This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Anarchism Tree
It helps to have a diagram of the various schools of anarchism. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BeŻet, you should discuss things rather than unilaterally deleting my edits. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilLiberty: Could you please stop vandalizing pages using some diagrams you created. Per WP:BRD, you are making a bold change that warrants discussion. There is a large number of sources indicating that anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with anarchism, let alone individualist anarchism. If you disagree, discuss this first before engaging in an edit war. BeŻet (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm pretty good at the bold, revert, and discuss cycle. By the definitions given in Wikipedia articles and this article, anarcho-capitalism qualifies as individualist anarchism. This is supported by Benjamin Tucker and Voltairine de Cleyre among others. It is true that a large number of sources, virtually all sectarian anarcho-socialists, that cite the old "true Scotsman" aka dildo fallacy. I would say that this position was refuted long ago in essays like this: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/rg-anarcho-cap.html Now I will boldly revert again. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not true. Benjamin Tucker wasn't even alive when Rothbard came up with his ideology. Stop edit warring, or you will be reported. BeŻet (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an unreadable mess
I don't even know where to start with this. This article is so absurdly long due to its apparent commitment to throw everything but the kitchen sink in. There is no rhyme or reason to its structure, it just bounces randomly between sub-subjects, individuals and areas even remotely associated with the subject. The sources also appear to be a mix of clearly reliable sources, primary sources and random blog posts from even more random authors. I don't understand how any of this is remotely useful to anyone, whether they be unaffiliated casual readers or dyed-in-the-wool Stirner fans. Does anybody have any idea for how we could improve this article that doesn't involve just blowing it up and starting over? Grnrchst (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I don't see how it's salvagable. WP:TNT it is. czar 14:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
