Talk:Anarchy/Archive 5

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

Anarchy/Anarchism

I don't understand why the two, which describe the same thing, are split into two different articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.181.208.43 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because they don't describe the same thing. "Anarchism" refers to a political ideology, "Anarchy" refers to a form of government. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Anarchism" is a complex political philosophy covering everything from collectivism and communism to individualism and anarcho-capitalism. "Anarchy" is precisely NOT a form of government, statism, or bureaucracy. It is an economic concept. People who don't now the difference, or don't know econ, perhaps shouldn't edit without reading up a bit first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rothbardanswer (talkcontribs) 03:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Which is EXACTLY my point about the "Anarchy" article.

Oxford English Dictionary: A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems [1]

Mirriam-Webster Dictionary: Absence of government [2]

This wikipedia page contains inaccurate biased information with inaccurate sources in an attempt at redefinition. Undoubtedly written by libtards.

Now the ratings have been manipulated, they were previously rated 1 out of 5, thanks for effectively TRASHING wikipedia.



The citation that shows historical examples of an anarchy based government (citation 5) actually links to a discussion where examples of anarchism based societies is shown. There are no examples of anarchy-based government. This should be under anarchism. Also there is no citation that anarchy outside of the United States refers to anarchism (that is essentially what is being proposed) and it links the an American website... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.23.91.123 (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reciprocal Altruism

I'm wondering if a brief discussion of Reciprocal Altruism with a link to the Wikipedia entry for Reciprocal Altruism might fit well in this topic. Waiting for feedback before adding. Roger Midnight (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC) -Anarchy is a form of government(or let us say having no government) while anarchism is an ideology of creating such a state of no government. (talk) 9:46,12.february 2010(UTC)Reply[reply]

What I did to the history of this page

I just did the following to the history of this article:

  • Moved three edits to Anarchy from September 2005 to Anarchy (disambiguation), to fix a cut-and-paste move
  • Deleted a redirect edit to Anarchy from September 2005 (admins can now see it at Anarchy/Temp)
  • History merged Anarchy with Anarchy (word), whose history was deleted in January 2006 after this AFD. It's worth noting that the Anarchy page was move to "Anarchy (word)" in September 2005.

Therefore, this edit summary now makes no sense whatsoever, but the edit on the left of the diff used to be a redirect edit.

I also moved Talk:Anarchy (word) to Talk:Anarchy/Archive 2, and renumbered the archives accordingly; Talk:Anarchy/Archive 1 refers to page history that was at Anarchy (word) before my machinations. Graham87 04:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firsst Theory ..after examples

These historic examples do not refer to the theory on anarchism, which is modern —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.68.165 (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I agree with the above comments on the quotations. This is, in fact, the worst article I have ever read on Wikipedia and is a direct result of the haphazard attempt of just copying and pasting a bunch of quotes.

I know, why don't I improve the quality of the article? Because I don't consider myself an expert or knowledgeable in this subject, hence why I was curious to read this page in the first place. --Mav12321 (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree.I also consider this article quite(but not completely) biased in a anti libertarian propaganda way.gotcha1234 (talk) 9:49 12.February 2010(UTC)

Rewrite to Lead

I rewrote the lead because it was an ugly, bulleted list of quotes that really didn't say much. I think this prose version is much more direct; I have preserved all the original source material and tried to capture the basic ideas that were carried in the quotes. Feel free to help fix stuff. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

anarchy people are dumbass's who need to stop be lazy and take responsibiltie'e for their government —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.19.178 (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

trol's r dumbass's who need to stop be lazy and find a moar productive'e place to trol... like youtube. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


http://korpora.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/kant/aa07/330.html this is the reference to the chapter on kant. dunno how to edit it. help please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.117.253.137 (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criticism of Steven Pinker's views

The section on Anthropological views provides a lengthy quotation by Steven Pinker, followed by a rather non-specific sentence criticising his views. This seems unbalanced. The book Sex at Dawn provides detailed criticism of Pinker's claims that hunter-gatherer societies had high rates of homicide. From memory, the authors noted that some of the societies that Pinker cites homicide data for were not even hunter-gatherer societies at all, but horticulturalists. I don't have the book at hand presently. If any editors have access to this book, or other sources of criticism of Pinker, it would be great if more detail could be provided. Smcg8374 13:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcg8374 (talkcontribs)

What happened to the old non stylized logo? This one is over stylized and shouldn't represent the concept of anarchy as a whole. Nex Carnifex (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source not working/poor source

I'm not yet familiarized with Wiki editing or source rules but I feel it important to question the validity of one the sources, well the site its sourcing doesn't even resolve at this time. http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Anarchy#cite_note-5 It says it was " "A discussion on what anarchy is, by those that self-identify as anarchists". This just seems like a total sham of a source to me, not to mention the page doesn't even work anymore but you can go back and look at it on the Internet Archive. Which by the way, doesn't even have a snapshot after July 2011 so the site has probably been down awhile. http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.anarchy.net/

I'd be inclined to remove it but I'm not sure if that would entail removing the text which was using it as a citation or any other conditions. Imaginateme (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can add the archive url by inserting the following code:
  • {{cite web|title=A discussion on what anarchy is, by those that self-identify as anarchists |url=http://www.anarchy.net |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20110723013854/http://www.anarchy.net/ |archivedate=23 July 2011 |work=anarchy.net |publisher=[[Internet Archive]]}}
Which produces:
  • "A discussion on what anarchy is, by those that self-identify as anarchists". anarchy.net. Internet Archive. Archived from the original on 23 July 2011.
You could always seek a more reliable source to the supported statement:

"a system of governance… …that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society"

. ~ benzband (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think that statement should be removed as it is biased lacks an impartial source and is historically dubious its clear pov pushing Irishfrisian (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is very good editing and contribution by Imaginateme. The rationale here is to make additions to the article because the linguist Noam Chomsky identifies himself as an anarchist. If we do this I don't see how we can exclude any political philosophers or economists who also consider themselves anarchists. Anything else would be editors bias. Our only role is to contribute information on historical or extant ideology NOT to pass judgment on if we think people who did call themselves anarchist were correct or not. If we include sources like this from the linguist Noam Chomsky we have to also be open to any published political philosophers and economists who also call themselves anarchist politically or theorise economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rothbardanswer (talkcontribs) 05:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop censoring etymology.

Stale

There is an incomplete etymological root in the opening line. If you dislike my wording, then change it. But do not simply delete what I have to contribute -- how is THAT constructive?

My edit:

We must also consider the relationship between the words ἀρχός archos, and αρχή arkhē, a possible root word, which means "beginning, origin". [3][4] To live "ἄναρχος" ("anarkhos") would in a sense mean to live "without origins". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.108.5 (talk)

But how is any of this relevant to this article about anarchy? This is not an article about the Greek word ἀναρχία. The article is about the topic of anarchy. The etymology section is about the etymology of the English word "anarchy" which is used as a name for this topic. The links you give say nothing about the etymology of the English word. The OED gives an etymology for the English word anarchy("< Greek ἀναρχία, n. of state < ἄναρχ-ος without a chief or head, < ἀν priv. + ἀρχός leader, chief. "), but says nothing about a sense of "beginning". Your sources do not include any claim like 'To live "ἄναρχος" ("anarkhos") would in a sense mean to live "without origins"'. I'm not going to remove it because I don't find it helpful, I'm going to remove because it is irrelevant to the topic. This isn't censoring etymology, it's just improving the article. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 23:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Oxford English Dictionary".
  2. ^ "Merriam-Webster Dictionary".
  3. ^ {{url=http://lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.php?lemma=%E1%BC%84%CF%81%CF%87%CF%89%CE%BD}}
  4. ^ {{url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2315894&redirect=true}}

United States

The article implies or states as if 'anarchy' does not mean lawlessness outside of the US. Which is rather ridiculous, I can tell as a European where 'anarchie' (Dutch and German) in public discourse refers to a state of lawlessness, this is not the case. In fact, didn't anarchy originate from Medieval England to describe a state of lawlessness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goti1233 (talkcontribs) 12:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you're entirely right! I just added infomation on the economist Gustave de Molinari who first theorised the state monopoly on protection as outside free market anarchism and proposed market law. The editor Spylab (I don't know if that name implies censorship or intent at edit warring) deleted this sourced material as POV pushing without any explanation. I'm going to include it again.

Rothbardanswer (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The claim that anarchy has a different definition in the United States than it does in other countries is very dubious and does not belong in the lead section. The trivia about Gustave de Molinari does not belong in the lead section. Perhaps it can fit in one of the other sections, but there has to be legitimate reason for it to be there. The fact that a reference exists is not enough. I re-inserted the claim that anarchy "is a technical issue of economic science" but added "clarify" and "citation needed" tags because that statement is vague and not backed up by any references. It definitely should not be the first phrase that appears in the article. I agree that the current lead sentence is lacklustre, but replacing a lackluster sentence with a vague, POV-pushing sentence is not an improvement. Note that personal attacks are to be avoided on Wikipedia.Spylab (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is blatant POV-pushing, as you have been doing on numerous anarchism and market related articles. Gustave de Molinari was a laissez faire liberal with only the most tenuous connection to anarchism. He never considered himself an anarchist (would have probably thought the suggestion ridiculous) and no one else prominent (to my knowledge) had ever tied him to anarchism until Rothbard. Finx (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does come from Medieval Latin anarchia and originally Greek anarkhia but rather than lawlessness, it literally means "without archon" -- so the etymology implies "no rulers/leaders" more so than "no law". But I think in its contemporary usage it could mean either or both, depending on whether it's used just colloquially in place of "chaos" or to describe a (possibly highly ordered and organized) society. Etymology reference. Finx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anarchism sidebar

Why is it listed twice here? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Nomination

How does everyone feel about this article being nominated for GA? I won't do so until those two "Citation Needed"'s have been fixed, or without the approval of you guys. TotallyNotEtreo 08:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Albania

I'm not really a wikipedia expert (so sorry in advance). After somehow stumbling onto this page, I ended up skimming the article. The section on Albania stood out and I want to call everyone's attention to it. It needs revision. Here's the quote:

"n 1997 in Albania, Anarchy was everywhere. Everybody had guns and able to kill without anyone saying anything about it. Guns were everywhere and an AK-47 could be bought for just 1000 lek (10 dollars). There were gangs everywhere, especially in South Albania where the police did not have any power and you could find about 3-4 gangs in every city. Anarchy in Albania started because people lost their money in Pyramids Firms. In cities like Gramsh, military bases contained about 50,000 weapons with a population of only 10,000 or in Polican (there was the Weapon's Factory) there were about 100,000 weapons for a population of only 8,000."

Plus there's no citation. I understand that there's a larger article on it, but it should still have some sort of citation on the "Anarchy" page. Finally, the wording sounds weird - especially the bit about guns (don't worry, I don't have a political axe to grind). I mean, this may all be true. The wording as it stands just sounds off to me. I'm not sure what everyone else thinks.

- anonymous peruser - 4/6/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.161.40 (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]



AnarchyList of stateless societies – This page seems to be a summary of anarchism (which has its own, appropriately titled article) and a list of societies that have/had no state. The material on anarchism should be removed and the list renamed to "List of stateless societies" or something of the like. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC) -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Split the list off into its own article, then determine what needs to merge to anarchism and elsewhere. After that, rebuild this article and rename it to state of anarchy. Whereupon this title becomes the disambiguation page (move the dab page here) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: The list is too small to have enough WP:Notability to stand on its own. Meanwhile, the major part of this article is about anarchy itself. Deleting those material will be a severe harm to this article, and as such material is the major part of this article, this title move would be impractical.Forbidden User (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forbidden User, anarchy itself? You mean, stateless societies? If so, it sounds like we're actually in agreement. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MisterDub, your request is moving to List of stateless societies, not Stateless societies. With "List" only brief information about anarchy would be left, and that means mass cutting. By the way, anarchy is a kind of system, or a concept, while stateless societies describes societies adopting anarchy. Do not mix up the two. Even anarchy(a system; a concept) and anarchism (a political philosophy that advocates anarchy) are different. There is quite a lot of information which is not describing any stateless societies, and thus moving/merging to "Stateless societies" does not work either.Forbidden User (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional information: I also found the articles Stateless society and Stateless nation, of which the former appears to be on the same topic as this. The information on this article probably ought to be transferred to Stateless society and Anarchy redirected there. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then you should propose a merger. I want to add that by the comprehensiveness and relevancy of the three articles, referenced information in Stateless society can be merged to here and Stateless society redirects here, leaving Stateless nation alone.Forbidden User (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are correct. Had I known about the other article before, I would have proposed this as a merger. What, do you think, would be the best way to proceed? Let the move request stand? Or convert it to a merge request? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess opening a separate section called "Merger proposal" and propose your thought on merging would be best. This move request can be closed as not moved.Forbidden User (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not merged. Forbidden User (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I propose that Anarchy be merged into Stateless society. I think a merger would avoid the confusion this article creates by alternating between two very different meanings of the term anarchy, which historically referred to the "chaos and disorder" arising from a stateless society, but was later adopted by anarchists to refer to a specific type of stateless society with spontaneous order. The information regarding anarchism already has a proper place in Anarchism and can be dropped entirely, while the brief descriptions and list of stateless societies would be better suited for Stateless society, to which Anarchy can redirect. Or perhaps it would be better to make this a WP:DABPAGE listing both Anarchism and Stateless society as possible destinations (an IP user suggested titling the DABPAGE State of anarchy). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anarchy should not redirect to "stateless society", since a state of anarchy can exist in zones where governmental control has broken down, this does not mean that the society is governmentless. They are separate topics. If you look at the Watts Riots, clearly a state of anarchy ensued, but the society was not stateless. Anarchy/state of anarchy is a more general subject that stateless society. Just split off the anarchism and stateless society material to their respective articles. What remains can be rebuilt to cover the more general topic "state of anarchy". WP:Summary style short sections on anarchism and stateless society can lead to those topics with {{main}} section hatnotes. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anarchy is more concise than state of anarchy (and even more general). Per view above, redirecting "anarchy" to "stateless society" or else is not the right thing to do.
Meanwhile, this article informs what anarchy is, while anarchism informs a philosophy that anarchy is the best system, with information about the effects and influence of anarchy, etc... not much about what anarchy is. So we'd better leave them as separate articles. As anarchism is closely related to anarchy, it should be given WP:Due weight here, and I'm fine with the current proportion. By the way, there are {{main}} tags you mentioned already. Examples are necessary for explaining what anarchy is, though the proportion can be discussed. This article is for general information on anarchy (which would contain some about anarchism and stateless societies), and readers can get the gist through the current content. I think the current issue is the proportion only.
MisterDub, if this article is merged to stateless society, then all the information about anarchism, etc, would go there too, which is inappropriate for me. If you have to merge the two articles, merging "stateless societies" to here would be a better idea, though I'm not really for it.Forbidden User (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose "Stateless society" has specific historical uses. Redirecting people there from anarchy whicih has two different meanings is unnecessary and confusing to readers. Bad idea. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - While there is some overlap, these two topics are not an identity. I agree that splitting off the anarchism and stateless society material to their respective articles should fix any problem. Meclee (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, briefer sections for the two subjects are more desirable here. Why don't we open a new section about the proposed split and take care of the merger here? For me it's an oppose.Forbidden User (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MisterDub: If you do not propose any new arguments, I shall close this proposal as not merged.Forbidden User (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forbidden User, it is quite clear that consensus is against a merger. Feel free to close. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anarchy

Social studies.

Flash309 (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Title Of The Page

Anarchy should be replaced with Anarchism. Anarchy refers to a state of chaos or disorder (An = no, Archos = ruler), Anarchism refers to the ideologies of government and non-government of Bakunin, Bucharin, and more.MrSativa (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I completely agree that anarchism and anarchy are distinct concepts. But this article seems to clearly covers the entire spectrum of anarchy, both 'deliberate' anarchist communities, and historic periods of anarchism resulting from lack of hierarchical power structure through force of accident. Trilobright (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page should be semi-protected

This page has seen some vandalism and thus deserves to be protected from IP users. Can an administrator do that? Winterysteppe (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's currently semi-protected until 25 March. Melonkelon (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kibbutz?

I think the roots of the kibbutz movement are more Marxist than anarchist, not to mention the movement being very tightly tied up with Zionism and the state of Israel. They also had strict rules about things like children living separately from their parents, all wealth and income, including gifts, being turned over the the community, no personal property (even clothes), and so on. There were a lot of rules and a formal decision-making process, and everyone had to live by the same community-set rules. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recording

There are multiple hierarchies in various contexts, most notably within their respective, possible identifications. <3 They are broken down by the senses relative to the life forms inhabiting the universe(s?) whatever. For instance, the particles of the matter can be simply by(e) their velocity and relative location (maybe cities). Despite their insistence or other convenient conditions, impacts that occur within relative locations (on an orbit? in a body?)(across a creature?) can be minimized. This is contrary to capitalism. The machine. The mind. That which is according to reception. The hierarchies are broken first by time and are secondly in form or otherwise patterned, mathematically, socially, mentally, and/or vivid: texturally defined in the cells that house my mind. I found the cells in the world of the whirled. Dreams. There is a revision that is capable of absorbing and effectively replacing substances subjectively while considering an object. One or more may consider one or more objects. Either way, the objects are recorded. Their are various stressors. There are various masses under various conditions. The conditions... First, find the common denominator. Now the other one. It is common after all. Life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A lolling axis (talkcontribs) 09:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anarchy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed merge with Anarchism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Time to bring this up again. A merger was discussed in the past for Anarchy ----> Anarchism, but that doesn't really make sense. However the reverse does make sense (the page on Anarchism ought to be incorporated into Anarchy). This is a poster child for WP:NAD and I can't believe this hasn't been done years ago. Both terms use the exact same infobox for pete's sake. The Anarchy article already covers the myriad uses of the term; the info in the Anarchism article can be used to flesh out Anarchy#Political philosophy. Neither article is so long to make merging a challenge. So let's not get into a semantics argument, and do the right thing for simplicity's sake. It's a bit absurd that a Wikipedia reader needs to go to these two separate articles. Pariah24 02:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other relevant policy: WP:MERGEREASON, WP:FAN Pariah24 02:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose No convincing rationale has been presented to justify merging two relatively long articles on different, but related, subjects. DICDEF clearly doesn't apply to either article. As further evidence of the confused nature of this suggestion, neither article has an infobox, and neither MERGEREASON nor FAN is a policy (nor do they apply here). — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. The contents are too different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaChen (talkcontribs) 20:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose --- Communism, Libertarianism, Socialism, Anarchism... let's go ahead and keep it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Per the !votes here I've removed the merge request from both pages. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anarchy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scope

This topic is perennially recommended for merger/renaming because its scope is shoddy. If we suspend disbelief and agree that "anarchy" and "anarchism" are wholly separate topics, I imagine the twain would be separated as "a state without hierarchies (or leader-/lawlessness)" and "a political philosophy that pursues a state without hierarchies". Our anarchism is a GA and no one contests the political philosophy's history, actions, books & culture, but the question, then, is what to cover separately as "a state without hierarchies". Right now, this article is some potpourri of anarchist philosophy (duplicative of anarchism) and lists of stateless societies and failed states. If specific conditions of statelessness is the total scope of this article, how is it not equal in scope to stateless societies? There is bound to be some scope overlap with anarchism, but what exactly should anarchy cover that would be inappropriate to cover in the anarchism and vice versa? More to the point, what is the scope of this article—what should its major sections be? czar 03:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'A' symbol

This has to be a joke, right? That symbol is not the Anarchy 'A'. Should be hand drawn, slightly askew and off-center with the strokes of the 'A' extending significantly beyond the circle. This logo seems like the antithesis of "Anarchy". 72.201.143.73 (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old Joe used to says

Old Joe used to says : "All Hindus are Christians and anarchy doesn't exist!" ==

He was wrong:

http://www.pr51st.com/anti-statehood-movements-from-current-states/ make page: Antistatehood (non-statehood which is not the same is sometimes a result of the conditions or not as conscious and polemic as antistatehood)

  • antistate in physics is different
  1. against US or other country-states
  2. against the notion of country in general

Compromised anarchy, democratic anarchy etc.

It exists, like euro-communism and other compromised stuff. The fact that something seems stupid to the majority doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

How does this comment relate to improving the article? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
term: make page - some fields of study are missing, Wikipedia isn't about the article on anarchy - this was a relative comment - Wikipedia was created to include many articles.
How does hindering the range of subjects on Wikipedia relate to enriching this encyclopedia?

Make page Antistatehood

  • The Anti-Statehood Movement and the Legacy of Alice Kamokila Campbell - Core

PDFhttps://core.ac.uk › download › pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410C:9100:3977:C3CD:497C:A48B (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alice is daughter of James Campbell (industrialist)?

Designation of Comunidades de Población en Resistencia (CPR) as presently ungoverned

The list of ungoverned communities lists the ||Comunidades de Población en Resistencia|| as presently active, although both in English and in Spanish, it seems like there has been no guerrilla activity since the end of the civil war in 1996. However, it also doesn't say anything to the contrary. It could also be said that even if the communities themselves aren't in active rebellion, their isolation and remoteness still classifies them as ungoverned. Any opinions? PigeonPidgin (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]