The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by User:Nikkimaria 12:44, 28 December 2014 [1].
This article has sourcing issues; one of sections is tagged as "original research". I tried talk page and notified people before FAR, but issues are yet to be resolved. George Ho (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - not a huge amount of work required but definitely needs some to maintain Featured status:
the Situation section really needs some sources. It is unusual in that it combines synopsis with interpretation in the one section.
There is nothing about casting or series development.
The see also section should be incorporated into text.
anyway, good luck to whoever decides to work on it. Will take another look once done. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns raised in the review section mostly centred on sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Unsourced paragraphs and sentences, which do not appear to be self-evident. DrKiernan (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. It's had an original research tag for 2 years! Some unsourced parts look like opinion. e.g., "This is particularly evident in the episode "The Ministerial Broadcast", in which Hacker is advised on the effects of his clothes and surroundings"; "Despite this, the overall thrust was towards government reduction rather than expansion." EddieHugh (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. No one working on the issues identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist an excellent series but inadequately referenced, far below modern FA standards. BencherliteTalk 15:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per the others. Poorly sourced and written.—indopug (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria at 16:05, December 16, 2014 (UTC) [2]
Comprehensive. The article fails to tell the reader about significant viewpoints.
Neutral. The article fails to represent the balance found in published literature.
Lead. The lead section fails to adequately summarize important points found in the article body.
Therefore I am starting a new review to more closely identify problems, and to rectify them. The first part of the process is to compare the present version of the article to past versions, to see what might current text might be changed or deleted, and to see what past text might be restored in some form. The second part of the process is to look at modern writings on the topic and see how the article can be changed to better reflect the literature. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
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]
^"In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists." Peter Marshall. Demanding the impossible: A history of anarchism. Harper Perennial. London. 2008. p. 565
^"‘Libertarian’ and ‘libertarianism’ are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for ‘anarchist’ and ‘anarchism’, largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of ‘anarchy’ and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, ‘minimal statism’ and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words ‘libertarian’ and ‘libertarianism’. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition." Anarchist seeds beneath the snow: left libertarian thought and british writers from William Morris to Colin Ward by David Goodway. Liverpool University Press. Liverpool. 2006. p. 4
^"Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard’s claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist venders...so what remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in hackneyed defense of capitalism. In sum, the “anarchy” of Libertarianism reduces to a liberal fraud."Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy" by Peter Sabatini in issue #41 (Fall/Winter 1994–95) of Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed
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]
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-HHtalk/edits 10:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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-HHtalk/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]
off-topic bickering
Knight of BAAWA, the word statism isn't the problem; the problem is the derogatory manner in which you address fellow editors. Please try to adhere to Wikipedia's policy on civility. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was not used in a derogatory manner; it was used in a factual manner. Please learn the difference. I adhere to civility as well. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to have a political debate about the merits or otherwise of anarcho-capitalism and/or government, you are probably in the wrong place. Also, the fact that you think that this is about people trying to "marginalize anarchocapitalism", and presumably that you have to fight back against said malevolent plot, shows how far this is all missing the point. N-HHtalk/edits 10:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to have a political debate about its merits; those who want there to be a government are (as shown by their comments about it being fringe or an oxymoron, or by the use of scarce-quotes). And they are trying to marginalize anarchocapitalism. That you do not see it shows that you are missing the point of this forumshopping. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps you should avoid making odd statements about "ye who want there to be a government" then and describing everything as if it were a battle about the underlying ideas rather than an issue about the basic presentation of information, which would apply in exactly the same way to any other topic. As for "forumshopping", you're the second person to mention that. Could you or Netoholic point everyone else to which forum elsewhere on WP anyone recently tried, let alone failed, to have this page's FA status reviewed? N-HHtalk/edits 13:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My statements are not odd; they are, in point of fact, precisely in-line with what Eduen is doing with scarce-quotes and the idea brought up that anarchocapitalism is fringe. And yes: this is forumshopping. Those who want there to be a government couldn't get their way with the RfC, so they are trying this as another means to marginalize anarchocapitalism. Shenanigans like this have been going on for at least 7-8 years. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was blocked because someone who wants there to be a government took offense at being told that they want a government. I have no idea how someone who wants a government could ever take offense at being told that s/he wants a government. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:04, 31 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"
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.
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.
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 [[3]] and Ubikwit [[4]] 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]
The review section attracted extensive commentary, but was inconclusive. I am opening the FARC section to get more focused discussion of whether this article should or should not be an FA. Please keep comments constructive and focused on the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I can't support an article that is listed in seven clean-up categories:
Please specify any remaining unsourced statements and inconsistent citation formats, so that they can be revised accordingly in order to avoid delisting, DrKiernan. JLMadrigal... 04:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes. DrKiernan (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article still seems to be suffering: there are two newly-tagged sections.
The "Medieval Iceland" section references Roderick Long without a citation and uses Friedman as a primary source. Mention of Friedman's Icelandic example is easily found on page 27 of Long's book Anarchism/minarchism, which therefore acts as a secondary source confirming the notability of Friedman, but ideally there should be secondary sources referencing Long. In addition, the example of Iceland is used twice further up the page, so there appear to be structural problems in the article, with repetition or disconnected organization.
The first part of "Anarcho-capitalist literature", "Non-fiction" can be merged with "Further reading", since it is just a list, and the self-published works could just be cut, since there are plenty of other examples given. The "Fiction" part is a list of examples that are either unsourced (e.g. MacLeod and Schulman) or self-referencing (e.g. Stone). Some of the examples are red-linked or not linked, indicating that there is no article on them. That is symptomatic of non-notable works and authors, and so thought should be given as to whether this section should be trimmed.
I haven't looked at the untagged sections. DrKiernan (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Improve The article has not drifted too far from FA quality, but is too long because it contains extraneous information, and has acquired a dubious use of sources. As a non-anarchist, the amount of partisan bickering on both sides of this FAR makes me fear for the health of Wikipedia, but it seems we have some active editors here who can keep the article at good quality, so if the following issues are resolved I will endorse this article to be continued as FA:
Flag at the head of the article: I do like these flags as logos of sorts for the "anarchist" articles, but is there evidence that the "AnarkoKapitalistisk Front" is a representative group, or that it is particularly notable? Please modify the image caption to tell readers about this.
Lede: outside of the alternate names, why are the citations needed? Citations show that claims are being made which will not be found in the article's body. Also, there are too many parentheses here. Eliminate the citations and parentheses at all possible, and rewrite the lede so that it accurately reflects the contents of the article. This is a show of faith in the article's quality.
Rothbard quotes: Way! Too! Long!! Nobody cares! Wikipedia is not a Rothbard fan page! Strip these to the bare bones throughout the "Philosophy" section. For example, the definition of the "nonaggression axiom" should be a single sentence. If people want to learn more they can read Rothbard. For comparison, look at Peter_Singer#Applied_ethics -- short quotes, longer summaries. But make the Philosophy section shorter than that.
Missing information in History section: (1) The "classical liberalism" section stinks of WP:SYNTH. Has any anarcho-capitalist ever written their own history? If we can prove that ancaps claim to be in Thoreau's intellectual tradition, that would bolster the claims made by citing Thoreau himself. (2) Wow I just read like seven paragraphs of Rothbard quotes, and there is no mention of Rothbard's own life in the History section? What sources did he claim as inspiration? What was his intellectual impact?
Bad sources: There are a lot of Web sources being cited. These need to be looked at, and some of them need to go, along with the claims attributed to them. When the "Journal of Libertarian Studies" is quoted, it must be made clear in the article text that this is an ideological website ("Ancaps cite as inspiration the Old West") rather than a scholarly claim. 以上 Shii(tock) 22:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: in addition to everything else mentioned, overquoting, uncited text, incomplete citations, generally a C-class article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Ummmm.....where's the discussion on this? Seems it was unilaterally delisted. There was NO CONSENSUS to delist. None. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Featured article removal candidate (FARC)" status is prerequisite to delisting. JLMadrigal@ 04:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria at 16:05, December 16, 2014 (UTC) [5]
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are many problems with referencing, and the current evidence and knowledge and planetary nebulae or the related stellar evolution of this object are not well reflected in the Article text. This article has been a featured article since 2008 and was featured on the main page. However, 5 years later I do not feel as if this article now meets the current criteria. A review seems more appropriate and useful to improve it. Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – To give a specific example, the origins section is almost entirely based on one source from 20 years ago. There have been a number of publications since then discussing PNe origins, and though I don't have time to look through them personally, I would assume they contain information which should be in the article. i.e. [6][7]Sam Walton (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns raised in the review section mostly focused on referencing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – I'm seeing a multitude of unsourced statements in the article that aren't of the WP:BLUE variety. That along with the multitude of other problems brought up by Ariane and Sam makes me !vote to delist, unfortunately. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I don't see any major problem with the sourcing. The references appear to be reliable, as far as Wikipedia standards go. They might be outdated, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the article contains false information. If the content needs to be updated, it can be done without losing the FA status.--Retrohead (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comment: Sam Walton, your thoughts on this? Retrohead, someone would actually need to do that updating - no one appears to have come forward to do that yet, unless you are volunteering? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrohead: Origins certainly, Morphology likely, possibly other sections also. Generally for topics where our knowledge of the subject changes over time, as is true of many scientific articles, we would want to keep the referencing and the associated text fairly current. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the invitation, but I'm not knowledgeable in this area. I assumed that the major contributor could do the update, but if he is inactive, then I'll withdraw my vote.--Retrohead (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delist if no-one wants to put in gruntwork. I am strapped for time and would have to do a fair bit of reading to really do it justice. Outstanding issues include but are not limited to:
The origins section really needs an overhaul - knowledge of stellar evolution and in particular events leading to PN formation has progressed alot since 1994.
Ditto Lifetime section - no mention of some central stars being Wolf-Rayet stars.
I'd have a short section on the most notable examples with a seealso link to List of planetary nebulae incorporated into the body of the article.
There really needs to be some discussion of Protoplanetary nebula in the body of the article
I am sure more could be written on funny-shaped PNs that are a result of binary star systems.
The article only has 16kb of readable prose, and I reckon that it fails on comprehensiveness, with the follow-on effect that the sources and copyediting has to be overhauled. It'd be a good article to keep if someone found time to do this, but if not then I think we should delist and it can be revisited later. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the following needs inline citations:
"His observations of stars showed that their spectra consisted of a continuum of radiation with many dark lines superimposed on them. He later found that many nebulous objects such as the Andromeda Nebula (as it was then known) had spectra that were quite similar. These nebulae were later shown to be galaxies."
"Hence, all single intermediate to low-mass stars on the main sequence can last for tens of millions to billions of years." (not sure about the use of "hence" here)
"For the more massive asymptotic giant branch stars that form planetary nebulae, whose progenitors exceed about 3M⊙, their cores will continue to contract. When temperatures reach about 100 million K, the available helium nuclei fuse into carbon and oxygen, so that the star again resumes to radiate energy, temporarily stopping the core's contraction. This new helium burning phase (fusion of helium nuclei) forms a growing inner core of inert carbon and oxygen. Above it is a thin helium-burning shell, surrounded in turn by a hydrogen-burning shell. However, this new phase lasts only 20,000 years or so, a short period compared to the entire lifetime of the star."
Not sure if this meets comprehensiveness, but sourcing should be fixable without difficulty. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Obviously, this is still a strong article with some super images, but the valid comments raised above remain unresolved. In addition, there are parts where the prose can be improved, for example "At first Herschel thought the objects were stars surrounded by material that was condensing into planets rather than what is known to be evidence of dead stars that have incinerated any orbiting planets" can be misread (initially by a layperson) as meaning that Herschel at first thought they were planet factories but later realized that they were remnants of dying stars. DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, per all of the already mentioned, and there are obvious citation issues. This FA was promoted ten years ago, the main authors shepharding it are long gone, the article went through FAR once already, and Ruslik0 tried to save it, but without Ruslik0 on board, there is no value in prolonging the inevitable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
