Talk:anarchy

It is almost impossible to make real sense of this discussion page if people do not sign and date stamp their contributions.--Richardb 14:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The third definition is wrong "political disorder and confusion" anarchy may, possibly, lead to political disorder and confusion (if the anarchists are amateurs) but it isn't, in itself, the disorder and/or confusion of any political government. The third definition should be removed or replaced.

See the citations page for examples of that usage. It's quite a widely-used, historically correct use of the term. --Slashme 15:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

This usage is well-known. See the citations. This dictionary is not about writing what you would like a word to mean, but what meanings it is used for. --Slashme 16:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The fourth definition is also wrong, that is an opinion not a factual definition. This is why anarchists (political philosophers) have such a bad name; when harsh, insulting opinions such as definition #4 are allowed to be put into dictionaries.

I would be happy if the words 'Some may view anarchy as the' were put in front of definition # 4

I'd just like to make it perfectly clear the definition #4 is completely derogative, not factual, opinionated, harsh, insulting, misleading, and nothing more than another way to give anarchists a bad name.

I don't know when you made this comment, but the current definition is "Confusion in general; disorder." which is correct. We include correct definitions whether you like them or not; this wiki is not about your preferences. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why are the derogatory definitions not differentiated with the non-derogative ones? Can we please let the readers know the diff'?

I don't particularly care for definition #3 or #4 but I rather like definition #7 "a government without a ruler" that is somewhat the intentions of anarchists and for once it's a definition that might actually change the way some people look at anarchy, they might be more opened to it if they see the word "government" appear in one of its definitions. Maybe we could replace definition #4 with definition #7 because definition #4 is derogative at best, but more like insulting and harsh.

These seven senses are not meant to be taken all together. Different people use the word ararchy to mean different things in different situations. Sometimes it means # 1. Sometimes it means #2. Sometimes it means #3. The political doctrine advocated by modern anarchists should be described briefly (very briefly, since this is not an encyclopedia) in one single sense; all the other senses are intended to describe the uses of the word by people who are not anarchists, and who usually don’t even know what the doctrine of anarchy entails. —Stephen 16:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

True^^ so very true^^ but I still think anarchy has a distinctly different derogatory definition, and that derogatory definition appears twice here as if it is a factuality, but it's not its derogatory meaning belittled or subtracted from. I think the derogatory uses need to be differentiated from the non derogative ones.

Dictionary definitions are not facts, they are only a description of usage. Facts belong in encyclopedias (Wikipedia). Having a certain definition in a dictionary does not make anything a fact, it only means that some people sometimes use it in that way under some circumstances. —Stephen 17:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay so you agree with me then. Right?

No, I don’t. This is a descriptive dictionary, not an encyclopedia. We show how words are actually used, but we never say what things should mean or what people should believe. —Stephen 19:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

So your saying the derogatory uses should be kept with and not separated from the factual ones, not even differentiated from them as so anyone who reads these definitions can get the whole, wide spread view of "anarchy" rather than just the technical, factual definitions. Oh, and by the way im well aware that the purpose of this, or any dictionary, is not to tell what things should mean or what people should think when did i imply that?

You seem to a have a political agenda here Mr. anonymous user, I agree with Stephen here, this dictionary is factual in so much as we try explain how words are used so that people may understand any literature that they may read on a given subject etc. Now I get the impression you don't like anarchy being pegorised, however, if the term is used pejoratively then we need to represent this here along with all the other meanings of course.--Williamsayers79 11:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I understand both of your points of views, and respect them, but try to see mine, anarchy is not chaos; when I was babysitting my toddler-aged nephews and nieces who were hyped-up on sugar and caffeine and causing a lot of chaos and disorder I did not conceder their behavior anarchy. Just because some people use words certain ways does not make it wiktionary worthy. When anarchy was defined as "confusion, chaos, disorder" I was highly confused as to why anyone could believe that anarchy was simple "confusion, chaos, disorder" and I was also confused as to why this definition was put in while mine "The intent for a society based on the principles of anarchism" was not. This country views political rebellion the way most countries view religious rebellion, the very idea of someone going against the principles of the government is like someone going against the principles of their religious god. Though I accept it, I don't appreciate anarchy being pejorised, I accept anarchy as a political philosophy but when I try to add that as a definition it is not put in. But when someone thinks it's nothing more than "confusion, chaos, disorder" it is put right in. Is my definition that much more unrealistic than his? By the way my name is Randy.

Hello Randy, I understand where your comming from but as a socialist the Leninist view of socialism is pejorative to my views, however like yourself I accept this view of others (namely hard-line socialists) but the meaning is nonetheless factual. The article anarchy does provide quite a rounded view of anarchy already and I think any further in-depth views should really be discussed within wikipedia as part of the article there.--Williamsayers79 19:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Our opinions don't really differ enough to debate anything, the fourth definition (the definition I was most concerned with) has long-since been changed to my approval, I'll surrender the discussion to the idea that this is a descriptive dictionary and "anarchy" has many different meanings when used by people with different views of the word.My opinion remains valid I believe that "anarchy" could be better defined here than it already is. But in the end words don't really have meanings, for each word is defined with more words, and each word in those definitions have definitions of their own, and so on and so forth, therefor words are nothing more than words on top of other words; meaningless sounds made with our mouth that we have come to mentally associate with wordless meanings giving the words their place in our mind.

(discussion moved to Tea Room) -dmh 22:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Anarki is common. Smiddle / TC@ 13:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, you mean anarki is common. At first reading, I thought that the Riksdag had a problem. Do you know whether anarki is a valid translation of both definitions of anarchy, or just one? If you let me know, I can move it from "Translations to be checked" to the appropriate section(s). --Enginear 17:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

There has been a lot of discussion here about what anarchy is or isn't. Although there are many factions, it is also a name given to political theories, and the current definitions in Wiktionary omit that sense. Here is one that might be used, copypasted from dictionary.com. I have understood that it can be freely cited as long as the source is mentioned.

Definition: A theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. Source: anarchy. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy (accessed: March 17, 2007).

Hekaheka 05:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's my understanding of the meaning too, but it's longer than the preferred length here, and the preference is also to include definitions where the source does not need citing at all. Why not have a go at precising it, perhaps referring to the Wikipedia article if you think that appropriate. (I'd have a go myself, but I need to log off soon). --Enginear 13:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here is one with 22 words instead of 35:

A political theory that advocates replacement of coercive government with voluntary cooperation of individuals as the ideal basis for organizing the society. Hekaheka 22:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maybe the words "coercive government" could be replaced with just "government", since "coercive" refers to anarchists' opinion about governments in general.

Actually what I wrote above is almost the same as the definition we currently have for "anarchism". For some reason that definition doesn't seem to awake same kind of passions there as it does when connected with the word "anarchy". One further possibility would be simply to make a reference to "anarchism", for instance by defining an additional sense to "anarchy" as:

The theory and practice of anarchism as political ideology.

Hekaheka 06:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

But your definition is better-expressed than the one for anarchism, so I've fiddled with it a bit and added it. By all means improve the entry for anarchism yourself if you wish. --Enginear 19:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Take a sentence like "The classroom quickly descended into anarchy when the teacher left the room". It might well be a misuse of the word anarchy according to our favourite anarchist. But get this. Wiktionary is pretty anarchic. Everyone has the right to have their use of the word included (well, within CFI). It does not need vetting by someone claiming to have authority.

I would modify one of the definitions to

1. A chaotic and confusing absence of any form of effective authority, government, or adherence to rules or norms of behaviour.

   --Richardb 14:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This word is commmonly believe missused by people . I firmly believe that people should educate themselves beore they speak .

And I wish you could correctly use spelling, punctuation and grammar. It ain't gonna happen though is it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply