

You simply cannot prove a systematic bias agains individualist anarchism, and stating critiques of it, along with critiques of many other types of anarchism does not prove bias.

I have read it, and they never say they reject individualist anarchism. They do not choose much at all in the FAQ; they rather present anarchism. Also, think why the word 'reject' is so necessary for your point - how does it differ in meaning from wording 'express criticism'? The way its used; they mean exactly the same thing, but if it is said that 'they reject id' this has a totaly different conotation; one totaly contrary to the expressed intentions of the entire FAQ. Your point therefore works only by pulling a quote out of context, and then misattributing it. The only way I see this point be neutrally presented, is similarly to 'express criticism of'.

The real disagreement is that you present the FAQ to be a 'sectarian' social anarchist FAQ, while the FAQ declaratively attempts a more 'ecumenical' approach, while preserving a socialist identity. There is a huge difference between the two, and I have only your unsupported opinion to contradict such declarations of the FAQ.

--Aryah 07:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Using a selective quote does not ensure NPOV at all, and you both took a quote out of context and misatributed it as attitude of the authors. You have also not adressed my further explanation of a POV difference, which I think is a shame. By this logic you could also say that they 'oppose' platformists, and that they consider syndicalist as inherently inclined to beccoming reformist. This can also be shown through quotes, but it firstly misrepresents their overall tolerant and positive attitude to them that is expressed through much more volumenous exposition of their attitudes, and expression of their ideas, secondly cuz their criticisms are respective and fair opinions, not some biased slander, thirdly because this is an article about the FAQ and defining its perspective, not about the personal attitudes either of authors or even less to generalised attitudes of schools of anarchism the authors feel most drawn towards. There is an explicit effort to giving a balanced overview of 'anarchism', and not just a presentation of one school's orthodoxy here, so there must be a significant difference between the FAQ presentation and their affiliations. The autors are hence leaning toward that school which they feel closest with, but not to the extent of misrepresenting, or being 'anti' any other school of anarchism.

It is simply bizzare that there is only a single, specific, vay a certain point must be made in order for it to seem NPOV to you. Pls think of alternative ways to express this same issue, that are not covered with 'present criticisms'; see if you can find any way to express your thoughts about this point about the FAQ without either being obviously NPOV or fixating on an isolated, contested quote as the only justification of your wording. I wonder if youll find anything. --Aryah 07:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They dont even use those words; its a streched copy-paste interpretative colague you constructed! And you simply ignored and dismissed all I said above? --83.131.140.200 16:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me also add that your colague is constructed from taking a quote at their end of explanation of types of anarchism, at the last paragraph of section A.3.1 [25] where they simply adress readers curiosity about their personal convictions, clearly indicated by the joking 'putting cards on the table' , which also demonstrates a clear difference between their personal conviction and the presentation they attempt to make in the FAQ, then a quote first from the title of section [26], and in the content of this section, the only mentiones of differences explain that wording only using statements like 'part company' , and explaining it just as an unsuccesfull in strategy (like free markets, which 'create numerous problems').. Then to claim that the title reffers specifically to the pov the authors are using in the article, and not simply an exposition of the general social anarchist critique of individualist (without which the faq would be incomplete anyways), you combine this unclarified wording of the title with the end paragraph of that section, where you completely twist its meaning, identifying 'social anarchist' with 'we' without any reason but that they are stated in the same sentence, and ignoring the fact that in this closing paragraph, they actually are closing this only section of its criticism attempting to 'bury the hatchet', so to speak, again reiterating both the value and possibilities of appropriatnes of individualist anarchism, and in fact, only to speak in such peacemaking way do the authors present the 'we' you use here as indication of identification with the criticisms, which is therefore constructed. So, by taking last paragraphes, sort of closing words, of two totaly unrelated sections, combined with the title of the latter, all of them taken out of their context (which I tried to present here), and one of them being totaly misinterpreted, you now string them togeter and cut the respective sentences on a point you find convenient, to hence invent the claim that authors reject individualist anarchism. And moreover, you ignore the fact that they criticise other types of anarchism for eg in J 3.3 and J 3.4 [27] , or section J.3.8 and J.3.9 [28]., making it impossible to prove any sistematic bias agains one particular strain of anarcism, and to add to all this, refuse any attempt of rewording this construction, claiming it to be NPOV and 'what the authors said', as if you quoted them saying any of it at all.

In any case, note that my last rewrites were all attempting to adress your NPOV issues; you simply ignored this too, and made another pov edit. Well, Im not continuing like this, thats for sure; what suggestions of exact, NPOV wording do you have about this article then? How should the 'content' section be written, then? Plz be specific. Also all these misreadings might wery well have been a genuine mistake, of maybe Im mistaken here, but i dont see how ignoring this presentation of them can be mistakenly omitted, again; so, if you plan on continuing to use these quotes as argument, adress abovementioned objections to them, point by point. Othervise you are making it extremely difficult for myself to see your actions in good faith, and since you refuse to justify them, implicitly then admitting their flawedness, I see no reason not to simply delete any further use of these quotes as arguments. --83.131.145.94 09:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The Geocities site is the main one.

As I found out when looking for the latest version the other month. It is updated on Geocities, then on Infoshop.  :) -harrismw

Oh right... but Infoshop.org is the main website, though - and all the redirected domains such as anarchyfaq.org link to the Infoshop.org copy, not the geocities copy. Besides, at the current time of writing, the geocities site is down. -- infinity0 15:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why POV?

RJII, please list down reasons why the current article is POV, succinctly, so that we can address the issue if it exists. 15:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, not another repetition - let me repeat, if 'they state they reject individualist' & similar is said without any comments on my conterarguments, point by point, as presented above, I consider this a silent admittal and will delete such repetition. This must be setteled allready. I will not change this article again and am franky getting quite fed up with this, and wondering what administrative & communal means exist on wiki to stop this nonsence; how about you suggesting an exact wording you consider NPOV, so we can criticise and modify from that? --Aryah 16:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If RJII thinks the wording is POV, then he could suggest a NPOV wording. Please do so here and we'll see how it is. -- infinity0 16:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

you are probably right about the reword. Could you plz comment about your feelings on the 'mainly social anarchist viewpoint' - related wording? Perhaps it can be made workable, and that would remove both 'are social anarchist' and 'express critiques' parts - saying the 'bias' more explicity, while diminishing its emphasis in the body of the article, similarly, though a bit more NPOV, to the mutualist site I quoted above? I honestly cannot say if this would be more or less NPOV in comparison to the current state, but it certanly would seem to me to be more simple, stylistic, straightforward. What do you think? Would this have any problematic implications later? As a demonstrative and only prototypical example of such wording, let me suggest for instance, 'The FAQ is written mainly from a social anarchist viewpoint, though it presents and explains (or: attempts to?) diverse types of anarchism. They cite references from most anarchist theorists, and express their confidence that most anarchists will agree with most of what we present and respect those parts with which they do disagree with as genuine expressions of anarchist ideas and ideals. Anarcho-capitalism is not represented as anarchism by the FAQ. ' In this option, all other info said about anarcho-capitalism in relation to sections of the FAQ could be a part of presentation of topics of different sections, if you intended to write about that in the 'content' section. This way there would be equal data, and a lesser emphasis on their treatment of anarcho-capitalism.

P.S. RJII, as I promised, i deleted your reference to 'reject individualist anarchism', untill you prove this is the case, by responding, point by point, to my counterarguments above. --Aryah 18:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How many times do I have to show you the same quotes from the FAQ over and over again?

{deleted} Infinitely many, up untill you adress my numerous rebuttals. --Aryah 18:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You asked me to prove that they reject individualist anarchism. I provided proof. They say say themselves! RJII 18:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, RJII, you miss the point. Read the sections above, there are about 5-6 paragraphs detailing whilst that is true, putting it the way you are doing is a very bad idea. -- infinity0 18:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Putting it the way they do it is the most NPOV way to do it. That way nobody can twist what they're trying to say to suit their own POV. RJII 18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Point answered above, summary: selective quoting is not NPOV. -- infinity0 18:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's absolutely NPOV. RJII 18:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You really believe primary-source quoting cannot be POV? -- infinity0 18:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It can be if taken out of context. But, this is not taking out of context. They explicitly say "social anarchists rejects the individualists' conception of anarchy..." Put fuller quotes if you want. I don't care. Just don't leave out the fact that they're biased against individualist anarchism. RJII 18:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by biased against? How does that biased show in the FAQ? -- infinity0 18:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The writers of the FAQ are biased against individualist anarchism. They explicitly note that. They thought it was important for us to know, obviously. How does that bias show in the FAQ? It's self-evident. They've got a whole section on why individualist anarchism is a "flawed" type of anarchism. RJII 18:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How does the bias show in the rest of the FAQ? In other words, how is it relevant to information about the rest of the FAQ, and therefore the whole FAQ? -- infinity0 18:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm saying is to point out what the bias of the writers is. If they didn't allow their bias to interefere with the accuracy of the rest of the FAQ, great. But, the reader needs to know what their bias is. They thought the reader needs to know as well, which is why they made it abundantly clear. RJII 19:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"What the bias is?" - do they always show a bias? If you say the writers have a bias, then you imply they show this throughout the whole FAQ. Bias is the how the source is compromised. The FAQ is not always compromised with a bias - the authors have their own views but it does not always affect the neutrality of the FAQ. That is what is wrong with your version. -- infinity0 19:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I prove above that it is not only definitely out of context, but that your claim is a creative construction, and numerous other reasons its pov. Again; comment and disprove what I say above, or stop insisting! Also, provide a suggestion on how it should be stated as NPOV, i dont mean a sentece, I mean the whole paragraph, cuz you have failed to do anything comparably constructive yet here. I dont know how this is called on wiki, but the fact that you are again attempting to start yet another argument about the same point, while ignoring previous replies would i believe be commonly refferd to as 'trolling' , but I might be mistaken. But, just in case, im definitely not writing a single sentence more here, to keep to a commonly used online proverb , but am interested only at what can be done about this absurd abuse, through community or administrators. Any suggestions? --Aryah 19:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all implying that that they show this bias throughout the whole FAQ. I'm saying that they have a bias --not necessarily that it's interefering with providing accurate information. But, it could be. The reader needs to know that they "reject the individualists' conception of anarchy" so he's not looking at the FAQ as an objective explanation of anarchism. That's definitely not what it is. They try to show that individualist anarchism is bad and that social anarchism is the way to go. RJII 19:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

By making such a big issue out of it, you are. The current version admits that they criticise individualist anarchism - which is the full extent of their bias. What's the problem? -- infinity0 19:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"The authors also explain why they disagree with some anarchist tendencies, such as individualist anarchism." That's ridiculous. That's not strong enough. They say they "reject" individualist anarchism. Also, the intro says that the FAQ is written by "anarchists". That's not clear enough. It should say it was written by "social anarchists". RJII 19:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

NO they certainly do NOT say "we reject ind anarchism". They say "social anarchists reject ind anarchism" which is an obvious statement. It's got nothing to do with the authors of the FAQ. The sentence is strong enough, since their critique of ind-anarchism is a very minor part of the FAQ. -- infinity0 19:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! How many times do the same quotes have to be shown to you? They explicitly are referring to THEMSELVES. They say "WE": "social anarchists reject the individualists conception of anarchy, simply because it can, unfortunately, allow hierarchy (i.e. government) back into a free society in the name of "liberty" and "free contracts....However, while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, WE do still consider them to be a form of anarchism -- one with many flaws" Why Social Anarchists Reject Individualist Anarchism RJII 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't say "we reject ind-anarchism". You claim you are quoting them exactly, but they do not say they "reject ind-anarchism". -- infinity0 19:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! How many times does this have to be shown to you? "to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." [29] "social anarchists reject the individualists conception of anarchy, simply because it can, unfortunately, allow hierarchy (i.e. government) back into a free society in the name of "liberty" and "free contracts....However, while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of anarchism -- one with many flaws" Why Social Anarchists Reject Individualist Anarchism RJII 19:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The authors do not say they specifically reject ind-anarchism, rather it being an opinion of all social anarchists. Your version implies the former, as opposed to the latter. -- infinity0 19:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! It's right there in front of your face. RJII 19:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It says social anarchists are opposed to ind-anarchism, but not that it is the authors specifically. You are the one trying to quote exact words; they "reject ind-anarchism" is not an exact quote, since the preceding subject noun is "social anarchists" and not "they" and therefore should not be included in the article. -- infinity0 20:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

They are talking about THEMSELVES. They say "WE." "social anarchists reject the individualists conception of anarchy, simply because it can, unfortunately, allow hierarchy (i.e. government) back into a free society in the name of "liberty" and "free contracts....However, while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, WE do still consider them to be a form of anarchism -- one with many flaws" Why Social Anarchists Reject Individualist Anarchism RJII 20:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

They do not use the word "reject" to refer to themselves. Your version makes it sound like they say specifically and exactly "we reject ind-anarchism". -- infinity0 20:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop it. They reject individualist anarchism. They make that very clear. RJII 20:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not disputing that. But you can't quote they "reject individualist anarchism" because they do not make that quote, and it makes it sound like they specifically do it, whereas in reality all social anarchists do. -- infinity0 20:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do make that claim. I just showed it to you. RJII 20:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Show me the quote specifically saying "we reject individualist anarchism". -- infinity0 20:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII's version

RJII, please propose what you want the text to read here. We can then tell you what's wrong with it. -- infinity0 21:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII's version

They say that "social anarchists reject the individualists conception of anarchy, simply because it can, unfortunately, allow hierarchy (i.e. government) back into a free society in the name of "liberty" and "free contracts....However, while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of anarchism -- one with many flaws one with many flaws and one perhaps more suited to an earlier age when capitalism was less developed and its impact upon society far less than it is now." Why Social Anarchists Reject Individualist Anarchism RJII 21:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That gives too much space to the point - it is not a major part of the FAQ that they are social anarchists. -- infinity0 21:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a major part of the FAQ that they are social anarchists. They make this clear several times. They say at the outset that they're going to "lay our cards on the table" and lay it out that they are "social anarchists" who reject individualist anarchism. RJII 21:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

But they don't dedicate the whole FAQ to it. They briefly state their position then move on. Only when they have explained all of anarchism do they then move on to their own opinions. In fact, this point only comes across in one or two pages of the whole FAQ. -- infinity0 21:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether they dedicate the whole FAQ to it or not is irrelevant. It's simply true that they reject individualist anarchism and they state their POV that social anarchism is the best kind of anarchism. RJII 21:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The above accounts for a very small part of the FAQ, near the end. -- infinity0 21:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't violated "undue weight." It's a real bias on the part of the writers of the FAQ. It's very important that this is known. RJII 21:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be what everyone else thinks. -- infinity0 22:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a very minor article to be expending this much energy on. For my part, as one of the slighted individualist anarchists, I'm satisfied that the entry sufficiently highlights the POV issue. I don't think anyone can miss the "bias" of the FAQ if they are reading at all carefully, so I think we have probably more than fulfilled our obligations by pointing out the issues. Anyway, if we have to fight, I'd rather fight about something more important. Libertatia 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Current version

Is this version of content better for everyone? -- Vision Thing -- 08:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing talk

Please *don't* remove talk comments like this [30]. It is impolite, it will get you blocked.

But... having said that, removing NPOV tags is *not* identical to vandalism: they are subject to 3RR like anything else. Removing them when there is clear evidence of a multi-person dispute is Bad Form though. William M. Connolley 14:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering about that. I didn't know if there was template policy or not. RJII 16:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)