The article in no way fails to tell the reader about significant viewpoints (as evidenced by sections 3 and 7 of the body), nor does it fail to represent a balance (again as evidenced by sections 3 and 7 of the body), nor does the lede fail to summarize important points found in the body. The article on evolution mentions ID and the "controversy", but that is not mentioned in the article's lede. Should you wish to be consistent: go edit the article on evolution and include the "controversy" in the lede. See how far you get. I'll be waiting. - Knight of BAAWA ( talk) 13:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Not related to any of these problems, but paragraph length is very inconsistent. Tezero ( talk) 18:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I see these problems:
  • Unreferenced statements. There are certainly more unreferenced statements than I would expect to find in a Featured article, and entire paragraphs go without any citations. They should be sourced or removed.
  • In popular culture. The "in popular culture" section is severely lacking in citations, engages in original research, and should be rewritten in prose format. This part looks like a start-class article.
  • Austrian school. I'm not 100% on the Murray Rothbard/Austrian school section. It seems like a transplant of an unrelated article into this one. What does Murray Rothbard's personal journey have to do with anarcho-capitalism? I should be able to instantly discern his importance and relevance to the topic from reading this article.
  • Neutrality. The lack of neutrality/scope does bother me, but I'm willing to cut the article a bit of slack. There's an entire article dedicated to opposition, but this article must be summarized here. The lack of a summary is not appropriate for a Featured article.
  • Edit warring. The content does not seem stable, and there is enough edit warring to have previously warranted page protection. This is inappropriate for a Featured article. If editors can't come to a consensus on the talk page, then there are significant problems with the article, the editors, or both. I'm inclined to assume good faith and say it's the article. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 19:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment - This feels like an attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP. Binks and many of the notified editors are engaged in a long-standing and voracious content dispute. Those that feel non-AnCap views are under-represented in the article are seeking to correct what they see as an injustice (even though there are entire articles devoted to that). The long page protections periods, RFCs, and other methods haven't given them what they're after, and I have no confidence this review will either. -- Netoholic @ 22:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment - The high level of controversy over the recent existence of something called "anarcho-capitalism" within an ideology like anarchism, which has been always an anti-capitalist position, clearly makes this particular position a Wikipedia:Fringe theory. The amount of controvery over this particular idea and concept is long and huge as anyone can see in the main "anarchism" article but in fact there are many outside reliable general sources on anarchism which simply deny that "anarchocapitalism" can be considered a form of anarchism ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}. An article with these characteristics does not deserve a feature status within wikipedia.-- Eduen ( talk) 04:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• • Agree, basically. It's hard to see how such a WP:FRINGE theory (if it is even coherent as 'theory') by any other name could be the subject of a featured article in the first place. -- Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedia:What FRINGE is not -- Netoholic @ 04:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure fringe is relevant here. Anarcho-capitalism is a minority sport but it's definitely a notable political theory, under that name, and certainly worth an article. The FA issue relates to the quality of any such article, not its existence. N-HH talk/ edits 10:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Netoholic: Thanks for the link. Note the passage

There is a very fine line between what is opinion and what is academic fringe. The difference is whether academic scholarship or science on the subject supports a theory or idea via the scientific method.

If I'm not mistaken, some of the proponents of this "theory" reject application of the scientific method in their study of "economics". Even if FRINGE doesn't apply directly, there are questions.-- Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Why would there be questions? Do we use "the scientific method" to determine that 1 + 1 = 2? No, of course we don't. Science isn't solely the domain of physics, chemistry, and biology; science also encompasses the a priori, which includes mathematics, logic, and praxeology. Of course, you're free to dispute that and show that we must test repeatedly that 1 + 1 = 2, and that we're never quite sure about it. But that would be perverse and fly in the face of the nature of math. Similarly, economics is an a priori science; we do not use the methods of physics, chemistry, and biology for it. To do so would be as with doing such to math: committing a category error. - Knight of BAAWA ( talk) 03:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Are you saying that the principles of anarcho-capitalism are axiomatic in the way that 1 + 1 = 2 is? — goethean 14:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Are you saying that we test 1 + 1 = 2 each time? Just checking with you about that as well so we can see how strongly either of you hold to positivism. Now as to your question: the arguments for not having a state (which is really all anarchism is, despite the protestations of those who argue in the same way as those who argue that atheists must be communists) are all simply long chains of verbal/written reasoning which do not require testing. That is: they are true independent of experience. - Knight of BAAWA ( talk) 22:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm asking you a question. Are you saying that the principles of anarcho-capitalism are axiomatic in the way that 1 + 1 = 2 is? — goethean 22:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I answered you already; please see the above. If you do not understand my answer, then you most likely should not be in this discussion. - Knight of BAAWA ( talk) 01:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I both understand your answer evasion and understand why you refuse to answer my question—because you are afraid of making a fool of yourself. — goethean 01:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Please stop your incivility or you shall be reported. And while I do understand that you lack the education to understand my answer, that is your problem and you need to deal with it rather than lashing out with incivility. - Knight of BAAWA ( talk) 01:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Please do go right ahead and report me to whomever you like, as you are the one being uncivil. — goethean 15:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

No, actually anyone can see that I answered your question (you just didn't like the answer) and wasn't uncivil. But you have been put on notice that further acts of incivility from you will be reported. - Knight of BAAWA ( talk) 23:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

What does "shadow economy" have to do with the subject of the article?

I did't contest that the subject of the article is notable in agreeing with Eduen, just that the subject did not lend itself to the level of quality a featured article should have. I have trouble seeing that there is a coherent theory at all, but that does not mean that the subject is not a notable political theory, as N-HH states. It could be said that the state of disarray in the article reflects the status of its subject in academia, and therefore I would think it not presentable as a featured article.-- Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment The fact that there has been page protection, an RfC and ongoing edit-warring (over the brief anarchism-classification point) is evidence enough that the page should not retain FA status, as it manifestly lacks stability. Beyond that, without getting too forensic about it, it lacks structure and balance, and has more than its share of obscure sources (from all sides of the debate). We certainly need a page on this topic, but it needs to be a much better one. On a side point, the accusation of forum-shopping above is rather odd. This is a separate, broader, point from the recent dispute over a couple of sentences (about which, pace Netoholic, there is no need to forum shop as the RfC came out in favour of including them). N-HH talk/ edits 08:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment The only problem that I see is that some people who want there to be a government (I can't use the actual term because, for some reason, it's an insult. I have no idea how that word is an insult, but somehow it is. Unless, of course, someone who wants there to be a government is actually ashamed of it--then it could be. Otherwise, I can't see how it is.) are trying to marginalize anarchocapitalism wherever possible. Currently they are doing their best to violate WP:LEAD (specifically the section about undue weight) in order to do so, as well as ignoring precedent and even going so far, as in Eduen's case, to invoke the fallacy of Argument from Antiquity (for instance, he would have to believe that only Roman Catholocism is Christianity in order to be consistent, since it was the only Christianity for nigh on 1,000 years). So, as above, this is simply forumshopping on the part of those who want there to be a government so they can further attempt to marginalize anarchocapitalism. You had your chance, o ye who want there to be a government; you didn't get it done. Stop forumshopping. - Knight of BAAWA ( talk) 12:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment I hesitate to comment because I am currently engaged in a dispute on the article. I will say that starting the article with a non sequitur doesn't bode well. — MisterDub ( talk | contribs) 13:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply

What non sequitur is that? Please explain. - Knight of BAAWA ( talk) 03:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Certainly... it's the first sentence ("Anarcho-capitalism... is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and open markets."). The three values stated at the end do not follow from the rejection of the state, otherwise minarchists wouldn't exist. It should read instead, "... in favor of a voluntary society in which law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation." — MisterDub ( talk | contribs) 15:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply

So where's the non sequitur? What you posted isn't a non sequitur; it logically follows. Minarchists are part of those who want there to be a government, so they reject individual sovereignty, private property, and open markets. Where's the non sequitur? - Knight of BAAWA ( talk) 22:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Individual sovereignty opposes collectivism (including majoritarianism) in which the individual is subject to the collective.
• Private property opposes collective property in which accountability is proportionately reduced as property decisions are collectivized - leading to contamination of property (see free-market environmentalism).
• Open markets oppose dictated markets (licensing, &c) and restricted markets (licensing, taxation, &c).

It does logically follow.

Collectivism in general is the cancer that allows the state and its offspring (war, corruption, political polarization, &c). It is the mortal enemy of the sovereign individual. JLMadrigal ( talk) 12:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment As I understand it, the issue about whether one likes or dislikes a topic is not relevant to this discussion -- that is, if one personally considers a topic to be "fringe" does not prevent an article on a fringe topic from being a featured article. We can discuss the accuracy of its presentation of a topic, but the primary criteria are the clarity of the article, style of the article, completeness of discussion of the stated topic of the article, and use of NPOV claims and wording within the article, but not just "the topic is wrong" or the like. In fact, AFAIK, we have "featured articles" on individual video games which most people would aver are individually of quite ephemeral value. Collect ( talk) 18:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply

The point that was made above is that the very title of the article is seen by many to be something of an oxymoron, so Wikipedia giving it "featured" status would indirectly lend credibility to the so-called theory. The so-called theory could be covered under another topic along the lines that some have suggested above (e.g., Roth. It's not about whether or not one likes "anarcho-capitalism" or anarchism, for that matter.

The fact that the so-called theory is also, according to the lead,

(referred to as free-market anarchism, market anarchism, private-property anarchism, libertarian anarchism)

says something about its historical/contextual specificity (or lack thereof). There is also another list that tries to encapsulate the "theory"

anti-state capitalism, anti-state marketism, capitalist anarchism, market anarchism, free market anarchism, individualist anarchism, natural order, ordered anarchy, polycentric law, the private-law society, private-property anarchy, pure capitalism, radical capitalism, stateless capitalism, stateless liberalism, voluntaryism

-- Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply

And that point is not relevant to the criteria stated for a "featured article" here, as far as I can tell, else we would disallow articles on any controversial topic from ever being "featured articles." If we were to change the stated criteria to include "must be about the truth" then I fear we might have no "featured articles" at all. Cheers -- the goal is to meet the actual stated criteria for featured articles, not to add a new one. Collect ( talk) 19:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I recently closed an RFC concerning this article. (Does that make me WP:INVOLVED?) There has since been a complaint at WP:ANI that another editor is editing against the weak consensus resulting from the RFC. There is therefore, as I understand, a Neutral dispute about the article. The usual method of resolving neutrality of an article is an RFC, but that can't be achieved if there is editing against consensus. I will look at the current state of the article in more detail in the morning, but I don't think that an article should be on a track to FA if there is a neutrality issue (even if it is a crabbed neutrality issue). Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment Kudos to those editors who have contributed to an outstanding article over the years which has, I believe, improved considerably since it was awarded Featured Article status. It is even more worthy of the title today than it was at the time it was received, and exceeds the standards necessary to maintain featured article status. It would appear, however, that some editors would like to not only remove its featured article status, but have no intention of maintaining said status - in the hope of marginalizing and demonizing the movement in general. I am convinced that said editors would not even be satisfied if the article were reverted in its entirety to the version on the date of the award.

• Comprehensive. The article covers the full gamut of the anarcho-capitalist movement, noting major proponents of the movement, and exploring the anarcho-capitalist philosophy in detail. While another paragraph or two could mention the role of Walter Block, and the recent coming-out of Lew Rockwell, such additions to the article are a simple matter, and have little bearing on featured article status.
• Neutral. Dissenting viewpoints are discussed in the article satisfactorily where, and to the extent, appropriate to avoid slanting the article in one direction or another away from a clear understanding of the topic of anarcho-capitalism.
• Lede. The first three paragraphs define anarcho-capitalism concisely and in a manner that does not jeopardize neutrality or "settle the argument" prematurely.
• Accurate. No information in the article is currently incorrect or misleading, and everything is documented to the greatest extent possible.
• Clear and understandable. Anarcho-capitalism is a very readable article, and does not muddy the facts concerning this antipolitical movement. An additional graphic of the Nolan Chart would help to visually clarify the anCap position.
• Consistent. The article does not suffer from any contradictions or inconsistencies.
• Stable. Other than the two-month old dispute regarding insertion of a POV in the lede, this article has been incredibly stable over the years for a highly debated topic.

JLMadrigal ( talk) 14:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comprehensive? Adding Walter Block and Lew Rockwell is a step in the right direction, but you missed prominent ancaps Doug Casey and J. Orlin Grabbe among others. I'd like to see ancap Laissez Faire City mentioned, since it redirects to List of anarchist communities and vanishes, never listed or discussed. Wolf DeVoon ( talk) 21:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Doug Casey? I agree that Mr. Casey should be mentioned, since he has devised an anarcho-capitalist plan for the selling-off of Haiti to its citizens.
• J. Orlin Grabbe? I'm not familiar with his work. Where does he fit into anarcho-capitalism? JLMadrigal ( talk) 11:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Neutral? I finally figured out why there's no consensus, edit warring, no real likelihood of reconciliation. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't belong under parent Anarchism. It's a species of Libertarianism. We should listen to and agree with the anarchist editors, who protest that they don't recognize ancap as part of their bailiwick; they've gone out of their way to disavow it, deem it a WP:FRINGE theory, whack it from FA. Okay, give them what they want. Move Anarcho-capitalism to its natural parent, Libertarianism. Why tolerate continual punishment of an innocent child by abusive, resentful enemies? Wolf DeVoon ( talk) 03:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

It's not that simple, Wolf. Anarchism and Libertarianism are intertwined. Modern American libertarianism has largely disavowed leftism, and anarcho-capitalism has disavowed the European brand of anarchism - but not anarchism per se. JLMadrigal ( talk) 11:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

If Anarchism owns Libertarianism, I think I'll just go quietly, officer. Wolf DeVoon ( talk) 23:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• The section called "Historical precedents similar to anarcho-capitalism" is a rabbit hole of imagination gone wild. Authors who are friendly to the benefits of libertarianism and capitalist freedom write about four places where modern an-cap adherents have said there was an-cap-like practices. The problem is that normal, non-an-cap books about these four places do not reinforce these ideas—in fact they don't mention them at all. For instance, a book about legal and extralegal activities in the American West, Law and Order in Buffalo Bill's Country: Legal Culture and Community on the Great Plains, 1867-1910, written by Historian Mark R. Ellis of the University of Nebraska, agrees with an-cap descriptions that the Wild West was not so lawless as it is depicted in popular media. But Ellis says that the better-than-expected behavior of the pioneers was because they were setting up the same government that they had previously known, that this was boot-strapping construction of a state which would match everything they were familiar with. There is no mention of anarcho-capitalism in the Ellis book; none at all. The other three subsections have the same problem, such that normal histories of Ancient Europe, Medieval Iceland and Early Pennsylvania have little to say about proto-an-cap practices. The whole section is navel-gazing at its finest. I think the section should be deleted in its entirety. Binksternet ( talk) 05:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I think you inadvertently forgot to add Thomas Hobbes to that list.

-- Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The original version of the article upon receipt of featured article status included the section under the title "Anarcho-capitalism in the real world". So it would be remiss to omit it from the article. JLMadrigal ( talk) 00:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The section you indicate talked about Somalia and Iceland. The current section ditches Somalia (why is that?) and it talks instead about Ancient Europe, Iceland, the American "Wild" West, and something vague about Pennsylvania. Despite the existence of the section in previous versions, it is still too far removed from mainstream scholarship to be included in a Featured Article. It is self-serving. Binksternet ( talk) 04:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

If I recall, Somalia was omitted in order to fit in better with the newer section title (since the examples of anarcho-capitalism in Somalia are not "historical" but current. The title change was an improvement because the examples listed were not a pure form of anCap. They could be added back in (and I believe that discussion of anCap phenomena in Somalia is notable enough to be reintroduced) if a different title is used for the section (or another section is added). Its current omission, however, does not make the article any less deserving of Featured Article status, since it is only one example cited by anCaps. JLMadrigal ( talk) 02:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Regarding "something vague about Pennsylvania", Rothbard's excellent four-volume work, "Conceived in Liberty" demonstrates in detail the struggle for independence from both Great Britain and power-hungry politicians at the local and state levels in pre-confederation America, bolstering his position regarding the political-economic fundamentals of anarcho-capitalism. Pennsylvania, in particular, details relevant aspects of this struggle against the state. JLMadrigal ( talk) 11:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Agree. The section on Rome bears some resemblance to a particular feature of an-cap (private armies/defense forces), but the notion that this was an actual real-world expression of an-cap is misguided synthesis (especially because this was an explicitly state-sanctioned practice). And to the extent that the practice was successful in part because some citizens apparently paid higher-than-required liturgies in part to buy better judicial outcomes for themselves, that doesn't exactly sound like a pragmatic recommendation for an-cap. Regardless of whether it militates in favor of an-cap, though, the section's inclusion in the article suggests that the article is not sufficiently well-researched to remain a featured article. Dyrnych ( talk) 19:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Deny FA and GA status - The article is currently fully page-protected to prevent edit-warring in the lede over the sentence that anarcho-capitalism is not normally considered a form of anarchism. The inclusion of that sentence was approved by a weak consensus on an RFC, but at least one editor did not consider the weak consensus to be a sufficient consensus. An article that has to be locked due to edit-warring (or which has active edit-warring, which this one would, if not locked) is not, in my opinion, a Good Article, let alone of Featured Article quality. The edit-warriors who are bent to slant the lede to their concepts are, in my opinion, preventing any effort to retain the status of the article. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

It bears repeating here that the RFC was closed with a weak consensus to include early mention regarding the distinction between traditional anarchists and anCaps. As a result, a new paragraph was included in the lede which clarified the distinction. Furthermore, the new compromise paragraph is neutral on the question of which version of anarchism is "correct" or "valid".

Further discussion occurs in the body of the article, regarding the differences of opinion among self-identifying anarchists (which does not need to be expanded further according to the results of the RFC). JLMadrigal ( talk) 02:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

As I understand it, the issue is that there is dispute among anarchists as to whether anarcho-capitalism is actually anarchism. That seems like a very different matter than clarifying a distinction between other types of anarchism and an-cap, since that's still functionally defining an-cap as anarchism without noting that its categorization as anarchism is in dispute. Isn't it somewhat problematic that the debate over a basic topical categorization is noted in the body of the article but impliedly contradicted by the lead? Dyrnych ( talk) 20:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC) reply

There is no contradiction, Dyrnych. The lede, as written, briefly defines anCap and shows how it differs from other similar schools. A further explanation of the other schools - including their respective POVs and how they differ from anCap - is explored in the body of the article. JLMadrigal ( talk) 12:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply

As you say, the lead "briefly defines anCap and shows how it differs from other similar schools." But the implication in the lead is that, as a type of anarchism, it is distinct from minarchism (in that minarchists advocate for a state) and from other types of anarchism. This still places an-cap firmly in the realm of anarchism when it appears that there's substantial debate as to whether it is in fact anarchism. The problem is that this seems to present the issue from the an-cap POV rather than a neutral POV, which would acknowledge that the debate exists without weighing in on the merits. And that raises some concerns about the article's status as a feature article. Dyrnych ( talk) 16:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Dyrnych, that is exactly the subject of the current dispute, for which I am still awaiting resolution at the NPOV Noticeboards—"[The lead] should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." ( WP:LEAD, emphasis added) — MisterDub ( talk | contribs) 17:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Which still makes one wonder the reason that "the controversy" is not once mentioned in the lede for the article on evolution. After all: it's been prominent enough for court cases, right? One would think that the lede should mention it, given the aforementioned "including any prominent controversies". So I still wait for MisterDub, et al. to visit that article and rectify that. Strangely enough: they have not yet done so. - Knight of BAAWA ( talk) 21:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm sure that there's been ample discussion of what weight to give controversies over evolution. The fact that it's not controversial as science (except on the fringe) and is only controversial in society probably has a great deal to do with the lack of mention in the lead. If there were controversy in the scientific community as to the validity of the theory, there would be a very strong argument for including that controversy in the lead (see, e.g., String theory, the Unified neutral theory of biodiversity, or theories about Race and intelligence). I'm not going to delve into the history of the evolution article to see precisely why the lead doesn't mention controversies, but I will note that there's a substantial difference between a section in the lead noting a controversy over the merits of a theory and a section in the lead noting a controversy over the classification of a philosophy. Dyrnych ( talk) 22:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Undue weight is certainly part of it--you're right. Which is the reason there should be no mention of the "controversy" (which really only exists in the minds of a few who are trying to marginalize anarchocapitalism) in the anarchocapitalism lede as well. Further, there's no difference between noting the controversy over the merits of a theory and that in philosophy with respect to the lede--at least if you go by what some of the others here are saying. I'm just trying to hold them to a consistent position and see where it leads. - Knight of BAAWA ( talk) 23:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply

While the issue of which form of "anarchism" is truly "anarchist" will not be resolved in this discussion (since there are a wide variety of views on that matter), that is not the purpose of this discussion nor the subject of the article. The quality of the article is not any lower because it does not cater or submit to the left-anarchist viewpoint. That would be the topic of left-anarchism. JLMadrigal ( talk) 01:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, those who wish this article never existed do not agree. They will do anything to silence those with whom they disagree. - Knight of BAAWA ( talk) 12:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Knight of BAAWA, Dyrnych is correct that the reason Evolution does not mention a controversy is because there isn't one amongst scientists. To include such information would be giving undue weight to a fringe theory. By contrast, Creationism, Creation science, and Intelligent design all demonstrate that they are minor positions within the relevant community. I have to say, you chose an incredibly apt analogy for the current dispute. — MisterDub ( talk | contribs) 14:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

And mentioning what you and the others like you want is also undue weight as per WP:LEAD. As for the analogy--yes it is apt because only the fringe in anarchism even thinks about it. So clearly: mentioning it in the lede would be giving undue weight to a fringe position. Oh--you didn't think I could turn that around, did you? But I did. - Knight of BAAWA ( talk) 22:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Feel free to mosey on over to the Anarchism article or read the reliable, secondary sources on anarchism to discover which position is actually fringe. — MisterDub ( talk | contribs) 14:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Oh I have, but those who seek to marginalize anarchocapitalism are still fringe. - Knight of BAAWA ( talk) 00:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Just something to note--and in no way is this meant to be an argument--is that both Goethean [ [2]] and Ubikwit [ [3]] were topic-banned from anything to do with the Tea Party for essentially pulling the same sort of stuff being tried on the anarchocapitalism article. Again: this is not meant to be an argument; this is merely a statement of fact. - Knight of BAAWA ( talk) 21:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply

No, it's definitely not an argument, while being reduced to mud-slinging would tend to indicate that you feel you've lost "the argument".

What exactly are you referring to by "the same sort of stuff being tried on the anarchocapitalism article"?-- Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Pointing out a relevant fact is now mud-slinging? Ooooo-kay. Guess I missed that note where pointing out relevant facts is mud-slinging. Or is it only mud-slinging when it involves you? And by "the same sort of stuff", I mean "the same sort of stuff". You know what you did; you were topic-banned for it, remember? I cited the decision. And it is certainly relevant here to take into consideration when seeing if both you and Goethean are making your claims in good faith or not. People do check past behavior, you know. - Knight of BAAWA ( talk) 12:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the inarticulate reply, it's about what I expected based on the original post.

If you can't explain what is supposed to be relevant about the material in your post, other than repeating the question and saying, "Ooooo-kay", then maybe you should think twice before putting your foot in your mouth.-- Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your incivility--and for your concession that pointing out relevant facts is not mudslinging. Further incidents of incivility from you will be reported to the administrators. - Knight of BAAWA ( talk) 12:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Anarcho-capitalism is not presented as a "form of anarchism" in the lede. It would be premature to commence (much less settle) that argument before it is presented. JLMadrigal ( talk) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply