Talk:Anarch (sovereign individual)
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Stub-class)|
Does this really merit an article to itself? I mean, how long could it be? Just wondering. --AaronS 15:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Works for me. --AaronS 22:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- There are no grounds for combining this article with that on anarchist, no grounds of influence, commonality, historical connection, ideological overlap, nothing at all. Based on the grounds given in my comments below, I'm going to tag this for notability. Sindinero (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I think, Jünger should not be dealt with Crowley in one article, even if there may be found some similarities between the Anarch and the Sovereign Individual. I'd suggest to split it into two stubs. --Nescio* 21:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
How about a bit of context? Launching straight in with a quote is a little offputting. Is there a 'needs some context' tag that could be appended? 184.108.40.206 22:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC) (rcrowdy)
- The material on Crowley appear to be original research. A source for these views of Crowley needs to be cited. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about this page some more, it just seems methodologically wrong. It proceeds to develop a category - the anarch - almost exclusively from a fictional text - Eumeswil - and then expands this category to include the literary author Jünger as an example of an anarch. This just seems wrong, in both of the ways I've mentioned below. I suggest either deletion or moving to Jünger's page. Sindinero (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
As it stands now, I don't think the article meets notability guidelines. It seems to lack significant coverage (only the first source meets WP:RS, and that article only treats the topic briefly - as a "paradigm drawn from conservative revolutionary thought" that allows a contemporary English fascist to "claim that he is not ‘fascist’ but that he has transcended the dichotomy of conventional politics to embrace higher political forms that are ‘beyond left and right’"). An EBSCO (academic search engine) search only turned up one article, in German, that might provide further substance to this article. I'll look into that.
But in its current state, the article is almost entirely OR, and the topic is defined by a collection of quotes culled from a single literary text. If this article is worth keeping, then it needs to be modified substantially so that the description of the Anarch matches the reliable source's description (a complex paradigm with a dubious and fraught political history and contemporary use on the far-right), rather than reading as a fawning tribute to a potentially crypto-fascist fantasy.
I'll look around over the next few months to see what I can find as far as RS. If I don't come up with anything, I'll propose the article for deletion as per WP:NOTE. Sindinero (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I checked the history, and found the structure of the article was changed by Simon Friedrich, whose only edits are to be found on this page and the page they started for Eumeswil.Leutha (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's interesting, and certainly doesn't speak in favor of the article's notability. I notice you're the creator of this article - what's your opinion on whether to improve it (and how to do so), or to nominate it for deletion? Sindinero (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
this vs. Anarcho-Monarchism
I'm not sure how this relates to Anarcho-Monarchism, but seeing as Sovereignty tells me that both are the same thing, i suggest this be merged into Anarcho-Monarchism. Not officially, simply because I don't know a thing about the subject. A quick google gives me 600 hits on anarcho-monarchism, so things might even be nn. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 16:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Surely anarcho-monarchism would amount to something of an oxymoron since it advocates hierarchy while simultaneously opposing it, unless I have misunderstood the phrase somehow. 18.104.22.168 03:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Relation to anarchism?
- This is not much more than a dictionary definition and the only link to anarchism is:
- the name sounds the same
- the guy that came up with it (not an anarchist) claimed to be influenced by Max Stirner
- So I can't see why it's included on the anarchism sidebar or in the anarchism category.Chaikney (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Inaccurate creation date
This word was in common use in 1934, so this article can't be considered correct. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090306.EARCHIVE06//TPStory/Editorials —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 2009-03-06T07:26:38
Claims about Jünger as anarch
I think the wording needs to be changed substantially in the second-to-last sentence of the first paragraph. To say that Jünger "exemplified the attitude of the anarch his whole life" is vague, problematic, possibly untrue; its tone is either juvenile, sycophantic, or both, and befits a fansite or hagiography more than an encylopedia article. I would suggest either deletion or rewording to indicate that he aspired or claimed to exemplify this attitude. This is something that can be backed by evidence, while the fact that he actually did exemplify this attitude is much more amorphous - what type of evidence could prove or disprove it? It's a huge claim and, considering Jünger's complex, yet highly reactionary and problematic politics, a messy claim to make. Sindinero (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
merge w/ Ernst Jünger page?
I would also suggest merging this page with Ernst Jünger's - as it stands, this page doesn't have much of an autonomous existence apart from Jünger, as the bulk of the article and almost all the links are Jünger-related. Since the anarch seems to be a more or less totally Jünger-inflected concept and, as the article stands, it doesn't evince much of an independent existence as a political concept, why not combine it with the page on the author?Sindinero (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Origin of term Anarch is incorrect
The term was originally coined by Milton in Paradise Lost, Book II in a description of Satan as taking the helm of the void/chaos/hell. It is a somewhat confusing section where the abstractions of Chaos and Night are personified and who reign over the region before Satan (the Morning Star) takes over. The reference obviously combines the meanings of "Monarch" and Anarchy" which in the context of Paradise Lost makes perfect sense.
Someone needs to fix the reference to Junger as the originator of this term, as it is totally inaccurate. And though his meaning may have been novel, his usage is not even close to the first chronologically.
How does this have any relationship to the category of Conservatism? Conservatives in some instances advocate for less government, but they never advocate no government, nor suggest that all government is inherently invalid. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)