Talk:Anarchism/Archive 52

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

See also section trimmed

In the interests of shortening the article, I have removed the following from the "See also" section:

Historical events;

Please feel free to integrate anything useful here into the main body of the article. Skomorokh incite 14:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The following external links have also been removed:

Skomorokh incite 14:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The removal of these sections really damages this article. An an encyclopedia entry should be encyclopedic and not trimmed for arbitrary reasons. You are also wrong to remove links to Libcom and Green Anarchy, two of the more prominent anarchist websites out there. Chuck0 18:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, Chuck. The See also section was not trimmed "for arbitrary reasons" - see also sections are for links to a limited number of related articles that are unlinked to in the text. Template:Anarchism sidebar renders the Historical events section entirely redundant. What would you like to see done with the books exactly?
I'm willing to accept that those websites might be important; I only removed those because they seemed too narrow - libertarian communism and green anarchism are not the subject of this article. As for the Cohn article, it could very well be accommodated here, but as a reference, not an external links. Wikipedia has very particular policies on external links - they are for general resources that are not reliable sources but provide extensive info on the subject. Looking forward to hearing your constructive suggestions. Regards, Skomorokh incite 19:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Structure of the article

At present, the article is structured broadly as follows: Intro, Origins, Schools of thought, Social movement, Issues, Criticism. Is this ideal? Should more weight be given to some areas and less to others? Given that anarchism has historically been much more prevalent in previous centuries, should the article, as User:Bacchiad suggests, take a predominantly historical approach? We could for instance, incorporate the Social movement and Schools of thought into a main History section, followed by an expanded "Anarchism today"/"Contemporary movements" section, Issues and Criticism.

The article at present practically ignores anarchist acitivism since anti-fascism in Spain, when I would that argue anarchist activism (Battle of Seattle, Black Bloc, Genoa protests etc.) is the primary association most uninitiated readers would have of anarchism.

How are scholarly overviews of anarchism structured? What would an ideal Wikipedia article on Anarchism look like? Thoughts, opinions, comments welcome. Skomorokh incite 13:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We'd want, I think, to avoid a purely chronological approach. That's for History of Anarchism. The breakdown here should indeed be more thematic, but yeah, I think we could take a less abstract/theoretical approach in general. Let's take some time to look over other broad overview articles and see if we come up with anything good. Bacchiad 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

For the new contemporary anarchism article/section, I think we need to proceed very carefully with our sources, otherwise nobody will be satisfied and it'll be a waste of time. My suggestion is that we itemize the criteria found in wikipolicy and whenever new source is used, we come to a consensus about which criteria that source satisfies. We should probably decide ahead of time how many of the criteria a source should meet before it is considered reliable for the purposes of the article. This way, all sources are judged by the same standards. Aelffin 21:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Skomorokh incite 18:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Topics in Contemporary Anarchism

Looking through this page and the other anarchism articles on Wikipedia, I've made a list of some of the more recent topics in anarchism (roughly in the last 15-20 years). This list is in no particular order, but I think the best order for the article would be reverse chronology, starting with the very recent Common Ground Collective and moving back toward Anti-Racist Action, Love & Rage, RAAN, and ending with a "related articles" section that points to articles on historical anarchism. Aelffin 03:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Much of this is not specifically anarchist in character, and the rest looks mostly like material for a sub-article or articles. Libertatia 19:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe all of these have had enough influence on recent developments in anarchism to be mentioned. Some more than others, sure. But anarchism isn't isolated from the culture at large, and its increasing overlap with the broader left and others has been a major shift in recent years. Aelffin 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Anarchism has never been "isolated from the culture at large," though arguably it may be moreso now than it has been in other periods. The point is that while all of these more-or-less "anarchist" issues are interesting, they're not for the most part essential to an understanding of anarchism per se, which is the subject of this article. A separate article sounds useful. Libertatia 18:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh sorry, this is in reference to the above conversation where I did suggest making a new article about contemporary anarchism. Actually, I suggested either making a new article or rewriting this one to be about modern anarchism and moving most of the content of the current article to entries on the history of anarchism and anarchist theory. Aelffin 11:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as anarchism being isolated from the culture at large... That may have been true twenty years ago, but it's definitely on the upsurge of one of its many waves. So you can see where I'm coming from here's my anecdotal history of anarchism in a nutshell: Early on, it was mainly theoretical, but it became caught up in the broader socialist/labor movement of the late 19th century. It reached a peak just before the first Red Scare, then went back to being mostly theoretical in the 1950s. By the 60s, the second Red Scare had driven anarchism and socialism at large almost totally underground. It had a brief resurgence when it got caught up in the counterculture of the late 60s and then went through a sort of dark age in the 70s and 80s, when nobody paid attention to or understood the movement, even most people who identified as anarchists. During that period, it found a home among the punk DIY folks, who are really responsable for keeping it alive. However, the relative lack of theory and practice led to a whole array of reinterpreted niche versions of anarchism, some of which bear little resemblance or connection with anarchism proper, but all of which has fed into the current revitalization. At the end of the 80s, there was a brief spurt of activity with a few localized activist groups. Soon, there was an explosion of new anarchist organizations that spread really quickly. I think the reason for the spread was that anarchism found a comfortable home among the Burners and piggybacked on their cultural vitality, and spread with the help of their development of early online organizations, like the Well. Once that happened, and propelled by successes in Seattle and online, anarchism broke out of its relative isolation and became a moving force again. These days, you can't swing a dead cat at a meeting of *any* kind of activist without hitting somebody who calls themselves an anarchist. So, maybe it's more isolated than in its heyday of the early 20th century, but it's definitely undergoing a renaissance. Hell, we're in an era where anarchists run their own media outlets, Hollywood promotes anarchism on the big screen and anarchists run the first relief organizations to start rebuilding New Orleans. At the very least, we're in the second or third largest wave of anarchism. I would say there's a strong case for the 2000s eclipsing the 1910s as the real heyday of anarchism... but I have a feeling we ain't seen nothin yet. :) ...oh, and I should mention that this is all relevant to North American anarchism. South America is a whole different world, and anarchism there has really had a life of its own (and probably what instigated the current revitalization in the north). I think of European anarchism as being a bit stagnant, African anarchism as almost nonexistant, and Asian and Austrailian anarchism as outgrowths of North American anarchism. Aelffin 14:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's about as ahistorical an account of anarchist history as I've encountered, being even more presentist and self-congratulatory than most contemporary accounts. It certainly strengthens the case for making the contemporary anarchism article separate from this one. Libertatia 15:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Haha... well, admittedly it's the impression of somebody who's optimistic about the future of anarchism. But I'm wondering what strikes you as ahistorical about it. Regarding "presentism"; it is without a doubt a vital and active movement today and I know from personal experience that this is a major shift. Can I back that up with reliable resources? I think I probably could. How vital it is compared to earlier times is anyone's guess and I gave my guess above. Still, I think the main article for any active movement should cover the current state of that movement, and history and theory ought to be relegated to articles on those topics. But that issue is one that needs to be hashed out by a larger group of editors. So, I'll make you a deal... I won't stubbornly insist on my point of view if you don't stubbornly insist on yours. Aelffin 22:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Optimism about the future of anarchism is one thing, and has little or nothing to do with analysis of its present or past circumstances. The present and historical vitality of the movement, and its "isolation from the culture at large" are not "anyone's guess." They're questions that can and should be answered based on real data. The only thing I'll "stubbornly insist on" is that we do not significantly edit an article that represents a long process of research, conflict and compromise on the basis of "optimism" and an apparently stubborn indifference to the data, except as it advances some current "optimistic" agenda. That is presentism. Libertatia 16:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • On Rewriting: I'm not saying that we need to radically rewrite the current article immediately. But I do think that focussing on modern developments is the direction we should be moving. It would be more informative for your average Wikipedia browser, and it would hold the dusty history lessons off for those hearty souls who truly want to dig in. Call it presentism if you like, but I call it providing the most useful and relevant info up front. I mean, should we start the article on President Bush with a geneology dating back to the pilgrims? Of course not; it makes more sense to start with "George W. Bush is the current president of the United States". Same approach goes for most articles IMHO.
  • On Data: Do you have academic studies that deal with statistically significant samples to compare the numbers and activity of anarchist activists over the last two centuries? If you do, please, put it in the article. I would pay to see such a study (actually, I'd prefer to do a work-trade thing). The fact is, you don't have real data either because real data on this subject are almost nonexistent. You have what I have... anecdotal accounts, and the interpretation of these accounts to draw broader conclusion is, in fact, anyone's guess. The literature is filled with stories of individuals and groups and what they did when. The literature is singularly devoid of sociopolitical analysis of the movement itself. By Wikipedia rules, all that can be presented is a representation of what the literature holds. So, the main question is which era of literature should we focus on? I maintain that we should focus on the modern literature, but I'd be happy to just get a little bit of balance for starters. Aelffin 14:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Apples and iguanas. If George W. Bush had been born among the pilgrims, then yes, of course we would start there. Anarchism dates to the 1840s, and most of its basic tenets and insights were formulated prior to the 1940s (even though the term "anarchism" did not itself get much use until the 1870s.) You won't find the "statistically significant academic studies." They're not out there, and thus don't enter into the question one way or another. But the notion that, in the absence of those, the interpretation of vast amount of primary source material is "anyone's guess" is laughable. In any event, the question of what should be in this entry is fairly straightforward, given Wikipedia's particular guidelines and biases. Freeganism and Burning Man might have some connection to anarchism, but they do not in any way define it, and significant academic studies suggesting that they do will probably be more elusive than anarchist demography. An article on stuff anarchists do or stuff anarchists dig is fine with me, but that stuff is not the most significant information about anarchism. Rage Against the Machine fans might disagree, I suppose. We've been working for some time now to create a lean overview of the basic history (to the extent it is citable) and the basic theoretical issues. It is already difficult to adequately summarize those things, so that we can get readers off to the sub-pages where the real information is. What you seem to be proposing just clutters that up, and there are other ways to represent these contemporary and only more-or-less anarchist issues. Libertatia 19:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Apples and iguanas indeed. And do we fill those articles with the paleontologic history of apples and iguanas? Of course not; that would be bass ackwards. So why should we do it with anarchism? Again, the interpretation of a vast amount of source material to extrapolate to broad conclusions on the vitality of the movement in different eras is firstly, so subject to interpretation that it might as well be anyone's guess (our differing opinions illustrate that), and secondly, original research. Burning Man and Freeganism may indeed be less significant than, say, the Common Ground Collective and IndyMedia, sure. Nonetheless, most of the above topics are either areas of significant anarchist activity today, or have had significant impact on modern anarchist theory and practice. My point is that it makes more sense to start with anarchism as it is today. From that starting point, we can delve into the historical precursors of modern anarchism and the theoretical minutiae that shaped its distant past. Aelffin 07:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Right. We start with "the enduring legacy of anarcho-punk," and add a little Proudhon as it seems useful. Your assumption that the current content is "paleontological" tells it all. I myself might prefer listening to A.P.P.L.E. to reading Godwin, but that's no criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Libertatia 17:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Look, you can caricature me all you like, and you can accuse me of trying to push an agenda or whatever, but aside from WP:AGF issues, the fact remains that you have only brought up two serious arguments. (1) It would be a waste to throw the current article out the window since a lot of work has gone into it, and (2) that the defining features of anarchism were developed early in its history.
  • Point 1 As I already said, I agree; the current article should not be scrapped and replaced immediately. Rather, I think that any future state of the article should also be the result of a long process of research, debate, and compromise. As should all Wikipedia articles. But it's asinine to construe that point into an argument against ever significantly rewriting an article. The better approach is to debate the merits of a number of possible structures, and allow the structure to evolve as a result of the consensus process. To that end, I am trying to get the ball rolling on a debate over one possible structure.
  • Point 2 Again, I agree. The defining features of anarchism have been present from its inception as a political movement. Namely, opposition to "masters" and "sovereigns" as Proudhon put it. The interpretation of what constitutes a master or a sovereign has changed over time. But most of current anarchism grows directly out of this basic tenet. As a matter of fact, these changing interpretations are exactly what have propelled the historical development of the movement. And *that*, I think, is the legitimate subject of this article. We should spell out how modern anarchists conceptualize their tenets, and then move backwards into earlier interpretations of those tenets.
Anything less is pastism. Aelffin 19:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, can we please debate the actual merits of these two differing approaches instead of simply dismissing them based on personal opinion? As I see it, the main advantages of the current approach are that it presents a very large overview of a huge time period in a relatively small amount of space, and that it relies on very well established literature. The main drawbacks are that it presents a highly stilted view of anarchism as a set of interrelated theories rather than as an evolving social movement, and that it almost totally ignores the present state of that movement. On the other hand, my approach would have the weakness of any chronological approach (namely, that it would be more difficult to skim the article for specific bits of information), and it would involve very carefully coming to consensus about citability of sources since some of the more recent sources (though there are many) are less well established. The biggest advantage is that it presents the information most relevant to your average reader up front. (I say this because I think that the average reader is probably coming to this article to research a movement they most likely heard about from internet debate, an anarchist friend, or a news report, which means they're coming here to research modern anarchism.) Another advantage is that it would present anarchism in an historical context, spelling out its relationship to other political movements. And last, but not least, I think it would go a long way towards alleviating the endless arguments between anarcho-capitalists and socialist anarchists. It would appease the anarcho-capitalists because it would dedicate a larger amount of space to the subject since that is one of the most widespread debates in the movement today. Yet, at the same time, it would appease the socialist anarchists because it would highlight the contested nature of anarcho-capitalism. I think these strengths outweigh the weaknesses. Aelffin 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Reasons to oppose the proposed changes:

  • 1. Many of the topics proposed are simply not anarchist in character, though they may be of interest to anarchists
  • 2. The sense of anarchism as "an evolving social movement" is actually the very thing that the historical approach we are currently taking was designed to deliver. The degree to which the entry currently fails in that probably has more to do with the constant pruning of "inessential" elements than with basic flaws in the design of the article. With the rather artificial length limits imposed on the article, there will always be these pressures. The inclusion of anarcho-punk will necessitate the exclusion of some other element, perhaps equally deserving of main-article inclusion. It would be nice to see anarcho-punk and pantarchism included in this summary article, which should, ideally, be as inclusive as possible within the limits of its actual topic. That means, in practical terms, not including things which are not essentially anarchist in character.
  • 3. The separation between "modern anarchism" and the material presently included is partisan, unnecessary, and involves an evaluative process that can almost certainly not be supported by appropriate sources.
  • 4. It is probably desirable that an encyclopedia entry not simply cater to the sense of "anarchism" our relatively uninformed readers bring with them, before they have read the entry. This isn't a recruiting tool, and doesn't have to pander to any standards of hipness.
  • 5. Our an-cap editors seem to be equally convinced that all that matters is present-day forms of anarchism. Unfortunately, they are also convinced that they are representing the contemporary mainstream of anarchism. The presentist approach is likely to only increase the amount of sectarian nonsense here.

I am not against articles on any or all of these topics, but I am against turning this encyclopedia entry on its head by making dubiously anarchist material the focus. Libertatia 15:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of numbering your responses so I can reply:
  • 1. The relevance and significance of the topics I suggested can and should be debated on a topic-by-topic basis. As far as this illusive “anarchist character” you refer to… I just don’t understand the distinction you want to draw between “things that anarchists do” and whatever sorts of activities it is that you consider to have some essential “anarchist character”. Seems like a false essentialism. My view is that anything that anarchists do that is consistent with the central tenant of opposition to “masters” and “sovereigns”—however those things are interpreted—is in fact anarchist activity, whether or not it has the root “anarcho-“ appended to it. Obviously, taking a dump is not going to be treated, but not because it is a "non-anarchist" activity, but because it isn't a rallying point for anarchists. Some other things that may not be explicitly anarchist are significant enough rallying points that they ought to be treated. So, for example, the regional burns that have been happening all over the country may not be explicitly anarchist, but they are working examples of gift economies, a topic so closely related to anarchist economics that you can hardly talk about one without talking about the other.
  • 2. You say the article is intended to portray anarchism as an evolving social movement, but you forget that “evolving” is in the present tense, and you aren’t recognizing the difference between a ‘’social movement’’ and a ‘’political philosophy’’. A political philosophy is what happens on paper. A social movement is what happens on the ground. They’re related, but they are not the same thing. What the article currently shows is anarchism as a strictly book-bound political philosophy that at some time in the past evolved to a certain state and froze there around 1935 (with a special exemption clause for Murray Rothbard, whose work gets to extend well into the 1950s).
  • 3. While I agree that modern anarchism and older states of the movement should not be treated in isolation, I think a cursory look at the literature (not to mention common sense) shows that the character of anarchism has changed constantly throughout its history. I think you’re actually much more guilty of drawing a false separation by insisting that some concocted ideal past state of anarchism is worthy of discussion in the article while dismissing everything that’s happened in the last half century as though the two topics could somehow disentangled. I’m not sure what you mean about “partisan” in this context. Care to elaborate?
  • 4. Pandering to the ill-informed is not something I advocate. So, of course we don’t want to encourage the stereotypical Molotov cocktail caricature of anarchism except to explain where that view comes from. But it is emphatically *not* ill-informed to recognize that anarchism is a living movement. (In fact, it is ill-informed to imply the opposite.) Catering to the ill-informed, on the other hand, is the very purpose of any reference work. An encyclopedia informs people. The functionality of an encyclopedia is proportional to how accurate it is and how well it directs you to the topic you’re looking for (not to mention how comprehensive it is). It sounds like you’re saying that if a person says to you “So, what about those anarchists at the G8 protest?” your reply would be “Wrong. Read Kropotkin.” I don’t understand that position at all. As far as citable sources goes, I’ve already admitted that it will make our jobs much harder to rely more heavily on recent sources. But I think we’re up to the job.
  • 5. Believe me, the last thing I want to do is throw a bone to the an-caps. However, we have to accept that their insistence on being part of anarchism is causing a lot of friction within anarchism proper. I think the best way to alleviate that friction is to clearly spell out the terms of the debate: Ancaps say they are the legitimate heirs to individualist anarchism, and all other anarchists say that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism at all. I can see how focusing on the arguments could lead to more friction, but pretending we’re all one big happy family would be lying. The fact is, no matter which side is right, nobody can deny that it is a major debate. At least if we deal with it up front, nobody will be able to accuse the other side of censoring their views.
I'll try and reply tonight to your earlier criticisms on some of the specific topics on my original list. Aelffin 17:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Listen. Most of the things you are proposing to discuss are being discussed. Not all of them belong on this page. If the terms of the debate between anarcho-capitalists and social anarchists (and the dozen shades of gray in between) could be addressed in summary form on this page, trust me, we would have done so by now. I have said, and will say again, that I am not in any way "dismissing everything that's happened in the last half century." I've been a fairly active participant in a number of those decades, thanks. As for the "book-bound" character of the entry, I think you're just responding to Wikipedia's "summary style," which is essentially required for this sort of top-level entry, and to the fact that Wikipedia edit wars tend, nearly always, to reduce the details that bring a social movement to life on the page down to a bare minimum. Beyond that, I think I've said all I care to. Edit or don't. See if anyone else will buy your model for reorganization. If you can get consensus, I'll simply move my attention to other pages, where the job to do is more clearly defined and labor is unlikely to be simply wasted. Libertatia 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, in the event that some indutrious editors start acting on my advice, I hope you'd consider sticking around in order to help develop some clearly defined goals and to ensure that the work that went into the current version doesn't get wasted, but gets smoothly incorporated into future versions of this or another article. Wouldn't it be more of a waste to throw in the towel? Anyway, it's a moot point right now since you and I are the only ones discussing it. Is there some alternate way to add more up-to-date information to this article that you would be in favor of? Aelffin 00:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Newer schools of thought

Anybody oppose changing the header Contemporary schools of thought to something like Recent schools of thought? The way it is implies that older schools of thought are not held by contemporary anarchists. Aelffin 23:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like a professionally-written encyclopedia exactly. Skomorokh incite 23:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Aelffin's reasoning here, but I think the "Contemporary schools of thought" title should be changed to something like "Other schools of thought." I don't see any good reasong to partition off the other schools of thought above that section as if some of them aren't contemporary. Operation Spooner 06:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Current title implies that all other schools are now extinct. -- Vision Thing -- 18:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The issue here, I think is that the monstrosity of a Schools of thought section isn't quite sure whether it is a historical or theoretical section. If historical, anarcho-capitalism and green anarchism at least should be relocated to the contemporary/20th century section. Anarcho-syndicalism has, it seems, died off as a potent force, while the outcome of the discussion above seems to indicate that mutualism and individualist anarchism only live on significantly in Carson and the anarcho-capitalists respectively. If theoretical, I'm not sure what right anarchism without adjectives or collectivist anarchism have in terms of notability to be included, or what the point is in dividing by school rather than by distinctions such as individualism vs. collectivism, tactics, economic theories, etc. Thoughts? Skomorokh incite 18:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The most significant issue is OR informing editorial direction. It may seem to you that individualism is no longer significant, but I spend my days corresponding with a very large network of individualists and mutualists. Some of our an-caps think social anarchism is in its death throes, but I'm not convinced. My IWW friends probably don't think anarcho-syndicalism is irrelevant. Aelffin seems to think the historical record of anarchism is so inconclusive that no solid conclusions can be drawn. As a movement historian, I have a different sense. But Wikipedia has set us guidelines that make all of this fairly straightforward: we can only include the most oft-repeated material from the secondary sources, or correct them with the most uncontroversial of primary material. A developmental, quasi-historical approach at least gives us a narrative spine--movement history--that's relatively uncontroversial. Any topical arrangement is going to be subject to ultimately intractable debates about the meanings of terms, the validity of dichotomies, etc. Take "individualism vs. collectivism," for example. Both terms have contested meanings in the literature. "Collectivism" refers to a specific school, as well as a tendency identified by some observers. All we can really hope to do with this page is to create a link-rich summary. Readers can then decide themselves whether they're more interested in pantarchism or peace punk. Libertatia 20:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Do I need to remind people that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest nor a forum for original research on which strains of anarchism are alive or dead. Given Wikipedia's thousands of articles on trivial topics, a section on "anarchist schools of thought" should certainly be as comprehensive as possible. There may not be many anarcho-syndicalists out there, but they probably outnumber the "anarcho-capitalists" out there. Our polling at Infoshop (a widely respected primary source in the anarchist movement) indicates that there aren't as many anarcho-syndicalists as there used to be. But a section on anarchist schools of thought would be a flagrant joke if it didn't include a section on anarcho-syndicalism. One of the more prominent anarchist journals in North America is Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, so you can dismiss a school of thought that has at least one regularly publishing magazine. Chuck0 04:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Realistically, there are probably still more anarcho-syndicalists around than most of the other branches combined. They just tend to be quite a bit older and therefore have less of a web presence than some of the more ahem marginal schools. Aelffin 05:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The problems are (1) anarchosyndicalism doesn't have one defining post-revolutionary model, like the other schools, it has one common revolutionary strategy, and several different post-revolutionary models, (2) many authors who are considered anarchosyndicalist contrast their positions with narrower definitions of anarchosyndicalism; many anarchist or anti-state Wobs did so, (3) many authors who are not considered syndicalist in any sense called their positions syndicalism, e.g. Sorel, the Falange, etc. (4) "Anarchism in the labor movement" and anarchosyndicalism almost completely overlap. - M.U. 04:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
...which is to say that anarcho-syndicalism is a broad concept with fuzzy borders, like most other trends in anarchism. Weeee! Always keeping things interesting. :D Aelffin 20:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see, however, that the fuzziness is really a problem when it comes to what we include on this page. It can be addressed on the appropriate subpage. Here, we just need to get readers to that page. Chuck0's comments on inclusion seem about right on in terms of inclusion. Libertatia 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a thematic unity to mutualism, individualism, communism, and collectivism, as well as anarchism-without-adjectives; they describe various modes of economic organization in anarchism. And when green anarchism discusses economics, it often does the same. But syndicalism describes certain modes of economic organization to get out of capitalism. After that, different syndicalist writers propose different solutions. 06:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be easy to contest, to take one example, the characterization of mutualism as primarily economic, or its focus on organization "in anarchism." But even allowing the "thematic unity," the question is about including anarcho-syndicalism, not syndicalism in general. Libertatia 17:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Green Anarchism

I don't think that the section on green anarchism is fair. It presents green anarchism as a current wich is more or less primitivist and/or anti-civlizationist. As there are a number of green anarchist currents and some, perhaps most notably, social ecology and inclusive democracy, are neither anti-technology nor anti-civilization I think this section needs to be updated. I might not be the person for the job though since my English isn't the best. Joje86 10:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article seems to use "Green anarchism" as though it is synonymous with "anarcho-primitivism". This is a little tricky, because a lot of anarchists do use the two terms interchangeablly. For the sake of clarity, I think the article needs to explain that there is a huge spectrum of green anarchists from pro-tech environmentalists all the way over to anti-civilization/anti-culture/anti-language (and even anti-thought) extreme primitivists. But in the loosest sense, almost all anarchists are "green anarchists" in that most throw in with the mainstream of the environmentalist movement. Aelffin 20:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The section is marked as in need of a rewrite; perhaps if one of you were prepared to summarized the referenced elements of the Green anarchism, the issue might be resolved? Skomorokh incite 00:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll try and make it down to the local infoshop to pick up some materials. Just a little busy for that lately. Aelffin 11:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Have made a start. BobFromBrockley 13:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
If at all possible, can we try to avoid weasel words? "Some green anarchists are x, while some are y" is an uninformative formulation. Better to say "Anarcho-primitivists are green anarchists which X, while eco-anarchists..." etc. Skomorokh incite 13:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the more specific the better, but I think you misunderstand the term weasel word. A weasel word is "a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement." The statement "Some green anarchists are anarcho-primitivists while some are eco-anarchists" is indeed informative, though not as informative as giving actual percentages or precise definitions. But in neither case is there a weasel word. (Notice that the word "some" does not appear on the list of weasel words.)-- Aelffin (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You're inference is flawed. Regards, Skomorokh incite 18:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
How so? Aelffin (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe he meant the request regarding weasel words and the request for clarity to be taken as seperate ideas. But this is only my assumption, and it does read rather as if the sentences are related. ~ Switch () 04:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Well, if that's what he meant, then we're in total agreement. Aelffin (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Splendid. Is the latest version of the Green anarchism section any better? Without sources, it's rather futile changing things around, but i tried to remove some of the pseudo-authoritative statements. I hope I haven't mischaracterized anything the original authors intended. Skomorokh incite 17:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Contravenes WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. has racist material on it or at least has in the recent past. Infoshop is well established (first anarchist website?) and notable as verifiable anarchist resource. WARNING: The trolling going on is multiple sockpuppets by a banned user RJII (2006?) who claimed he was a multiple as a 'Jewish business' campaign and deliberately inserting material ala Wikipedia:Original research . Same language and uncivilness. -- maxrspct ping me 19:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Where are you getting this? I'm a member of the forum there, and have not seen any racist material other than from a few trolls and very unpopular people. Zazaban 19:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Infoshop is specific to one faction of anarchism and is not a general anarchist resource. You've provided no cites to prove that it is a verifiable anarchist resource. Your opinion that is mainly forum based is merely your opinion, not a fact. It has an essays section and a books section as well. I see no racist material on It appears to me you are simply smearing JoshHeitzman 20:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith shall we? I'd rather not this degrade into a mud-slinging contest. Zazaban 20:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC) is not even infinitesimally racist. I've read every post on it and participated for 2 years. Maybe once in a great while, some nazi or some kook might post a few entries. It is absolutely nothing. If it happens, they soon leave. There is also no trolling going on. As Zazaban and Josh Heitzman say, this charge is entirely inaccurate.Solomon41 20:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, is not notable enough to be listed as a resource at the bottom of the "Anarchism" page. I didn't even know that the site existed until recently and I've been running for 13 years. I can think of dozens of anarchist websites that are more important and notable than
I haven't been following this talk page for several months, but the comments here by JoshHeitzman sound exactly like RJII, the anarcho-capitalist troll who was banned big time by Wikipedia last year. The claim that Infoshop represents "one faction of anarchism" and that we are not a "verifiable anarchist resource" sounds exactly like the nonsense posted to Wikipedia by one of RJII's sockpuppets last year during out flame war over the "Anarchism in the United States" thread. RJII made similar wild claims about Infoshop. Once again, Infoshop does not represent "one faction of anarchism." Our "big tent of anarchism" is widely known among anarchists. Many anarchists around the world see Infoshop as an anarchist website. I can cite plenty of newspaper articles, magazine pieces and scholarly journal articles that cite Infoshop as an anarchist website.
I am not going to play games here over Infoshop's identity and reputation. If JoshHeitzman is a legitimate user and not a troll, then demonstrate that. Otherwise I will go immediately to the pages concerning RJII's banning and bring this to their attention. Chuck0 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, JoshHeitzman sounds like Billy Ego, who was posting last year to anarchist articles as user "Anarcho-capitalism." This user was banned by Wikipedia. More info can be found here. Chuck0 (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm a member of the same forum as he is, and all I can say is he seems nice enough. I can't see him being a troll or a sock-puppeteer. Zazaban (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel no need to prove anything to you Chuck. Running a website does not make you an authority on which sites are notable enough to be included in this article or not and since you want the website you run to be included it also shows a conflict of interest. At one point was removed with the justification being that it had a forum, so I followed suit and cleaned out all of the other external links to sites with forums. As far as infoshop being a big tent of anarchism only anarchists of the socialist persuasion are welcome or even recognized as anarchists by infoshop, anarchists of the market persuasion be damned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshHeitzman (talkcontribs) 01:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked at JoshHeitzman's history of contributions to Wikipedia and I'll say that it looks like this user is an honest contributer to Wikipedia. However, there are patterns (such as editing of neo-nazi pages) and choices of phrase that makes me wonder if this user is a new covert account by banned user BillyEgo. If you continue to attack me for being the webmaster of, I will do more digging and bring this up with Wikipedia admins.
Neo-nazi pages? I'm not aware of having edit any neo-nazi pages. Stop attacking me if you don't like being attacked yourself. JoshHeitzman (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, now your history of contributions is not showing the history I was seeing the other day. Now that I've figured out who you are, I'll take back what I said about you being this other user. Your comment sound much like this banned user, so I have good reason to be suspicious. Chuck0 (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. JoshHeitzman (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You may not like to hear this, but running a prominent anarchist website and being a professional webmaster DOES make me an authority on which websites are popular and which aren't. I don't like Wikipedia's policy against adding lots of external links (Infoshop wiki's have the opposite policy), but Wikipedia discourages link spam and adding lots of external links to an entry. is simply not notable enough or popular enough to warrant inclusion in the links section. It also doesn't add breadth to the topics covered in the main Anarchism entry.
I'm not remotely suprised you think that, but I've got news for you. You aren't an authority on who is an authority either. JoshHeitzman (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Your comments about Infoshop are irrelevant here, because that is not at issue in this discussion. I'll point out that Infoshop is widely seen by anarchists as a website that is open-minded about anarchism. Contrary to your allegations, market anarchists participate at Infoshop. We have links to market anarchist websites, such as Brad Spangler's blog. We've posted market anarchist articles to Infoshop News. Last night I was at looking at article by Karl Hess, Wally Conger and other market anarchists, with an eye to adding them to the Infoshop Library. Chuck0 (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
So market anarchists who speak favorably of capitalism are welcome at infoshop and won't get banned from its forum? JoshHeitzman (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Market anarchists are more than welcome to post to Infoshop. People who support capitalism are not welcome, per our policy that goes back for years. Of course, this is totally irrelevant to anything here at Wikipedia. Chuck0 (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It's relevant as you claim to be an authority on which anarchist websites are suitably notable to be included in the external links section due to your operation of the infoshop site. It evidence that you have a clear bias against anarchists who don't adhere to you anti-capitalist stance and thus are not objective regarding as it does not ban users for supporting capitalism. JoshHeitzman (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Market anarchists support capitalism. Therefore, they are not welcome at infoshop. You've thoroughly contradicted yourself, Chuck0. Congratulations. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I really don't even know what flavor of anarchism subscribes to. I didn't even know about the site until a few weeks ago and from what I can see, the site has some forums and some pages. It isn't notable enough to be included here, when you take into account the fact that there are dozens of anarchist websites out there which have been around for a long time, which get more traffic, and which are more relevant to this main entry article on anarchism. Anarchists are biased against any so-called anarchist who claims that they support capitalism, because anarchism, by definition, is anti-capitalist. If you want to include a link to a market anarchist website, then choose between the Caplan FAQ or something like There should only be one link on this page to a market anarchist site, given the limitations on links and given the small number of market anarchists out there. Chuck0 (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC) doesn't subscribe to any specific flavor of anarchism and is open to all but spammers. Perhaps your personal definition of anarchism is anti-capitalist but not all are. For example "a political theory favoring the abolition of governments" from And another example "" from Both of these completely lack any mention of capitalism or capitalist or being against them. Even if we look to the greek roots it isn't anti-captialists but anti-rulers. I'm not looking to include a link to a market anarchist site, but to anarchist site open to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshHeitzman (talkcontribs) 05:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Josh, this isn't a forum debate, try to let off a little steam. Zazaban (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This statement appears to be without a point. JoshHeitzman (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
With respect Chuck0, if you do have a vested interest in infoshop, the decision and the argument against should not fall to you.-- (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the time to rebut any more personal attacks. As a participant on Wikipedia, I have a right to make contributions to this project, which includes adding and removing links. Which links get left up on an entry are obviously subject to the decision of those who participate here. But at the end of the day, this entry is supposed to conform to Wikipedia policies and standard methods used to construct reference tools. Now I am a professional librarian and somebody who helps run one of the oldest and most popular anarchist websites. I am very familiar with this subject and have been quoted on this subject by both academic journals and more mainstream sources. If some of you choose to disrespect this experience, then your arguments are going to come across as rather weak. I'm a very reasonable person and if I could reach a compromise last year with a Wikipedia vandal who was subsequently banned by Wikipedia, then I'm sure that I can work with all of you to make reasonable decisions about what should be included in this little article. Chuck0 (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Chuck, I never intended my comment to be a personal attack. If you knew me, you would know my personal attacks are far more sarcastic and far more open. If we objectively look at the facts, without going into too much detail, you have a vested interest in a website that is competing with and are proposing to remove the link from the article. As you stated, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia at the end of the day. Consequently, articles within Wikipedia should be maintained, edited and created with as little bias as possible - which is why people get worked up when governments are caught editing their own pages. If you are a librarian you must agree with me on this point. It's nothing to do with a personal attack on you, or a defence of, merely a suggestion that it may be more appropriate for someone one else to take charge of the argument as to whether be included, removed or replaced.-- (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Per Skomorokh's comment on the section of the discussion titled "Notability of", "Notability of external links is irrelevant. It does not matter how widely cited, or google-indexed a link is; what matters is its value as a resource, the extent to which its content expands on this article to give the reader a more comprehensive understanding of the subject. Check out WP:EL." I checked out WP:EL and the substring "notab" does not appear there, so Chuck0's position that is not notable enough to be included in the external links section lacks the support of the Wikipedia guidelines for external links. Can anyone present a reason that is actually supported by the Wikipedia guidelines as to why should not be included in the external links section of this article? JoshHeitzman (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to the edit war, I've created this discussion. Let's try to make a compromise shall we? Zazaban 19:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Aryan anarchism - There was a page/essay on it.. if u search u will find it all over the forum. Google isn't the 'be and end all' of notablity and certainly should not be used for notability unless you are sourcing something on google results. -- maxrspct ping me 19:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not racist. I did the search, and I found one topic supporting it, and it was posting by a non-notable member and got an overwhelmingly negative response. Zazaban 20:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

National Anarchism? There was only one thread on that. (unsigned comment by User:

There was definately a page on it in the past. The website is masquerading as an over view of 'all' strands of anarchisms while actually vaunting one fringe claim of anarchism. I see the B.Tucker article is a big POV essay :(

That's because it was posted by Anna Quist, hated by pretty much everybody else on the forums. It's a place where anybody can post, not a closed article space. You could show up and post if you wished. Zazaban 20:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • quote from mission statement-

"You might also be interested in our symbols, perhaps the one in the upper left corner of every page of this web site. Many have contacted us wondering why the ¤%&#¤% we use a “silver dollar sign.” The answer is that we don’t. We explain everything about this symbol, the Libertatis Æquilibritas, here."

I am not suprised u want to keep it if u are a moderator/webmaster there. I would prefer to discuss this with someone who hasn't got a vested interest in the website. Please don't masquerade here as a compromisor when u obviously take Vision Thing et al's side. -- 20:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a moderator there. I'm just a regular user and I'm not sure I know what . By the way, I'm not sure you equate Anarcho-capitalism with Aryan Anarchism. I'm not masquerading as anything. Zazaban 20:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You quote a page that is clearly out of date. It was part of a incarnation of a previous that was solely an Anarcho-Capitalist forum. If you researched your claims at all you would know this. The same applies to your other claims against, they are all based off out of date information. Either research your position and provide evidence or do not make such claims. It is also worth mentioning that there are no moderators or administrators on that forum. - Royce Christian

To me there are 2 problems that may be conjoined. RJII banned user i have mentioned seemed to be a far-rightist with an interest in A/C. He made claims that he was a multiple sockpuppet paid and carrying out the wishes of a 'jewish interest' office (see false flag operation). The he added back then too. The second problem is that gives undue weight to pro-capitalist 'anarchism'.

From: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.

From: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

--maxrspct ping me 20:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The site is not just anarcho-capitalist. But you have a point. I don't really care if it's listed anyway, I simply wanted to know where the racist claim came from. Zazaban 20:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I had no idea that Anarcho-capitalism was so small. Especially since it seems to be brought up so much everywhere. Zazaban 20:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Finally, I would love to know who this sockpuppet is. I don't see anybody involved in this dispute who has been accused of being a sockpuppet. Zazaban 20:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at the anarchism archives 19, 21 + i think RJII gets banned between 30 and 40. If is not a/c.. then pro-capitalist. I guess the only reason it comes up so high on google is because someone with a wad of cash has bought the address which would automatically come up as being a basic WWW address. U must agree that the website is very much pro-capitalist if they have a dollar sign on every page. Anarchists?? HAHAHAHAHAH anyone who goes there for substantive writings are are duped. Look at the sitemap dude.. theres barely anything there!!! --maxrspct ping me 20:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's be civil, please? Your arguments seem to be based on Original research and your own POV. Zazaban 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It's idiotic to criticize an open forum for being anarcho-capitalist or pro-capitalist or pro-communist or pro-socialist or pro-agorist or pro-mutualist or anti-any of these. The forum is OPEN. Maxrspct is expressing simply sour grapes and his own biases and ignorance, worrying about the site address or the supposed dollar sign (which it is not.)Solomon41 21:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Both and are excellent forums that at least attempt to welcome a range of anarchist viewpoints. Of course, both sites have their share of loony contributors. So does Wikipedia. The charge of racism is just bizarre. Libertatia 21:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been posting on for awhile now. I have not seen the least intimation of racism or any sort of bigotry. I hasten to add it is one of the few fora I've participated in in which my being Israeli was not thrown in my face or reason to question my veracity as an Anarchist. If there was bigotry on, I'd be well aware of it.

I did not see the Aryan Anarchism article referred to here. Had I seen it, I would have welcomed it as a proof of the free expression that I have come to enjoy on Anarchism. net. I would also have welcomed the opportunity to consider the points and either agree with them or refute them as I saw fit. The beauty of Anarchism. net is that it is a free plenum for discussion of all aspects of Anarchism. I say that as one of the small minority of Anarcho-Communists on the list. I have neve been made to feel stifled or censored on that forum. The contributors to that list would not have it any other way. It seems to me that this is an attempt to bring in line with the emerging and ever more oppressive "Anarchy PC". Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A forum is a forum. The site is a personal project by a political philosophy student/graduate. Infoshop is long established and much more credible resource. The point i was making is that is not much more than a forum. The dollar signs which were on every page and the handful of essays..probably written by the site owner show that this is a dubious link to put in this article. Interesting to see the right-wing libertarian Robert LeFevre has an essay on there.

From the wikipedia article: "LeFevre did not consider himself an anarchist, and in his "LeFevre Commentaries" bluntly stated that he was not an anarchist.". I rest my case. --maxrspct ping me 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A site having a forum does not mean the site is just a forum. If it does then infoshop needs to be removed since it also has a forum. You've shown yourself not be objective already, thus your subject judgment that is not much more than a forum carries no weight. You keep going on about dollar signs on the pages, but there aren't any. LeFevre didn't like being called an anarchist, but that doesn't mean his views weren't actually anarchist. JoshHeitzman 19:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:JoshHeitzman = Banned User:RJII -- maxrspct ping me 19:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's simply libel. I have only ever registered here using my real name. JoshHeitzman 19:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As there is an excessive number of links already, I've removed until this discussion has resolved into consensus on whethere or not to include it. Skomorokh incite 19:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Maxrspct, please research your argument and provide current evidence first before slandering a respected forum and resource. Citing sections of a site that may have been neglected due to priority does not favour your argument. It is also a false assumption in claiming the articles are penned by the author of the website - clearly they are not. There are no dollar signs used, which has been stated. It has already been shown the site is not racist. Lastly dismissing a forum and its content because it is owned and operated by a philosophy student/graduate is pathetic. Just because the range of material is not as extensive as infoshop, does not make the site any less credible. Besides, it is growing but this process takes time when they site explicitly states that it does not have a large team of members to devote every ounce of energy to this process. is an open forum and resource whose participants can belong to any one of the broad spectrum of Anarchist factions. Therefore, any claim that the forum represents a minority is unfounded, or at best founded on out of date research.-- 12:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies (unfortunately) dictate that long lists of links shouldn't be appended to articles. The standard practice is to place links to important and popular websites, as well as to websites that provide breadth to the topics covered in the Wikipedia article. may have plenty of valid content and users, but it is not notable enough to be listed at the bottom of the Anarchism page. Chuck0 (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not slandering or libelling anyone RJII. observe:

  • quote from mission statement-

"You might also be interested in our symbols, perhaps the one in the upper left corner of every page of this web site. Many have contacted us wondering why the ¤%&#¤% we use a “silver dollar sign.” The answer is that we don’t. We explain everything about this symbol, the Libertatis Æquilibritas, here."

And i have merely stated the facts regarding the website. Small amount of essays.. personal and non-notable essays.. and a forum doesn't make it any more attractive as link/source. Read the wikipedia rules above etc. I have already stated why i think the website has held racist material on there. I think the Aryan Anarchism essay like the dollar signs was taken down and now insertions are just made on the forum. It is a poor resource or link to have here. --maxrspct ping me 15:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

By claiming the author of that message was banned user RJII without stating any proof to backup your claim you've libeled them if it isn't actually true. You have not merely stated the facts. You've stated subjective judgments about it after already showing you that you are not objective regarding this issue. JoshHeitzman 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
That quote from the mission statement of the site is out of date. As I have been saying, there were previous incarnations of These have been replaced with the current set-up. Citing one, single, out-dated page as evidence to demonise the site carries no weight. The Aryan Anarchism essay was removed years ago - when the owner researched Aryan Anarchism and removed the material because it was racist. As for the dollar signs, they are no longer used and have not been used for years as the site is no longer focussed solely around a 'market Anarchist' theme. The articles on the site are not penned by the author, his articles are published separately on another, separate website after they have been published by Strike-the-Root, or But you would already know all this if you have researched the site. -- 13:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It will perhaps never be proven that i've libelled.. which is impossible anyway i am just claiming sockpuppetry. Stop making personal attacks on my editing by using my knowledge of your behaviour as a cover. When i posted on the userpage of the editor who banned RJII about you i said i was very sure. --maxrspct ping me 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You are in no position to demand a stop to personal attacks considering you keep attacking me personally. What goes around comes around bub. JoshHeitzman 23:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia, regardless of circumstances. A person attacking you is not a reason to attack them. In addition, several of the current externale links also seem to fail the external links guideline. Also, remember that external links should only be used when necessary, and that forums generally contain original research and unverifiable content, which is not consistent with Wikipedia. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
And why is your comment only directed only at me rather then both of us? Perhaps because you want to see removed as well, as evidenced by your previous removals of it. JoshHeitzman (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's calm down and assume good faith now, shall we? Zazaban (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is Smiletoday, is not solely a forum. The forum is merely a feature of the site, it is intended to be a Network for Anarchists containing Anarchist material, both famous and little known. As it stands, yes, is slow growing because Per Bylund (who is starting to become well known among Anarchists and even has a page on this site) is the sole team member working on the site. He does this in conjunction with his regular work and his writing. This does not invalidate the site or any of its content. Maxrspct slandered the site, it's creator and the participants on the forum located there as racist - without proof of such a claim. He then insinuated that it was some kind of racist conspiracy. I think the contrary has been proven.-- (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish! i have merely commented on the validity of the source. Don't try to scare me off with pseudo-legal threats Mr Anon! U sound just like other right-wing provocatuers around this place. Bylund is well-known amongst anarchists? ROFLMAO!. not notable! --maxrspct ping me 19:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you made a claim that was distributing racist material. This has been shown to be invalid. You can either substantiate this claim with real evidence or retract your statement. In regards to Bylund, I believe the statement, 'beginning to become well known was used'. I suggest looking him up. For the record, I didn't realise personal attacks were allowed around here, nor did I realise dismissing an argument on the grounds that the author is anonymous was acceptable practice for wikipedia editors. -- (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not. Zazaban (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of

In the section on it is being argued that isn't notable enough to be included in the General resources section of the external links of the article. At the moment is included in that section, but looking at the site I don't see what so notable about it and I'd never heard of it before seeing it linked to on this article. What make sufficiently notable to be included in the General resources section of the external links for he article? JoshHeitzman (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Doing a google search for yields 2,670 while one for yields 40,900 so apparently isn't being linked to from other sites that makes more notable then Must be something else then... JoshHeitzman (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of external links is irrelevant. It does not matter how widely cited, or google-indexed a link is; what matters is its value as a resource, the extent to which its content expands on this article to give the reader a more comprehensive understanding of the subject. Check out WP:EL. Skomorokh incite 12:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead ex link:Daily Bleed

Can anyone resurrect this? Daily Bleed's Anarchist Encyclopedia] - 1,700+ entries, with short bios, links & dedicated pages. Skomorokh incite 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The link appears to be fine. Libertatia 19:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Must be a Skomorokh-specific problem; feel free to re-integrate it as appropriate. Skomorokh incite 19:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Towards a quasi-historical Schools of thought section

The Schools of thought section has been problematic for a while now; firstly because although it is a very long section, it has only one hierarchy of subsections, making it somewhat daunting for the uninitiated reader to figure out at first glance what relation, if any, exists between the eight or so top-level schools of thought here. Furthermore, including eight or so schools and excluding all else except a comparatively tiny contemporary section seems arbitrary and pov (no mention whatsoever of anarcha-feminism, anarcho-pacifism, philosophical anarchism?). On the plus side, the section does offer a quasi-historical overview of anarchism that tries to describe both ideological variance and intellectual influence between schools.

Experimenting in the main Anarchist schools of thought article, of which this is a summary, I have moved any school that really originated post-WWII to a Contemporary subsection, and following An Anarchist FAQ subsumed Communist, Collectivist, and Syndicalist anarchism under Social anarchism, with the other top-level hierarchy sections being Individualist anarchism (as the main contrast to Social), Mutualism (for its historical influence on the other two), Without adjectives (couldn't think of what to do with it) and the Contemporary section, which encompasses everything from Ancap to feminism to Green and all the recent offshoots.

I think the approach, viewable at Anarchist schools of thought, is superior to the schema here, because it makes much clearer the relation between schools, gives a better idea of the chronological development of the schools, and is much more complete and inclusive. I propose implementing it here, unless there is consensus to oppose. Thoughts? Skomorokh incite 16:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and implemented the proposed changes. Please leave a comment here before reverting. Regards, Skomorokh incite 19:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that it was a necessary change, but I don't think you capture the whole thing completely. I would suggest leaving the "Socialist" subsection alone. Instead, I would propose separating "Contemporary Anarchisms" and "Market Anarchisms" into two separate sections. Under the market Anarchist section we could have "Anarcho-Capitalism", "Agorism", "Free Market Anarchist" and any others that fit this description. Anarcho-Capitalism and Agorism are pretty self explanatory, but there are some who are market anarchists, and don't identify with Anarcho-Capitalism or Agorism and thus could be simply considered 'free market Anarchists'. There also needs to be some statement that there is conflict among each school of thought, particularly between the market anarchists and social anarchist.-- (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)