Talk:National-Anarchism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

IMPORTANT: Friendly advice for new contributors[edit]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to the National-Anarchism-related articles, categories, templates, and talk page discussions. Therefore, all content hosted in Wikipedia cannot be:

  1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a National-Anarchist blog or visit a National-Anarchist forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite National-Anarchist views.
  2. Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics, especially those that advance or hinder the goals of the National-Anarchist movement, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries, especially for current affairs, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikinews, however, allows commentaries on its articles.
  3. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or National-Anarchist projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
  4. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting National-Anarchist causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

Problems with introduction[edit]

I also have some minor disagreements with this article. In the start it says N-A is ‘right-wing’ but it clearly isn’t and it defines itself beyond this concept, even beyond Third Position. I don't think it should be removed from the article but this should at least be placed further down in a criticisms section stating that it’s distracters class it as right wing, and in itself doesn't.

I disagree with the 'racial civil war' part. In non of its literature is this the case. The reference given for the 'racial civil war' part actually references the NRF. Now, N-A grew out of NRF maybe but they are difference and NA is a beyond NRF as it is beyond left and right. I agree with the collapse of the capitalist system part but not the 'racial civil war' as it is referencing a different organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.141.198 (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
That being said, you are obviously unaware of this history but, from January 2010 to April 2010, the National-Anarchism article was destabilized by an intense dispute over whether or not Nationalism-Anarchism should be described as "right-wing" in the first sentence of the lead section of the article. This dispute led to a mediation cabal, which concluded with the consensus compromise that Nationalism-Anarchism should be described as right-wing because that it how it is described by the scholars who have studied it (not just critics who are antifascist militants). Stability was thus restored.
As for the "racial civil war" claim (which is sourced to Graham D. Macklin's September 2005 essay "Co-opting the counter culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction") the problem is that there are no independent reliable sources which explain that post-NRF National-Anarchism is different from NRF National-Anarchism (especially in light of Southgate launching a new National-Anarchist Movement based around a revolutionary cadre structure in 2010) on the issue of whether or not National-Anarchists still yearn for a racial civil war. On the contrary, in his Summer 2009 report "'National Anarchism' California Racists Claim They're Anarchists", Casey Sanchez mentions that the Bay Area National Anarchists envision a future race war leading to neo-tribal, whites-only enclaves to be called "National Autonomous Zones." --Loremaster (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)
The mention of National-Anarchists awaiting a "racial civil war" is slanderous as the information is attributed to someone who has a negative view of the philosophy. Nowhere can this concept of racial civil war be attributed to a National-Anarchist. 216.121.251.107 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Did you read what I said above? --Loremaster (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I've decided to remove the mention of National-Anarchists awaiting a "racial civil war" only because 1) the information is dated and 2) it may not reflect the fact that different factions within the National-Anarchist Movement don't necessarily have the same positions on this issue. I will therefore delete any mention of it in the introductory paragraph of the article only. --Loremaster (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Confusion[edit]

It states int he article that its right wing than later in the paragraph it says its not. This need to be cleared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

From January 2010 to April 2010, the National-Anarchism article was destabilized by an intense dispute over whether or not Nationalism-Anarchism should be described as "right-wing" in the first sentence of the lead section of the article. This dispute led to a mediation cabal, which concluded with the consensus compromise that Nationalism-Anarchism should be described as right-wing because that it how it is described by the scholars who have studied it (not just critics who are antifascist militants). Stability was thus restored.
That being said, Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
In other words, although the article points out National-Anarchists do not think of themselves as "right-wingers", what matters is that an overwhelming majority of independent reliable sources (journalists and scholars) think that Nationalist-Anarchists are right-wingers. --Loremaster (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you User:Loremaster. Whoever is deleting the insertion of right-wing in the intro - please note that there has been a long and drawn out dispute which involved both Loremaster, myself and others - and which was solved with arbitration - see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/National-Anarchism. Please discuss the issue here before deleting the term. Thanks PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

On the use of primary sources[edit]

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Therefore, extensive use of primary sources such as blog posts, articles and interviews of National-Anarchists by National-Anarchists should be avoided. As much as possible, we should use independent sources (journalists and scholars) when making a point such as stating that the use of the term 'right-wing' is disputed. --Loremaster (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)