This has to be noted as a self-nomination, as I have worked extensively on this article. However I think it has developed very well over the past few months from something that badly needed cleanup to an article that I think gives a novice a clear understanding of the subject, and the controversies surrounding it. It also (and I may be asking for trouble by saying this) seems to have managed to ascend from the mire of the constant Anacp/Anarchist edit conflicts and present things in a neutral manner that both sides seem to agree on. (I'm going to duck now.)
Saswann 19:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)reply
2nd image commented out.
Saswann 19:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Spooner died in 1887, over 100 years ago, since the photo was taken during his lifetime, I think it's clear its a PD image(?)
Saswann 19:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Obviously. It's too old to by copyrighted.
RJII 19:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Object, It's stil very POV. For instance it missrepresents anarchism (all the talk in
Talk:Anarchism shows that), but has been improved. You also have to get very deep into the article to learn that "Anarcho-capitalism is a radical development of liberalism." //
Liftarn
pulled the "radical development of liberalism" into the lead section. However, I am unsure how the article misrepresents anarchism-- aside from showing Ancap belief that apparently "misrepresents anarchism."
Saswann 12:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)reply
What's your point? If something is a development of liberalism it can't be anarchism?
American individualist anarchism is a radical development of liberalism as well.
RJII 19:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Support, very comprehensive. One can tell tons of work was put into this article. When I enjoy reading an article and gain a good understanding of the topic, and other issues like pictures and things are cleared up, it gets my vote. Well done.
Phoenix2 17:06, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Object, I'm still finding very basic NPOV problems, spelling errors, and even factual inaccuracies even today, which I'm amazed the other editors failed to notice. Further, this article is a controversial one that has been the subject of many edit wars, so I'm not convinced of its chances for on-going stability.
Kev 20:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Note - this editor is openly opposed to capitalism.
RJII 19:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)reply