TraditionalAnarchism/Talk

Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz

I made some more edits, and totally omitted the stuff equating "criminal versatility" with corporate mergers. That's just too propagandistic to stand.

I'm tempted to edit even more, because I feel that Richard has violated etiquette here. I've gone to the mat trying to help remove what Richard perceived as bias from Tim's description of anarchy, and I'm repaid with propaganda? I figure I'm too annoyed right now to make all the changes that this article now needs.

 -- JimboWales

This convenient definition of propaganda as "an argument or viewpoint I strongly disagree with that may be widely convincing to others" destroys the value of the wikipedia.

It would be, if that were my definition; however it is not. In this context, I mean obviously inflammatory statements designed to prejudice the reader without rational merit.

Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to establish facts or is it to promulgate some dominant point of view?

To present facts. We can present facts _about_ bizarre points of view such as yours, but we must not present your bizarre point of view _as fact_. I'm sure you can see the difference.

Because if your objection is based on what I said being controversial instead of inaccurate (which it is not) then you've decided it's the latter.

My objection is precisely that what you wrote is inaccurate. I am willing to go further than inaccurate and say it was nonsense.

Unless you believe the views of anarchists to be outright lies then I don't see what rational basis there can be to suppress them on a page whose express purpose is explaining the views, beliefs and actions of anarchists.

Even if the views of anarchists are outright lies, that is no reason to suppress an encyclopedic discussion of those views. It is a good reason to omit inflammatory falsehoods that fail to shed light on anything.

If you want to write 'Anarchists believe that corporate mergers are an instance of criminal flexibility', I will have no complaint about that. But I will add a paragraph pointing out why many other people will disagree.

Please understand why I am upset. I helped you make changes to things that you disagreed with, in an effort to achieve consensus. I thought, and argued on your behalf, that you only wanted to present certain ideas fairly and in a neutral manner. But I now believe that you only want to put forward your own political agenda.