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.
Why is linking to nefac.net blocked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This entry should be under "Northeastern Federation of Anarcho-Communists" NOT "Common Struggle." Common Struggle (and NEFAC) do not exist anymore. And the great majority of the work of this organization was done as NEFAC. It was as NEFAC that they were remotely notable. It's like listing "Jefferson Airplane" under "Starship." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Under See Also section removed bullet point for "The Socialist Party USA Direct Action Tendency." This group is not mentioned anywhere in the stub. It also does not intuitively make sense because the article is about an anarchist federation which is opposed to political parties. If there is a reason for the bullet point then there should be some sort of explanation.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move until such time as article content actually supports a different name Mike Cline (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
NEFAC → Common Struggle - Libertarian Communist Federation – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC) According to NEFAC they have renamed themselves to Common Struggle - Libertarian Communist Federation (see nefac.net/node/2566). Darrelljon (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC) RelistedComment as an uninvolved admin, I was surprised to see that the details of the new name were not already in the article and sourced. Seems like a logical step before renaming the article. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.