This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Grnrchst, re your recent edits: can I urge you not to delete uncited material, but to tag it as needing citation unless you have reason to doubt it, and give editors time to see if they can find citations (rather than relying on them to check the edit history). Some of the material deleted appears to be sourced in the linked articles - e.g. I think this is the case of the material about Zapata. If nobody furnishes a citation for tagged material, it can go later. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, feel free to delete unreliable sources from the article but please, don't remove such huge chunks of the article with no prior {{citation needed}} tagging. Being quick in deleting unreliably sourced material is pretty easy as opposed to searching for reliable sources for potentially true information. -Vipz (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Organizationalism vs. insurrectionarism and expansion[edit]
Hi Gugrak, much of this section is badly written to the point of impenetrability. If you're keen to retain it, please improve it. Stara Marusya (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is covered somewhat in the talk page history, but is this concept better known as "anarcho-communism" than "anarchist-communism" or some variant? Based on how I see it used in sources, the shortened hyphenation appears to be some sort of recent invention if not citogenesis. (My question from the move in 2017 was never answered.) czar 19:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: It's not citogenesis, as it was used by Pengam 1987, but generally it does seem that "anarchist communism" (without the hyphen) is more common. Of the sources listed in the Bibliography, the following terms are used:
"Anarchist communism" (without the hyphen) is used by 8 sources (Bookchin 1978, Esenwein 1989, Graham 2018, Marshall 1993, Nappalos 2012, Pernicone 1993, Turcato 2018 and Wilbur 2018)
"Anarcho-communism" is used by 3 sources (Kinna 2012, Pengam 1987 and Ramnath 2018)
"Libertarian communism" is used by 3 sources (Bookchin 1978, Nappalos 2012 and Shannon 2018)
"Anarchist-communism" (with the hyphen) is used by 1 source (Avrich 1971)
"Communist anarchism" is used by 1 source (Shannon 2018).
So at least in the reliable sources we have in this article, the unhyphenated "anarchist communism" appears to be the most popular. Google Ngrams too appears to indicate that "anarchist communism" is more commonly used than "anarcho-communism", with the latter appearing to come into more widespread use in the 1960s and only being most popular during the 1980s. Also I'll note that Google Trends indicate more searches for "anarchist communism" than "anarcho-communism" (I think the move nominator used bad methodology on this tbh)
To me, the main argument for keeping it as "anarcho-communism" would be for consistency across other ideology article titles. But I'm not sure that outweighs the common name policy. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that research. I'll retitle it.
re: the other ideology articles, I'd ask the same question of whether Wikipedia has helped propagate a neologism over the last decade. Not to say that it had no prior use, but that anarcho-everything has not been as prominent in sources as it has been on Wikipedia. But I think we can handle those one at a time. czar 15:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To your question of whether Wikipedia has helped propagate a neologism over the last decade, my initial thoughts are probably yeah. It's a difficult task to find sources using the term anarcho-communism prior to the internet age. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to point out one rather bad argument made here. You've forgotten a rather important factor: laziness—especially when typing on something like an iPhone keyboard.
If you include "anarcho communism" without the hyphen in the Google Trends search, you'll see that it significantly outscales both "anarchist communism" or "anarcho-communism". If you search in other places (such as YouTube) for "anarchist communism" the vast majority of results that have any variations of the phrase all use "anarcho(-)communism" as well.
I think regardless of the Ngrams data, people are searching for and using "anarcho(-)communism" far more than "anarchist communism", and there's a solid argument to be made that the common name policy actually favors "Anarcho-Communism". IlijiilI (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
