Talk:Anarchism

Unjust Hierarchies

There's been a bit of back and forth in the edits over hierarchies and whether the word "unjust" belongs on this page, so I decided to look into the issue a bit further. Here's essentially an extended justification for the edit I'm about to make. The qualifier "unjust" has no place in front of "hierarchies" when we're discussing things that anarchists are against. Anarchism involves protesting all social hierarchies; they're not okay with allowing any kind of "just" hierarchy to exist, as anarchism views all hierarchy as unjust.

The above is just my observation from having read about anarchism as much as I have. Now I'll refer to a source. The source for the sentence in the body of the article that uses "unjust" is , pp. 4-5. When reading that article, there is no mention of unjust anything; the word does not occur in the article. Here is what the article actually says in the place to which the page refers:

Mass organizing involves anarchists working alongside nonanarchists to build social movements capable of challenging capital, state, and other adversaries (p. 4)

The source even specifies that anarchists use nonheirarchical means:

During antiauthoritarian Critical Mass (CM) bicycle rides, participants use nonhierarchical strategies to guide the ride, temper threats from cars, and create a form of do‐it‐yourself (DiY) policing that reinforces community. (p. 5)

So there is no justification for inclusion of the qualifier "unjust" with regard to hierarchies that anarchists ara against. Anarchism precludes the existence of any hierarchy whatsoever. Trogyssy (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi @Trogyssy:, thanks for looking at this, you do have a point. Some comments:

• I think you should have resisted in changing the text. Not a significant problem though.
• As for the world "unjust" the first sentence: it isnt derived from section "tactics" but from section on Etymology. I used it as I had to build the first sentence, and I felt I had to use the anti-hierarchical parameter of anarchism, as it is important (per main body of the article). But Anarchism does not simply means negation of every authority- at least as an a priori concept. See McLaughlin p 28 (last paragraph). I was trying to avoid this particular misconception when I inserted the word "unjust".
• The adjective "social", that you used to replace the word "unjust" does it derive from the main body?
• Maybe we should try to construct the first sentence right from the scratch.

Cheers, Cinadon36 18:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The word "unjust" should not be used in this context without distinguishing between a priori anarchism which holds that as an absolute or a priori claim, all states are always and everywhere illegitimate and unjust, and a posteriori anarchism which argues that states can be justified in theory, but that in practice, no state or very few states are actually legitimate (per the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Carlstak (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Establishing a stable lede

Last year, I wrote the following on the lede:

This is a high-traffic article on a relatively controversial topic; from my recollection—when this article used to be on my watchlist—passersby always take aim at their favorite part of the lede, but it still retains some elements from its last formal (GA) review in 2010. If going line-by-line to establish a consensus on what should be added/removed, it becomes easier to point back to this discussion (and our supporting sources) as rationalization for why the lede is the way that it is.

In the months since, the pattern of passersby editing the lede to add/remove a preferred word has persisted. Wouldn't it make sense to establish a stable version of the lede by coming to consensus on its granular detail line by line, word by word? Then any lede changes can be referred to this discussion (or a new talk page section) instead of the lede text slowly morphing back and forth between various definitions over time. czar 03:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Czar. What do you think about the current lead? I think it was mainly written by Cinadon36.--Davide King (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeap User:Davide King, I did write most of it. The article has undergone many changes since last year so lede had to reflect the main body. Another issue, was that the previous version of the lede included parts that were not mentioned in the article. Maybe we should create a new talk page, just to address lede issues. I believe the current version of lede is far from perfect but it is better than the previous version. Any feedback welcomed. Cinadon36 16:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine too and most of the changes have been from uninvolved users who do not know that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article; and that the lead needs to reflect the main body and vice versa. What do you think it could be better worded or improved?--Davide King (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2020 (UT)

I have been hanging around this article for a while, not doing substantial edits, but copy editing and stabilizing when needed. Since you asked what could be improved, however ... Calling anarchism "a form of socialism" in the lead does not fit with the rest of the article, and it is not a part of the stable lead that you are discussing. It was added two days ago. I would need more specifics to evaluate the claims that the IP is putting forward below, but I agree with them that it should be removed from the lead.--MattMauler (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I was going to remove the recently-added preamble before "Anarchism advocates..." but I see that there is an active edit war going on, so I will leave it with what I said above. Anarchism should be placed on the left end of the political spectrum and often manifests itself in forms of anti-statist socialism, but (Cinadon, Davide King) which experts are you referring to who would go as far as to call anarchism a "form of anti-authorian socialism?" I think that is too strongly worded.--MattMauler (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

MattMauler, yes it might be too strong to brand Anarchism as a form of socialism. We need to discuss this matter. The argument that anarchism is a form of socialism is strong though, since classical era anarchism, which is the most notable form of anarchism, was a worker's movement demanding stateless socialism. As for your question, I had in mind Kinna's 2019 book on Anarchism where she talks of anarchism as it was a socialist movement/ideology. Kinna's book was the last book to read on anarchism. Anyway, the important question, is whether the main body address anarchism as a form of socialism. In my opinion, the sentence "As an anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian form of socialism, anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies or other forms of free associations." should be rewordedCinadon36 18:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought that the main body did reflect that, i.e. a worker's movement demanding stateless socialism. Do you disagree with form of socialism (you write Anarchism should be placed on the left end of the political spectrum and often manifests itself in forms of anti-statist socialism) or just with the anti-authoritarian bit? I didn't think it was controversial; wasn't that one of the main reasons behind the split from the Marxists and then the Second International? I think it was literally called or referred to as the anti-authoritarian IWA, wasn't it?--Davide King (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

For my part, I disagree with "form of socialism," not with "anti-authoritarian." The latter describes all anarchists. I think "form of socialism" necessarily excludes a lot of the (admittedly weaker) contemporary strains of anarchism, but (perhaps more importantly) also leaves out classical elements such as individualists like Stirner and anarcho-pacifists who refuse to take an economic stance.--MattMauler (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the former also describes pretty much all anarchists, even if they may not use the term itself or argue that it isn't; for anarchism is fundamentally a labour/socialist movement; and a market doesn't necessarily imply capitalism either. I think the main issue in anarchism has been between communism (socialised both production and distribution) and socialism (only production is socialised); and the means to reach the same ends (revolution or evolution; end of wage labour or free competition, etc.). Within anarchism, Stirner has especially influenced communists and syndicalists, including egoists who are basically communists; and is generally regarded as an anti-capitalist.--Davide King (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Cinadon36, could you please post the last stable version of the lede and then we can open it up for line-by-line discussion where needed? Not sure if the more recent edits have since been reviewed. czar 00:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Please, feel free to correct me, but think the current one is, well, the one. Besides the correction of a few typos and wording that didn't really change the meaning, I think this was the one that reflected Cinadon36's edits and addition to the main body.--Davide King (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the lede signifantly but I do not believe that current lede is "unstable". Apart from this "socialist" thing, which is controversial, there was no other objection to the lede. When I did re-write the lede, I didnt include any word attaching anarchism to socialism.[1]. I think the specific sentence mentioning socialism (As an anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian form of socialism, anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies or other forms of free associations was inserted recently by another user. Anyway, the previous version of the lede, had much more significant problem, have a look here.Previous Version. It does not summarizes the main body. Cinadon36 16:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I did this edit and you thanked me for it, so I thought that was fine and in line with the main body; indeed, I thought that was itself a summary of the Thought section.--Davide King (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Dont get me wrong, I think it is a correct statement but I get that some will object to it. O also agree that it can be deduced from the main body. Nevertheless, if there r objections, we had to remove it and discuss it further at Talk. As I see it, it is not crucial to try to categorize Anarchism. I know it is tempting, especially among those having an aristotelian approach to reality, but since we are lacking crystal clear strong consensus from RS, lets not jump into this field. Cheers, Cinadon36 06:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, if they oppose that statement merely because they think it's wrong is one thing (I don't think it's a sufficient reason to remove it); if there isn't a consensus from reliable sources is another (in this case, it should be removed). It's not a big deal to me, I simply beiieved that anarchism as workers movement and its struggles with Marxism and other state socialists may be lead worthy, so saying that it's libertarian form of socialism may be the shortest summary.

I'm fine with having that deduced from the main body anyway. For why anarchism is generally considered a form of socialism or anti-captalism is because, as far as I know, anarchists use a broader/different definition from the Marxian one, but it's also stricter from the general one as it doesn't include statist types. If anarcho-capitalism is considered anarchist or within the anarchist movement, it's because it's a form of socialism/anti-capitalism, notwithstanding the name. However, the issue is that it doesn't result in the former as anarchy but rather in modern-day capitalism, just without any regulation or public state somehow. The issue is that anarcho-captalists support certain capitalist social hierarchies and relations that most anarchists and the anarchist movement have rejected. Even those anarchists who supported wage labour, they still wanted the workplace relations to be that of co-equals/owners. Anarcho-capitalists seem to believe that the current workplace social relations are perfectly voluntary; for them, the issue is all those regulations and state monopoly. Most anarchists who supported free competition and markets also did so because they believed or thought that would result in a much more equal and free society, that it would yield similar results to those supported by communists, just by different means.

So while both anarchism and anarcho-capitalism may reach similar conclusions, they do so by vastly different analysis and anarcho-capitalism seems to be only merely inspired by individualist anarchism and more influenced by the Austrian School; it seems to be a movement of its own, outside the anarchist one. While a few anarcho-capitalists who identify as such may actually be considered mutualists and hence anarchists, anarchism and anarcho-captalism seem to be two different yet related in some ways movements, just like communism and anarchism/socialism. As for other anarchist schools of thought, I don't see how they aren't socialist or anti-capitalist in the anarchist definition or even in a broder socialist one; however, they certainly seem to be incompatible with capitalism and state socialism. So again, if opposition to that wording is based on that, I don't think it's a good one. Please, feel free to correct if I'm wrong or disagree.--Davide King (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I am certainly not basing my objection only on my own analysis. I have never seen anarchism described as a type or form of socialism, and that definition would obviously exclude strains of anarchism that are not socialist but are still anarchist, which I have already mentioned. As far as I can tell, we are still investigating whether or not there is a consensus in secondary sources. I very much doubt that there is, and that is what I am basing my objection on.--MattMauler (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

As for other anarchist schools of thought, I don't see how they aren't socialist or anti-capitalist. Firstly, anti-capitalist is not the same thing as socialist. Secondly, which anarchist schools of thought are you referring to? Yes, Dorothy Day was anarchist and socialist. Tolstoy, however, was anarchist and not socialist. Yes, Stirner influenced communist thought, but he himself was not socialist. He and Thoreau, for instance, advocated for the primacy of individual will and did not comment systematically on economic implications. This is without even getting into primitivists who advocate re-wilding to a kind of tribal state, which does not comfortably fit in with socialism either. If you want to insist on somehow categorizing these strains as socialist, that would have to be very carefully based on reliable secondary sources, sources which I don't think exist. Remember, most importantly, that our back-and-forth here (including this comment and your comment speculating that anarcho-capitalism is a form of socialism (?)) is irrelevant. We have to base what goes in the article on secondary sources.--MattMauler (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that definition would exclude them. Economic theories within anarchism include collectivism, communism, mutualism and syndicalism, among others; and as far as I know they're broadly considered socialist economic theories. Either way, I don't see how that isn't compatible with the definition as outlined by Guerin 1970 that we use in Thoughts, i.e. that anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Anarchism is only one of the streams of socialist thought, that stream whose main components are concern for liberty and haste to abolish the State. Cinadon36 wrote I think it is a correct statement and that it can be deduced from the main body, so we'd need to change the latter if we remove that from the lead. As for primitivism, isn't that basically primitive communism, i.e. a return to that? Maybe anti-capitalist is better? To clarify, while Day was an anarchist and socialist, Tolstoy wasn't an anarchist in the sense that he defined as such anyway, but he's considered one; just like Godwin and Stirner, among others. It's up to reliable sources tell us what's the consensus on whether they can be consider socialists or not; and I wouldn't exclude a priori that reliablle sources may considered them socialists even if they didn't comment systematically on economic implications. The main point is that the anarchist movement is generally considered socialist, even if some strains or individuals may not be considered necessarily socialist.--Davide King (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The Guerin quote is in a footnote, and in the article itself, the claim is significantly weakened: Anarchism is usually placed on the far-left of the political spectrum. Much of its economics and legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian interpretations of radical left-wing and socialist politics .... I agree entirely with what's in the article with "usually" and "much of its economics," etc.; these make it clear that not all forms of anarchism fit in with this description. You make a good point, however, in introducing Guerin. I had not seen his quote in the footnote until now, and the fact that the source count is now up to two (counting Kinna 2019) is something.
I would still prefer that the same kind of "usually"s or other such qualifiers be there, rather than stating that anarchism is a form of socialism: Tolstoy is classified as an anarchist in expert sources (Christoyannopoulos in Christian Anarchism, Marshall in Demanding the Impossible). To respond to your positing that the other thinkers might be considered socialist in RS even though they didn't comment on economics ... It's certainly possible, and if we can locate those sources, great, but I am not ready to change my mind based on that assumption yet. Additionally, a similar discussion has come up before on this talk page in August 2019, and at that point Cinadon expressed very similar views to the ones that I am now sticking to (see the end of the section here: Talk:Anarchism/Archive_66#Lede_revisited). They were concerned then, as I am now, that certain strains of anarchism are excluded if socialism is made an essential part of the definition. They are entitled to change their mind, of course, and I am aware that new sources have come to light.
I think we should move ahead: We can take the current "stable lead," without the "form of socialism" line, and begin the word-by-word consensus building that was proposed (by Czar) at the beginning of this section. If/when we start that process, other frequent editors should be pinged to make sure we actually have a strong consensus. I am happy to have my mind changed, or to defer to the broader consensus on the lead even if my disagreements remain (re: "form of socialism"). It's just hard to tell at this point with only three of us weighing in.--MattMauler (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

MattMauler, thanks for your thoroughly response! Honestly, I think the lead is fine, even without that. I added it because I thought it was relevant enough for the lead and supported in the main body. If a reference to socialism is to be added to the lead, I would be fine with usually or something similar as caveat, but it's not a big deal. I'm fine with just having that reflected in the main body.--Davide King (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Workshop

Okay, Cinadon's lede from 07:37, 12 February 2020 was linked above but it seems we're okay with the contemporary version? Pulling from the 18:52, 30 March 2020 version linked above:

Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. It radically calls for the abolition of the state which it holds to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.

The timeline of anarchism stretches back to prehistory when people lived in anarchistic societies long before the establishment of formal states, kingdoms or empires. With the rise of organised hierarchical bodies, skepticism towards authority also rose, but it was not until the 19th century a self-conscious political movement was formed. During the latest half of 19th and the first decades of 20th century, the anarchist movement flourished to most parts of the world and had a significant role in worker's struggles for emancipation. Various branches of anarchism were espoused during those times. Anarchists took part in several revolutions, most notably in the Spanish Civil War, where they were crushed by the fascist forces in 1939, marking the end of the classical era of anarchism. In the last decades of the 20th century and into the 21st century, the anarchist movement has been resurgent once more.

Anarchism employs various tactics in order to meet its ideal ends; these can be broadly separated in revolutionary and evolutionary tactics. There is significant overlap between the two legs which are merely descriptive. Revolutionary tactics aim to bring down authority and state, and have taken a violent turn in the past. Evolutionary tactics aim to prefigure what an anarchist society would be like. Anarchist thought, criticism and praxis has played a part in diverse fields of human society.

Criticism of anarchism mainly focuses on it being internally inconsistent, violent and utopian.

To workshop, the question is what parts of this lede are objectionable/controversial and how they should be footnoted (per MOS:CITELEAD) if not edited directly. Please break each part/sentence under discussion to its own talk page section and cite both the current wording, the suggested wording, the recommended footnote, and any supporting source material from either the article's prose or its original sources. (I.e., leave this section for any feedback on the workshop itself.) The idea is to work through the contingencies and offer a solid lede for consensus as an alternative to status quo (mentioned above) in which the lede slowly morphs between interpretations over time. Please help me ping any infrequent editors that should be notified of this discussion. czar 22:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A form of socialism

As an anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian form of socialism, anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies or other forms of free associations.

For example, this part was removed, but does it warrant inclusion in some form? There are two parts here: (1) whether anarchism writ large is a form of socialism and (2) whether it advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and free association.

• For the first part, the closest in the text is:

  Anarchism is usually placed on the far-left of the political spectrum. Much of its economics and legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian interpretations of radical left-wing and socialist politics of collectivism, communism, individualism, mutualism and syndicalism, among other libertarian socialist economic theories. As anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular worldview, many anarchist types and traditions exist and varieties of anarchy diverge widely.

Sources

czar 22:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• For the second part, the lede already says anarchism "calls for the abolition of the state". I don't think there is a sourced part in the text that asserts the rest, right? Free association is linked within mutualism and voluntary association is linked within anarcho-communism, but we don't cite a source that says that anarchism writ large advocates for this. czar 22:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• A quick comment Czar and thank you for initiating a discussion on this subject. Saying at the lede that anarchism is a form of socialism, is an upgrade of the relation with socialism as portraited in the main body. It is one thing various authors describing anarchism as lying in the left wing spectrum and another thing being a part of the Left. Another concern is the usage of too many adjective, I think the use of too many adjectives does not help when dealing with abstract meanings that are already vague. To be more precise, surely these three adjectives (anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian) are important to anarchism, but as discussed in #Definition, they are not the defining adjectives of Anarchism. And why should we add those 3 adjectives and not other ones? So the wording might be confusing to the inexpedient reader of anarchism. I do agree with you that but does it warrant inclusion in some form?, yes ofcourse it does, I 'd prefer a not-too-strong statement that loosely links anarchism and socialism. But we need to be careful with the wording to avoid endless edit wars. Thanks again. Cinadon36 20:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that "anti-statist" is the only part that is essential, and that is already clearly spelled out in the lead. However, I do understand the desire to offer more clarity to readers by including more specific economic or political aspects of anarchism, so as to whether it warrants "inclusion in some form," I would go along with whatever the consensus is here. In my view, though, if there's info like that in the lead, it must include similar wording to the excerpt you found within the article, including "usually" or some other modifier like that, to clearly show that it does not describe all forms of anarchism.--MattMauler (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Cinadon36, Czar and MattMauler, I was just trying to be bold in adding anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian but you're right that's kind of contradicted by #Definition. Either way, I was simply proposing to add some mention of socialism and the socialist movement and I'd be perfectly fine with a not-too-strong statement that loosely links anarchism and socialism or a some form, usually qualifier, so I think you three can probably word it better than I did or could. As for how we need to be careful with the wording to avoid endless edit wars, I agree. However, I think there're always going to be users who change that (either in making the socialism wording stronger or completely removing it) because they may personally think so, but I think sources support some form, usually qualifier, so that shouldn't be an issue as we should report what reliable sources say and what their consensus is, no matter what another users may think based on their own personal views rather than on research about what sources say. So if there're users who continue to change the lead in either direction, we should simply revert them and ask them to take it to the talk page.--Davide King (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Would it suffice to say that it has a "historical association with socialism" or is that not strong enough? Plenty of refs in the definition article that support that. czar 03:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Czar, I like your suggestion. I am fine with it. Davide King, I agree. Cinadon36 16:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The lede is messed up

− Not all anarchists are socialists. Since when did Anarcho primitvists promote socialism?

− − If a society is truly Anarchist, it would promote 'anarchism without labels'. If a voluntary society wants to refuse to be socialists, are the other anarchists going to force them to be so?

− − Also, the lede is full of redundancies and wordiness. It needs to be trimmed but still have the essentials found in the main body. 2601:940:C000:46A0:B125:E495:1C6B:1B21 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You seem to assume as that is mutually exclusive from socialism, or anti-capitalism; so I don't see how anarcho-primitivism is mutually exclusive from a form of socialism that is ecological and primitivist (see also Primitive communism). Anarchism isn't based on the non-aggression principle and it actually criticises authority and social hierarchies, among other social relations, that are considered perfectly fine or voluntary under capitalism.--Davide King (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Anarchism criticizes coercive hierarchy Nashhinton (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we take this article to FA status?

I think we are not very far from promoting this article to FA status. But regardless the distance, I am positive if we work collectively we can improve this article. Should we try? If there is a will, we can create a new talk subpage to discuss the compliance of the article with the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I know some of you might find lede far from perfect, but I believe that all lede issues should be addressed last, since main body of the article might change.Cinadon36 13:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Since the article has been basically rewritten, what do you think about sending it through GA again first? As for FAC prep itself, I think the talk page would be sufficient, no? If not, can spin out a peer review page but better to have more eyes than fewer. I need to give it a full read but I might not have time in the next week. Nudge me if I don't? After reading through, I'll have a better sense of what needs more weight in the lede as well. In the meantime, have you verified that each sentence is supported by its cited source? We'll need to do that eventually and might as well start now if it needs to be divvied up. czar 03:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent idea Czar, I am about to send it for GAN right now. Meanwhile, we have ~3 months to double check the various aspects of the article.Cinadon36 16:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Czar and Cinadon36:I have delisted from GA nomination as the article is already listed as GA. If the interest is to get this to FA, then given comments above I would suggest peer review. The other option is {{GAR}} (good article reassessment) but from my overview (albeit very quick), I don't think there are any glaring problems that hinder current GA status. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn, why? Do we really need to go through the process of delisting the article just to get a GA review? As discussed above, the article has been completely rewritten since its last review. czar 12:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Czar: Have a look at what good article reassessment outlines; all that will be assessed for is whether the GA status remains current. It won't help a great deal in terms of preparing for FA status. I removed the GA nomination because something which already has GA status cannot be nominated. It would first need to have the GA status removed via GAR for a GA nomination to then be applied....which takes you back to square one and why I would recommend peer review at this point...but you can of course request GAR (just not GA nomination at this point). Regards--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of the delisting process but see no benefit from going through it for its own sake. The point is to get a real, external review, which won't come from the moribund peer review process. We shouldn't have to prove that the completely rewritten article is not a GA just to get an independent review. But this isn't worth the argument, especially given the subject matter.

Cinadon, let me know if you need a hand with the re-sectioning (per below) and once that's resolved, I'll continue with my review as before. Also can open for WP:PR when ready for feedback but historically I've witnessed little coming from that venue (and better to list once all the obvious work is resolved). czar 00:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I understand, GAR will not result in a delisting because the article is already strong; it would most likely just confirm that the article is good. If it would help, I could look over the article fully towards the end of the month or early next. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Lack of references in the lead

The lead paragraph seems like an overall good introduction, but the tone feels a bit informal and, more importantly, it cites no references. It would be good to have some citations from some reputable source such as a book on the history of anarchism or political philosophy. Kilgore T (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it could benefit from references, but see MOS:LEADCITE. Since it summarizes the body, often leads contain fewer or even no references. Are there specific claims in the lead that you think are more likely to be challenged or that would need citation?
Additionally, I can see some places in the lead that are perhaps a bit vague ... what wording in the lead do you see as too informal?--MattMauler (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with MattMauler, esp on refs. Also, Kilgore T you can change the wording of the lede if you wish. See WP:BRD.Cinadon36 07:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm planning to add a few group refs for the commonly challenged parts when I finish my read and get back to the lede. czar 12:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Section order

It's kind of dry to start with etymology and history, which don't give a sense of what the article's really about. Wouldn't it be better to start with the Thought section, incorporating any necessary aspects of overview, definition, and terminology? Then can go into History, etc., which can include any necessary details on etymology and origins. The current opening section gives too much privilege to those details when really the reader needs to know about what the practice of anarchism entails. If in agreement, I would do the same with the lede: explain the breadth of thought in the first lede paragraph and leave the history secondary. czar 06:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeap, agree. We shouldnt be wasting reading time before we get to the core of anarchism. Cinadon36 07:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Anarchist education

@Cinadon36: Since you reverted some of my edits on the education section, I figured I'd reply to some of your concerns: you reverted for two reasons, that "(a) previous version focuses on Summerhill, not the ideology of the founder, b) citing theanarchistlibrary.org might be a prob due to copyvio".

Concerning (a), I briefly mention that A . S. Neill did not identify as an anarchist simply as background information, so that one doesn't walk away thinking he did. A. S. Neill's work has been identified by numerous sources to be the basis of modern libertarian education, which the existing edit doesn't mention (while mine does). All that the current version states is that he founded a school, Summerhill, "free from coercion" - this does not tell the reader much at all. Upon first reading the section, I wasn't even sure if Summerhill was at all connected to the anarchist movement. I feel that my revision better explains Summerhill and it's relation to anarchism.

Concerning (b), none of the citations to the Anarchist Library include any copyright-violating material. If, however, you'd feel more comfortable with it, the link to the Anarchist Library can be removed completely from the reference, although, again, the material does not violate copyright.

In the meantime, I'll be deleting the following portion of text, as the exact same idea is conveyed in the next couple paragraphs:

"All anarchist schools were based mostly on a moral value, namely respecting children's right to develop freely without manipulations. However, they faced the dilemma of whether they should guide youngsters towards political and class struggles. Most anarchist educators of early 20th century did not take a neutral stance; the specific question kept troubling anarchist the decades to come.[124] Some decades later, anarchist authors such Colin Ward, Hearbert Read and Paul Goodman intensified and expanded anarchist's critique to state education, even the need for schooling as a pedagogical method, suggesting a system that would focus on children's creativity rather than turning them into career-hunters.[125]"

which is analogous to the following

"Anarchist education is based largely on the idea that a child's right to develop freely, without manipulation, ought to be respected, and that rationality will lead children to morally good conclusions. However, there has been little consensus among anarchist figures as to what constitutes manipulation; Ferrer, for example, believed that moral indoctrination was necessary and explicitly taught pupils that equality, liberty, and social justice were not possible under capitalism (along with other critiques of nationalism and government).[124][126]

Late 20th century and contemporary anarchist writers (such as Colin Ward, Herbert Read and Paul Goodman) intensified and expanded the anarchist critique of state education, largely focusing on the need for a system that focuses on children's creativity rather than on their ability to attain a career or participate in consumer society.[125] Contemporary anarchists, such as Colin Ward, have further argued that state education serves to perpetuate socio-economic inequality."

DeliriousWolf (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This is an overview article so there is no need for this depth on A. S. Neill, Summerhill, or even Ferrer. Anything more than a single, short paragraph on "anarchist education" is undue weight in this article. (Beyond that, I'd add that "anarchist education" is a misnomer. There are anarchists critiques and treatises on education, but there is no program of "anarchist education" or even "anarchist schools" besides Ferrer. But that's a different discussion for a different talk page.) czar 22:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi DeliriousWolf and thanks for bringing this to the Talk. Most of your edit was in a positive direction imo, but let's focus on the reverts. You have added a new paragraph at section "Anarchism and education", which makes it longer. This gives undue weight to the thoughts of anarchists/m on education. Even as it is, there is already a problem, the creation of a new paragraph commenting a historical event, seems a little redundant. I have also note that the sources you used were not secondary RS. It was a tertiary for Andrew Vincent and another book from anarchist activists (that makes it more like a primary source). The same goes of infed.org. We need sources from academics that are focused on Anarchism and hence have a balanced weight on the significance of each fact/event/issue. Also regarding this revert, I removed the sentence "The Summerhill School, founded by A. S. Neill in 1921, has been cited repeatedly as an example of anarchist education in practice" because it doesnt convey to the reader any significant message, apart from naming the school and the founder. I feel the priority in this article is to illustrate anarchist though rather than mentioning names and places. I hope my partial revert wont stop you from improving this article even more. May I also ask a favor? Can you pls use {{sfn}} footnotes? You are not obliged of course, it will just save us time. Cheers Cinadon36 13:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see - thanks for the correction Cinadon36 and Czar. I haven't contributed to overview pages before and have mostly focused on obscure historical biographies and small pages (where, in general, more detail is better). I'll familiarize myself with WP:UNDUE and {{sfn}} footnotes and continue to contribute. Cheers. DeliriousWolf (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Anarchist versus Sovereign Citizen

While "sovereign citizens" are primarily tax protesters, apparently, it seems that their other tenants loosely match those of anarchism, i.e., not subject to government rule, or hierarchical authority etc. It would be interesting to have a comparison of their beliefs and differences somewhere.