Talk:Benjamin Tucker

Paragraph

"Tucker said that he became an anarchist at the age of eighteen. In the anarchist periodical Liberty, he published the original work of Stephen Pearl Andrews, Joshua K. Ingalls, Lysander Spooner, Auberon Herbert, Dyer Lum, Victor Yarros and Lillian Harman (daughter of free love anarchist Moses Harman) as well as his own writing. After the French libertarian communist Joseph Déjacque,"

It seems like this was left unfinished Kakroom (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Mess

The section on his views is a mess with some odd statements that make me think it's far from neutral point of view (and many of them are simply not relevant or important enough to be here).

For example: "According to Frank Brooks, an historian of American individualist anarchism, it is easy to misunderstand Tucker's claim to socialism. Before Marxists established a hegemony over definitions of socialism, "the term socialism was a broad concept"."; "Not all modern economists believe Marxists established a hegemony over definitions of socialism."

In my opinion many of these statements are trying to make him look more closer to right-libertarian/anarcho-capitalism, or to distance him from socialism, together with statements that to me seem to try to do the opposite (e.i "According to Peter Marshall, "the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists" such as Tucker and Lysander Spooner have been overlooked."), the article seem to be more of a debate forum, instead of article showcasing Tucker's view.

The page needs a cleanup, clearly showcasing his views, rather than speculations on them (, which may have their own section), segregated into subsections, such as Land ownership, Legal order, etc. MZoooo (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

It's just the social anarchists and anarcho-capitalists bickering over who gets to have Tucker on their side... Looking forward to your fixed version! 🙂  Tewdar  13:51, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

This is unfortunately quite common with articles on American libertarianism, people are more concerned with planting their ideological flags in historical figures than building an encyclopedia. I too hope these edits lead to this article becoming more encyclopedic and less idiosyncratic. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Most of the current lede seems to be an attempt to establish Tucker as some sort of libertarian socialist, with the disclaimer that some have called him an anarcho-capitalist. I'd love to hear what Tucker would have thought of his Wikipedia article... 🤣  Tewdar  14:39, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean, Tucker did call himself a libertarian socialist, but that's just a word used for variety of traditions, what's more important is to show his actual views MZoooo (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. Content matters more than labels. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

In addition to the political views section, the biography is woefully short and could also do with some expansion. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Is the issue of too many or overly lengthy quotations still there?

Is the issue of too many or overly lengthy quotations still there? MZoooo (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@MZoooo: Thanks for tackling these, seems to me it's looking much better than it did before! I'd say the only lengthy quotations that could still be trimmed/summarised are in the second paragraph of "Anarchist society", the first paragraph of "Law and order", and the first paragraph and block quote of "Labor rights". Once the rest of these have been handled, you can feel free to remove the issue tag. The essay on overquoting can be a decent guideline to follow in cases such as these. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)