Difference between revisions of "Talk:Anarchism (theory)"

Revision as of 06:48, 19 November 2004

Anarchism is also the name of a region. As such, they have automatic prior claim to this page title. Might want to move it to "Anarchism (theory)" or some such. → Fris Θtalk 19:18, 17 Nov 2004 (GMT)

Considering size of that region, a naming conflict here is very likely to remain theoretical only. -- Wilem Engelking 22:50, 17 Nov 2004 (GMT)

Again, if they come here they can claim it. Not before. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 23:37, 17 Nov 2004 (GMT)

Anarchism

As founder of the region called Anarchism I have every intention of adding a region entry when the entry is properly prepared. I'm not sure the size of the region is relevant. Although I currently have no issues with the location of this page about anarchism, there will obviously be a problem when information about the region is ready to be published.

On those grounds it may be better to move this page sooner rather than later.

And as a matter of policy it's probably a good idea to discourage the use of region names for other purposes. I'm surprised it takes an anarchist to point out that having a plan better than disorder. Sacco and Vanzetti (I can't find the proper protocol for naming a comment)

when i made my edit to this article i included a link for "creative reading" - you know, the way that people mentally 'fix' issues to make more sense for the kind of nation they role play as. its really only a term i've heard a limited number of people use. so basically i'm wondering if there is already an article that covers that idea under a different name? or if it's even worthy of an entry at all?--Freesov 05:02, 19 Nov 2004 (GMT)

I think it warrants an entry. I might tinker with it also if given time because it certainly is a subject that can lead to much controversy. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 09:11, 19 Nov 2004 (GMT)

I think it's well worth an entry - this interpretation of the wording of issues and options is one of the elements which adds depth to a pretty simple game. This is not just relevant to anarchists (who admittedly must sometimes do cartwheels to find a positive result by reading creatively) - nearly everyone seems to put their own slant on the bald statements summoned from the database. I appreciate your comments about controversy - but when it's not just nit-picking about how proud a coalition may be about an element of its operating practices, aren't the opportunities for debate, discussion and interpretation what fuels interest? Sacco and Vanzetti 10:48, 19 Nov 2004 (GMT)