Talk:Anarchy/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Clean this up.

This needs serious revisions. The entire bottom section with awful spelling could easily be completely removed - the person who wrote it clearly has a very loose grasp of the concepts and great difficulty articulating themselves.

Also, why is there no mention of Bakunin? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

See anarchism. ~Switch t 11:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can't respond to three users at once

Here's my argument summarized, as I can't respond to so many users at once above.

We emerge with 3 main definitions of anarchy:

  1. anomie
  2. stateless society (to prove Somalia fit this definition, we'd have to prove that it was at one point stateless, a fact which noone on this page disputes.)
  3. anarchist society (all anarchist societies are stateless, have spontaneous order, supported by anarchist ideology, etc.)

The article I linked earlier specifies the difference between anomie and stateless society:

The word “anarchy,” describing a state-less society, was for the first time used by Louis Armand de Lahontan in his Nouveaux voyages dans l'Amérique septentrionale (1703), describing the Indians living in a society without state, laws, prisons, priests, private property, in short, “in anarchy.” Colloquially however, anarchy became identical with confusion and disorder.

This means that to say that a stateless society is the same as anomie is countered by secondary sources. Therefore, this argument can't be taken as fact-- it's a(n) (false) opinion.

My argument is that definitions 2 and 3 are what should be discussed in this article. Number 1 already has its own article. What reason is there to disagree with this? Thanks, --Urthogie 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You still haven't worked this out in a coherent fashion. There is, by the way, an Anarchy in Somalia article which you might want to be involved with. There are even anarcho-capitalists out there who are arguing that things were pretty good in stateless Somalia. But our problem here remains that it is necessary to keep distinct (at the very least) those "anarchies" which result simply from the absense or failure of a state and those which are related to the various positive projects of anarchism. As the article stands right now, there is not a framework for that separation. Your initial approach suggests that you would perhaps not be satisfied to simply "discuss" the two categories without attempting to make the first appear somehow illustrative of the second. As "statelessness" appears to be a necessary condition of your categories 2 and 3, it would be possible to restructure the article to discuss mere statelessness, and then discuss anarchist projects, carefully noting the other necessary qualities (present in nearly all anarchisms, however varied they might be) that differentiate class 3 from 2. I think class 2 will ultimately break down into classes of failed states and pre-state societies, and perhaps further beyond that, before there is a coherent schema. Libertatia 23:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would you suggest we can't coherently discuss both definitions 2 and 3? They are both complex, encyclopedic topics, and both definitions are used a lot by secondary sources. Why are you anarchist editors allowed to abritrarily state that we'll only deal with definition 3, when the same word is used both ways, which (as has been noted) are different from anomie..--Urthogie 01:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that I just suggested that we talk about "both 2 and 3," although I have reservations about the approach you have presented. As for "arbitrary statements," it is the case that the article currently discusses 3, and you have just as "arbitrarily" imposed the sense of 2 on it, and in a way which confuses the two senses. Indeed, your initial approach was to conflate 2 and 3. If you have come around to see that that approach was confused and confusing, that's excellent news. Libertatia 14:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You say: Your initial approach suggests that you would perhaps not be satisfied to simply "discuss" the two categories without attempting to make the first appear somehow illustrative of the second. To this, I would say, Why don't you support me in discussing both 2 and 3, and editing towards NPOV? Sarge's version only mentions definition 2 in passing in the lead, and then goes on to only allow discussion of 3. At least with me, who you claim to be POV, you can edit for NPOV. With Sarge's version, you're not even able to discuss both definitions. So why revert to Sarge's version, if not to censor the limits of what the article is able to discuss in the body text? --Urthogie 01:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a variety of ways this could be addressed: reorganization, separate entries, etc. You now appear to be willing to deal with the issues of necessary and sufficient conditions for 3, although you have yet to address them directly, so there is some small hope of including 2 here without creating a false picture of 3. Libertatia 14:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me state it plainly: I respect the goals of the anarchists to create a better society, and I don't think they want to create chaos. However, I also think a wikipedia article on the subject of "anarchy" should discuss definition 2, making sure to specify which stateless societies are the result of anarchist ideology, and which are not.--Urthogie 01:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an ideological response to a logical/factual dilemma, the very sort of thing that has led you to charges of "censorship" and to make snippy comments about "anarchist ideologues." Personally, I would prefer to see some of the duplication in the anarchism and anarchist entries reduced, and would not be particularly to seeing all three definitions of "anarchy" treated here, as long as appropriate separation is maintained. But the taxonomy has to remain clear, and this business of treating mere statelessness as a sufficient condition of 3 either has to be justified or abandoned. Libertatia 14:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lemme be clear. Not all stateless societies (2) are anarchist societieies (3). But all anarchist societies (3) are stateless societies (2). Agreed? If so, lets stop reverting each other and get to work on this?
If you do agree with me in my above sentiment, then why is (3) not a subsection of (2)? Thanks, --Urthogie 19:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll reply at more length shortly, but it seems to me that both 2 and 3 are instances of a more general rule, which would also include 1, which is not particularly tied to statelessness. Until the general principle of which 1, 2, and 3 are instances is better presented in the article, it will be hard to organize. Time, I guess, to look at the OED and see if there's a simple organizational solution. Libertatia 20:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The OED acknowledges two sorts of "anarchy," disorder relating from the interruption or failure of a "supreme power" and a society without government, explicitly described in terms of liberty. It seems sufficient to me to distinguish between anarchy as a product and anarchy as the failure of a project. If we want to keep things narrowed down to the political realm, then "statelessness" is an appropriate lowest common denominator, although "anarchy" (in the sense, I suppose, that we are giving "anomie") doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the state or government. Libertatia 21:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like your recent edits, although I do see them as somewhat POV. "Mere statelessness"? Kind of sounds like a bit of POV against anarchies that are statelessness but not anarchist inventions.--Urthogie 20:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The phrase is a clear, short way of describing a condition in which nothing but statelessness is implied. I'm guessing the structure of the article will change in ways that will make a different header more appropriate, but, for now, it does the necessary work. Libertatia 21:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you happen to know what the scholarly term is for differentiating them? I can figure out if you don't want to.
Secondly, I noticed that a big problem still remains in the article. The only two types of anarchies discussed are
  1. Anarchy as a mere statelessness and
  2. Anarchist communities and anarchist thought
This completely ignores tribal societies that weren't "mere statelessness" but also weren't "anarchist communities" because they weren't started by anarchists. I think it's ridiculous to claim they were anarchist communities, as that's little more than an appropriation of their social structure by modern-day anarchists. This whole dillema seems to result from the fact that we don't subcategorize "stateless societies" into the following:
  1. Tribal anarchies
  2. Anarchies that result from political strife and gangs
  3. Anarchist communiteis/projects
This seems to me to be a pretty solid way of dividing them up, rather than this POV structure we have right now.--Urthogie 01:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that not having a state effectively makes something an anarchy. Yet this is not true. No credible sources claim that Somalia is an anarchy. [1] Many credible sources say that Somalia is in anarchy. [2] Note that your BBC source says "in anarchy" and not "an anarchy". You have not provided a credible source that Somalia is "an" anarchy. The terms have vastly different meanings. Being in anarchy refers to a societal condition wherein there is anomie and chaos following the termination of a state. Being an anarchy refers to a society built around anarchist principles. Owen 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Owen, be logical for a second.

  1. Was it a stateless society? Yes.
  2. Is there a definition of an anarchy as a stateless society? Yes, Urthogie linked it.
  3. Was Somalia also in anarchy, an anomie? Yes, as you pointed out.

Clearly, Somalia fits both definitions 1 and 2. An encyclopedia doesn't need a source to prove that definitions have meanings.--Urthogie 21:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Urthogie, this unilateral restructuring of the article is better than your earlier attempt, but right now there is not anything close to a consensus that such a restructuring is necessary. As it reads now, the article is entirely incoherent. It needs either a decisive, coherent edit, or to be restored to its previous focus. Libertatia 21:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want it to be coherent as well, but if I took such a big step one of you big bad anarchists would revert me. Please avoiding doing that and instead fiscuss how we can structure the article... what's incoherent about it right now exactly?--Urthogie 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you haven't given a definition. I don't even know how you've convinced yourself what you gave is a definition. It only says in passing that the first time anarchy was used in the sense of a stateless society was in 1703. It's not even remotely a definition, because it's simply disambiguating between more than one use of the term anarchy. It's true that an anarchy is a stateless society. But that doesn't mean an anarchy is defined strictly as a stateless society. It's just saying it's one defining characteristic. The only reason why the word "stateless" is used instead of "anarchist" is because anarchism didn't even exist in 1703.
Anyway, what you're doing IS original research, according to Wikipedia policy. [3] . Taking two sources and "logically" putting them together to make a conclusion is forbidden by policy. You can't take a definition of anarchy and a description of Somalia and put them together to say Somalia is an anarchy. You have to find a single source saying Somalia is an anarchy.
To be fair, the article itself looks pretty good to me at present, but I would like some actual source claiming Somalia as an anarchy, rather than stringing together sources (which is not permissible). Owen 00:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on your approach I could call anything original research, by challenging dictionary and sourced definitions for every single English word. It would be original research to assume that the word "hello" meant hello. Be reasonable, Sarge! Your argument is centered on arguing over particles like "an" and "is". Even if there was a source that said "Somalia is an anarchy", that could still be vaguely taken several ways, so that google search really doesn't prove anything either way. Please stop being a dick.--Urthogie 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not an and is. An and in. "In" refers to a condition, e.g. "in anger", "in retribution", "in anomie". "An" refers to an object. Being in anarchy necessarily refers to a condition, and therefore refers to definition #1: a state of disorder due to lack of government or control. Being an anarchy refers to an object, and therefore we use definition #2: a society founded on the principles of anarchism. An anarchy can't even be in anarchy, or it ceases to be an anarchy, since a necessary component of an anarchy is that it operates on spontaneous order. I'm not trying to be "a dick". I just think we need to source things properly. The point of this encyclopedia is to accumulate knowledge from various sources, not to state as fact things that apparently can't be corroborated by anyone. Owen 00:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aren't we accepting as fact that words have meaning by using them to communicate coherent sentences in our articles? Isn't that a bit of a logical POV and a rational POV? My point is that the degree of verification you're requiring, if applied to the above questions, would lead to ridiculous results.--Urthogie 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then your point is wrong. It isn't "nitpicking" when the entire meaning of the sentence is changed. Provide a source, because yours does not support your claim. Words have meanings. But they also have different meanings in different contexts, and you're playing with that. ~Switch t 08:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I explicitly used definitions provided by secondary sources, to specify each denotation of the word-- I did this specifically so that meanings aren't misunderstood. That's not "playing with it". Playing with it would be ignoring basic logic that is required to even understand english sentences (what Owen has been doing).--Urthogie 19:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find it strange you're questioning my use of English grammar to understand sentences. You pulled a definition out of a sentence completely incorrectly, and somehow continue to feel it is adequate. I provided numerous good sources and you replaced them due to your preference for one that doesn't even validate what you're saying. That sentence doesn't "define" anarchy as a stateless society. If it did, then why doesn't the sentence "The word “orange,” describing a fruit, was for the first time used by..." define orange as a fruit? It's one thing to interpret the meaning of a sentence, it's another to interpret a sentence incorrectly and in contradiction to every other definition. You've edited out the dictionary sources that gave a direct definition of anarchy and replaced them with sources that don't even give a definition of anarchy. This is just ridiculous. And I would appreciate you stop with the personal attacks. It doesn't make communication very easy. Owen 08:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You said: That sentence doesn't "define" anarchy as a stateless society. If it did, then why doesn't the sentence "The word “orange,” describing a fruit, was for the first time used by..." define orange as a fruit? The article goes on to use that definition of stateless society for the rest of the article. Do you think it pointlessly mentions the stateless societies definition as a complete non-sequitor. To take your analogy, if the article goes on to talk about such oranges, then yes, it does show us that the definition is being used. This is basic logic, and these word games are stupid and pointless.

As far as your attempt at using a dictionary, I removed that to save your argument. If we actually went by dictionaries, you'd have no argument whatsoever:

a state of society without government or law. (

and if you're wondering, Somalia had no government before the ICU, even if the sub-communities might have been temporarily controlled by gun-toting gangs now and then.--Urthogie 19:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yet another discussion about dictionaries

Sigh. We've been through this sort of stuff recently, on various of the anarchism-related pages. The current discussion is a giant step backward. In keeping with Wikipedia's scholarly pretensions, I checked the Oxford English Dictionary, which is one of a small handful or genuinely scholarly dictionaries, and, as I reported above, it still presented a zaxlebax (see definitional concerns in anarchist theory) mishmash of disorder in general, disorder resulting from the absence of a "supreme power," and societies characterized by liberty. The second two sub-definitions were given their own sections. If there is some concensus that this article should be about "anarchy" in an inclusive sense, and if we are to follow the most scholarly of dictionaries, then it seems that the logical arrangement for the article would be something like:

  • Statement of definition, acknowledging tensions
  • Treatment of "general disorder," with link to anomie
  • Treatment of "collapse of government" scenarios
  • Treatment of nongovernmental societies outside political anarchist tradition
  • Treatment of anarchist societies

The last two might switch places in order, depending on how the taxonomy is explained.

A couple more thoughts: Personally, I'm not terribly fond of "tribal anarchies" as a way of describing that category, but can live with it, barring the discovery of some better term. Also, I'm not convinced that treating "anarchist anarchies" as being defined by some spontaneous order is useful, or truly representative of anarchist theory. It seems to me that this disqualifies pretty much every attempt at an "anarchist anarchy" that has been made. There are precedents going back to Proudhon for treating "anarchy" as a limit case ("perpetual desideratum," etc), but I'm not sure we're well served here by adopting that strategy. Libertatia 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I admire your work towards organization and wholeheartedly support the spirit of your suggested edits. The tribal anarchies heading change I'm not so sure about, but that can be argued later. I especially admire your suggestion to discuss the definitional tensions. It should have a {{seealso}} to Definitional concerns in anarchist theory, methinks. Good work, --Urthogie 20:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

simpler way of saying anarchy resulting from political strife —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urthogie (talkcontribs) 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

What does that definition have to do with anarchy? Did you read it? It simply says it's the period of time between successive rulers. For example, there was an interregnum between the death of Pope John Paul II and the election of Pope Benedict XVI. You wouldn't say there was an "anarchy" between the two. At least I sure hope you wouldn't. Owen 21:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur with Owen. Even so, it's a more complex way of saying it, as the usual reader would have to look up the term. It's not in common usage. Lentower 10:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a big deal if you guys want to revert that then.--Urthogie 00:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you call current Somalia an interregnum, and therefore an anarchy, then at least you should remove the word 'only' in the phrase: "Somalia was the only country in the world without a functioning state." There are a lot of countries in state of civil war, with competing authorities or disfunctioning states.
In fact, I think it is highly subjective whether a situation of 'interregnum' can be called a 'stateless' society, as this depends on your definition of state. I have read scholars (for example Charles Tilly) who would rather say this is a 'revolutionary situation', i.e. a situation in which different authorities/groups/rulers dispute over the control of the state (without wanting to abolish the state),or a situation of competing 'states' (this would imply the competing authorities have a territorial base smaller or elsewhere). I think the last thing is more the case: see also the article Anarchy in Somalia. Otherwise one could also say that Somalia is not even a real country nor society, since there is not much of a unity, imagined community or whatsoever.
Personally, I think we maybe should delete this article altogether. Maybe make a small redirect page: 'did you mean anarchy as in 'anarchist society', society as wished for by anarchist idealists? did you mean anarchy as in 'anomie', did you just mean 'chaos'? or did you mean anarchy as in 'interregnum' or vacuum of authority?Tamira C. 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way: I think the organisation suggested by Libertatia is by far the best, so far. Especially because it distinguish between collapse of state, which results in political strife, and intentional absence of state, withouth anarchist ideology: as in the tribal cases. Why isn't it up yet? Tamira C. 00:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The interregnum idea was a fluke, yeah. The general consensus, though, so far is that this page is that it should stay. Would you really see encyclopedia brittanica creating a disambiguation page? No, of course not, it would deal maturely with all aspects of the subject.--Urthogie 04:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somalia was not anarchy. It was chaos. Anarchy is a SYSTEM of government, not the absence of it. Thus, the first part of this article is incredibly biased and flawed, as it misstates what anarchy is, mistaking 'no rulers' for 'no government'. I tried to fix this error but the amendment was removed. This is a simple matter of DEFINITION. Anyone can go to a dictionary and find that anarchy does not mean the absence of government. I mean this is why Wikipedia has such a poor reputation, as it lays itself open to abuse and political spin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Anarchy is not a bad thing. Today many people have corrupted the idea of anarchy with violence. I believe Anarchy is more an Idea of Utopia. (Eventualengineer (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Other language wikipedia's solutions

I looked 'Anarchy' up in several other languages, to see what was their solution:

  • In Dutch: it is a disambiguation, explaining the different meanings and linking to anarchism, to chaos (non-existent article), to the historical Anarchy in England, and to a stub called 'governmentlessness' (which also in Dutch is no word in the dictionary, as far as I know)
  • In Spanish: it was a definition, stating that anarchy means lack of 'rulers' (not state, archos means rule), explaining the different meanings and the positive and negative connotation of the word. Then saying shortly something about the positive interpretations of the word by anarchists, linking to anarchism, liberty and equality.
  • In Portuguese: it is a redirect to anarchism.
  • In German: it states Anarchy is a social political model of organisation in which no domination, no authority and no hierarchy exists, and goes on explaining the anarchist model, with lots of literature-references, and just a late 'see also' anarchism.
  • In French: I think this is the best article: take a look at it, if you read French: it state like the German, that it refers to no authority, no hierarchy etc. but it also pays attention to the common use of the word as anomie, and to the historical change of the word-use. Maybe someone should translate that part! Tamira C. 00:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is a tertiary, unreliable source; even Jimmy Wales, its inventor, tells people not to use it as a reference. So while the anarchy article in other language Wikipedias might be interesting/instructive to compare and contrast, such a comparison can't concretely inform any major decisions (like whether or not to keep it) we make so far as the editing of this article.--Urthogie 04:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia's not reliable as a source, but that has zero relevance. We're not using Wikipedia to cite facts or as a reference, we're looking at how other languages deal with this article and following their example if it's better than our current attempt. I like both the French one and the idea of a disambiguation. ~Switch t 13:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's discuss that in a new thread, then.--Urthogie 18:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge Anarchy into Anarchism?

Please discuss this at Talk:Anarchism#Merge Anarchy into Anarchism?. If the merger goes though, this saves the discussion. It also has all the discussion on one page. I have moved the existing discussion there. Lentower 11:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleaned up redudancy

I cleaned up the redundant anarchist communities stub. Aufheben 17:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More clean up

I have removed lots of extraneous material and put in a bit from Harrington. It would be useful to restore some of the material about the discussion of Anarchy during the English Revolution. I feel that this page should concentrate more on how differing people have considered anarchy, rather than overloading it with the minority views of anarcists which quite rightly can be dealt onthe page for anarchism. Indeed it might help if the anarchism panel is removed, to avoid this sort of confusion.Harrypotter 18:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think you should remove anarchists' views on anarchy. I think that would be a little... not good. Isn't that the point of the article? To discuss anarchy? Anarchists' views should be the most prominent, not the least. ~Switch t c g 13:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure that anyone has suggested removing anarchists' views on anarchy, however I do not see why anarchist views should be privileged in the discussion. What I am suggesting is that there should be better balanced, which by no means that they shoud have least prominence. I am not sure why you have polarised this discussion in such a fashion.Harrypotter 19:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No anarchy in Somalia

The controversy over the Anarchy in Somalia article is enough to preclude its existence in this article. I edited it out. Aufheben 15:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently you have no idea how wikipedia works. It's called Wikipedia:Summary style. You're supposed to summarize long articles, not eliminate them. Your brand of logic seems to suggest removing dalmations from the page on dogs because dalmations have a nice page. --Urthogie 01:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, its incredibly sad that not a single anarchist here reverted you. The anarchists are obviously putting their POV on Wikipedia to a great degree, happily ignoring when breaches in policy go their way.--Urthogie 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's "obvious," is it? Which anarchists are you talking about, as we are hardly a uniform bunch. Haven't you figured out yet that you are essentially the only person interested in this article as currently structured? Your objections to the edits that have been made would make better sense if this article made sense. But it really doesn't. It is not the duty of anyone to put back in poorly conceived treatments of "Somalian anarchy" with which they do not agree. There are very few anarchists editing the pages that actually pertain to anarchism, so this hand-wringing about how they haven't preserved you pet project is just silly. Libertatia 02:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact is that you didn't even respond to his removal, which was based on a misunderstanding of Summary Style. The article makes sense for the most part, actually. The only thing that confuses it is a bunch of ideological masturbation which has more to do with anarchism than anarchy. Also, it may surprise you but I haven't edited this page for a while (it was even off my watchlist for several weeks). Guess what-- the consensus stayed on my ordering of the sections. Imagine that!--Urthogie 02:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think whenever people try to explain what another editor's edits are "based on," they set themselves up for problems. The problem for Aufheben, as I'm reading the note above, is the controversy surrounding the Anarchy in Somalia article, not any mis/understanding of WikiGuidelines. I have already said my piece about the issue of "anarchy in Somalia," and, despite my feeling that its inclusion reflects a mix of original research and undue weight to not particularly notable sources, I worked here to try to put together an outline that would be inclusive. That doesn't mean that what we came up with is something I'm interested in editing or even maintaining. When you come back and start slinging mud because your edits haven't been defended by the people you're so ready to sling mud at, my interest level raises just a bit, but only in a fairly negative sense. This page is largely stalled, in part because you have pushed your POV about "anarchy" on it, and then apparently just walked away. Libertatia 02:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, his removal was based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Controversy does not mean you can remove content on a subject. It's a simple guidelines and policy issue which editors here ignored. My edits have basically stayed, by the way-- a sign that they're not very POV, but much more neutral than the status quo on this subject.--Urthogie 14:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, of course. What he said his edits were based on couldn't have been it. Libertatia 16:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, he accurately described his motivation. He was claiming that the page was controversial so a summary of it had to be removed. This is not how Wikipedia works, and the experienced editors here know it. They did nothing about it.--Urthogie 16:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anarchy? The default state of Africa is chaos. Democracy and peace are transistory there. -God118.95.6.205 (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

english revolution, jamaica not examples of anarchy from political strife

these are both anarchies, but neither results from political strife. The collapse of government would lead to an anarchy from poltiical strife, as it did in somalia. Someone please explain why these subsections are where they are before I move them or delete them.--Urthogie 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have restored them. Yes, Harrington is clearly discussing political strife, as does Nicholas Lawes albeit in a different manner. To meit seems very important to show how the term has been used. I have been trying to find some edits that used to be on the anarchism page about the discussion of anarchy at the Putney debates, which would illustrate how Harrington's remarks resonated more broadly.Harrypotter 09:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Please explain how its political strife, though.--Urthogie 15:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry the word governance was omitted.Harrypotter 14:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

don't be so flippin emo-Ruthless__ 1:03, 29 March 2007

Polynesian hunter-gatherer societies

These have a clear and organised form of government by chiefs. 01:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes, but they have a similar level of power and function to the every day citizens. A pure form of any government can't exist. Democracy? Tends to have senators. Monarchy? Tends to have knights, etc. Same with anarchy. Reverted.--Urthogie 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that's incorrect - chiefs in polynesian socieies have clear privelidges, roles and higher respect to 'ordinary citizens'. there are by the way, no 'ordinary citizens' in polynesian tribes - all peoples have different roles and responsibilities depending on a range of factors eg gender, age, family linage etc. citizenship is a european idea. same wiv anaki - deleted. 10:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't say all polynesian societies. Read it carefully, it refers to specific ones. Also keep in mind that Diamond is referring to life in these tribes before contact with europeans. Reverted.--Urthogie 17:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do hope the edited paragraph is of use. It's all very well going on about what David Graeber thinks about it, but what is Andrej Grubacic's viewpoint, I wonder?Harrypotter 18:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diamond does not mention anarchy at all - and in any case, anthropologists, anarchist anthropologists or apologists for that matter should really be deported to the anarchism page. Surely this page is for examples of anarchy not anarchism or anarchist theory.... furthermore, the specific examples cited have no mention of anarchy and all of them have clear social roles and functions in self government. The Moriori peoples on the Chatams had rituals and councils which were meetings designed to to ritually and collectively decide on peaceful resolutions to conflicts and problems. Even the racist eurocentic Diamond aknowledges that. 00:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, now I'm starting to see where you're coming from. Diamond is a "racist eurocentric." LOL. Yes, his book which argues that geography has determined much of world events is clearly "racist". I'll ignore this craziness, though, as your main point about it is correct. He doesn't explicitly say "anarchy" so it would actually be considered unattributed.--Urthogie 00:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also most (almost all) Polynesian societies are agarian they are not hunter gatherers.--Fang 23 (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have restored some of the deleted material tidying uit up and removing povist deviations.Harrypotter 21:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please give your justification to remove this section here.Maziotis 13:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The defiance of a theory or perspective refers merely to the presentation of facts that back up a vision that point in a different direction. It does not suggest a stronger point of view, or the destruction of the opposite assertions, at all. This seems as a term that fits well the idea of the text. You can check the dictionary. “Defiance" means to resist, to offer opposition, to hold ground. It does not suggest at all the falsification of the opposite theory. These are terms that are commonly used in science. Please note that, on the other hand, the use of the term "disagree" seems to suggest merely an opinion, not backed by scientific data.Maziotis 00:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criticism section

Criticism to what? That there is such a thing as an anarchist state? This section does not belong here. Criticism to “anarchism” belongs in the “anarchism” article. Also, the idea posted in that section is not a rebuttal to any point that was previously pointed in the article. Any opinion is debatable, and obviously there could be a rebuttal for the theory of that particular author, but the article cannot serve as an open forum to discuss anarchism. And, again, even if it could, it should be done in the "anarchism".Maziotis 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is also curious to see that from all the other articles listed on the table, "forms of government", "anarchy" was the only one with a "criticism" section.Maziotis 22:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to add criticism sections to other forms of government. Not only ideas, but forms of government (or lack thereof) can be criticized.--Urthogie 13:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mean to point flaws in a particular form of government? All right, but please understand that they must reflect a common debate around the subject and it should be covered by the article. Criticism section should never be an open forum for ideas. Please remember that this section is also under the rule of NPOV, and, as such, editors usually also discuss the "rebuttals to the rebuttals" in there. I did not delete the “criticism” section with the justification that the “anarchy” article was the only article with one. Please discuss the points above.Maziotis 13:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, rebuttals to the rebuttals can of course be added if they're sourced.--Urthogie 14:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop deleting "Anthropology" section while adding "criticism". These are two separate issues.

Regarding the current criticism section, that quote is not a rebuttal of anything. It does not present a context for its reference. Of course anyone can find a thousand quotes supporting anarchy and a thousand quotes refuting it, but there cannot be a section used as an open forum of quotes, for and against it. You must give proper context in order to reflect the mainstream debate, while showing the negative views on the subject.Maziotis 14:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a criticism of anarchy. Criticisms don't need to be replies to individual claims, I don't know which policy you're going by when you say this. I don't oppose the anthropology section existing by the way. Sorry on that.--Urthogie 14:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not talking about individual claims. I am talking about the fact that the issue in "criticism" is neither cover in the article nor is the presentation of a common criticism. It is just the view of one author, out of the blue. Following your principle of editing, anyone can put anything regarding trashing "anarchy" or defending it, in the criticism.

You are right about not having a policy. I don't believe there is a policy about "criticism". Please see wikipedia: criticism It concerns what we are discussing, but it is not a policy. It is presented as just being an essay. Nevertheless, the common rule of NPOV should still be taken into consideration here.Maziotis 14:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following your principle of editing, anyone can put anything regarding trashing "anarchy" or defending it, in the criticism.

Correct, if its sourced, per Wikipedia:Attribution, and if it is neutrally presented per Wikipedia:NPOV.--Urthogie 14:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe that at some point it becomes unpractical to maintain the article. I think there should be some criterion in deciding what goes into the "criticism" section or not. Also, I see you have not acknowledged my other suggestions, relying on the inexistence of policy. But there is nothing I can do about that.Maziotis 14:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maziotis I am very shocked that this is a very biased article. If any form of goverment had more criticism then any other I would think it would be anarchy. Anarchy is chaos. Why is chaos good? Stop trying to defend your ideas.' I came to this article to view ideas against anarchy, not to view information that is supporting it and you Maziotis need to realize that without rules, and policies wikipedia would be a chaotic scene of biased artcles. like this one.-- (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anarchy as an attitude

"Anarchy is not a form or state of government, but is rather a situation in which people refuse to follow the government in practice."

Please do not add this sentence as it is original research, and it might also be considered POV. One of the points of this article is to discuss how anarchy has existed in several periods of time. Even if the article fails to prove this, it is still a fact that several authors claim that anarchy is not just the refusal to follow government, and it is something that might be experience. There is an open academic debate around this, so we should not solve this trough either way. The best that we can do, following the encyclopedic principles of wikipedia, is to present both sides of the debate.Maziotis 13:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some strands of Christian anarchism tell their followers to submit to government power, for example.--Urthogie 14:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly. Not all people say that we should act violently against government. Not all people say that it is possible to live without government. But some do. So that sentence is POV. It does not respect all sides of the debate from a neutral point of view. Please remember that I am not suggesting that we affirm the opposite of the assertion. I am saying that we should remove it, so that we do not make a statement that is disputable.Maziotis 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah I'm with you on that. A lot of anonymous editors come to this page to POV it towards anarchy and make anarchy sound universally warm and fuzzy. But anarchists of course come in a million shades.--Urthogie 14:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are worried in having this article presenting "anarchism" in a positive POV light, please do not fight that by adding negative POV sentences. That is not a legitimate, or successful, way of keeping an article clean and NPOV. The whole article should not have any original research or personal points of view.Maziotis 14:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well actually two editors with opposite pov's adding sourced stuff can create a great article in my experience.--Urthogie 14:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not denying that. But the text itself cannot be POV. Even if it is sourced, it should not be use in original research. I mean, even if you find some expert that says that "anarchy is simply the resistance to government practice", all you can truthfully express in the article is that "Person X has said that...". And that should fit the whole description of the article as being NPOV.

Well it isn't Steven Pinker saying it, it's the massive amounts of research he's citing in his book which serves as a tertiary source in chapter 4 on the subject of pre-state violence. Mainstream opinion can be verified from tertiary sources that survey the current mainstream literature, I believe.--Urthogie 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well it isn't Steven Pinker saying it, it's the massive amounts of research

I understand you have your sources and you are convinced that that argument is right. But that is still original research. You cannot simply cut the opinion of some authors while giving voice to others. It is not an undisputable fact that "Anarchy is not a form or state of government, but is rather a situation in which people refuse to follow the government in practice.", so you cannot present as one. It is not a fact because some authors, unlike Steven Pinker, believe otherwise. Please understand that at this point I am not arguing who is right.Maziotis 15:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, but I'm saying that per WP:V it's not saying someone is right to state their claims as fact. Perhaps I misunderstand this policy but I believe some things can be stated as fact if they're verified in mainstream sources, and are not disagreed upon. Even anarchist anthropologists don't disagree with the statement that mainstream consensus goes against theirs.--Urthogie 15:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe we are getting out of the topic. I am not sure what is the current state of debate regarding anarchism in primitive societies. I have in fact read that anthropology has change in recent years, giving a much more positive light to the primitive era. But I don't think that is the point here. Even if it is true that most people believe that "Anarchy is not a form or state of government, but is rather a situation in which people refuse to follow the government in practice.", you still can't present that as a fact, because the issue here would be "what people believe" and not "what anarchy is".Maziotis 15:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This debate seems to be beside the point. If there is a government, the there is no anarchy. This discussion concerns insubordination, quite a different concept (e.g the left handed salutes oefferd by officers in the Indian navy during the The Royal Indian Navy Mutiny.Harrypotter 21:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wonder how long before I get someone to notice I like to comment on these articles? Also..if someone is watching me. GO OUTSIDE NAB. -God118.95.6.205 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pinker isn't talking about evolution in this passage

Pinker isn't talking about evolution in that passage-- he's talking about basic anthropology, and history. His book as a whole is about evolution, but that passage is not. Therefore, I've removed the responses to this criticism which deal with "evolution", since he's not talking about it:

Some anarchist thinkers[1] do not share this vision of evolution, considering that this concept represents a way our culture justifies the values of modern industrial society and inherently as the way on how civilization was able to move the individuals further from there natural necessities.[2] Besides the consideration of authors, such as John Zerzan, to the existence in tribal society has having less violence altogether[3], he and other authors such as Theodore Kaczynski talk about other forms of violence on the individual in advance countries, generally expressed by the term "social anomie", that result from the system of monopolized security[4]. These authors do not dismiss the fact that man is changing while adapting to this different social realities[5], but consider them an anomaly, nevertheless. The two end results being that we either disappear or become something very different, distant from what we have come to value in our nature. It has been suggested by experts that this shift towards civilization, trough domestication, has caused an increase in diseases, labor and psychological disorders[6][7][8].

I also removed this:

There is an ongoing debate within the subject of evolutionary psychology, where neo-tribalists proponents have reference to it to claim prove of their political beliefs, while other authors have an opposite position.

Neo-tribalists are not evolutionary psychologists. within evolutionary psychology there is no debate over the idea that primitive societies were (on the whole, even if not always) more violent than modern ones, with higher percentages of death even compared to World War II.--Urthogie 13:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He makes a reference to the "noble savage myth" at the end. Anyway, I tried to gather some common anarchist responses regarding the comparison of "primitive violence" and the life in the civilized world, backed up by sources. I only mention the "defiance of the idea of evolution" in the first sentence to introduce that debate. So, It may not be essential for Steven Pinker in that quote, but it is so for the view of those anarchists in what their response concerns. This is their response regarding the "invention" that Pinker mentions. Please note that the rest of my paragraph is not around evolution.

The whole section may need some rewording to flow better, which is a matter of style. I think you should consider this before deleting an whole paragraph.

What you have reverted from the "evolutionary psychology" can be found in the article about "neo-tribalism". I haven't claim that neo-tribalists are "evolutionary psychologists". I wrote that they believe that some theories in that subject support their view.

Neo-tribalists are not evolutionary psychologists. within evolutionary psychology there is no debate over the idea that primitive societies were (on the whole, even if not always) more violent than modern ones, with higher percentages of death even compared to World War II. I find highly doubtful that you can speak for a whole subject of knowledge. In any case, I have found and shown you specific references that state otherwise. Maziotis 15:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I see what you're saying about my first removal. Please cleanup the prose, and try to actually use quotes rather than paraphrasing in this case. It's a nonsequitor and a poor transition to be talking about evolution here.
  • I'm sticking with my removal of the final paragraph, because its unsourced. There is no "ongoing debate within the subject of evolutionary psychology" concerning this empirically verified point. The only people who disagree with this consensus are those who aren't involved in the science of evolutionary psychology, or the statistical analysis of violent deaths based on the fossil record and anthropological data (key word here is statistical. its correc, for example, to say that there are exceptions of very peaceful tribal societies, but there is noone in science today who argues in a peer-reviewed scientific paper (another key word here-- paper, not book) that pre-modern societies aren't incredibly more violent on average than modern ones). So it's not only unsourced but untrue to state that such a debate exists in this field or others.--Urthogie 16:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read beginning of the paragraph, the way I have written it now. The reference to the "evolution" concerns the anarchist ideology of the response itself.Maziotis 16:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"do not share this vision of evolution, where man was able to reinvent himself in the last ten thousand years"
What is "this" in this sentence, if not Pinker's views (which aren't even stated in the article to begin with)?--Urthogie 16:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It refers to the invention of the "judicial system". In that sense, man evolved to something better, since the institution of that invention was for the better, according to Pinker. I'm using the concept of "evolution" in its broadest sense. Please read the whole paragraph. I think it flows good now.

Please note that now the paragraph is referring specifically to what it is meant by evolution. These anarchists consider this “invention” to be part of the culture of evolution, which they dismiss. You can check the sources.Maziotis 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cultural evolution is not being discussed in the passage either. It's important that we avoid reading between the lines as wikipedia editors and claiming he's talking about something without directly saying it... that amounts to original research, and in this case is patently confusing to read. Would it really be that big a deal to correct this sentence not to mention the irrelevant subject of evolution? I'm sure there are better, less confusing ways to state the anarchist reply.--Urthogie 17:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those anarchists consider that to talk about a social invention that improves our way of life is part of the lie of civilization that is "evolution". In that sense, there is no original research. If you read the first sentence you will see that I am not being vague about that word. I am saying that some anarchists don't see that man has evolved to better fulfill his necessities, in the last ten thousand years (civilization). This is a direct reference to Pinker's "invention".

So, the word "evolution" stems from the anarchist critique of the idea of "improvement" by Pinker. It is a reference to its own argument concerning the “invention” that Pinker talks about. Doesn't the context of this "improvement" implie some sort of "evolution" in this sense? Would it be ok for you if we would change the word "evolution" to "progress"?

I do think that "evolution" is a better word, as it represents a more direct response to the theory of Pinker. I mean, you do agree that it is the case, even if it is not explicitly stated in that quote, don't you?Maziotis 17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, well we're not here to give a better response to pinker. If he says "invention" then don't reply about "evolution", reply about "invention."--Urthogie 17:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not about giving a better response to Pinker. I am merely interpreting his words in the context of the response. His idea of "invention" can be categorized as having a meaning of "evolution", in the common sense of the word. I am aware of the danger of "original research", but when someone is writing an article, at some point he must interpret words of the authors, as best as he can. Do you dispute the fact that the anarchist response is at odds with the Pinker's perspective? I believe this is the issue here.

It may be impossible to find an anarchist who has addressed Pinker's argument, which doesn’t mean that it must remain unchallenged in the article. For that reason I may not find a direct reference to the word "invention", but I don't see how there is a demand to reference that particular word. At some point we must use our interpretation.Maziotis 17:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you are still hanging on the initial discussion in which you rightfully pointed out to the flaw of the use of the word “evolution”. I was hoping you could read this word in a different light, accordingly to the recent change I made.

Let me put it this way: Don’t you agree that, based on Pinker’s “invention”, we can say that man was able to improve in the last ten thousand years? That is what I am saying that is an “evolution” that some anarchists don’t agree with. I don’t think I am being vague or doing original research. The word “evolution” is immediately put into context in the sentence, referring to the anarchist perspective of the “improvement”. That disagreement is explicit in the sources.Maziotis 18:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not saying you need a source that replies directly to Pinker. I am saying that the way you paraphrase Pinker in the transition constitutes original research, and that you don't have consensus for your interpretation either.--Urthogie 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am discussing this issue here precisely to find consensus.

I believe I have explained you why I don't consider my interpretation to be original research. The reference to the concept of "evolution" could not be more simple. In what the argument of Pinker is concerned, I am considering that the invention of the judicial system is an improvement. ~Did you read my last post? There is nothing in the sentence I have written to suggest that the word "evolution" refers to Pinker's evolution theory.Maziotis 23:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Some anarchist thinkers[12] do not share this vision of evolution'. You are free to have it say invention or whatever, but do not mischaracterize professor pinkers' views on cultural evolution. This is not a view of cultural evolution, it is a statement about the anthropological record and the implications it has for modern society. You have already gained consensus for these sources, but you are being so stubborn that you are not willing to change a certain word. Just change it, its easy, one word.--Urthogie 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I change the word "evolution" to "invention" it looses all the original meaning. I don't think it would have any meaning, at all. It would just not make any sense.

I don't think I am mischaracterizing pinker's view on cultural evolution since I am not referring to it. As I explained, the term "evolution" in that sentence concerns the idea that the condition of man changed, regarding a definitive improvement. I am making a reference to that idea, which is explicit in pinker's quote, to say that some anarchists do not accept it. These anarchists believe there is no "evolution" in any sense of the word. Please see how this is put into context, after the comma that follows the word "evolution"Maziotis 00:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I request that you use a different word. You will not gain consensus for this word. Is it really worth all of this argument so that you can have a fucking word? Pinker is an evolutionary psychologist and using the word evolution has the potential for making it seem like we're talking about his views on cultural evolution. You've made a good argument, but you haven't convinced me.-Urthogie 14:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would suggest another word, if I could find one that fits the text.

Pinker is an evolutionary psychologist and using the word evolution has the potential for making it seem like we're talking about his views on cultural evolution. I am not making a reference to the concept of pinkers's evolution, at all. That is clearly explained following the word, where it is put into context. The word "evolution" refers to the general improvement of mankind, that is explicit in Pinker's quote. That is it.Maziotis 15:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look, that's not how I read it at all, so I ask that you use a different word. We disagree on how clear it is, and whether or not context is given. The solution to this is for us to compromise on a better word. You're not going to get consensus on this. you are wasting your time on this word.--Urthogie 15:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you seem not to be willing to discuss anymore. This is not how consensus is found. You are not giving an answer to my arguments.Maziotis 15:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you understand the concept of reaching the ceiling of an argument? You think it's clear, I think it's muddled down by the various meanings of evolution, and the fact that pinker is an evolutionary psychologist. A compromise can be reached quite easily if you'll stop being stubborn about a word, and we can keep the rest of what you added completely intact.--Urthogie 15:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe you are the one who is being stubborn. You are making criticisms to my edits and you don't give any suggestions.Maziotis 15:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just say "this view" and get rid of the "evolution" from the sentence. That's my suggestion.--Urthogie 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the criticism to the whole concept of "evolution" is important for the anarchist critique. So, I have a more simple solution: I can add a sourced explanation~, after the quote, where Pinker says that we have left "primitive world" because we have evolved. That would be part of his criticism on anarchy. If you could resume his idea of "evolutionary psychology" in a sentence, that would be super.Maziotis 16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I'm starting to see why it's so important there. You want a reply to a criticism that really isn't a reply. This stuff about "evolution" doesn't belong in the criticism section because no criticism actually brings this up. I request that this source be moved, because it is neither a criticism nor a response to a type of criticism.--Urthogie 16:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes it is. It is the anarchist response which is based on different values than yours. You have to remember that I am also free to add criticism to the article. I am naturally limited by your quote.Maziotis 16:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not an anarchist reponse because it doesn't even respond to what he's saying. In fact, you have to go out of your way to synthesize a transition where there really is no place for one.--Urthogie 17:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe I don't, because I do not read the word "evolution" as you seem to do. My last proposal was done solely with the intention to find a common ground to us both. I still believe, for the reasons I have explained, that the response is right the way it is. The word "evolution" in the sentence does not refer to "cultural evolution" or "pinker's concept of evolutionary psychology", but simply to the general concept of improvement on the social conditions of mankind. This context is provided in the sentence itself, after the "comma".Maziotis 17:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please define "evolution" as you think its being used in that sentence you added.--Urthogie 17:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think most people would agree that "evolution" is suitable and in accordance with the use described in that sentence. Otherwise, we have different views on the subject. If you believe that the paragraph is synthesing than you should explain exactly how. I don't believe that it is.Maziotis 17:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please define "evolution" as you think its being used in that sentence you added.--Urthogie 17:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A general improvement of the conditions of man, based on the development of his skills/characteristics. I think it is very clearly described in the sentence itself.Maziotis 18:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not what evolution means. Evolution means change over time, not necessarily for the better. You're making up a definition that doesn't exist in any dictionary anywhere.--Urthogie 18:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My definition is not in contrast with the one that you have given. The improvement refers to the necessities reacquired to satisfy the consequent goals of the said change, which could no longer fit the previous ones. Describing a new system as being "better", depends on the point of view. I do not disagree with your definition. The fact is that people do use the word "evolution" to describe Pinker's change, in the way he did, since they evaluate it trough what they see has being new values, which could not be met in the previous stage.

The paragraph still stands as a critique to Pinker's view.Maziotis 19:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, our definitions to disagree. Yours is made up while mine can be found in dictionaries. Pinker is not sharing a view of evolution. He is sharing his thoughts on what happened-- that doesn't mean he's saying "evolution does this". He's saying this is what happened. It's not a view of evolution.--Urthogie 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, please stop deleting the paragraph that has got nothing to do with "evolution". Following the sentence about evolution, you will read an anarchist response about crime in tribal socities and what crime may mean in the modern world.

Second, Harrypotter made changes after our last dispute. He has included my paragraph and I also believe it still should be a part of the article. Of course that if you do not agree than we have no consensus. We must find a new one to make further changes. You cannot make this change on your own.

Regarding "evoution", I dind't make any definition up. I am not giving any definition in the sentence. I am saying that concerning these changes, there are anarchists who disagree with the vision that we have found a better way to fulfill our necessities. Simple as that. Pinker does say that there was an invention for better, in the way we develop.

and again, I do not think that my definition is different from yours as I do not think that they are alike. I was answering your argument as to in what way what I said was wrong. I explained to you how my definition does not go against yours. Please explain how I did not formulate well what you believe to be the universal definition of the word.Maziotis 19:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ev·o·lu·tion(v-lshn, v-) n. 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

People do use "evolution" with that meaning.Maziotis 19:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please specify how this is what Pinker is talking about. He is not discussing change, but rather comparing pre-state socities with state societies. You would be right to say he is talking about evolution if he said that all pre-state societies evolve to become state societies, but he's not.--Urthogie 19:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not agree with that demand. You are the one who is approaching a particular sense of evolution (biological evolution). He references a change for the better in the societies that invented the judicial system. It is a "process in which something changes into a different and better form". This fits the definition.Maziotis 19:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I am not saying biological evolution. I am asking you how what he says fits your definition.--Urthogie 20:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could not be more explicit. He references a change for the better in the societies that invented the judicial system. It is a "process in which something changes into a different and better form". This fits the definition. I am saying that the "invention for the better" that he mentions can be described as a "process in which something changes into a different and better form". This fits the definition of the word "evolution". I can call that an "evolution", which is a description of the development of society with which some anarchists disagree with. It fits the text.

I believe you were using the biological definition of the word evolution when you said that You would be right to say he is talking about evolution if he said that all pre-state societies evolve to become state societies. When I refer to "evolution" I am talking about the process that he mentions, which fits the definition. There is no demand for the issue being "all pre-state societies evolving to become state societies" in order to fit the definition of evolution, at least not to the one which I provided (which is not biological evolution)Maziotis 13:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please quote where Pinker mentions any type of "process"?--Urthogie 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that you are now interested in getting into a semantic argument.

I am making a reference to Pinker's change of non-judicial socities to judicial societies. That is the process I am referring to.Maziotis 21:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please quote where pinker mentions this "change." This synthesis is removed until you do this.--Urthogie 13:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you want me to believe that I am the one who is making a discussion last for days concerning just a word. You look like a child asking "why?" to any justification given. Not that I find that to be without any philosophical basis, but I don't know where exactly you want to go with this. You jump from term to term, demanding that I directly quote whatever is the word I use to describe what pinker is saying.

How is it that i cannot talk about the ivention of the judicial system as a change that has taken place in a society? Is that POV?Maziotis 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tribal Chiefs

The sources used in the first paragraph were expressing an extreme limited POV. I have seen several anthropologist references to the fact that chiefs in tribes represent more of a "diplomat", used as a councilor and in negotiations between tribes, rather than a chief that "governs" by his rule. I have watch more than one documentary film in which the author makes that very clear. Please check out the article "tribal chief" here on wikipedia, where this is address right in the first paragraph.

Also check out a paragraph taken from one of the sources:

The Chathams and the atolls had the simplest, most egalitarian societies. While those islands retained the original Polynesian tradition of having chiefs, their chiefs wore little or no visible signs of distinction, lived in ordinary huts like those of commoners, and grew or caught their food like everyone else. Social distinctions and chiefly powers increased on high-density islands with large political units, being especially marked on Tonga and the Societies.

Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel Maziotis 02:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You falsely synthesized this quote into an argument about tribes being on the whole egalitarian, something he never says.--Urthogie 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even if that is true, please check the other source presented. And please do not deleted unrelated issues. I had other sources for the rest of the sentence.

Also, discuss the other points made above. Jared definitly makes a point about tribal chiefs not being political leaders as in state societies. I know the book.Maziotis 14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've read the book, and he doesn't say tribal chiefs are generally egalitarian. Most tribal chiefs, he said, were actually brutal, domineering, totalitarian, and rich as hell compared to their subjects.--Urthogie 14:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if you are convinced of this, why don't you delete that particular source? There is another source for the same sentence and two others for the other sentence. Stop deleting the whole things.Maziotis 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undue weight is being given to a minority view point among anthropologists. This is a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV. Also, where in Stone Age economics does he say that tribes are on the whole egalitarian? You can't use this source until you find such a quote.--Urthogie 14:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even if that was true, which I believe it is not for the reasons I mentioned above, I clearly state my sources without synthesizing. I clearly say that "some anthropologists believe primitive societies are anarchists", which is true. None of us can decide what is NPOV, as that would be POV (?!) If I give sources and state things that are supported by it, than I am following wikipedia guidelines.Maziotis 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:Weasel words. This is still a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV's undue weight clause. Secondly, you are yet to produce a quote that supports the sentences you've added from either source.--Urthogie 14:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Weasel words: Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources That wikipedia guideline concerns unsourced statments. I have given sources for my statements. I am following wikipedia guidelines.Maziotis 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

before we discuss weasel words, please address the fact that neither diamond nor stone age economics say anywhere that most tribes were egalitarian. If you acknowledge this, you'll have to admit that that part of the sentence is utterly unsupported.--Urthogie 15:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not say in the article that "tribes are egalitarian". I do say that Pierre Clastres says that "primitive tribes are egalitarian".

I even think that I was particularly careful in the weight of positions. I was careful to say that "some anthropologists" point to this "others point to that". In fact I believe that most of them think that tribal chiefs have more the role of advisers. Like I explained in my initial post, I have seen several anthropologist references to the fact that chiefs in tribes represent more of a "diplomat", used as a councilor and in negotiations between tribes, rather than a chief that "governs" by his rule. I have watch more than one documentary film in which the author makes that very clear. Please check out the article "tribal chief" here on wikipedia, where this is address right in the first paragraph.Maziotis 15:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've evaded my request completely. How do these sources confirm the claim in the article that: "while other anthropologists point out that these chief leaders have more of a representative, or guider, role rather than being a leader in the sense we understand in non-egalitarian state societie." On the whole, that is not the role they have. Neither of your sources confirm this claim, and it should therefore be removed.--Urthogie 15:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it does. I do not have a quote at hand from those sources, but I can provide it for you in the near future. For now, the reference of Sahlins's book, is a source. Just has you have provided others, without giving any quote.Maziotis 15:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please give a quote from more than one anthropologist in the last 25 years who said in a peer reviewed paper or book that primitive societies were generally egalitarian. Then we can say "a few". Get five and we can say "some." --Urthogie 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not forced to provide quotes, as you have not. You have also only provided two quotes to say that tribal societies "have Chiefs". From this you cannot say that they are "governed". I have provided three sources that give references to the fact that indeed they are not governed.

Pierre Clastres was a respected anthropologist author. You can read an article from his book, here:

...also, keep in mind that the paragraph concerns the tribes in primitive world. If you read the added sentences, you will see that I am ginving sources for the description of tribal chiefs, or lack of them, in "hunter-gather tribes". Jared Diamond doesen't talk only about purely "hunter-gather" societies.Maziotis 16:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ROFL! Primitivism.COM????? That is so incredibly ironic and stupid at the same time. Anyways.
  • What have I not provided quotes for in the article, that you think needs quotes? I'll get them immediately if this is the case.
  • Pierre Clastres is one source, and I don't see how his book is about political philosophy, not anthropology. So you actually have 0 anthropological sources, and one anthropologist's political opinions. This is not "some". It's one, at most.--Urthogie 16:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He is an anthopologist and his books is on anthropology. The other reference, of that particular sentence, point out to other anthropologists, which I would have to find particular references. Remember that this regards the last statement and not the whole section, for which I have provided other references.

If you want to discuss seriously about how luddites are limited by the use of technology to discuss ways to bring about a social change, you are welcome to discuss in "my talk" page. This has been dealt with by several philosophers, who do not find this issue to be ridiculous at all.Maziotis 16:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have one quote from an anthropologist's non-peer reviewed political treatise. Even if we ignore for the moment that it's not a reliable source on anthropology, this does not amount to "some." Please quote from another source, preferably one that's actually anthropological and peer reviewed.--Urthogie 17:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

where do I write "some"? I say, "other anthropoligits" and I give the source for one example and another source that references this.

anthropologist's non-peer reviewed political treatise Please understand that the source is not the site I gave you to read. The source is pointing to a book of a renowned anthropologist.Maziotis 17:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, quote then please. Where's the quote from this book? And where's the quote from a second source. So far you have maybe one.--Urthogie 17:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can look for them. But for now, the sources stand up and garantee the wikipedia guidelines of NPOV and against original research.

I already gave you a quote from that book. The article on that site is taken from the book.Maziotis 17:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, and that article is non-peer reviewed and is politics, not anthropology. It's written by an anthropologist, as you pointed out. Could you find the second quote, then?--Urthogie 18:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not politics. What you have read is part of the "political" implications he has found on his work. But that book, as well as others that I may point to you, are respected works in the field of anthropology. Another example is "Archeology of Violence" by the same author.

I have been reading several anthropologist references, and there seems to be a general consensus that primitive "hunter gather" societies are definitely non-hierarchical and egalitarian. Check out the article Hunter-gatherer, here on wikipedia.

Please keep in mind that these are the "pre-historic" societies that are being referenced in the article, with the claim of humans existing in anarchy for most of its time. There are numerous tribal societies that, as you have pointed out, are not egalitarian, and are not described as having the social structure that primitive societies have.Maziotis 01:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In light of my last post and the several sources that I provided after the dispute, I was going to propose a change in the article; but, in the meanwhile, Harrypotter did it. I definitly agree that it is much better the way it is now. The article may need some rewording, but I believe we can find consensus around the last changes, in general.Maziotis 13:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read my two last posts above, in this section. The old paragraph was a mess. It began by talking about hunter-gather tribes and it ended up giving sources to describe the several possibilities of non-primitive socities.Maziotis 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the by, traditional tribal societies were egalitarian and tribal chiefs were more like spokesmen, not rulers. The chiefs had no coercive power, they were 'rulers' in the sense that others in the tribe afforded them respect based on their accomplishments or wisdom. When western peoples met with tribal chiefs, they naturally assigned their own ethnocentric and hierarchical prejudices to them. Thus, when chiefs were forced or cajoled into signing territorial concessions, they could not in fact carry through on any promise for the rest of the tribe. The signature on the treaty was good for one person, the chief who signed it. That is why the tribal people would return and take back land they had 'given' or 'sold' to the westerners. This also made a long or bloody war impossible to fight for a tribe. With no power of coercion, there can be no conscription. Without conscription, there is no war. Zhivago6 06:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't true. Tribal societieis are incredibly more violent, on average than non-tribal societies. Yanomamo should help you out. The only reason you deny this is a noble savage myth. Bye. --Urthogie 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, that fact is disputable. Some authors do not agree with that and I have provided sources concerning this view. Secondly, please do not confuse those tribal societies that you have mentioned with "hunter gather" societies. The last ones are those that are being referenced in the beginning of the article, and they are definitely non-hierarchical and egalitarian. All sources in "hunter-gather" article point to this. Please see that article.Maziotis 21:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not disputable, except from a romantic political position. Scientifically, it's established.--Urthogie 13:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. I have given you several sources from experts on the field. I do not understand this taste of yours for making claims to what is "true" without any arguments to back it up.

There is in fact the view that primitive societies, even tough egalitarian and non-hierarchical, were very harsh in a lot of ways. A reference to this should be found to place in the anthopology section.Maziotis 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liberalism Section

While editing this section we can read at the top of the edit box:

<!-- Note to editors: Liberalism comes first because the sections are in chronological order by when the political philosophy developed. Anarchism actually post-dates liberalism in its ideas, so it's important to present them in this order, as most any serious encyclopedia would. -->

If the "liberalism" section is an historical introduction to the origins of anarchism, than why is there just a quote of a book from 1946? Anarchism theory precedes this and Bertrand Russell was not an influence to it, as such. This is not a serious encyclopedic way to treat the subject.

Liberalism section, as it stands, is just a liberal critique of anarchism. If indeed "anarchism" stem from liberal theory, than the sub-section should develop accordingly.Maziotis 14:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I'm getting tired of explaining shit to you but here it goes. Its a book on the history of philosophy and that chapter was on liberalism.--Urthogie 14:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what does that has to do with the origins of anarchis, as it is presented in the article? The liberal view on liberalism, in the middle of the XX century, as got nothing to do on how "anarchism" develop. That is what is argued in the box as a justification for having that paragraph.

If you don't want to explain things, you better stop being an wikipedian.Maziotis 14:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is on anarchy, not on anarchism. The view relates to anarchy, an important theme in political philosophy.--Urthogie 14:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you are dismissing your initial argument. You are saying that other political perspectives on anarchy should be in the article about "anarchy", since they are a part of the anarchy theme in political philosophy. Well, then the perspective of communism, fascism and social-democracy can always be present. If they are sourced, they belong in "criticism" section.Maziotis 14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other political philosophies and criticisms should be represented, if they talk about anarchy, yes.--Urthogie 14:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

in the criticism section, perhaps?

Please consider the fact that I am only contesting that that paragraph be included in the body of the article, while it is argued that it constitutes an "introduction" to the understandment of "anarchy". I'm only saying that Russell's quote is just a liberal view on political philosophy, from the middle of the XX century.Maziotis 14:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, he's a tertiary source describing the views of hobbes, the puritans, and liberalism.--Urthogie 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That particular quote does not respect you argument. That section is explained to be there as an introduction to "anarchy" development, which is not. It is just a view on how liberal theory is right about "check and balances", and that anarchy and despotism are the systems to avoid. It belongs, at best, in the criticism section.Maziotis 15:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it doesn't say liberal theory is right, it says that liberal theory aims for a balance, which it does. "The liberal philosophers who arose after the Restoration and acquire control after 1688, realized both dangers; they disliked both Strafford and the Anabaptists. This led Locke to the doctrine of division of powers and of checks and balances" This is in no way an endorsement of the post-Resortation liberals. It is a description, and a valid one at that.--Urthogie 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it doesn't say liberal theory is right, it says that liberal theory aims for a balance, which it does This sentence is disputable. Even if you could prove this to be right, there are other authors who see otherwise.

Even if we were to consider as a fact that "liberal theory aims for balance", how exactly does that fact is essential to understand the development of the anarchy views in political philosofy, as you have argued?Maziotis 15:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is on anarchy, not on the development of anarchism. A quote that summarizes the attitudes/views of three major political philosophies on this type of society is very good for informing readers. And by the way, people disagree with every quote on philosophy and politics that people make. The fact is that this is a mainstream history of philosophy, considered the history of philosophy book by many, and its quotes are allowed to be used in an article like this.--Urthogie 15:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not contest that, and that people disagree with every quote on philosophy and politics that people make was exactly my point. Now, just because you have found a legitimate description on "anarchy" doesn't mean it belongs in the "political philosophy" section on the anarchy article. This article is about anarchy, not about liberal views on society. For this reason, I don’t see how it contributes to the understanding of the subject of the article. At best, it represents a liberal critique view on "anarchy".

This article is on anarchy, not on the development of anarchism. Yes, but you were the one that justified that quote as being important for explaining the development of anarchist ideas, as you post that warning sign on the edit box.Maziotis 15:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about anarchy and therefore does include liberal views on a society in anarchy.--Urthogie 15:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that case, for now, I am deleting the "Anarchism actually post-dates liberalism in its ideas, so it's important to present them in this order, as most any serious encyclopedia would." from the edit box.Maziotis 15:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Urthogie's version scans terribly, and seems to violate his own principle by placing the discussions in political philosophy before the instances of statelessness, which certainly have historical precedence. The section on liberalism currently makes no sense. Libertatia 19:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The instances of statelessness should be first, I agree.--Urthogie 19:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the section on liberalism makes no sense. It should not even provide a view on anarchy, let alone merely reference to it to explain what it means to be a liberal. This is totally POV. It is liberal propaganda in an "anarchy" article.Maziotis 21:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not POV in any sense of the word to quote a history of philosophy that gives various mainstream historical views on anarchy.--Urthogie 13:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know Bertrand Russell and the book you have sourced. I understand that he is a highly respected philosophical reference. But my problem is not that there is a liberal talking about what "anarchy" is in an article about anarchy. This is not the case at all. My problem is that that specific paragraph is a description of the "goals of the liberals", which happens to use the word "anarchy" as a reference. It has no place in this article. It doesn't help us to understand the use of the word "anarchy" in any of the first definitions of the word presented in the beginning of the article. It only adds as political propaganda for the side of the liberals as such.

The passage is not even clear about the possibility to have a successful "anarchist project". It seems that it is just using the word "anarchy" as in "chaos". Maybe it is not possible to raise that possibility once you understand Russell's philosophy, but that is my point exactly. It is not clear and it amounts to original reaserch.Maziotis 11:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In light of this last post, if no one has anything else to say, I will remove the Russell's quote. Either we find some other passage, from Russell or any other author, that relates directly to anarchy, or we delete the entire section.Maziotis 17:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have re-removed the section. The passage did not clearly enough define which "anarchy" the liberals opposed. Without clarity in that regard, the article loses even more coherence—and it's not like it's all that coherent as it stands. We have to address the flow from section to section, and not allow "anarchy" to change definition in mid-stream without some indication. Libertatia 21:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structure, once again

The article is an incoherent mess, and looks nothing like what we agreed upon some months ago. If we are using historical precedence as an organizing principle, the anthropological debate should immediately follow the introduction, the state-collapse examples should follow that, and the conscious attempts at stateless societies should come after. The liberalism section should go, unless it can be clearly made relevant to the construction of stateless societies. Some of what I cut from the intro should undoubtedly go in the pre-state/anthropology section, but it was inappropriate in the intro, which must treat all three types of anarchy. I perceive continuing attempts to conflate the three types, which must be avoided. Libertatia 21:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anthropology should not immediately follow the nitroduction. Examples should be the first.--Urthogie 02:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assuming the anthropology section actually relates to pre-state societies, it seems pretty clear that is should precede state-collapse and intentional non-state cases. Examples of pre-state societies should precede general discussion. Libertatia 12:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the contrary, by focussing on the terms emergence into pitical discourse in the English Revolution, highlkighting the different views, is far clearer. The artcle should not privelege anarchist views, but provide a means whereby how they arose can be better understood. The anthroplogical debate is essential still wokring around the differing perspectives of Hobbes, Locke and Lahontan. Also it should be born in mindthat the Putney Debates were of real significance in the outcome of the English Revoltuion, which is why a full account is so important. i think a paraprase could be acceptable, but in many ways the transcript avoids the pitfuls of introducing bias.Harrypotter 12:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

anarchist povism?

I've reverted to my version of the introductory paragraph, which at least has the merits of maintaining the three categories of "anarchy" that need to be juggled in this entry—a merit rather sadly lacking in the rest of the article. If those concerned with "anarchist povism" want to pursue their anti-anarchist POV with a critique of certain anarchist primitivists and anthropologists, fair enough. But the entry currently reduces the anarchist version of "anarchy" to a very small segment of anarchist thought and subordinates treatment of pre-state societies to this criticism. Libertatia 12:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have amended the introdction, preserving the threefold categorisation of which you are so proud. Also as the whithering away of the state is a key tenet of Marxism, it would be wrong just to specify it as an anarchist goal. I think a debate about the pros and cons of anarchism is out of place. I think we need a bit about Locke after Hobbes, and perhaps we also need a reference to that passage in The Tempest - but I would have to check how relevant that is. Also the Noble savage and Social contract discussion would also be useful.Harrypotter 12:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "threefold characterization" was the result of consensus-building some time ago, so don't lay it on me. If this article is going to be about all the various instances of statelessness, then some organizing schema and some clear disambiguation is necessary. Libertatia 13:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. We should have a brief introduction in the beginning of the article that defines anarchy in the several uses of the word. The current introduction is a POV mess, with no relation to any definition.Maziotis 13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, the central definition of anarchy is "no state." Various anarchist definitions specify exactly what they think this would mean.--Urthogie 13:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but the current expressed views on the several types of tribal socities has got nothing to do with "anarchy". I agree with Libertaria. If this is somewhat related to the understanding of anarchy, than it should be left for another section, further in the article. The beginning should be very brief and non-controversial. It should just describe anarchy as a stateless society, and all the other different definitions of the word. I think it was best the way Libertaria put it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maziotis (talk

contribs) 13:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Agreed, and I moved it to the body of the article.--Urthogie 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stop reverting my additions. Feel free to add your own but stop removing good content. Of course this page is biased, every editor but me is a card-carrying anarchist.--Urthogie 13:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether or not that claim is true, it doesn't mean you are free to pursue your POV in the article. The introduction is not the place to fight out these anthropological questions. The role of tribal chiefs has nothing at all to do with two of the three types of "anarchy" we are concerned with, except to the extent that a very small number of theorists who also happen to be anarchists, make the connection. Libertatia 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I moved the discussion of chiefs to the body of the article.--Urthogie 14:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hunter-gather tribes, though stateless, have tribal chiefs. This is not true. Hunter gather socities have no tribal chiefs. Not all tribal socities are hunter gather. The current development of the criticism to "tribal socities" is not related to anarchy at all. It is a rebuttal for which there is no claim.Maziotis 14:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please name a hunter gatherer tribe without a chief.--Urthogie 14:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Virtually, any of them. Just check the "hunter gatherer" article. There is a general consensus in anthropology that primitive hunter gather socities, which are the ones referenced in anarchy, were egalitarian an non-hierarchical. All tribal socities that have an "authoritarian chief", as you have mentioned, are agriculture based. No one claims to point to those tribes as examples of anarchy, so why are you discussing those examples in the article? That is highly misleading.Maziotis 14:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't say name an egalitarian tribe, I said name a tribe without a chief.--Urthogie 14:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are non-hierarchical. They have no chiefs. And just the fact that they are egalitarian dismisses your discussion over the several types of tribal chiefs. If anything, that section should deal with those tribes that have no tribal rulers. Again, you are giving a rebutall in the article for a point that it is not there.Maziotis 14:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please answer the question. Name a specific tribe. If they're all without chiefs as you say, it should be easy. Thanks, --Urthogie 14:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe hunter gather societies from pre-history have no name, as they did not have a domain that could be circumscribed in terms of geography and culture.

Anyway, I think that today the closest known studied societies to this definition can be found in the examples pointed out by the anthropologists in the section that goes by that name.

I am not making any of this up. Did you take the time to read the "hunter gatherer" article? I did not write any of that. It is clear there, with several sources provided, that the social structure of these societies were egalitarian and non-hierarchical.Maziotis 22:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

anthropology section is OR

none of the sources mention "anarchy" except the first paragraph. I suggest we remove most or all of this section.--Urthogie 14:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you put the "OR sign" in the "criticism", than?Maziotis 14:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because you never explained how Pinker is talking about a "process" or "change." What you added is an OR synthesis.--Urthogie 14:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does not have to mention anarchy. It doesn't even need to come from anarchists. My section is a response to Pinker's critique. Non-anarchists may offer rebuttals to criticism of anarchy too.

Any way, all of those references are indeed anarchist with their own view of how "pirmitive" societies have not benefit from the "adjudication by an armed authority ". It serves the purpose of being an opposite view.

And I have answer that question about the "process". Please read the talk section about Pinker. Are you no trying to tell me that I cannot consider the "adjudication by an armed authority" a change? That is the social process that I am referring to. The change in the societies in which that happened.Maziotis 14:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The answer to Pinker is not related to what Pinker says, because Pinker isn't talking about any change. You are doing original research by saying, hey, Pinker is talking about something that has changed, so I can give the anarchist view on how changes are supposed to happen. Just because the anarchist replies are relevant to change, and what Pinker says are relevant to change, doesn't mean you can therefore synthesize them together. No Original Research means just that-- you can't decide that there is a common thread just because of your reading into something. This is original research and I'll go through arbitration to prove it if necessary. I find it extremely dishonest for you to read into Pinker just so you can arbitrarily add criticisms of his views which aren't even stated as such.--Urthogie 15:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about Anarchy not Anarchism

I have reverted to the former versions which preserves the threefold categorisation of anarchy arriving from differeing circumstances. There is no need to invest the article with undue promnence to anarchis, which has a page of its own for those who wish to find out more about this particular ideology. Indeed anarchism emerged after theterm anarchy had been a subject of discussion for hundred's of years.Harrypotter 15:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If anything, non-anarchist senses of "anarchy" should have prominence, precisely because anarchism is covered elsewhere. And if a better scheme than the threefold model presents itself, we should certainly adopt it. But we absolutely need something in the intro that gives us at least as much structure and guidance to new editors as the threefold model. Libertatia 16:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Popular meaning of Anarchy

I do not undertsand why someone has removed a referenced popular use of the term of anarchy, specifically relating to things being out of control within the context of the state. It is important to place a brief reference to this polular use, before opening up the discussion to itsuse in political philosophy, otherwise the article looses credibility.Harrypotter 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

popular meaning of disorder

What the hell is your source? A newspaper? A newspaper doesn't tell you the popular use of a word, but rather how that newspaper uses a word. Complete bullshit, please revert yourself.--Urthogie 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have cited the popular use of the word by a newspaper. Why is that problematic? Many people may not agree with popularism, but it is a very real element in our society, and I am not sure why you might wish to deny the role of the popular press in presenting the popular meaning of words?Harrypotter 15:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anarchy refers to the situation where a society has no state. The word has connotations of chaos because of the history of government collapse. But the central definition is statelessness. The sunday herald or whatever doesn't change a thing about that.--Urthogie 15:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Anarchy" refers to at least four different cases, when you include the most popular understanding, which is undoubtedly "chaos." The use of the term in this last sense, by advocates of stateless society, challenges your bold assertion about exactly what "anarchy" refers to. (I can provide numerous examples if required. Anarchy and anarchism were not popular labels, even among those we would now consider anarchists, until the 1870s.) In any event, we just have to decide what "anarchy" means in this entry, and be clear about it, providing appropriate disambiguation and links where appropriate. Libertatia 16:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately you don't offer evidence for your viewpoint. I have cited an example where the word refers to disorder, and placed this in the context of the popular press. Having dealt with the popular use, it is then possible to go into its specific use in the context of political philosophy. This is also the import of the quotations from the Putney Debates. We also need a section on Anarchy in literature: Mere Anarchy from W.B. Yeats and Shelley's The Masque of Anarchy. I am sure onreflection you willcome tosee how this makes for a much better article.Harrypotter 16:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My evidence is dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other sources. Check the archives, you're merely rehashing an old discussion to fit your POV.--Urthogie 19:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

going to bring in some non-anarchist editors

I'm going to seek out help from various politics and philosophy wikiprojects, this article won't overcome its pro-anarchy bias until this happens. BRB.--Urthogie 19:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no pro-anarchy bias in this article. Nor is there a pro-anarchism bias. You are being asked to keep categories straight. I will be happy to contribute to the criticism of "noble savagism" and anarchist primitivism, as long as the article does not suggest, as it has at various points, that that this is the general goal of conscious anti-statism. Your clear aim, when you began to edit this page, was to conflate the results of conscious anti-statism and those of government-collapse—a position so obviously inadequate that it shouldn't require refutation. Libertatia 19:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm adding content to the conscious attempts at anarchy right now.--Urthogie 19:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If by "right now," you mean the material on the French Revolution, we only have a prime example of how confused you are on all of this. Those who considered it a period of "anarchy" pretty clearly meant disorder. Those who were responsible for the terror did not advocate the abolition of the state. You slide constantly from one definition to another. Libertatia 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I don't. It was a period of statelessness and disorder. Why don't you get this. Even the sources I use define anarchy as "kinglessness", not disorder. Look at them.--Urthogie 20:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because only Cromwell's personal power sustains the Protectorate [119/120], it cannot survive in his absence. Like Francia and the French, he does not create a cultural consensus that produces order but merely represses disorder. Consequently, with his death, England soon falls "into Kinglessness, what we call Anarchy " (4: 183; see 173). Rather than providing an alternative to the French Revolution, the Puritan revolution, as Carlyle himself acknowledges, inaugurated the era of revolutionary anarchy that would not end until the process initiated by Cromwell was complete.[4]

You don't seem to understand that mainstream historians hate kinglessness, or statelessness, and view it as creating chaos.--Urthogie 20:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What "mainstream historians" hate isn't our topic here. Neither is is every little thing that anyone has ever called "anarchy". Kinglessness and statelessness are not the same thing. The Terror was not simply an intergovernmental interregnum. The violence of the Terror and the purported violence of tribal societies are not cases which can be conflated. Even the failures of conscious experiments in statelessness comprise a different category of phenomena from any of these others. If you want to add Anarchy ("kinglessness"), and further confuse the issue, you can give that a try, I suppose. But keep the different uses of the term separate! Libertatia 20:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kinglessness was statelessness in France during the interregnum. "Anarchism arose out of the ideological ferment of the French Revolution." What mainstream historians hate is our topic here, by the way.--Urthogie 20:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an origin story for anarchism, yours is sadly uninformed. Anyway, it's clear that you intend to push this intentional confusion of definitions, in defiance of the consensus process that you were a part of. It's too bad, since you would undoubtedly get cooperation from people, including us naughty anarchists, if you were able to see beyond your fixed idea. As it is, it's probably time to reopen the consensus-building process, scrap and start again. Libertatia 20:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you really think I've been able to get any consensus? You need to stop pretending there's anything resembling a fair consensus mechanism on this page. It is merely a bunch of anarchist editors who argue with every change I make. Arguing over a word takes literally days here, and thats not counting all the reverts by other anarchists in the mean times. If you haven't noticed, Mazoitis tried to add a murderer (the Unabomber) as a source for anarchist thought. If anything, that's more anti-anarchist than anyone.--Urthogie 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps the problem is that you think you are going to get consensus, ignoring the fact that I, and others, worked with you previously to set up some guidelines. The "Urthogie vs. The Anarchists" bit is really stale and insulting at this point. Libertatia 00:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the Unabomber is an anarchist ideologue. I can give you several respected anarchist references concerning that. And about the several days discussing a word, I have to point out that you were the done who kept dicussing the issue with the claim that I was using the wrong word. But since you are so sure of your own view of things, you simply claim that I am the one going all wrong and picky about a word when all I was doing was to defend my section in the article.Maziotis 21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes, hes a murderer too. you dont see me getting my politics from manson.--Urthogie 21:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess that proves that you are morally superior to me....Maziotis 22:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

removal of yamamomi

Please describe to me why a tribe has to be composed of hunter-gatherers to be considered stateless? Thank you, --Urthogie 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They don't. But don't call those socities "hunter gather" or reference to them as primitive socities. That is the context in which you reference that socitety as an example.Maziotis 21:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nowhere did it call them hunter-gatherers. Thanks for wasting time once again.--Urthogie 21:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read more carefully before getting so emotional... The context of the section concerns "hunter gather societies", otherwise there would not even be a context for mentioning it. After all, this is still an article about anarchy. The section starts by saying that some primitive societies are view by some anthropologists as being projects that are comparable to anarchist projects. You then make a rebuttal about a form of society that is not mentioned.Maziotis 21:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The transition is: "However, other anthropologists point out that tribal societies are more violent than modern technological societies, on average." Tribal societies, not hunter gatherer societies. Also, you've violated the 3rr rule. Of course you can do this because you're an anarchist on an overwhelmingly anarchist page. This must show you how great anarchy is-- you can rule out other people's opinions on how something should be without giving a good reason!--Urthogie 21:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop being so emotional. Stop explaining to me why I do things the way I do. It really does not help anyone. There are definitely people who are not anarchists and are more "assholes" than me in the way you think that I am because of being an anarchist. I see people violate those rules all the time. Recently, someone explain to me that I benefit from the fact that I am removing material, since we should use the rule of cautiousness. It has nothing to do with me being an anarchist. I have abstain myself from removing your adds, while we are discussing, plenty of times.

I understand that the transition presents the reference of tribal societies in general, but I explained to you why it shouldn't. Maybe I am wrong and you can always explain me why. I believe it is wrong because the openness for the criticism to tribalism does not belong in the "anarchy" article. The reference that you gave does not concern an anarchy society, neither in practice nor in claim.Maziotis 22:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You get me way too stressed out. Congrats, only anarchist editors now. Have fun with your POV.--Urthogie 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structure, anyone?

I propose we throw the question of the structure of the article back open, as the results of the previous attempt at consensus seem to have been inadequate. We had, at one time in the not so distant past, been attempting to treat three different categories of "anarchy:"

  • pre-state societies;
  • the results of governmental collapse; and
  • consciously constructed stateless societies.

It appears there is also some special desire to treat the specifically anarchist arguments about pre-state societies. And the possibility of treating violence during civil wars, revolutions, and the like, as part of the second category(?), seems to be what has been driving Urthogie's French Revolution additions.

My only concern is that the various categories be kept separate, except where more than one applies to a case, and that none of them be simply conflated with the popular notion of anarchy as disorder. Can we hash out what, of the material we have, seems to be appropriate, and what still needs to be added? Libertatia 00:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a simple definition of anarchy.

anarchy can be simply explained. firstly, a democracy is where everyone makes the descisions together for everyone else to follow. second, a republic is where we all decide who will make the descision for us to follow. third, communism is where we all own it but whoever makes our descisions for us, has most of it, for some reason. fourth, a dictatorship is where i decide what rules you will follow, bitch. and Anarchy is where you make the descision all by yourself. anarchy is freedom. anarchy is knowing what is right and what is wrong; and not giving a fuck what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2007-05-28T07:53:17

'Anarchy is [the lack of] democracy, republic, communism, dictatorship, freedom, morality, independence'
The preceding comment does not seem to be aimed at improving this article.--Keerllston 13:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

very poorly done, anti-anarchist article

as there were quite a few posts before mine i didn't read all of them and so if this is a sentiment that has been mentioned earlier, feel free to disregard. this article is very poorly done and the first good half of the article mentions only "anarchist" societies that are prone to violence and poorly functioning. this is a completely ahistorical and really an ethnocentric view of anarchism. in reality, humans have lived in anarchist communities for the majority of our existence. anybody who says that by virtue of having chiefs, many tribes were not anarchistic have a distorted perception. simply because some tribes had leaders did not mean that these people had special privilege. being a chief was (and is), much like the manager of an independant circus, just another role that needed to be filled. when food was short, everyone in the tribe starved, including the chief.

in my opinion this article needs a complete rewrite and needs to take history (including the designated "pre-history") into consideration. -- 22:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above remark is itself ahistorical and ethnocentric. Anarchsim is a political ideology which emerged in Europe in the nineteenth century. It is a peice of specious self-inflation to ideologically colonise the reality of so much of human experience as being lived in anarchist communities. It is precisely this projection onto non-european and pre-historic communties an idyllicism which is a feature of the European enlightenment, and can be traced, in both its negative and positive aspects through Hobbess to Rousseau]] and beyond. The parallel with the manager of an independent circus is ironic, but probably not intentionally so. Does the fact that the leaders of the Żydowska Organizacja Bojowa suffered all the perils of the rank and file Jewish population of the Warsaw Ghetto during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising mean that they were anarchist? Nonsense, and highly offensive racist nonsensse at that! The writer does not understand what communities facing starvation frequently do - they choose who has most chance to survive, and others will choose to go without food so that those chosen will survive. In a less dramatic way, families will go through all sorts of deprivation, so that one child can get an education, and hopefully find a good career and then help the rest of the family.
The problem with the article, in my opinion, lies more in the fact that it attracts a disproportionate number of anarchists who then want to purge the article of anything critical of their professed ideology with an intolerance which belies their proclaimed beliefs - a feature common to practically every other ideology as well, for those who suggest this is simply an "anti-anarchist" view.Harrypotter 05:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with the article has been that the various meaning of anarchy have not been kept separate. Editors interested in presenting the materially accurately will certainly oppose attempts to confuse conscious anti-statism with the result of governmental interregna or collapse. Libertatia 15:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Thats not me unsigned but) - No, i disagree. That is your opinion on anarchism is perhaps the problem here. Using selective academic quotes, sparse historical nuggets coupled with narrow examples of survival and divide and rule situations in the Jewish ghetto etc is not the best way of explaining the possibilities of anarchism or its reference to historical events. This 'Jared Diamond' attitude that 'social pressure was on/these are the details of the event sequence' therefore certain actors are somehow sidelinable in their resposibility is arguably wrong. It is a much debatable and contentious viewpoint which certainly should not be used to craft the article into a dismissal of idealistic or experimental anarchist thought that makes connections with earlier forms of society. You lambast anarchistical editors for disagreeing with you.. in the same way the Bush administration or the Queen and co would criticise radicals for being against 'our way of life' and get labelled as trucking with terrorism (no criticism of YOUR own viewpoint). Most 'anarchistical' editors would and should take the view that this here page and the control of the article is a way of editors using verifiable sources and encyclopediac knowledge in a deliberative and collaborative manner.This means debate, editing, criticism and counter criticism. -- maxrspct ping me 06:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm fine with a lot of what you say there, but this entry is on anarchy not anarchism, a term which has been developed oputside the anarchist tradition. In fact certain key events, such as the use of the term anarchy in the Putney debates I have put in the article, but unfortunately they have been edited out. At that time there had been an attempt to work on some consensus . . . err sorry no, I just realse what you've done,and I will say no more as I think your full of . .Harrypotter 07:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I thinkn you have just shown your true colours (RJII?). Please mind Wikipedia:Civility. Liberal/rightwing libertarian toleration of other viewpoints is so shallow. -- maxrspct ping me 15:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Start

Following the vandalism by User_talk:max rspct (see ill-founded comments above), I have reverted to an older version which probably should provide a better way of moving forward. Well in fact I have included other bits and pieces, and no doubt the item could be improved.Harrypotter 18:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You accuse another editor of vandalism, is it true? Is this vandalism? Or is this just an editor who you happen to disagree with? Please provide evidence of vandalism as per WP:VAND or please stop accusing good faith editors of vandalism just because they disagree with you. It is perfectly possible for an editor to hold different point of view to you without that editor necessarily being a "vandal", you claim that this editor is a vandal and you say "see ill-founded comments above"...but how can comments on a talk page be vandalism? It makes no sense to me to claim that talk page posts are"vandalism" Alun 00:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would call this "blanking".Harrypotter 17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of forms of government

To the authors here:
To place anarchy there on this list doesn't make any sense.
Anarchy ist the absence of governement - the complete opposite of it.
To include it in the list is like to present atheism as a certain kind of religion or darkness as a certain kind of light ... it is wrong ... 15:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anarchy, like so much in this world, is nothing more than a paradox because to have the opposite of government is still a form of government just like atheism is still a religious belief in nothing spiritual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghy14y (talkcontribs) 04:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The TRUE meaning of Anarchy

Actually, Anarchy means without leader/ruler. In modern day, it would/should mean without government, maybe as well as without leader/ruler.

It is a common misconception however, that Anarchy means chaos, which it doesn't. Anarchy means without leader/ruler.

Panarchy 04:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although i disagree with your perjorative use of the 'true' meaning, i have accordingly modified the definitions to include 'without leadership', from the Greek root -archy (meaning leadership). At this stage, I don't think placing it at the top of the list is justified (although I question the ranked importance of Oxford English Dictionary definitions). Let's see if this, initially, is accepted. I see no reason for this to be one amongst other definitions.Bristoltrolley 17:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I too find the somewhat authoritarian insistence of a "true meanin" somewhat out of place. However I have changed the translation to without ruler from without authority and put a link to within the Archon page, where the querent can read:
In the early literary period of ancient Greece the chief magistrates of various Greek city states were called Archon. [citation needed] The term was also used throughout Greek history in a more general sense, ranging from "club leader" to "master of the tables" at syssitia to "Roman governor". [citation needed] In Roman terms, archontes ruled by imperium, whereas Basileis ("Kings") had auctoritas.Harrypotter 19:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

historical change in meaning

The meaning of a word or concept differs not only from context to context, but also from time to time. Then, why is the meaning "kinglessness" not discussed in the article, it might have been relevant to earlier usage of the word?

The quote about Jamaica 1720 has nothing to do with 'after government collapse'. It is just an example of the common use of the word 'anarchy' at that time. This makes it very strange that few examples of the various modern usages are given (see popular meaning).

The word anarchy is often used (maybe rather sloppy) to indicate a not very clear defined but disapproved and feared situations of lack of order, leadership or law. (where is the link to anomaly?) This is as true for popular newspapers today, as it is for old French Aristocrats and Governors of Jamaica. The fact that this might not be the 'true' or 'correct' meaning of the word anarchy, does not change the fact that it is often used that way: also in the historical) examples given, that supposedly are examples of 'true' anarchy (?). Tamira C. 17:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you might be refering to anomie --naught101 10:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

error before article

Before the actual contents of the article, there's a generalized defintion of anarchy. And I don't think this "F-F-FGSFDS!" is supposed to be there. I'm not sure how to edit it, otherwise I'd do it. Vericuester 07:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool, it's fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vericuester (talkcontribs) 07:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

anarchy rox

who agrees?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Anarchy rules! Arogi Ho (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't related to improving the article. Vericuester 02:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bet you anything the OP is some punk fifteen year old ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quotes from OED are fabricated

The alleged quotes from the OED are false. I originally put the quotes in from the OED but someone, or more than one person, has changed the wording over time. Operation Spooner 02:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done - reverted to old version, thanks for that, they looked really weird before.--Keerllston 12:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

England 1135-1154

It is worth mentioning the period stated above, which is actually called 'The Anarchy', during which there was civil war and considerable lack of rule particularly in rural england.I leave it to more history-savvy wikipedians to handle that.Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spain 1936

I wanted to bring to light a few errors in this part of the article. The Republican government did not collapse immediately after Franco declared war. The republican government did attempt to fight the Conservatives(Franco's army). Much of the resistance was not made by the anarchists, the anarchists took advantage of the turmoil and took over certain regions of Spain. The republican government had to focus there efforts on the anarchists instead of the Conservative revolt. Eventually the socialists took control of the republican government to get support from Russia. Although the conservatives were winning the war, the anarchists made the situation worse by attacking the central government. Megamanxxx2000 03:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the comment above. The role that the anarchism played in the Spanish Civil War is biased in this article and should be reviewed by an expert in history. I cannot understand why people picture the Spanish "comunas" during the Civil War as the paradises they never were. The fragmentation of the republican-controlled part of Spain due to many of those ridiculously small groups made impossible the effort of the central government to fight back Franco. Many of these small groups did send troops to the front who would not recognize any leadership but themselves, and turned the war front into a circus in many. There were also fights among the leaders of this "comunas" to lead the anarchist movement. Something against their own ideology I believe, because they were not supposed to have a "leader". Please, fix this section. Thank you. 0:32, 12 December 2007

  • The Republican government did not collapse immediately after Franco declared war.
The section does not claim that the Republican government collapsed, the claim is that it largely collapsed. This is true. I have amended the text to "lost control over much of Spain". Alun (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The republican government did attempt to fight the Conservatives(Franco's army).
This is an odd statement. Most of the regular army supported Franco's uprising (which was in reality a failed coup d'etat), the majority of the resistance to the uprising was by local organized resistance, some was by civil guard troops and some by police, but much of the army either joined the revolt or simply stayed in barracks and waited to see what would happen. The reason why this localized resistance was so well organised was due to the readiness of the anarchists for a revolution. The revolution and the resistance were one and the same thing to the anarchists. This is well documented. I wonder, do you think that the government itself went out into the streets to fight the army? See Buenaventura Durruti. Alun (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Much of the resistance was not made by the anarchists,
No claim is made that this is not true. This article is about anarchism, the role of non-anarchist forces, while substantial, is irrelevant to this article. Alun (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • the anarchists took advantage of the turmoil and took over certain regions of Spain.
That's what the article says. But anarchists didn't "take over", anarchism doesn't have a hierarchy, people spontaneously organised because state control had broken down in many regions of Spain. Alun (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Semantics. Anarchists had charismatic figures just like any other government, who served as leader-figures, implying at least a proto-hierarchy. You can't "spontaneously organize" in the sense of everyone getting the exact same thought into their heads at the same time, there must be originators, who become the go-to guys. Would not the word of a heroic guerilla hold more sway than a peasant with a pitchfork? I remember reading about many leaders of the CNT/FAI or whatever it was called in past research into the Spanish conflicts, like Juan García Oliver and Buenaventura Durruti. Agressive revolutionary figures always pop up and take relative control. The goal of your critique is obviously to turn the article into an anarchist POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The republican government had to focus there efforts on the anarchists instead of the Conservative revolt.
This is not true. The Republicans were coerced into ostracising the anarchists by the Stalinists. By this time the Stalinists had control over arms shipments and much of the new republican army, the Stalinists were more interested in power than defeating the Francoist uprising. While the anarchists saw their main priority as defeating the Francoists, the Stalinists saw their main priority as defeating the anarchists. For example CNT anarchists were represented in the government of Francisco Largo Caballero, which rather undermines your claim. It was not until the Stalinists had achieved their own coup with the installation of Juan Negrín that the anarchists started to be persecuted, and he didn't get power until May 1937. Many anarchist collectives were destroyed by Stalinist forces in the summer of 1937, not only displacing innocent women and children and wasting military resources that could have been used against the common enemy, but also destroying crops in the fields that could and would have been used to feed Republican troops on the front line. So clearly the Republican government did not initially see it's main priority as defeating the anarchists. Furthermore most anarchist militia were eventually assimilated into the new Republican Army, which again rather undermines your claim. Your chronology seems a bit confused. Alun (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • the anarchists made the situation worse by attacking the central government.
The central government would have collapsed within a few weeks of the uprising if anarchist militia columns, such as the Durruti Column had not provided a stiff resistance to the regular army on the very first day of the uprising. Just who do you think resisted the army? One cannot fight an army with thin air. See Spanish Civil War, 1936 and Spanish_Civil_War#Government_reaction Alun (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to make changes to the article, feel free, but provide citations please. If you cannot do this I will remove the tag in a few days. I'll look for citations for the information that is already there, I have some literature that should provide support for all of the claims made. Alun (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issues in "Anthropology"

In the first sentences of the "Anthropology" section, the article seems to use the presence of violence as a refutation of the presence of anarchy among some tribes. To me this makes no sense, as by the definitions of anarchy I have come upon there is nothing stating that there would be no violence present. Though I don't believe it to necessarily work this way amongst the Yanomamo, if a tribe's members decide to attack another tribe, I don't see it as having to necessarily be a hierarchical thing.

Moving on to the Yanomamo in particular, I think it's important to make the distinction that the Yanomamo are horticulturalists, whereas those cultures discussed as egalitarian and anarchical are typically hunter-gatherers. I think this is a very important distinction to be made.

-- (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since anarchy asserts that no one has the right to impose themselves on others, a society which encourages violence can't be wholly anarchic, since they'd be denying the right to freedom to the victim which they supposedly believe in. Also, the use of the word primitive in this section is contentious - I know anarcho-primitivists mean well by it, but many non-european cultures who have historically been called primitive by the west find the term offensive and racist. (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC) It should be noted that the majority of anthropoligists and archaeologists do not consider egalitarian H/Gs to be strictly non-hierarchical; every documented tribe has some form of hierarchy, though they are anarchical to a degree. The difference should be stressed between anarchy and strict non-hierarchy, which is non-existant.Reply[reply]

Request a change

Uner the heading Anarchism here I noticed this

as a philosophical movement occurred in the mid 19th century, with its notion of freedom as being based upon political

The term notion sounds a bit biased and I'm checking to see if it's ok if I change it to idea.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychonautic (talkcontribs) 19:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation instead of mess?

Why is this article treating (at least) two completely distinct topics (anarchy by accident and anarchy by choice) instead of separating the two in distinct articles and using disambiguation? If no precedence can be decided, the article itself can become a disambig page, but IMHO the current structure is definitely worse than any compromise based on separating the topics. So, any reason against breaking this article in topic-oriented articles? --Gutza T T+ 23:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think anarchy should be separated into two articles based on those criteria. The subjects you mention are closely related, like two sides of the same coin. Sections would work well. Communism can be by choice or imposed, utopia can be a practical or metaphorical concept, words and meanings are ambiguous. But it's not like a state that is lawless after a government collapse and a state that is lawless because the people choose not to have a government are totally unrelated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm, you might be right after all. What I actually wanted to separate was chaotical stateless societies stemming from accident from the anarchical societies or philosophies proper (e.g. Somalia vs. Spain). However, when I tried to draw a line I realized that's very difficult, and any attempt to separate the topics in such a manner would indeed probably make matters worse. --Gutza T T+ 14:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the point you make is important and if it's not clear in the article it should be. There's certainly a big distinction between a political philosophy and a failed state that defaults to anarchy. In fact, some of the editorial efforts on this article from ideological supporters of anarchy seem to be an effort to disassociate the term from historical examples of chaos. But anarchy is anarchy, and both examples of anarchic systems seem to me to be valid and worthy of inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mind you, I never said we should choose one over the other, I simply wanted to separate them. Also, the fact that two concepts are identified by the same term (anarchy as in chaos vs. anarchy as in coherent political philosophy) is all the more reason for disambiguation -- in fact, that's precisely what disambiguation is for. --Gutza T T+ 10:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have an article on the political philosophy at anarchism. Zazaban (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I had noticed that, but please notice the nuances in this discussion. For the record, I have already backed down on this matter, I'm only trying to make sure we're all on the same page. --Gutza T T+ 23:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A fundamental question for this page is which etymology is used for a principal definition. There are currently 2 options:

(from Greek: ἀναρχία anarchía, "without authority") and (from [an-] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help), "without" and [-archy] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help), "leadership", hence "without leadership").

I contend that the former is more abstracted (less exact) than the latter, therefore the latter should be the primary definition. Of course, as the OED favours the former, it can, and should, be a rival, alternative definition. However, I favour a discussion on the matter, as I'm no expert in Greek. However, I do believe that the former definition above is how anarchy is commonly misrepresented, as mentioned by paPenisaksi knowen as DICKnarchy below.Bristoltrolley 11:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "two meanings" in the definition is not entirely clear to me. I suspect what is intended is the distinction between 1) a voluntary rule and 2) an involuntary rule.

But the Norwegian link says

"A. Rules, rule = regler, regel (relatively fixed ways to settle things in an orderly way, i.e. regulations and regulatory means); but also

B. Rules, rule = hersking, hersker, herske (to be an arch/ruler, act as an arch, bestiality)."

The problem is that A is a noun while B is a verb. English already has this, namely "a rule" and "to rule." The Norwegian is irrelevant. Now if Norwegian has a noun form of B, then it will make the distinction I suspected. I tried several dictionaries and could not even find B as a verb. Since the word "rule" or "ruler" does not even appear in bullet 3, I suggest this paragraph be shortened or scrapped. (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)aperrone 13:20, 17 May 2008Reply[reply]

The key concept of Anarchy is the absence of a coercive state using violence to enforce behavior. VOLUNTARISM is Anarchism. It is not an ideology, but a political philosophy primarily stating that voluntarism is the best way to run society. I attempted to add this accepted definition by self-proclaimed "anarchists" with two references, once of which is the Wiktionary definition, the other an Anarchist FAQ, but it was removed:
  • "A system of organizing society based on voluntary cooperation rather than force and coercion." [9][10]

This should be at least one of the definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is it prehaps not worth mentioning Isreal betwen the reign of Joshua and the reign of King saul as an example of an anrachy. as from my understaning it was an anarchy for longer then most others it seems to meeat the defntions

1. there was no king or goverment system
2. the law was upheld by the common person
3. they had no army however if they where attaked self apointed Judges or Heroes would rally the peepole to them for a time untill the threat passed 
4. in short they did as they saw fit with in a frame work of a shared religuos belief

it would help shift the balnace between chaotic anarcys and planed ones

(sory about my dislexia i think most of it is spelt okay) -- (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Get some sources, and it's go. Zazaban (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that a lot of pepole do not like biblical refrenses hoowever i will sight judges whislt i look for les controversial sources judges ilistrats the above points i belive the the mian facts lack of king extra "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."17;6 would be souprted by text of other civliazation (however to find a non biased historcal entery for 1300 bc will be a chalange) hmm after a small cmount of surfing i have a feling i will defintly need to go to a libary for this one. (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that would count as original research. Can you find anything putting forth that interpretation of that verse, because the verse itself isn't a source. Zazaban (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look buddy, first, learn to spell. Second, I highly doubt whether Israel ever met the definition of anarchos, without rulers. Unless you can find some non-original research into the subject matter, (AND BIBLICAL VERSES DON'T COUNT - THE BIBLE IS AND HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO MANY RETELLINGS AND ERRORS), like archaeological data validating these verses, then go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

whist I earier said I would try to find some good acedemic souces for Isreal I am giving up. the big problem is the curent palastine thing, all the sourses after world war 2 are so politisized which of couse includes all web based articles. It is to hard to fillter thought the propaganda once agin a apoligize for my dislexa. good luck to any one how crazy enough to take this on (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anarchy after The State

The modern day state has (as in uk) or is in the state of collapse. It just doesn't know it yet. To avoid super states or big brother type undemocratic Euro supra republics maybe a return to the no state anarchy would be better. I think people do much better without interference from others or the state. Harmony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ^ Seven Lies About Civilization, Ran Prieur
  2. ^ Industrial Society and Its Future, Theodore Kaczynski
  3. ^ Zerzan, John (2002). Running on Emptiness: The Pathology of Civilization. Feral House. ISBN 092291575X. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  4. ^ Zerzan, John (1994). Future Primitive: And Other Essays. Autonomedia. ISBN 1570270007. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  5. ^ Industrial Society and Its Future, Theodore Kaczynski
  6. ^ Freud, Sigmund (2005). Civilization and Its Discontents. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0393059952. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  7. ^ Shepard, Paul (1996). Traces of an Omnivore. Island Press. ISBN 1559634316. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  8. ^ The Consequences of Domestication and Sedentism by Emily Schultz, et al
  9. ^ Wiktionary definition of "anarchy"
  10. ^ Anarcho-capitalist FAQ "What are the myths of Statism"