User talk:Maziotis

PROFILE • TALK • TALK PAGES • USEFUL LINKS

Hello, Maziotis! I'm Clamster5. While creating new and interesting articles is extremely helpful to the Wikipedia project, there are more than 19,000 articles that need to cleaned up. These articles could use your knowledge and time. There are so many pages currently needing clean-up that there is guaranteed to be something that you find interesting. Even fixing up just one is a huge help. If every editor on wikipedia edited just one article each, the backlog would be cleared in no time.

Thanks! Clamster5.

[edit] Portals

Hi, just fyi, portals need to be fully constructed before they're added at Portal:List, see more info at Wikipedia:Portal. Thanks :) --Quiddity 23:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] V for Vendetta

How exactly is this movie anti-modernist? Gdo01 10:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-primitivism

Regarding the sentence you deleted from the Derrick Jensen entry on 19:16, 6 December 2006, I don't disagree that it is accurate to label Derrick Jensen a primitivist. However, I find it amusing that you assumed I know nothing about primitivism, and based on that removed the sentence. It is amusing because Derrick Jensen wrote the sentence himself. I posted it on his behalf, which you may confirm if you like by emailing him.LC | Talk 00:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How did I assume that? I changed because I thought it need to be change, and i gave my justification on the discussion page. The reason why i suggested those reading were because in fact they regard those themes as part of anarcho-primitivsit theory. Peace.Maziotis 00:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I do believe, however, that Jensen is a brilliant author and writer. If he says that his wrting on misogyny and racism are out of his anarchist interests, than it must be right.Maziotis 00:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TKaczynski.JPG

Hi, I noticed you tagged Image:TKaczynski.JPG with {{PD-self}}. Are you actually the photographer who took that picture? If so, I'd like to move the image to Commons so it can be used by other projects. Thanks! —Angr 14:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's definitely mistagged then. Cropping an image doesn't give you creative rights to it. Could you add the source of the image and an appropriate image copyright tag? —Angr 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. at this point it's probably better to look for a different image whose source you can identify (such a press photograph from the AP or Reuters or the like), and upload that instead. It's unlikely anyone can find or make a freely licensed image of him, so we have to use a fair-use image or none at all, but there are strict rules about fair-use images, including that we have to be able to name the copyright holder. —Angr 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism messages

Thanks for reverting vandalism to Leo Tolstoy. Remember to place one of the vandalism templates from the WP:VAND page onto the talk page of each person who vandalises. This helps to stop them vandalising, or else to provide evidence that vandalism has continued in the midst of vandalism warnings, prompting a message to WP:AIAV and the eventual blocking of a continued offender. Cheers, keep up the good work! Jpeob 01:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaczynski

Hello Maziotis! It's alright, I suppose, to disagree with either term I added, but, quite clearly, Kaczynski is a bit more than an average anarchist. I would think that as he is insane, a mass murderer -- if not a serial killer, and a terrorist -- in the tradtional sense of the term mention immediately in the article's header is warranted. How do you suggest this information be added or phrased in order to incorporate it there? 67.101.243.74 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You can find my impressions on this matter in the discussion section, which is where you should participate and find consensus.

Regarding your position, I must say right away that the category "mass murder" is clearly not suitable, while others might be very controversial. Ted Kaczynski killed three people on separate occasions, which technically leaves him out of that definition.

If you want my opinion regarding your personal message, consider this: Do you believe that Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist? Do you believe that he is insane? Well, to wikipedia neither what you believe of Osama, nor Kaczynski, matters. If you go to Osama article you will find that he is labeled as a "militant Islamist". That article has high traffic and it was asserted for some time now that, following the wikipedia’s guidelines, he should not be classified as a serial killer, mass murder or even a terrorist. Now, have you read kaczynski's manifesto and the justifications that he gave to send those bombs? In what way would you consider Kaczynski's actions to be less political in nature than those of Osama bin laden's? So, answering your question, how about "militant anarchist" as for the initial category in the article?Maziotis 12:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• There's nothing redeeming about either person; I think, simply, that the basis of their criminality should be made clear as that is undoubtedly the most obvious aspect of both figures when one would look for either's article, which is, after all, the foremost use of an encyclopedia. 67.101.243.74 13:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Who defines that? Will you change "osama" article according to those (yours) principles? I understand that you might find this way of argument to be a form of absolute relativism and, as such, unacceptable. But these questions I ask are not rhetoric ones. They are honest straightforward questions. I would like to know what would you do to both of these articles, and what is your position to the issue I raise, regarding the applied wikipedia's guidelines in osama's article, in order for you to be consistent.

Personally, I believe that Theodore Kaczynski is a political prisoner. But my political and moral views on this subject are irrelevant, no matter with how many people I share them with, just like yours.Maziotis 13:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have read your arguments on the discussion page for the article since writing my reply to you. I find your position on the matter indefensible and ridiculous, but, as you would agree, that is neither here nor there. With regard to the "Osama" article, according to my principles, which almost certainly correspond directly to the principles of every sound beneficiary of contemporary civilization -or, at the least, the overwhelming majority of the English-speaking peoples for whom this encyclopedia is maintained- it should make immediate mention that he is a terrorist and a mass murderer. To suggest otherwise goes so far beyond moral relativism as to make the sentiment simply demented. There is such a thing as a terrorist and there is such a thing as a mass murderer. If there were not, the terms would not have use. There is, to-day, no more widely acknowledged example of a terrorist than Osama bin Laden, who is, by consequence of his activities, a mass murderer. Yet, we digress, as I have not seen that article nor have I, at present, any want to edit the "Osama" article, but only to ensure that the "Kaczynski" article is undistorted and legitimate. You have asked "who defines that?" Who defines what? I suggested nothing that should not be self-evident and I did not put forth some term that is vague or undefined. A terrorist is one who engages in acts of violence or fear-mongering that resultantly causes terror. By all accounts, and from what I have read on the discussion page, even his own account, Kaczynski is a terrorist. It does not matter whether some insensible editor has applied his efforts to remove that language from the "Osama" article or any other article because it is an irrefutable fact that Kaczynski is a terrorist. One can always engage in word-play and conjecture to affect the removal of a correct and legitimate term, but it is rather a show of incompetence than an act of scholarship. Also, as Kaczynski has murdered --that is, knowingly and premeditatingly killed-- multiple others, he is a multiple murderer. I would consider him a serial killer, but again, that would be a personal determination. The fact of the matter is that he is a multiple-murderer. If one chooses to split hairs, one can say that "mass murderer" is inappropriate based on number of those killed, but because the term "multiple-murderer" is definitely lesser applied than "mass murderer," the latter would seem more natural in expressing that quality of Kaczynski. The position you have taken, regardless of my belief that it is indefensible and ridiculous, is to employ semantic concerns to the fact that he is a terrorist and a multiple-murderer, if not a mass murderer. Those concerns, and the insistence that he not be labeled with those quite correct terms, immediately demonstrates a personal insecurity with your ideology. That is, is your belief in Kaczynski's ideology authentic or is it simply awe with the terrible crimes he has committed, disguised by exercises in intellectual discourse, such that you must refuse to recognize the fact that his acts were terrorism and murder? 67.101.243.74 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have moved this discussion to Talk:Theodore Kaczynski so that it is accessible to a wider participation. 67.101.243.74 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have never argued that Kaczynski should not be called a murderer or a terrorist, in the beginning of the article. You said that you have read my posts, but in it I discuss, technically, if his profile fits the common use of the term "serial killer". Since this term, as the term "terrorist", are widely identified as controversial in themselves, I do not understand why would you assume with such a clear voice how these terms are applied in an "evident" way. Another person changed the consensus that was reached by the end of that conversion and, from there, other people came and changed it to the way it is now, without a different consensus being made again.

All that talk about civilization values are just your own view on how wikipedia should be use to reaffirm what you perceive as common social values, just like television, radio, and mass media in general, has done in the past. I am not saying that is wrong, I am just looking for the wikipedia guidelines that define clearly that objective, and in what way.

Some people do feel confuse on exactly what constitutes a neutral and factual point of view, and on how further powerful technological tools, as the easily accessible wikipedia, could be promiscuous in the way we have discussed and find time to reflect on our own, in the past. For some people, nothing of this is obvious. I do not find challenged in any way by your comments as to how "ridiculous" and “indefensible" I am.Maziotis 14:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Ted Kaczynski, he did not send bombs to establish a sense of terror in the community, to further his political goals. Or at least, that expression is not "evident". According to his argument, he was trying to eliminate concrete targets, as calling for others to join in the movement, to participate in a revolution against Industrialism. Some people look at this facts and say, like you, that clearly he is a "terrorist", others might say something like "revolutionary".Maziotis 14:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In the last discussion we had reached the conclusion that multiple point of views should be expressed in the article itself. Like the suggestion: "Theodore John "Ted" Kaczynski (born May 22, 1942), also known as the Unabomber, is an anarcho-primitivist and terrorist who some have called a serial killer who gained notoriety for sending mail bombs to several universities and airlines from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, ultimately killing three people and wounding 29."Maziotis 15:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How about how it is now, with SqueakBox last change? It states that his campaign was murderous and infamous. Further Classification, such as "terrorist", is perceived by wikipedia as a word to avoid, as SqueakBox made it clear.Maziotis 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unabomber

• "Suffice to say that Fight Club isn't merely a bloody buddy movie. Uhls' script, based on a novel by Chuck Palahniuk, delves into avenues of Marxist ideology, Fascist motivations, psychological dilemmas and Unabomber answers. If that doesn't make potential viewers squirm, the genially dark humor Fincher injects into the issues may do the trick."^[1]
• "I thought it fell apart when the fight clubs began to metamorphosize into a fascist urban militia and I think its agenda goes a lot deeper. The Unabomber might have written it. The twist is still a cheat."^[2]
• "Soon, Jack is back where he started, and on a flight home from yet another business trip, he encounters Tyler (Brad Pitt), a nutty character reminiscent of The Mad Hatter, William S. Burroughs, and The Unabomber all rolled up into one."^[3] (may not meet reliable source criteria)

I have not found any other news articles using Access World News or Google News Archive. This is the best I can do in terms of authoritative sources. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had much time to work on my project due to school; reception and interpretations are secondary right now. I'm focusing on production and themes as presented by the director and actors. Take a look here. It's still a work in progress; I haven't tied everything together in the proper format. Feel free to find out what I've been learning myself about the film. Hope it helps you understand the reason why I haven't agreed with you on the anarcho-primitivist theme. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Vandalism"

Please don't give out ridiculous vandalism warnings as you did to me. What I did wasn't vandalism: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fight_Club&diff=prev&oldid=118833512 In fact, all you did was readd vandalism (see your edit). Dlong 18:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I made a mistake, thinking your edit was the add of that sign. Sorry.Maziotis 18:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] more Kaczynski talk

Hey, figured I'd move it over here, hope that's OK. as to Ted being more towards the "individualist" spectrum of anarchism, from the way I've always understood it, even individualists thought (think) that their way of doing things was (is) better for humanity as a whole, not just a "dog eat dog" (as Ted advocates) way of doing things, right? Murderbike 19:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In what way exactly do you believe that Ted's view of ending institutions and the state is less "altruistic" than does of other individualist anarchists? The fact is that Ted argues how his struggle is in the interest of all of us. It is the struggle for true freedom. This is a message that seeks identity in all of us; otherwise you would think that his manifesto is just some sort of intellectual exercise.

This takes us to other philosophical discussions on what constitutes a true finding of an individual, author in search for what is best for others. It is hard to define “altruism” as it seems to be your issue when you talk about the fact that “even individualists thought (think) that their way of doing things was (is) better for humanity as a whole”. The fact is that he identifies himself as an anarchist [1] ("We are an anarchist group calling ourselves FC.") and his manifesto argues on to why we all should fight against social institutions.

I guess to me it seems like Ted's concern is solely for the planet, and not for the better of humans at all. the situation that he describes in the GA interview as preferrable, seems to me no more or less desireable (for humans at least) than the "dog eat dog"ness of capitalism. I must admit that I haven't read the manifesto, only that GA interview, but really, it seems even more relevant since it is more current. he seems to toss aside ideas of equality for "minorities", in favor of a strongest survive ideal, which to me is anathema to anarchism of any stripe. ugh, i don't usually get caught up in what is or isn't anarchism, but this is a totally fascinating subject to me. cheers! Murderbike 20:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that if you read the manifesto you will see what I mean when I say that his struggle is for what he believes to be the true freedom. I don't want to answer this question for him, but I don't see how a man can defend beauty in this world if not trough his own human eyes. I believe that in the struggle for freedom of Ted is implied that it is one of human nature. In his manifesto there is a part in which he says something like "some of us rather die an horrible death than to not have the chance to be truly free." There are many parts of the manifesto where he speaks of the "human indignities" in the industrial society. I really recommend this reading if you find this interesting. Maybe we can talk about this later or about other anarcho-primitivists. :) Maziotis 20:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future

yeah, hopefully i'll have time tomorrow to read the manifesto, and get back to ya. I've been pretty into Derrick Jensen lately, after a bunch of years being convinced that organizational anarchism (though not as crazy as Platformist ridiculousness, just not completely anti-civ) could actually save us. i'll get back to ya tomorrow. Murderbike 03:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you like Derrick Jensen, I may suggest you to read John Zerzan, who Jensen has described as “The best anarchist thinker of our time". I don’t know if you are familiar with this author. Have you read the interview he did to Zerzan, called “Enemy of the State”? I think it’s a wonderful sort of F.A.Q. that gives an overall perspective on anarcho-primitivism. http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/enemy.htm Maziotis 13:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read that interview. I read a couple of articles that Zerzan wrote a few years ago, but I've kind of ignored most anti-civ stuff the last few years. i'll try to find that interview. Murderbike 23:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fake vandalims charges

Dont make fake vandalism edits in your edit summary. Such a charge is unacceptable and violates WP:AGF, SqueakBox 18:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how can I assume "good faith" when you are obviously interested in beginning a edit war. Please discuss the changes of the article. I have written my reasons on the discussion section.Maziotis 18:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No I am not, I am trying to edit the article. Your claim that because I want to edit the article I want to edit war is frankly ridiculous. I have edited the iopening a lot and been editing this article for years. So please calm down! and read WP:3RR, SqueakBox 18:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That rule also apllies to you. And curiously, you have reached the third change first, in what this change is concerned.Maziotis 18:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that cant be so but I am not interested in edit warring. I am interested in an accurate article. If you must re-add anarchist you need to source it or it will be a WP:BLP vio which is not subject to 3RR. Then you'll need to talk opn the talkm page explaining why he is notable to everyone primarily as an anarchist. Merely because some anarchists look up to hiim doesnt make him on and if you read is you'll see he primarily claims to be an anti-technologist and not an ideologist of any sort. I am very happy to discuss him with you but not in an atmosphere where you are wholesale reverting my edits without even even using the talk page, SqueakBox 18:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have used the talk page more than you.

What does make a man to be an anarchist, then? He proclaims to be one and he is refrenced has having original ideas in anarchist ideology. Please see references given in discussion page.Maziotis 18:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Where does he proclaim to be one? Not in IS, except for some very ambivalent note at teh end of the text which is hardly notable and includes one false clue (FC) and a recognition that many anarchists wont see his alleged group as anarchist nor can I see any reference to it in his wikipedia article. Because certain anarchists claim he is an anarchist doesnt meet notability nor is it fair to him if he doesnt support that as a living person in a much clearer way. I would say to call him an anarchist is to misunderstand his ideology which is concerned with breaking down technological society not with creating an alternative ideology. His only and explicit ideology was anti-technology, and his crimes reflected this because he targetted technologists not hierarchicalists, SqueakBox 20:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It shows he is not commonly recognized as an anarchist, which he isn’t. I gave you four sources from mainstream media in which he is referenced as an anarchist, and you gave me only one in which he isn't. So I don't understand how you can give this conclusion.

The fact that he focuses with the technological issue is part of his branch of anarchy. He might not talk about attacking people that represent hierarchy in terms of security, but he is still for the destruction of the state and all social institutions. His whole argument, in favor of wild life, deals with this primarily green anarchist critique of the relations of power in authoritarian society. This vision is shared by his particular view of anarchy. Clearly, he is more than just respected in "some circles" as you call it. Please do your research. Please read the references given above. He is an author of the green anarchy movement. Most anarchists don't reference themselves constantly as anarchists. The same applies with any ideology. HE merely explains in his manifesto is ideals for the destruction of the state, on the grounds of how he believes it is built, assuming a definition for his political doctrine in a brief statment.

You judgment of anarchism is not only poor as it is unnecessary. You have no authority to judge if his ideas are anarchist or not. The fact remains that he is both a self-proclaimed anarchist and recognized as one in the media. I believe that pointing out this category, in the beginning article, definitely helps us to understand who he is and what he did. If you have no other factual reasons to contest this category, on what grounds do you deny this possibility? It seems to me that we are also dealing here with a matter of style, in terms of writing an encyclopedic article. I don't see how you should have the final vote on this matter, as I also point out that this issue is highly subjective.Maziotis 00:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think caling him an anti-technologist is the highest compliment we can give him. Please understand I am not anti-Kaczynski (one of the brightest living minds its been my pleasure to come across), and I do know about anarchy (albeit not recently, I am more of a capitalist convert from anarchy), SqueakBox 00:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC) That shows how POV you are. We are not dealing with insults and compliments here. I am interested in describing the reason for his motives from the start.

Probably you should learn more about green anarchism.Maziotis 00:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Err green anarchism was what I was into, I was always the peaceful type he criticises. Can you please chill out and stop reverting all my edits. Unless you are very on-wikipedia they arent going to last very long anyway and you are much better off negotiating with me instead of calling me POV etc. He was motivated by what he saw as the evils of technology not the evils of hierarchy and it is clear from IS that anti=technology is what motivated him. can you deny that? My issue with you is that you are using this article to promote your own anarchy ideas, SqueakBox 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I do not accept that criterion. His anti-technology motivation is itself anarchist, the same way as other anarchists deal with social equality from an anarchist point of view. The discussion of who is anti-hierarchical is part of the anarchist philosophy, discussed on all branches, from different points of view. Your analysis, however brilliant it may be, is not called for here. The fact is that he describes himself as an anarchist, as does the media, and his views makes him respected as an anarchist author. I believe that this is very significant in his life. The fact that his ideas in terms of political definition, which he himself as assumed, lead him to make what he did.

Please answer my previous arguments. I have sources and you haven't provide me with a single proof that distinguishes him from any other commonly referred "anarchists".Maziotis

4 sources? I am only aware of one, SqueakBox

Look for them in that section. Since they are links, you can spot it really easy. Maziotis 10:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt matter who put it there, to claim without a sourc e that he is an anarcho=primitivist, as you keep doing, is a WP:BLP violation as by restoring this info you are making claims you cannot source. Your ref is neither a secondary source nor more importantly does it sday he is an anarcho-primitivist. Please desiost making claims based on your original research or that of others, SqueakBox 17:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted an edit made on false claims. You cannot acuse me of violating anything. I can only understand and react to the reasons presented for an edit. I am not obliged to guess what they might had been thinking.

It is not original reasearch. Thedore Kaczynski is an author that fights for a stateless primitive society, therefore being aknowledge by anarchists of this branch, and others, as an anarcho-primitivist. Check out for example the first result on a google search for the words "Theodore Kaczynski anarcho-primitivism"

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:ZAifEuN7k0kJ:www.corrupt.org/data/files/unabomber/+theodore+kaczynski+anarcho-primitivist&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

You are in viollation of BLP, pleaserer ad that article and see the difference between an addition and a subtraction. You are also pushing your anarchist POV, SqueakBox 23:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain exactly how I am pushing my political POV and you are not pushing yours. Is it because I define myself politically in the same way as the author whose article I wish to edit?Maziotis 23:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He hardly defines himself as an anarchist so no it is because you define him as having the same political belief as you. If it were easy to find a good secondary source that he as an anarchist you would have done so, SqueakBox 23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And lets face it mainstream sources call him an anti-technologist and not an anarchist [2], SqueakBox 23:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your claiming to understand my reasons in not defending my position in a certain way really shows a lack of arguments for a rational debate.

Excuse me, but I don't understand what it means for a person to "hardly" defining himself as anything. Clearly you are taking this personally on another level. How many times does a person have to claim to be an anarchist, in order to be considered one?

I already gave you two top references in the anarcho-primitivist movement (John Zerzan and Kevin Tucker) addressing his anarchist ideals. Do you have an alternative reading of the manifesto? Exactly what is the criterion in terms of writing style and public recognition does one has to have? Are you an authority on the subject?

This is simply absurd. I already tried to explain you how I believe that his whole manifesto is not at all ambiguous in his anarchist orientation. But not only you do not answer that, as you try to overcome top reliable sources in anarchism to defend your position, without any justification.

And lets face it mainstream sources call him an anti-technologist and not an anarchist. Lets face it? I gave you four in which he was clearly described as an anarchist. And what does that prove, anyway?

Its not me who needs the referencing, it is our readers. Right now you have made a statement (regardless of whether you inserted it originally) and you havent referenced it so a lot of readers are going to be dubious and may think "wikipedia got it wrong again" because he is known as an anti-technologisty and not an anarchist. As Is aid before even if some claim he is/was an anarchist that doesnt make him so whereas the whole force of his argument is in favour of being anti-technology. Given that every time I include this much more notable info perhaps you could explain why he isnt notable as an anti-technologist, because this is what you appear to be claiming, SqueakBox 00:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

and you havent referenced it so a lot of readers are going to be dubious and may think "wikipedia got it wrong again" because he is known as an anti-technologisty and not an anarchist. This is just your POV. The fact is that he is known as an anarchist in the media, as I have already shown you the four media references. On the other hand, I do want to stress out that we are not obliged to reflect the way the mainstream media describes a person. This is an encyclopedic article and I believe that the way a criminal defines himself politically and in justification for his actions is very important to understand who he is. This alone is a justification for how most activists are described in media and encyclopedic sources.

I did not say he is not known as a person that is against technology. I do think that the term "anti-technologist" is not very common. That perspective can always be present in the article.Maziotis 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peltier and...that band's song laughing about him in jail

Hey there. I noticed you reverted the [of a reference to Leonard Peltier] in the song of a band as being "inappropriate." While the placing of the quote and the style of writing aren't up to Wikipedia standards, the reference itself is legitimate, and the band has their own page. I'm not really agitating, as this is the first I've heard of it, but it looks like this is notable. --Edwin Herdman 04:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That is what I thought. But I decided not to move it to the right place and merely deleting it for not following wiki standards. If you want, you can do it yourself. I believe it should be in a "popular cuture" section, with the reference being that the song "mentions" Pletier instead of "makes fun of".Maziotis 11:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Tribalism

I added a new link to the references section - I think it sets out the basic concepts of the "ideology" from a proponent's viewpoint, including what link is seen to evolutionary theory. Check it out. Mjk2357 21:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any evol. biologists have endorsed neo-Tribalism - at least not to my knowledge. All the articles state is that neo-Tribalists *believe* that E.B. supports their theories. Also, check out the RAND white paper I added - quite interesting if you're into the "cycles of history" stuff. Mjk2357 22:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] questions

I really am interested in why you support anarcho-primitivism. (This is unrelated to the discussion on the I was looking for a question about a particular issue. You seem to find "confusion" in my explanations...Maziotis 17:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain to me what benefits you feel these societies have?--Urthogie 18:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I find myself very limited to understand the benefits of primitive societies trough the eyes of a modern industrial man. Above all, I feel that our modern world does not have a future and I do not share the values trough which man has described himself within civilization.

There is so much that we could discuss here, but I don't know exactly what you are looking for.Maziotis 18:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think tribalism has a future, though? Every tribalistic civilization eventually becomes a kingdom when its population grows long enough. If anything, tribalism has the smallest future of all, no?--Urthogie 18:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if we assume that civilization is the cyclic inevitable result of all tribal societies, I must point out to the fact that, from what I have read, my “future” is our reality for most of the time (some say around 95%-99%). In reality, there are many cultures that have not followed this path and I can only guess that this is an anomaly, much in the same way as other species, in some particular point of their history, in a particular geographical point, have grown beyond their balance with their natural resources and found disaster.

Every tribalistic civilization eventually becomes a kingdom when its population grows long enough. There is a circular logic in this assertion. The eventuality of a population growing and adapting to a non-civilized way of existence, in order to fulfill different needs, is the description of civilization itself. I believe that you are wrong about that being the rule, though.Maziotis 23:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please name a civilization which has remained economically and politically tribal after its population grew to the size of a medium sized town.--Urthogie 02:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely why I said that your logic is circular. My point was that not all tribal societies become civilizations. Now, you generalize the necessity of this development by describing a step of a tribal society that becomes a civilization when you speak about the growth of its population to a medium size. I don’t believe this happens to all hunter-gather societies. Why in fact do some of these tribes go trough these changes has been studied, and, of course, as always, there is a debate with many sides to this issue. You should not dismiss the positions of some authors so lightly. And, again, even if we consider that there is this inevitable cyclic development into a civilization stage, that would not refute as being a very temporarily and undesirable fraction of a moment.

There are in fact many cultures, worldwide, that have not developed into civilizations. Some authors talk about the influence of our own unique corrupted civilization as having influenced changes trough out the world, most of the times violently.Maziotis 10:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How can my logic be circular if I'm merely asking a question? Can you please name a civilization which has remained economically and politically tribal after its population grew to the size of a medium sized town? If the answers a no, that doesn't mean I'm right you're wrong, it simply means that the discussion can move on without you avoiding this question.--Urthogie 20:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You are asking me to give an example of a person who has remained alive after they have died. That is a strange way to prove that there is no life after dead.

The growth of a community to what we now consider to be a "medium size" is a step in the process of civilization. That tells us nothing about the possibility of a community remaining primitive. The reason why I am saying this and calling your logic circular has to do with the fact that I have made an interpretation concerning the intention of your question that is related to this last issue. I may be wrong, though.

I cannot give you the name of a civilization that has remained economically and politically tribal after its population grew to the size of a medium sized town, since only civilizations that grow to the size of a medium sized town can sustain not being economically and politically tribal. My point was that not all human communities experience this process. Experts give several explanations as to how they can remain in groups of small number of individuals. A part of the argument of this anthropologists that refute the idea that primitive societies are sources of scarcity and brutalization is to dismiss the idea that this is due to high death rate, but for other reasons.Maziotis 20:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well thanks for answering that question. My next question is this:

• How do you propose that the population of the tribe can be kept below the size of a medium sized town inevitably?--Urthogie 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not proposing anything, since I have no economical and political plan to apply. I am not mother nature. I am an anarchist; remember? I don't believe in economist theorists that promise wealth as a product of their own thinking. I believe in natural law. I know about all of these arguments about the brutal ways of the primitive world, but, above all, I believe that whatever rules there may be they are appropriate to the values of our nature.

I think that some of the sources that I provided can satisfy you intellectual curiosity, though. Some experts have in fact propose explanations about how population does not grow to the point of being a mass society, without being trough high death rate.Maziotis 09:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You are so long-winded and yet you refuse to answer my question once again. Please answer it, thanks.--Urthogie 13:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

When I don't give an answer that you are expecting you just say that I have not answered it...Maziotis 13:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was expecting an answer that addressed the question, rather than a two paragraph unrelated rant, yes. Please answer the question rather than ranting? If you can't answer the question just say so.--Urthogie 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am saying that I address the question. If you think that I just rant, than don't talk to me.Maziotis 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your answer was that you can't propose an answer: "I am not proposing anything, since I have no economical and political plan to apply." Correct?--Urthogie 14:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My answer was that I cannot propose a political and economical solution. ...you really like to try winning debates by using semantics, don't you?Maziotis 14:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Next question:

• Why do you hold a political philosophy for which you can offer no coherent political or economic justification or plan?--Urthogie 14:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it that I cannot offer a "political or economic" justification for what I believe? And what exactly do you mean by "plan"? Since I do not take the position of a ruler I am being incoherent with my anarchist political philosophy?! There are political currents that dismiss the rationalization of economic "plans" from its roots, in contrast with several economical developments in opposition. Your idea of "economic plan" is highly subjective. The left versus right has a long history of debate where conservatives value "nature" over rational social solutions, for example.Maziotis 14:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• By plan I meant some sort of coherent narrative of how your proposed society could exist without becoming the size of a medium sized town. With that definition specified, please answer my question.--Urthogie 14:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

~ I am not planning any society. You seem to dismiss the fact that I may even holistically accept the hypothesis of high death rates being an exclusive factor for the process by which tribal communities are sustained in low number.Maziotis 15:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you were planning, I asked for a coherent narrative. Please provide one.--Urthogie 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Or else you won't be convinced of the benefits of the said society? Or else people may be afraid to "step in"? We have very different values, indeed. I have answered your question directly, but you insist in treating me as if I were a politician giving speeches. I do not give coherent narratives on demand.Maziotis 15:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Most people who aren't politicians are able to speak on their views with some sort of coherent narrative. You apparently aren't, presumably because your views are irrational and stating them out loud would be embarrassing.--Urthogie 15:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I do have the habit of talking lengthily about an issue close to my heart when I meet someone interesting to talk to. Someone with a view of their own with which I can have a dispute on a certain matter.Maziotis 15:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a habit of talking a lot and saying nothing concretely. It's a sign that you wouldn't exactly be suited to working in the fields-- you're a man of (too many) words. Could you please answer my question? I'm not saying you're a politician, I'm merely asking for a possible narrative of how your idea could ever work. You don't seem to understand the difference between ruling a society and understanding how one could work.--Urthogie 19:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I find hard to have a meaningful discourse with someone who does not participate in a debate and is as insulting as you. So, I am also not all that happy with you as a discussing partner. You have this nasty habit of engaging in semantic arguments and making demands for which you have no right. You want to lead the discussion without presenting constructive rebuttals. I can definitely agree with you as to how dry this conversation really is. And your pretension to be able to understand how I am unsuitable for scientific investigation is frankly ridiculous.Maziotis 21:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

None of my questions have been semantic. They've simply been attempts to get an understanding of your view. Why do you not want me to understand your political views, and how do you think we could discuss them if you don't elaborate them?--Urthogie 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You realize of course that right now we are not discussing any politics and this is one of those discussions that get us nowhere, don't you? You keep making accusations about what are my real intentions and about what I know and don't know because I am not following your criterion. If you would really want to understand my political views you would show some real honest interest. You strike me as one of those guys that want to win debates by trying to portray the adversary as being weaker. I don't have much respect for that kind of people.Maziotis 21:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Most people give a reason for why they support murderers such as the unabomber.--Urthogie 21:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I really must say quite honestly that I have no interest in discussing with you. You have no idea about how I support the unabomber to make such superficial remarks. Indeed, I have had discussions about this, including in wikipedia, where I have mutually enriching conversations in which I have explained in what ways I think the Unabomber had a point, with the proper context for my own personal feelings and political beliefs. I seem not to be able to have the oportunity to ever have that with someone like you.Maziotis 21:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

WP:3rr, please read it and dont break it in future, SqueakBox 18:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You have broken it in the past. You should not lecture about what you cannot follow.Maziotis 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly can follow it, watch me, and I am not lecturing I am pointing out, SqueakBox

Me too. And any one of us, most of the times, respect that policy. You would have to be a vandal not to. But the point is that you have not respected at some point in the past. And in fact, there were many times.Maziotis 19:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that is so, please provide diffs, SqueakBox 19:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just randomly choose a page of the last weeks.Maziotis 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a diff, SqueakBox 19:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)~

This ,for example.Maziotis 20:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that is one revert, and I claim a BLP exemption which I am entitled to do re avoiding 3rr but you arent because I am removing and you are adding, SqueakBox 02:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a third revert within 24 hours.

I have also claimed some justification in every edit. I don't believe that rule says anything about adding and removing. I am the one who is keeping the article as it is and you are the one who wants to change it.Maziotis 09:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the policies then and especially but not only WP:BLP which makes clear there is a huge difference between adding material and taking it away, SqueakBox 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not denying that. But you have claimed that the 3rr does not apply to you because you were taking material away. There is no policy for which you can base that claim.Maziotis 20:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] growing in the forest is pre-agriculture

Study your sources, you'll find this to be true. It's what societies do before agriculture. Secondly, the section is on tribes in general, not just hunter gatherers, so the point is irrelevant anyways.--Urthogie 20:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What does the critique to hierarchical tribes has to do with anarchy? That section is inherently concerned with anarchy, and it starts because of the reference made by some anthropologists concerning those primitive societies that had no state and no rulers. That does not mean that it should not have criticism regarding those societies, though.Maziotis 22:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:13 b.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:13 b.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there

Long time no talk, I just figured I'd drop by and invite you to join the recently created Anarchism Task Force. I'd be stoked to have another anti-civ leaning editor around for balance, if you have the time and motivation. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, one of these days I'd love to get around to cleaning up Anarcho-primitivism, maybe you'd be interested? As well, I think that just a balance of anarcho-perspectives in the project is a good thing. Murderbike (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I wouldn't mind helping you with your userpage at all, what would you like to have on it? I put my navigation template (which I stole liberated from some other user) on your page. Are there other things I have that you would like? Just let me know and I'll see what I can do. As well, you can just rip the code for any feature right out of my page by hitting "edit this page". Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that little line, I messed around with the code for a bit, and couldn't get it to go away, it's really weird, I don't know what that could be. Sorry I couldn't help. Murderbike (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Hi, I see that you have an anarcho-primitivist flag in your userpage. I have created some userboxes on anarcho-primitivism you can find in User:Otolemur crassicaudatus/Userboxes. One of it is present in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CrimethInc. ideology

Yo, do you contest the notion that CrimethInc. espouses post-left anarchy or did you just remove it because it didn't have a reference? скоморохъ 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it doesn't have a reference and because, given t~he situation, that demand is critical. Crimithinc defines itself as not having any political platform and we should be careful in pointing out links to ideological influences so as to not let the article be the political forum of some.Maziotis (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a well-considered approach, thanks. Do you think, in light of your reasoning here, that we should explicitly attribute the claims of ideology to the sources? I.e. Instead of "Crimethinc is an x y z anarchist group", "Source A calls Crimethinc an X group, while Sources B and C call it a Y group". скоморохъ 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If such sources can be found, than yes, it is at least legitimate. But I also believe we can maintain the current criterion. They are not mutually exclusive.

I am going to try to add both previous references with a source.Maziotis (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean the ones that are already there. It currently reads "CrimethInc. draws from situationist thought,[14] dadaism[14], anarcho-primitivism[15], as well as post-left anarchy[16]". Should it say e.g. "Joe says it draws from situationism, while This Book detects dadaist influences and Anarchist Organization has classified it as primitivist"? скоморохъ 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I understood what you meant. The fact is that I don't believe either way is wrong. Please remember that not all sources can provide such a criterion.

What do you think of the way it is now? If there is a problem with any source, I will try to find another.Maziotis (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that "Your Politics Are Bourgeois As Fuck" and Harbinger are examples of post-left and primitivism respectively, our opinions don't carry any weight as it needs either explicit self-identification or a secondary or tertiary source. I've left them in without sources for now, because I don't think any reasonable editor will contest them. If you can help expand the article in any way, I'd really appreciate it, because I think it's getting close to Good article standard. скоморохъ 13:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Antired.PNG

Thank you for uploading Image:Antired.PNG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does John Zerzan really uphold "embodiment"?

I saw your comment on Talk:John Zerzan and i have a possible answer to that question John Zerzan could perhaps be called a Transtheist rather than an atheist or a believer in organized religion (and or theism).--Fang 23 (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be an interesting approach, but I believe we should avoid referring to him as such in the article, unless we find a source where he claims to identify himself with it.Maziotis (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)