Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:56, 15 December 2013

Archives

1

Biased comment

Your comment in my Talk page is ideologically biased, in extreme. You should edit taking the principal use of the term, that is market anarchism = anarcho-capitalism. --Sageo (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, it concerns me very little whether you believe me to be 'biased.' It concerns me a lot more whether what I'm saying is factually accurate. The evidence does not support your assumptions. Finx (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Finx, loaded remarks against you made by other users I've encountered have compelled me to examine your contributions. I want to say that I appreciate your efforts on behalf of this encyclopedia, and hope you continue to make them in the face of adversity. Steeletrap (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Original research template

The templates are justificated in talk page. Please use sources in talk page, not opinions. You shouldn't remove them until a consensus benn achieved. Another remove of template and I will denounce your attitude. I think we can dialogue without troubles, only you should avoid use Misplaced Pages as political forum, please. --Sageo (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I told you about remove templates, I don't want to get to a critic point and have to denounce you. Better, continue discoussing in talk page. At least we get to an agreement of make a disambiguation page.--Sageo (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Warning & ANI posting

Posting the "level 4" edit warning message and bringing the issue to the ANI at the same time is not appropriate. 1. The heavy handed warning, posted without the lower level, more gentle warnings, was too much. Why? because 2. you brought the issue to the ANI. Warnings should serve to remind editors of guidelines, not serve as ammunition for an ANI discussion. We go to ANI only after warnings have failed to resolve the issue. Also, I suggest you look at other dispute resolution sources WP:3O would be a good one because only you and Sageo were involved in the discussion. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User was warned here about two weeks ago regarding the same ongoing edit war. Thanks for the WP:3O link. I'll look into it later when I have time. Finx (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. It looks like the EW dispute is about the same article, so the next warning should have gone in the earlier section. When the polite warning does not work, you best post one from the next higher level, not the 4th level. In any event, there is nothing wrong per se with the templates. They get indexed into categories, etc., and serve to alert interested editors to take a look at the page and work on problems. I'm not concerned with the particular OR/SYN problems in the article, and hardly looked at the debate you've had. I was more concerned about how this matter got into the ANI realm so suddenly. – S. Rich (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't immediately yank the templates down out of spite. There was a discussion on the talk page and it seemed obvious that no real objections existed, except for the fact that the redirect was taken down -- and IIRC not by me, at first. My patience wears a little thin after having citations ignored and being accused of writing an essay about my political opinions the third time. I went to the noticeboard only because the discussion yielded nothing but vague threats and accusations. Finx (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your tireless efforts to make difficult Misplaced Pages articles more encyclopedic Steeletrap (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Take to 3O?

Have you two thoroughly discussed the issue? Are you at a standstill? If so, I suggest you post the question at WP:3O. – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away from wikipedia for a while, I think the other editor hasn't developed the article since, so it looks like it's at a standstill. That's probably a good idea. Thanks for the reminder. Finx (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm referring to Talk:Libertarianism#Can_we_please_stop_confusing_state_.22government.22_and_.22state.22.3F. I'm sorry that I was clearer earlier. – S. Rich (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I think there's enough people actively working on the article that it shouldn't be necessary to call it to anyone else's attention. If there's no resolution, we could probably give a try, I guess. Thanks again. Finx (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You are appreciated

Hey, just wanted to stop by and say I appreciate your input on the Libertarianism page. It is extremely frustrating talking to right-libertarians, so I understand needing some time away... but make sure to come back! Your knowledge on the subject is valuable and I'd hate to see the capitalists own the article, as they are wont to do. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I know you've put a lot of work into the article. I've just noticed that after beating my head against an impenetrable wall of irrationality long enough, I tend to lose focus and start lashing out at the wrong people. I don't how you put up with so much fight-every-letter-tooth-and-nail resistance to just giving anything some definable features, let alone making things clear and comprehensible. I'll come back cheery and positive, I promise. Finx (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Undoing my edit in "Libertarianism" article

The sentence I deleted: "While certain libertarian currents are supportive of laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources, others reject capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management" is not supported (in fact contradicted) by the one reliable source listed (Stanford's listed as both and . It is supported only by the source authored by Noam Chomsky, which hardly fits Misplaced Pages's definition of a reliable source. At the very least it gives grossly undue weight to Chomshy's position, while minimizing the position presented by the reliable source (Stanford's Encyc), as well as many other reliable sources (Encyc. Britannica, etc) by referring to it as "certain libertarian currents".

Just wanted to understand the objection to what I consider the removal of obvious bias. Note that I have no interest in trying to hide Chomsky's position, despite it's ("Libertarian Socialism's") anti-libertarian components, just in presenting it where it belongs instead of in such a biased and misleading way at the top of the "Libertarianism" article.

Also, please forgive me if I go about this the wrong way, I'm still not sure of the proper way to address this. Lockean One (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you're going about it the right way. Misplaced Pages generally encourages making bold edits, and then discussing them if they don't stick.

In the case of that introduction, like I said in the talk section: it is a matter of fact, not point of view, that Libertarian Socialists, including Libertarian Marxists and anarchists / Libertarian Communists, reject capitalism as an authoritarian system of class domination and want to abolish the capitalist mode of production. In fact, as the article already explains, the origin of the word "libertarian" as a political label comes from an anarcho-communist - Joseph Dejacque. Please take time to read the respective articles. There is no POV issue because it isn't a matter of perspective.

Furthermore, I can think of few sources on contemporary political issues more consistently trusted and reliable than Noam Chomsky, who's repeatedly pronounced the world's "most important intellectual alive today" wherever he goes, having spent most of his long life writing and lecturing about geo-politics. As he's pointed out neoliberalism is a very recent addition to the libertarian label, contrary addition to what's been called libertarian everywhere in the world for over 150 years. There's dozens of sources to back this up throughout the article. If anything should be called anti-libertarian... -- but, see, that would not be NPOV, so we don't do that. Finx (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I responded to your first part on the article talk page, but just wanted to respond to the etymology of the term "libertarian" here, since it would qualify as "soapboxing":

Yes, I understand that anarchists first used "libertarian" in print, but it's just a simple combination word that already had an established meaning prior to being "coined", since it's base term and suffix had pre-existing meanings that pre-determined the meaning of it, according to already established rules for adding the suffix. The term "liberty" had an already established meaning, as well as the suffix "-arian", or in French "-aire" (a person who supports, advocates, or practices a doctrine, theory, or set of principles associated with the base word). Hence "advocate of liberty". Using a known suffix with a known word using known rules for their combination to form a combination word hardly constitutes anything significant.

Dejacque was merely calling himself an "advocate of liberty" using a pre-existing word and suffix with established meanings and an established way of combining them. He in no way used it to refer to some new and different concept. It certainly doesn't mean that the word itself means "like Dejacque".

I'm not disagreeing with the etymology, or it's inclusion in the article (although I haven't scrutinized it). I'm only disagreeing with attaching too much significance to it. Lockean One (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand what it means, I'm just pointing out that left communists saw themselves as advocates of liberty by calling for the abolition of private property. Contemporary capitalists would, of course, disagree. Finx (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, just as a question, is there a solution to that section on the article's talk page being derailed with irrelevant responses (some by me in response to others)? IMO, the only relevant responses there are by you (relevant even if I disagree with them), and my responses to yours. But those are hidden in a swarm of surrounding nonsense. Lockean One (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. It gets that way sometimes on contentious topics. I don't think it's too bad, but there's a lot of repeats. The same things come up over and over and some people get impatient, I guess. If it's off-topic, I would try to just ignore it and not pay it any mind. Finx (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)