Jump to content

Talk:National-anarchism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aracnophobe (talk | contribs) at 01:30, 21 November 2010 (→Inclusion of "manifesto"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPolitics C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Multidel

copyright/plagiarism

The article:

National-Anarchism in the U.S. remains a relatively obscure movement, made up of probably fewer than 200 individuals, led by Andrew Yeoman of the Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA), based in the San Francisco Bay Area, and a couple of other groups in Northern California and Idaho. Organizations based on National-Anarchist ideology have gained a foothold in Russia and sown turmoil in the environmental movement in Germany.[10] There are adherents in England, Spain and Australia,[19] among other nations.[10]

The cited source:

Although national anarchism in the U.S. remains a relatively obscure movement, made up of probably fewer than 200 individuals in BANA and a couple of other groups in northern California and Idaho, organizations based on national anarchist ideology have gained a foothold in Russia and sown turmoil in the environmental movement in Germany. There are enthusiasts in Britain, Spain and Australia, among other overseas nations.

I would call this plagiarism. I just noticed this passage but if the whole article's like this it's a real problem.Prezbo (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or: "Since then, National-Anarchists have joined other marches in Australia and in the U.S.; in April 2008, they protested on behalf of the Tibetan independence movement against the Chinese government during the Olympic torch relay in both Canberra, Australia, and San Francisco"

"Even if the results are modest, this can disrupt left-wing social movements and their focus on social justice and egalitarianism; and instead spread elitist ideas based on naturalistic fallacy, racism, homophobia, antisemitism and antifeminism amongst grassroots activists."

Vs. the source[1]:

"Since then, the National-Anarchists have joined other marches in Australia and in the United States; in April 2008, they protested on behalf of Tibet against the Chinese government during the Olympic torch relay in both Canberra, Australia, and San Francisco."

"Even if the results are modest, this can disrupt left-wing social movements and their focus on social justice and egalitarianism; and instead spread elitist ideas based on racism, homophobia, antisemitism and antifeminism amongst grassroots activists."

Or:

"Now, National-Anarchists in the U.S. are carefully studying the successes and failures of their more prominent international counterparts as they attempt to similarly win converts from the radical environmentalist and white nationalist movements in the U.S"

Vs. the source[2]:

"Now, national anarchists in the U.S. are carefully studying the successes and failures of their more prominent international counterparts as they attempt to similarly win converts from the radical environmentalist and white nationalist movements in this country."

Prezbo (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on correct all of this as soon as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of "manifesto"

I removed an unsourced addition by an IP user which seemed, to me, to be promoting a newly released "manifesto" and magazine. The IP re-added it and it was edited slightly by User:Loremaster, who sourced it to, well, itself. When I again removed it with the edit summary suggesting that it be left out of the article until it receives third-party coverage, my edit was reverted by Loremaster.

While the author of the manifesto may be a prominent member of this group, it seems to me that it is premature to include it at this point, mere days after its release. Even if this document were to be widely adopted by people who count themselves among this group, we would need reliable, third-party sources to confirm this and to confirm its importance. Any objection to my removing that section again? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking sides, I should note that a manifesto is a primary source. While primary sources are reliable for their own contents, per Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight, we need to be certain we are not providing too much weight to this - has this manifesto been discussed widely in published sources? If so, where? Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the N-AM Manifesto has not been discussed widely in published second- or third-party sources only because it was recently published. And, since we are only making one brief mention of the existence of this manifesto at the end of the History section of the article (in order for this section to be comprehensive and up-to-date), we are not giving it undue weight. I am therefore opposed to the mention of this manifesto being deleted from the article. Ultimately, I hope we can avoid an edit war over such a small (yet important) addition to the article. --Loremaster (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly a month has elapsed since the start of this discussion, and if nothing has appeared about the "manifesto" in reliable third-party sources, can we remove it as originally discussed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I explained above why I think we should keep the mention of the manifesto in the article. despite the lack of reliable third-party sources. My opinion has not changed and I doubt you will be able to create a consensus for your position. That being said, I don't understand your zeal in wanting to suppress this brief mention of a manifesto written by the most prominent ideologue of National-Anarchism. In other words, let it go. --Loremaster (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Loremaster, I would appreciate it if you did not continue your attempt to cast this as anything other than following normal Wikipedia editing practices and guidelines. I hardly think I am being overzealous, having waited a month for coverage to appear. I would probably have waited longer if you hadn't attempted to close the discussion by prematurely archiving it. Quite simply, if there are no reliable sources covering this, it shouldn't be included here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By “overlzealous”, I am simply suggesting that you seeem to forget that, according to Wikipedia guidelines, primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. That being said, there is nothing premature about archiving a discussion that has been dead for almost 2 months. --Loremaster (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should a "manifesto" written by a prominent member of the National Anarchism movement be included in this article if the only source is the manifesto itself? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia guidelines, primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. Case closed. --Loremaster (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the first section, " it has been primarily redefined and popularized since the 1990s by British ideologue Troy Southgate". Since he is the mouth of the movement and we can cite to the website itself, why not. And the mention is all of one sentence? Which anarchist newspapers would you think would be rushing to print commentary on this? Some thoughtful exposition will be found online like this from the SPLC (reproduced here), and this from Public Eye. Here's an interview that may help and an article or two.

Racist?

Lloyd Lacy, Memphis Black National Anarchist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.69.225 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you think this interview (which is not a considered a reliable sources according to Wikipedia standards) proves. Just because one intelligent but lost black guy adheres to his version of National-Anarchism it doesn't change the fact that reliable sources argue that the vast majority of National-Anarchists are white men hold racist views. --Loremaster (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National-anarchism&oldid=397973961"