Talk:Market anarchism
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Market anarchism Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Banner shell". User:MiszaBot/config
Incoherent history section
Neither the subsections about "Mutualism" or "Individualist anarchism in Europe" mention any connection to Free-market anarchism, or indeed, even mention markets at all. The history section needs an overhaul to focus specifically on the subject at hand, because currently it is unclear how much any of this even has to do with free-market anarchism. Grnrchst (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- So having looked at the prevelance of the term "market anarchism"/"free-market anarchism" on Google Ngrams, it seems pretty clear that this term was coined in the mid-1960s. Yet this article's history section consists almost entirely of a series of summaries of other articles, with barely even a tenuous connection to the subject, in what reeks of a novel synthesis. I'm doing my best to cut out the irrelevant original research, but I would really have to encourage people to stick to what is explicitly stated in reliable sources. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have now cut almost the entire history section. It seems like a lot of this was added based on the implicit assumption that they were connected to some "free-market anarchism", despite none of the sources making reference to a "market anarchism" or anything of the sort. If you think I've gone too far, please feel free to revert the cuts you disagree with. But honestly, I doubt there's anything worth salvaging. -- Grnrchst (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've got to say I'm impressed, and not in a good way. Usually when I cut down on the original research and novel synthesis in other articles like this, I'll usually find one or two reliable sources worth salvaging in there. But this history section had nothing in there. Not one source verifiably referenced "market anarchism". It was entirely composed of fluff. -- Grnrchst (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I've finally dealt with all the synth. Unfortunately, what remains is about 1/6th of the size of the previous iteration of the article. The content itself is poor quality and some of it is cited to questionable sources. But at the very least, I can now say it isn't making stuff up any more. -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've got to say I'm impressed, and not in a good way. Usually when I cut down on the original research and novel synthesis in other articles like this, I'll usually find one or two reliable sources worth salvaging in there. But this history section had nothing in there. Not one source verifiably referenced "market anarchism". It was entirely composed of fluff. -- Grnrchst (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have now cut almost the entire history section. It seems like a lot of this was added based on the implicit assumption that they were connected to some "free-market anarchism", despite none of the sources making reference to a "market anarchism" or anything of the sort. If you think I've gone too far, please feel free to revert the cuts you disagree with. But honestly, I doubt there's anything worth salvaging. -- Grnrchst (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 17 June 2023
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Free-market anarchism → Market anarchism – It seems like "market anarchism" is the common name in the reliable sources we have available to us. All the cited sources in the bibliography use "market anarchism", with only one using "free-market anarchism". In the further reading, most of them use "market anarchism", and two use "free-market anticapitalism". The only sources that exclusively use "free-market anarchism" (Miller, Paul, & Miller Jr. 1993; Hoffman & Graham 2006) appear to use it as a synonym for anarcho-capitalism, whereas the use of "market anarchism" across the other sources is clearly disambiguated from anarcho-capitalism.
As such, I'm proposing this article be moved to "Market anarchism". It might also be worth considering "free-market anarchism" for a redirect to anarcho-capitalism. -- Grnrchst (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support per rationale of the OP. WP:COMMONNAME applies here. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support per OP, I don't see any reason to oppose. -- asilvering (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Seems a poor choice to choose an image expressing a different position from that of the topic 107.138.16.136 (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)