Talk:Criticisms of anarchism

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

Contents

WikiProject Philosophy discussion[edit]

I just learned of this discussion that was taking place on the main WP:Philosophy talk page a few months back: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 11#Created Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism... the Marxism taskforce should be merged... With the founding of WikiProject Socialism, there was a proposal to merge the Marxism Task Force into it. That led into a wider discussion of the possible fates of several other projects, such as Fascism, Libertarianism, and our own ATF. It would seem that none of the ATF's members were involved, and it ultimately went nowhere. Looking on it now, how do any of you feel about it? This discussion has briefly come up amongst ourselves in the past, when we've considered the difficulty in rating our non-philosophy based articles according to the Project-wide grading scheme. Skomorokh has suggested being an "autonomous task force" of sorts, although that concept was only mentioned in passing and not elaborated upon. What do our members think of the proposals presented in WP:Philosphy's discussion? --Cast (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea of an autonomous task force interests me. I would support it. I am vehemently against cramming all of the different political task forces together, as they are very niche and work best on their own. Zazaban (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
How exactly would that work? My interpretation is that the Task Force's association would depend upon a given article subject. A biography article would cause the ATF to become a workgroup under WikiProject Biography. An article on anarchist culture would cause the ATF to become a task force under WikiProject Sociology. But this seems really complicated. We'd also be running headlong into the same project we currently have under WP: Philosophy. That we run into a conflict of grading the importance of our articles by the standards of anarchist history, or by the standards of the wider structure of history. --Cast (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why WP:Politics isn't the antural home for these task forces.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the articles featured on Portal:Politics, you'll see they are primarily made up of political concepts, such as "Initiative", "soft power" and "rule of law", or political parties. This is just a superficial example of the direction it's associated project goes in. WP: Politics concerns itself with biographies of political professionals (Obama and Putin) or with concepts in political process. Economics and social theory are only given attention when they factor into the public policy of the state. An article like "Anarchism and sex/love" has no political value, save for its bare association with the old line "the personal is political." Certain aspects of anarchist theory, contrary to Bookchin's assertions, were and remain "life stylist"; primarily concerned with the quality of the life of the individual and society, rather than the scientific process by which civic policy is arrived at and enacted. Although all anarchists have quite a bit to say about politics, it may be argued that our primary arena is the sociological one.--Cast (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting thoughts there. I suppose I think of Marx as a political writer but he is, together with Weber and Durkheim, one of the fathers of the old traditions of sociology. Kropotkin would be a sociologist in the same sense as Marx... I'm happy with the approaches suggested so far. I don't really understand the difference between free-standing task-forces and projects. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The basic questions here are what we need from the WikiProject ecosphere, and what it needs of us.

As far as I can see, WP:PHIL has been of limited use to us; it does not have topic specific guidance like WP:ROGUES or WP:ANCITE, nor an article namespace ontology of articles we can easily adopt (unlike our flagship lists; outline of anarchism, lists of anarchism topics; list of anarchist books etc.). As one of PHILs more active members, I can say that the even the sporadically active ATF has it beaten in terms of editorial commitment. By almost any metric other than scope, we are a more advanced project.

All we gain from association with PHIL as far as I can tell are article assessments (thanks to PHIL volunteers like User:Pollinosisss), and bot contributions (example). These benefits would likely be present no matter which project we affiliated ourselves with. A major problem with the association, as noted above, is the broken importance assessment set up we have; our assessment scheme gives neither importance for philosophy or for anarchism, but an incomplete and unclear mixture of the two.

What the WikiProject ecosphere requires from us is, more or less, limited to topic scope. Our assessed articles ought to fall under the topic of our parent project. When someone wants to find out how many articles on philosophy publications there are, they use PHIL assessment subcategories to figure out. It does not help to have stridently anti-theoretical anarchist newsletters in the mix. The trend, pushed by WP:COUNCIL, has been to absorb smaller projects into larger ones; although this makes sense for the tidiness of organisational tree-charts, like the discussion that provoked this one, it completely misses the point that more than anything else, topic-based collaboration should be about fostering collaboration rather than sorting topics as best as possible. They could merge us into a social and political task force if they wanted to; I and perhaps most of the rest of us would be disinclined to participate.

Murderbike set us up under Philosophy by analogy with the Marxists; Cast might prefer Sociology. My own preference, if there were to be one parent project that we could accurately say our articles belonged to would be Politics. The essentially interdisciplinary nature of anarchism, and the little use we have for parent projects, was what provoked my initial suggestion to be an autonomous task force – we don't bother anyone else, no-one interferes with us. Divorcing ourselves from PHIL (and thereby moving to an independent assessment scheme) would lose us little, but would create an anomaly that could cause trouble for the broader ecosystem. Of course, causing a little disruption can have its own appeal...  Skomorokh  03:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that settles it as far as I'm concerned. Autonomy is definitely the way to go. Sure it may cause a little disruption, but a little disruption is good for any worthwhile project such as wikipedia, especially one so based on democratic principles. For the record, I've never cared for the system of big, oversized and mostly empty wikiprojects. I'm a member of several, and this task force is more active than any of them by orders of magnitude. Hell, we're anarchists, if we take ourselves seriously at all we should at least give it a go. Zazaban (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm a member of the Bund Task Force, which is nominally "under" WikiProject Judaism and WikiProject Organized Labour, but in our short lifetime we've never had any interaction with either of our "parents". I agree that autonomy is best. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The Anarchist Task Force engages the WikiProject Council in passionate discourse.
Well, I am in favor of a disruption? (;-_-) ...decisions, decisions... Perhaps a word from one of our inspirational anarcho-elders will give us direction: "Seeing the supreme beauty of life in the expansion of life, I see the supreme beauty of life today only in this rebellion and destruction. Today, when the reality of conquest is developed to its utmost, harmony is not beauty. Beauty exists only in discord. Harmony is a lie. Truth exists only in discord. Now the expansion of life can only be gained through rebellion. Only through rebellion is there creation of new life, creation of a new society." Osugi Sakae (1885-1923) Well, who am I to argue with the Japanese? Grab a brick, friends! To the barricades!--Cast (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
If we do decide to do this, I would suggest that we simply leave a message on the relevant talk pages declaring autonomy, briefly outline our reasons, and then move ourselves to Wikipedia:Anarchist Task Force. Take it from there. We would probably want to make our own assessment scale as well. I don't see why we should have to ask permission to separate from a project that we've been functioning independently of for the most part to begin with. If hell is raised, we'll explain our reasoning crisply and honestly. Call me rash, but I think that it's the best way to do it. Quick, easy and assertive. Zazaban (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't our autonomy basically mean becoming a WikiProject? How can we justify remaining a Task Force if we are no longer associated with a specific umbrella project? I think we're "screwing with the natural order", "dividing by zero", and ultimately, have no idea "what has science done". So exactly what does an "autonomous task force" look like? Are we not quite a Apple Wikiproject, but not quite an iPhone work group? Are we the Ipad Task Force of the Wikipedia ecosphere? Are we overly specialized to the point of pointlessness—doomed to embarrass Steve Jobs and look like assholes for naming ourselves after a feminine hygiene product? I just want to know what we're getting into here, people. I don't want to be a feminine hygiene product. I just want to edit articles on armchair anarchists and wax philosophic on talk pages. I didn't sign up for all this drama! o_O; --Cast (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, how about this. We set up redirects under each project which would be related to the ATF, which has its own page not associated under a specific project. They count us as a task force insofar as some of our articles are related to them, and no farther, as I describe in my earlier comment above. Our anarchist bio articles cast us as a temporary WP:BIO task force. Our cultural theory articles cast us as a WP:Sociology task force, etc. We have our own larger structure, but we work in concert with other projects when they are related to our content? But again, how is this different from any other WikiProject? Other suggestions appreciated.--Cast (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that would make us like a WikiProject, but calling ourselves an autonomous task force has philosophical resonance to me. Like moving ourselves outside of the WikiHierarchy in some way. Also, I think this is a fairly good proposal above. Zazaban (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another proposal. How about we start a WikiProject Anarchism, independent of the WikiProject: Anarchist Task Force? The ATF continues to function as an arm of PHIL regarding anarchist articles that are most assertively related to philosophy. That is, the WikiProject includes articles on anarchist culture, biographies, history, and philosophy, while only the philosophy articles remain related to the ATF? The Blac Block article functions only under the WikiProject. The Emma Goldman article belongs under both. This resolves the issue of the assessment scheme, as WP:Anarchism can now rate articles according to its own priorities and refocus itself according to what it considers its most important articles; the ATF can continue to benefit from what few bones PHIL tosses it; and the ATF can function as a useful point of conjunction between WP:PHIL and WP:Anarchism. A cross between a redirect and a nexus point. In fact, under that logic, it may also become a point of meeting between WP:Politics, WP:Sociology, WP:Labour, and others. This may be a new way forward for the wider Task Force system, if we can find some way to make this multi-disciplined task force work on a practical level to bring these alienated WikiProjects into greater connectivity on shared articles. Rather than being an autonomous task force, perhaps becoming a networked Task Force holds greater possibilities. --Cast (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

New similar proposal[edit]

Greetings folks, There had been discussion some discussion a while ago now about moving the Anarchism task force in the same way that the Marxism TF was. Well that was a while ago and the Marxism stuff was merged into the Socialism TF since then. There hasn't been any action other than that since then. At the time, I had proposed and then hinted strongly that WP:PHIL name the members of the Anarchism Task Force to the Philosophy Hall of Fame (Start of Sophia) but that hasn't gone anywhere unfortunately. My proposal now is to merge the Anarchism TF into the new Political culture WikiProject. I see from the discussion above that there is strong support to go it alone. I think both the Anarchism TF and the Political culture project would mutually benefit from the larger pool of editors in the discussion. Furthermore, I think the Political culture project would be a good venue for such discussions because it will attract a diverse set of editors, all united in their interest in political culture. The truth is that without the Anarchism folks and the Socialism folks it won't be much of a project. However with both, we have a potential powerhouse. There is also talk about merging the whole thing into WP:POLITICS, but I think that discussion is premature. So my question is, should I move forward with some form of merge? A) A total merge including the discussion space, B) Merge everything, but leave the Anarchism discussion area independent, or C) Leave my task force alone! If we go with C, I may still tag articles with a WP:POLC banner without deleting the Anarchism banner, and leave it up to evolution from there. Then again, perhaps D) merge with Politics isn't so premature. Any thoughts?Greg Bard (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Simple English invitation[edit]

I just want to toss out an invitation for everyone to consider how to best improve the simple:Anarchism article. Creating a Very Good article for those learning English, or the young, would be a nice side project for the ATF, and perhaps relatively easy, since we could just convert our GA article into a version with smaller sentences and greater attention to explaining big words. --Cast (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Reminder on National Anarchism[edit]

It was discussed here once in the past. It's pretty much a puff piece written by partisans of racial separatism using their own material as refs. So good to check up what editors are up to there from time to time. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's even notable enough to have an article. Are any of those sources reliable? Zazaban (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem of course is that a lot of anarchism/libertarianism articles are based on sources that would be easily challenged if they were not about these niche ideological viewpoints. A news search of National Anarchism found only one "WP:RS" - Southern Poverty Law Center - which remains suspect because of its habit of exaggerating threats for fundraising purposes. But others can stick the info/ref in, if not there already. I think WP:UNDUE in length and detail of article may be easiest issue to edit the article on. But I personally don't feel like taking it on, especially since I've been personally attacked by one of them and my edits might be seen as WP:COI. Plus I just have higher wiki priorities right now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
It reads like garden-variety pseudo-intellectual WP hatemongering. While the article as it stands is probably worthless (and wrong), were the Serbian Black Hand not anarchist nationalists? Perhaps the article could be rewritten so it isn't just a pamphlet for BNP Randroids. SmashTheState (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm no expert on the topic, but my understanding is that the Serbian Black Hand were nationalist (and no to be confused with the Spanish La Mano Negra, who may not have been anarchist either). Any relationship with anarchists was superimposed by the media of the day, simply associating an assassination of yet another political leader with anarchists out of habit. --Cast (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The Black Hand article does say they were criticized as being nihilists, and there was traditionally some overlap between the anarchists and the nihilists. Both had huge beards (even the women), long, stereotypically Jewish noses, liked to wear long black trenchcoats and big floppy slouch hats and ran around holding big round bombs that said BOMB on them in large, friendly letters while destroying democracy. I know I do! SmashTheState (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I put up a notability disputed tag. Zazaban (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Keith Preston is a guy who promotes it while claiming to merely mention its existence. Poorly sourced bio which probably should be removed. Jared Taylor is more notable but many bigoted non-WP:RS reference that need removal; should be shorter article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
A nazi anarcho-capitalist? What the hell? *Ahem* Anyway, no, he doesn't seem notable. Though if I had the call I'd keep it just because it's so utterly bizarre. Almost WP:ODD level of freaky. Zazaban (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Gabriel Kuhn[edit]

Somebody has put the notability-tag on the article about this author, but didn't tell me or on the talk page what the exact problem is. Because I mostly work in the wikipedia of german language, I don't know what to do now and need help. Gabriel Kuhn has written several books in english and german language. Thanks in advance --Sargoth (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

At a glance, seemed notable enough to me. Moreso than a lot of the stupid comic book articles people allow editors to keep. I removed the tag unless someone can provide a good reason for it on the talk page. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Jrtayloriv. The books in german language are not mentioned in this article, i didn't consider them useful für readers of english language. The same user has added two tags by using some script on PM Press, maybe you could care about that, too. Regards, --Sargoth (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Left Libertarianism largely removed from Libertarianism[edit]

A fairly sophisticated but obviously POV editor came along and did it and I don't have energy to replace the material or debate him that much. So just a heads up. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This editor keeps making dozens of mini edits which discourage one from keeping up, but I did want to note that his mini-section Libertarianism#Anti-property_libertarian_principles, which is mostly his own original research, probably will get deleted. In case someone wants something more in tune with whatever those principles might be. I'm just going to wait til he shoots his wad and gets it out of his system and clean up the rest of it, in light of the original article, myself. Maybe... CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Now here this guy has removed a reference from Skirda, Alexandre. Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organization from Proudhon to May 1968. AK Press 2002. p. 183. explaining "Removed unreliable sources. Books published by anarchist publishers and not cited by other literature are not reliable sources." He did the same thing with a Colin Ward book! While one can argue about some publisher and some authors and some books and some quotes, this is absurd. Will bring it up in talk. And I guess reliable sources. Though prefer you guys did. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Please be aware that this issue is being discussed at WP:RSN#Anarchist publishers can't publish WP:RS?. Please contribute to the discussion there. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
THis is still going on and I in interest of NPOV I try to counter it. (Plus inevitably after all the left libertarian stuff is purged and the purgers disappear someone comes back and complains about article and whole cycle starts again.) But I'm not an expert on this topic and really don't have energy to deal with lack of good sourcing (and books.google does have some good sources). So once again a heads up if anybody cares. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this still a current issue that needs to be resolved? If so, does anyone have concrete and discrete [sic] recommendations on how balance can be restored? It would be one thing if both 'anarchism' and 'libertarianism' claimed the right to police the traditional definitions of their terms from the 20th century onward in the American dialect--how narrow-minded, anyway!--but as a new participant, there is certainly an unfair status quo if 'libertarianism' is prevented from describing the left libertarian points of view from a NPOV. FederalDemocracy (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Importance rankings[edit]

I was surprised looking at the assessment matrix on the project page to see that we have a high importance featured article and not a high-importance good one. The surprise being because I promoted Anarchism to GA and can't see how any other article could be more important than it to the task force. I've checked and it is mid-importance and the high-importance FA is Emma Goldman. While Red Emma is certainly one of the top 10 anarchist writers, I still can't see why she is more important than anarchism itself. DO we have any importance rating criteria that explain this anomaly?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Makhno said that anarchism is an act, not a political philosophy. If you're not doing it, it's not anarchism. After he being released from prison during the amnesty, he travelled the Soviet Union for two months, trying to find out what other anarchists were doing for the revolution and was disgusted to find people who called themselves anarchists standing on streetcorners handing out literature while better people were fighting and dying. It makes perfect sense that those who practice anarchism are more important than a lot of stuffy academic theory. SmashTheState (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not a controversial issue. If you disagree with a rating, change it. If others disagree with you, that can be discussed on the related talk page. I've just changed it, as I feel that Anarchism is of high importance to the field of philosophy. Note that there has long been some ambiguity as to how we should rate articles. Articles of high importance within anarchism may be of low importance within the greater field of philosophy. When in doubt, go with your gut. --Cast (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot[edit]

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:Criticisms of anarchism/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 02:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

ATF AFDs[edit]

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism was nominated for deletion for a second time four days ago, and it would seem few on the Task Force have noticed. There seems to be an unfortunate side effect to my revamp of the ATF page some months ago. We can no longer allow others to quickly know when an article is up for deletion and request aid. This is really unfortunate, given one of the basic reasons the ATF's was created was to help defend anarchism AFDs and develop them safely. Any ideas on how we can resolve this? How do other WikiProjects handle announcements for AFDs? --Cast (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism aid requested[edit]

The Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article needs a massive overhaul. Ideally, it should be devoted to an exploration of the relationship anarcho-capitalism has had with the rest of the anarchist family tree since its inception. Howeover, it was instead written as an exploration of their differences, which redundant as each individual article is capable of explaining this on its own, and a reader need only read both to compare each. Instead, commentary generated on the relationship each has had, the influence anarcho-capitalism has had on anarchist thought, and visa versa, should be in this article. I'm not really good at articles dealing with the history of anarchist theory, preferring historical events, fiction, and biographies. If anyone knows of good sources on essays, books, and commentary written on the relationship anarcho-capitalism has had with other branches of anarchist thought, now would be the time to contribute your knowledge. We're now several years down the road from all of the contentious edit warring of the mid 'oughties. The article can likely now be properly written and crafted. --Cast (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

National anarchism again[edit]

Somebody is at the talk page for Contemporary anarchism arguing that NA should have its own entry. I have replied (after spending about ten minutes trying to word it in a way that didn't sound hostile or mocking) and some more thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. This is a fairly hot-button issue, and I feel attention should be brought to it so that a consensus can be reached. What happens here will probably set a precedent for a future similar request on the main Anarchism page, which I've felt for awhile is inevitable. (Has that happened already? I forget.) I'm also getting the impression that the user isn't neutral on the issue, though I will reserve judgement. Zazaban (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind reserving judgement, the same user has identified himself as the founder of the Bay Area National Anarchists at Talk:National anarchism and is definitely not a neutral voice. He seems to have gotten involved in an edit war over there too. I would now call this a conflict of interest. Zazaban (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright fun[edit]

this image has copyright issues. maybe someone here has the time and patience to deal with it? Murderbike (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Pulse check[edit]

Who's kicking? A las barricadas! Skomorokh 14:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

'ello 'ello Zazaban (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Still here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thumb
Wha...? Whozat? Slow down their, buddy. Yea' interruptin mah nap. Now what's all this there about tha gabbo? --Cast (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(deceased) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Huzzah, record strength! Anyone got any anarcho-projects in the oven? I am full of energy and optimism [because I have not been editing Wikipedia] so am willing to pitch in [for about two days until engulfed by despondence and apathy]. Skomorokh 13:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I have been meaning to create a template for external links to The Anarchist Library. Ideally, it would incorporate a feature to link a to a work or an author. A link for a work space is on my user page. I haven't followed through on it because I have been working on the bio-page for Maria Nikiforova. That page can easily achieve GA status if I pull all of my sources together. Non-anarchist related, but of interest for eco-warrior comics is my work space page for Burnout, also linked on my user page. However, if none of this is of interest, you could always add mpa few more names to the list of anarchists. (Ha!) --Cast (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Busy with meatspace organizing these days, but if you're looking for something to do, the Ottawa Panhandlers' Union article could use some work. It's in rough shape, what with most of the article being taken up with proving its notability as a result of being repeatedly sent to AFD, and every reactionary on Wikipedia adding "claims" and "alleges" to every sentence. And there are a bunch of factual errors in it too. The problem is, I'm the official spokesperson for the organization, so rewriting it is a COI for me (and since the article has been in the news as a result of having been vandalized by someone using a computer in city hall or the police station, I can't afford even the appearance of COI). -- SmashTheState (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I resuscitated that particular article from deletion I think; it took a lot of beating in the process, and there was not much in the way of neutral+quality sourcing to work with. Skomorokh 18:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Cast, I should be able to help with the TAL ex link template; I've whipped up an initial version at your subpage. I can do another that is author-based rather than text-based if required. I haven't access to sources on Maria Nikiforova but if you need any help with the drudge work or the GA review let me know. Same story for Burnout, but some googling may be of use there. I'll finish off that list of anarchists as soon as you finish the portal anniversaries ;). Skomorokh 18:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to finally finish a couple of the half-finished articles hanging around in the Workstation. Some of them look like they could be rather good. I would get to it if somebody else were willing to assist. Zazaban (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
There is some potential there alright.
  • The timeline might be fun to fill out, if we can figure out a way to avoid the monotony of bullet after bullet. Is there a good example of a timeline around that could be mimiced?
  • If you get around to translating Anarchism and Esperanto I'd be happy to help with research and referencing.
  • Anarchism and chaos is a heavyweight topic, will need proper research before being ready for the mainspace.
  • Not sure what to do with Ojore Nuru Lutalo given that the charges were dropped in the end.
  • The index of anarchism articles would be a nightmare to fill in manually (trust me), best handled by a bot as Cast says.
  • Anarchism in Argentina is still weak on contemporary activism, and will need Carabinieri's say-so before any major changes.
The others haven't much potential, but there's plenty there in the above works-in-progress. Skomorokh 18:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
TImeline is probably a good place to start. At the very least one could to pop whenever they think of something and add that, for the time being. More effort would be nice, of course, but just to illustrate that it's more time-consuming than it is difficult. Sadly, I don't think there's much else to do but bullet by bullet, but I suspect that we here are probably innovative enough to be the first to come up with an alternative. As for the Esperanto article; I haven't been much of an esperantist for a few years now, so I'll be a bit rusty, expect me to take awhile. Zazaban (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I want to make a few suggestions. I've been planning on converting the article on Lutalo into an event article. That should clear that hurtle. That it is small makes no difference. In time, it may be merged into a "list of anarchists confused for terrorists" article, but that is a concern for the future. The timeline of anarchism can be altered from a "bullet by bullet" list, into a list of articles of historical events. That is, instead of including a sentence to describe an event, a chronological list of wikilinks to articles should be created, with no exposition as to what the linked articles are about. The solitary links should simply link to a historical event, and leave it at that. There can be red links to documented events which have yet to have an article created for them, but no descriptive sentences. Those things just clutter up space. Images can be provided, such as an image of Osugi Sakae, with a caption "Osugi Sakai, murdered in the Amakasu Incident"; an image of Jean Grave with the caption, "Jean Grave, co-author of the Manifesto of the Sixteen." Nothing more need be said. Take a look at the Anarchism sidebar. It has an alphabetical listing. Simply convert this into a chronological listing, and toss in pictures, and you have what I'm describing. Now to make it a much more expansive project, I believe it should be modeled after the Timeline of United States history. Specifically, it should be broken up into several periods, and tied into a series of "history of anarchism" articles. The history of anarchism articles would not be regionally based, like the current "Anarchism in (country/region)". It would be a more broad, era-by-era work. It should also tie into a topical series on anarchist history: the "cultural history of anarchism" the "military history of anarchism". Some current articles, such as "Anarchism and the arts" might be best presented in that format. A title such as "anarchism and the arts" suggests a philosophical perspective on arts and aesthetics. The current incarnation of "Anarchism and the arts" reads more like a mix of anarchist history of art, and broad link farm. As for Anarchism in Argentina, I contacted Carabinieri months ago, when he first provided the link to the workstation. I made it clear that we could help, and I'm sorry to see others assume we have to jump through hoops to give it to him. If you have any changes to make to improve the article, I urge you to Be Bold. --Cast (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, do be bold. I do see good sense in making the history thematic and chronological rather than nationalistic, but I'm otherwise engaged, currently on advancing the article on one of Bakunin's associates from the 1849 Dresden uprising up the rating system.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Still plugging away at the Lutalo article. It's not a long article, so if I power through it, I may be able to get it ready to go live within a couple of weeks. Any help I can get would be appreciated. --Cast (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Help requested with Wikipedia naming convention policy discussion[edit]

The only voices being heard from so far are the same white, privileged, European-descended, English-speaking males responsible for the systemic bias on Wikipedia to begin with, for whom the bias has been normalized. It would be nice if we could get additional voices involved here. SmashTheState (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. So you have decided anyone who disagrees with you is an upper class white male. What evidence do you base that decision on? Are you familiar with out policy on canvassing? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
99% of the world's population is not going to call the place Kerepakupai merú, especially the English-speaking world, which happens to call it Angel Falls. It would make more sense to move China to Zhongguo- many, many more people call China Zhongguo than call Angel Falls Kerepakupai merú!- and nobody would dispute that would be absurd. English speakers call something one thing, Chinese speakers call the same thing something else, Swahili speakers will call it a third thing, and so forth and so forth. There's nothing racist about it. Zazaban (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I recognize that this is an issue you are passionate about, and believe me, I fully understand and empathize with the sentiment behind the suggestion. However, you can't expect Wikipedia to alter its priority of making information easily available, in favor of pursuing social justice. The proper venue for that would be in the realm of the real. I, for one, look forward to the era where the land of "America" is no longer recognized by an Italian name. Unfortunately, the ATF cannot mount this campaign. It's a bit beyond our scope. --Cast (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

ATF outreach[edit]

So, for about 6 months or so, I've been thinking about the lack of activity in the ATF. Not the lack of activity amongst our editors. We all seem to be busy in one way or another, and when asked, several appeared to counted ready for action. The problem is that we lack activity as as task force. When this group was founded, I thought that the optimum number of members would not be a numerical condition, but a qualitative one; that no matter how many were busy with an individual or group project, there would always be a fair number free and ready to respond to a request for aid. Whether that required a dozen or a hundred, what mattered was not the number of members, but their activity level. Well, in a few months the ATF will be reaching its third anniversary, and I'd like to see is reach that qualitative activity level. So I want to suggest an out reach program. A few weeks ago, the Anarchism Portal was featured on a website summarizing anarchism, and the visitor count spiked. It spiked once when it was initially published, and again few days later when this same summary was posted to Anarchist News.org. What I find interesting is that after it was published to Anarchist News, its visitor count remained high for several weeks. Clearly anarchists \are not visiting our wikipedia pages, but would want to. No, I'm not referring to the articles. I'm sure they read those. The problem, is they don't read the Portal and the follow the various talk page links to the task force.

We need to reach out to other anarchists who are not yet editors. Most wikiprojects don't go through this process of outreach, content to draw from the pool of common editors. However, we have uncommon editors. Sad to say, anarchism is not highly visible theory in the everyday lives of the average reader. We must go beyond waiting for the abnormal editor interested in anarchist theory to come to us. We must go to the barricades. We must go to the anarchists! So... yeah. Lets write an invitation and post it in various anarchist forums and news feeds. I've been meaning to talk to "Worker" for months now, after my anarchist podcast idea fell through. I haven't been volunteering with Little Black Cart either. I need to re-inject myself into the greater anarchist community in California's Bay Area. If others want to work on a letter or advertisement, I'll provide a space here.

Input would be greatly appreciated. --Cast (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to finally finish a couple of the half-finished articles hanging around in the Workstation. Some of them look like they could be rather good. I would get to it if somebody else were willing to assist. Zazaban (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That has no bearing on this topic. Cooperatively or individually completing a project and reaching out to the wider anarchist community for new members are not mutually exclusive. --Cast (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I believe I mistook this for another heading. Zazaban (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
This plan is encouraging, though these are uncharted waters I feel. It's difficult to know where to begin. I have a few ideas, but I am really unfamiliar with anarchist online hubs. What kind of culture(s) would we be pitching to? Skomorokh 19:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
All of them. We've established that the culture of the ATF is one of inclusion, and the goal of making this a regular online stop for anarchists doesn't allow for us to skimp. I'm thinking of tailoring several messages for different groups, highlighting that our work is of interest across multiple schools of thought. And beyond theory, our interest is also in anarchist culture and history. This is useful for attracting those who, while anarchist, are not interested in theory. If they are interested in culture, they may find a useful intersection in their passions by editing articles related to anarchist fiction, music and visual art. If an interest is in biographies and events, they may find shared interest with other editors in anarchist history. The only standard to stress is the plural nature of the group. Those with an axe to grind can visit the ATF, only to find their interest to tussle with others to be quickly repudiated. Discouraged, they may leave or troll. It would be best that internet warriors understand this is no longer a battlefield. Besides creating broad proclamations and manifestos, what may be even more useful would be to reach out to individual, high profile anarchist bloggers. Explaining our established goals and group culture, we can ask these figures to plug the ATF an a blog entry. Regular readers will then be directed here by a source they trust. One example would be Roderick Long. Vloggers on youtube may also be useful contacts. --Cast (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
These are very stimulating thoughts, Cast, I think you're on the right track. I've stuck some FAQ-ish material to get us started at your sandbox. Skomorokh 14:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting diss here from this CrimethInc. analysis of what's changed in the last decade. Skomorokh 18:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Anarchism#Anarcho-capitalism[edit]

It would be helpful if there could be some more voices over at Talk:Anarchism, regarding a proposed major change. I would strongly disagree with the anon's claims, and I don't take to his tone, but he doesn't seem to be a troll and took the first step by posting a section in the talk. Zazaban (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seems to have been a banned user. Zazaban (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Right, not clear on what's going on, goodbye. Zazaban (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, back in the loop again, hello. Zazaban (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
All good? Skomorokh 14:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, everything is fine and dandy. I just was a bit flustered for a moment. Very confusing chain of events. Zazaban (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Anarchist articles nominated for deletion[edit]

Two Wikipedia articles important to many anarchists — Workplace democracy and Workers' self-management — have been nominated for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workplace democracy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workers' self-management. Richard Myers (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no change whatsoever fly. I doubt the nominations are in good faith. Reminds me of the time somebody nominated Christianity to be deleted. Zazaban (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
This has hit Infoshop; Anarchist info on Wikipedia threatened. I agree with Z that there is no chance that the article will be deleted. Skomorokh 13:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
This is an example of "a snowball's chance in hell" if I've even seen one. Zazaban (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


The article on Bitcoin was deleted. I am new around these parts, but it seems like there may be enough new credible, noteworthy news on the subject of Bitcoin to disinter the article. Bitcoins deserve a mention somewhere in the realm of the set of Anarchism articles due to the Bitcoin's capacity to replace government fiat currency. Since the article's deletion, there have been numerous mentions in foreign language media which may or may not merit a Wikipedia article. I apologize for not being more specific regarding possible citations. Mpkomara (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


proposal over at 'radical left' article[edit]

There is a proposal I've started over at Radical left wherein I've definitively stated that "Radical Left" is what anarchists, left-communists, militant communists, militant socialists etc etc define themselves as in self-description, and not "far left". As you can see if you go to the link, I go into the reasons, but there's a grand total of 3 people currently involved in the discussion, and I need input from this WikiProject and other similar ones to provide me with the backup I need to push the proposal through. Please join in and offer your viewpoints. Thanks. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Egads[edit]

By Bakunin's beard,1 how did this happen without anyone noticing? Skomorokh 11:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

By Bakunin's black cloak, the Anarchist Task Force is never notified when one of our articles is brought up for deletion discussion. I don't think these editors realize we exist. --Cast (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy anniversary![edit]

Anniv troix.svg Celebrating 3 years of Anarchist Task Force editing. --Cast (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Behold a Pale Horse (film)[edit]

hey folks, for some odd reason i decided to poke my head in here, and noticed that this article about a mediocre movie about an extraordinary man that i did some time ago, and tried to elevate to "good article" status is still languishing in failed status. i fixed some of the things that were complained about by the GA reviewer, but just don't have the time to put more work into it. anyone up to the task? it shouldn't take too much work, and if anything it'll give you an excuse to watch (or rewatch) the movie, and shit go ahead and read the book Killing a Mouse on Sunday to see how it compares to the original novel, and even better, read Sabate: An Extraordinary Guerrilla to see how it compares to the life of the real guy. keep up the good fight, er, edits. Murderbike (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking over the article and the sources cited. It looks like a lot of archived articles contemporary to the production would be useful, but need to be purchased. Well, I've spent money on sources for Anarky. I don't see why I wouldn't for this. Give me a bit of time, and I'll see what I can bring to this effort. --Cast (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Luigi Galleani[edit]

The entry for Luigi Galleani has grown to include lots of material that doesn't make sense in his bio, mostly under the heading "Revolutionary activities". I'd like to break that material out into its own entry and expand it. I was wondering if anyone agreed or disagreed, and I'm looking for a name for the new entry, perhaps "Galleanist activities in the United States." Comments? Objections? Suggestions? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll be bringing my commentary to the Galleani talk page. Thanks for bringing this up here.--Cast (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible articles for some Russian Empire anarchist groups[edit]

Ran across a neat ref which appears to have data on a few groups we don't have articles for including: Chernoye Znamya (Black Flag) (whoops, just needed a redirect, fixed) and Beznachalie (Absence of Authority). Ref here (formatted with http://reftag.appspot.com):

Thank you for this, but as you may judge from my late response, I'm not in a position to run with this with myself. Still, it's good to have it on record so we can do something with it down the road. --Cast (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Zamfir Arbore[edit]

A remarkable effort has been made in recent months to create and expand an article on a Romanian anarchist, Zamfir Arbore, by a real Dragon of an editor. I just want to bring this to the ATF's attention. Any possible contribution we could make at this point might be underwhelming, but could help in this inexorable rush to FA. I also suggest lavishing praise on the primary editor, Dahn. --Cast (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The Abolition of Work[edit]

... has been nominated for deletion. If you're interested, you may comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Abolition of Work. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Anarchism[edit]

More eyes are encouraged at Anarchism. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Political culture[edit]

There is a new WikiProject whose aim is to provide Wikipedia resources and a common discussion for political culture articles. This includes Anarchism, Corporatism, Oligarchy, Liberalism, Socialism and Fascism. Greg Bard (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Anarchists Defendants in the United States[edit]

Hey everyone, I'd like to let you know about a article I'm working on. It's called Anarchist Defendants in the United States (draft), and the idea is it would eventually be a page summarizing historical and contemporary mid- to high-profile cases brought against anarchists in court. This would be an effort to document support and solidarity for anarchists facing state repression, and also function as a document which, at a glance, one could easily discern a smattering of the diversity of anarchist activity in over the least century and a half. This page would also hopefully encourage other ATF members to keep various case-specific pages up-to-date and speculation-free. The page (itself a summary of other pages) could be summarized in a paragraph and placed at the end of the "anarchism" page, which would potentially add to that page's eligibility for "featured" article status. Additionally, it would appear under the "issues" portion of the Anarchism sidebar template so that wikipedia readers could associate the clarity of ideas captured by anarchist related pages on wikipedia with people targeted with criminal charges for their philosophy and political behavior.

I'm not sure how wikipedia userpages work (I'm new!), but I'm fairly sure others can edit the user subpage I created (see above link). If this is the case, please feel welcome to add anything while I work on it. (Ahwoooga (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC))

Just letting everyone know that I did a lot of work to this draft (and changed the scope to just the US) last night, and it's ready for additions. Ahwoooga (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of New York Metro Alliance of Anarchists for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New York Metro Alliance of Anarchists is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York Metro Alliance of Anarchists until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Handschuh-talk to me 08:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Left Bank Books[edit]

Hey folks, I just noticed there's not article for what I'm pretty sure is the longest running anarchist bookstore in the US, Left Bank Books in Seattle. Maybe someone thinks this is worth of their editing time? Murderbike (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, both of the books on the George Jackson Brigade have a little bit of history on the collective. Murderbike (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been gone from editing for a few weeks, and I'm just trying to catch up with what has been changing on my watchlist. Give me a few minutes to dig up some sources. --Cast (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
There you go to start. Most of what I've found for now is from tour guides, so not much value there beyond send ups of how "novel" and "quirky" the place is. Maybe I can find more later. --Cast (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
There are your news articles, though it's also not much. I imagine there is more in anarchist circles, but I'm not finding much.--Cast (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I've started working on a list of all the books that Left Bank published in the 70s/80s/90s (stuff by John Zerzan, Raoul Vaneigem, Steven Jesse Bernstein, etc), a publishing project that is restarting as we speak. Murderbike (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Anarchism and Occupy Wall Street[edit]

Just started the page. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 04:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest on this topic. I've taken the liberty to move the article with a title change. We need to be sure this reflects on the wider topic of anarchism in the whole "Occupy movement". I'll try to contribute more later.--Cast (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Anarchism and the Occupy movement is nominated for merger. Please input your view. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 02:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I have concerns about the accuracy and veracity of some of the claims made in this article. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page and would very much welcome some outside input. Thanks, Gobōnobo + c 02:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Haymarket affair Good Article reassessment[edit]

Haymarket affair, which is listed as part of this WikiProject, has been nominated for a community reassessment to determine if it meets the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. Please add comments to the article reassessment page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Social media outreach[edit]

So after a few months since I suggested outreach is necessary, I think I would like to return to that project. Aside from some initial plans to make small fliers and bring them with me to the Bay Area Anarchist Book Fair for the task force, I'm thinking about the potential uses of social media. What about a community page on Facebook, or a twitter account? Even Anonymous has a twitter. I don't, but if it would help the ATF, I could make one. Who would be interested in a twitter feed announcing events of importance to the ATF? Just putting this out there. --Cast (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Facebook[edit]

Well people, something's gotta' give. So I hope you people have Facebook pages, because that's where this is going to start. Please visit the Anarchist Task Force Facebook page, and like. Share this with any "friends" (lol Facebook "friends") you have, and lets get this going. --Cast (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Free HighBeam accounts[edit]

The internet research database HighBeam Research has 1000 free accounts available. HighBeam has full versions of tens of millions of newspaper articles and journals and should be a big help in adding reliable sources--especially older and paywalled ones--into the encyclopedia. Sign-ups require a 1-year old account with 1000 edits on any Wikipedia. Here's the link to the project page: Wikipedia:HighBeam (account sign-ups are linked in the box on the right). Feel free to sign up to help improve your work on this project's articles. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dormant?[edit]

The portal looks like its not had real activity in months if not over a year. Are people still about? I am willing to contribute from time to time on the portal (I am a noob though - there is a learning curve) and transfer some of the stuff I am working on over, but only if the portal gets traffic. What say people? --Sentryward (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

@Sentryward: The portal gets ~100 daily hits. I can help you editing it if you want. benzband (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I've been told that lots of WP's daily hit counts are just bots and so low stats are mostly noise. FYI, I suppose czar  23:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I see, thanks for info. benzband (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Cultural anarchism AfD[edit]

Cultural anarchism is at AfD. It previously wasn't listed as part of the task force, so I just tagged it. czar · · 18:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Assassination market article - anyone want to help?[edit]

I've become interested in the assassination market article and made a couple of edits recently as a result of an in-depth Forbes article on the topic.

Interest in editing the article seems to have picked up recently, leaving it quite messy. Anyone want to help out? Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirection of Libertarian anarchist/ism[edit]

A couple relatively newbie individuals keep reverting them from Anarchism to Anarcho-capitalism. They've reverted me and another editor. Feel free to explain to them. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirecting to Anarchism (as was the outcome of the RfD discussion last December) is the obvious solution, since the term "libertarian" refers, outside of the United States but also historically inside the United States, to Anarchism rather than anarcho-capitalism or free-market philosophy. Redirecting to anarcho-capitalism gives undue weight to that particular group, is US-centric, and validates the hijacking of the term which caused this confusion in the first place. Another possibility might be redirecting to Libertarianism#Anarchism but that already points to Anarchism as its "main article" so to get to the point we should just go directly to Anarchism.
However I'm not against converting libertarian anarchism into a disambiguation page (and redirect libertarian anarchist there of course), with an explanation for those confused and links to the relevant articles. That would also safeguard against editors changing the redirect to their article of choice, since it would no longer be a redirect page.
Additionally, as long as the libertarian anarchism page redirects to Anarchism, use of the term "libertarian anarchism" in the Anarchism article should not be wikilinked as it currently is in the last sentence of Anarchism#Etymology and terminology. benzband (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: I have undone the latest edits by Steeletrap and ConcordeMandalorian, and invited them to comment here since edit summaries are not optimal for discussion. benzband (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the redirect only because I know anticapitalists and a variety of other libertarian anarchists use the term as well. If they are real anarchists they'll never have a state to stop free market private property behavior from happening.  ;-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The edit war over this is still occurring. I have to admit, I really don't care how this plays out. I had previously reverted attempts to change the redirect because it was being added with a source that failed verification, but since that finally resolved I've stayed out of it. My thoughts: 1) those of us who understand libertarianism as a synonym for anarchism (libertarian socialism) won't search for this term at all; 2) those who understand libertarianism as an extension of the classical liberal tradition (i.e. American libertarianism) will understand libertarian anarchism as it is intended by these fellow American libertarians; and 3) those who are mostly ignorant of libertarian/anarchist philosophy and terminology will most likely start from one of the top-level articles (Libertarianism or Anarchism) unless they specifically heard or read the term libertarian anarchism within the context of American libertarianism. Perhaps in an effort to reach "an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution" (WP:CON#Reaching_consensus_through_discussion), we ought to make the redirect a WP:DPAGE, as suggested by Benzband. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Another vote for dabbing czar  21:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Iceland Commonwealth: HELP[edit]

tHAT article is crap. Its potentially awesome, lets try and make it a GA if not FA. ive just written about it a week ago and got a bunch of stuff but I need help in structuring it. any volunteers?Lihaas (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Pardon, sorry the late response. I was on a hiatus. I'd like to contribute but this is beyond my realm of familiarity. I'll look into it and add a bit here and there as I go. Hopefully that'll be of some use. --Cast (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism[edit]

Not for the first time, I'm sure ... A couple of editors, myself included, have been trying to expand mention of the fact that many, if not most anarchists, would query whether anarcho-capitalism falls within the anarchist tradition proper – not to say that it definitely does not, but to highlight the surely uncontroversial fact that such a debate exists. Some detail and sources were added to the body with a summary sentence in the lead too, which currently takes it for granted that it is a form of anarchism, without any qualification. However, this is being repeatedly and unilaterally blind-reverted en masse by one editor simply asserting that it is an unjustified inclusion. Any other views would be helpful. Here seems an obvious place to ask first, in the hope of avoiding a full RFC. N-HH talk/edits 13:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above, please see this RfC. N-HH talk/edits 07:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Not every statement added to an article needs to be sourced, but any information that could potentially be challenged by a reader -- and especially something of a controversial nature-- must be sourced. So long as you can provide sources, you're added statements should be fine. However, a neutral point of view is also important. The problem is that as many sources as you can find that state anarcho-capitalism isn't a form of anarchism, there will be others that state that it is, and Wikipedia is not the battleground where this matter can be settled. Wikipedia simply reflects that there is a battle taking place, and someday if there is a final victor, Wikipedia can reflect that there was a battle and who won. Therefore, I encourage that for now you qualify that there is a conflict and cite sources that. --Cast (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC at Cambodian genocide denial[edit]

I have started an rfc about whether the depiction of Chomsky's views and statements in relation to the Cambodian genocide is neutral. Please participate.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Criticisms of socialism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 15:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

autarchism[edit]

Last time I checked this page it was about social anarchism mostly, now it's solely about right-wing libertarianism!

I'm responsible for most of this. The page is about criticizing anarchism (not social anarchism or anarcho-capitalism). Therefore, we only have criticisms that cover anarchism as such here byelf2007 (talk) 1 August 2011
None of these criticisms cover anarchism; they're all targeted at "anarcho"-capitalism. While I don't even regard that as a form of anarchism in the first place, even if it was, it's a minority current.--Life in General (Talk) 12:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to third these complaints! This article clearly refers to a specific form of 'anarchism' known as anarcho-capitalism and makes no mention of it's distinction from other schools of anarchist theory. I propose these page is renamed as such or that a major overhaul and some actual criticisms are put in their place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.104.228 (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, even if we pretend that Anarcho-Capitalism is Anarchism, this page still doesn't address any concerns related to the main idea of Anarchism. This entire should probably just be added to the Anarcho-capitalism page, and then removed from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.118.188 (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like either this was taken directly from the page for criticisms of anarcho-Capitalism or vice versa. In any case, it needs to be either altered to also include criticisms of communist anarchism and mutualism or altered to only include criticisms that cover anarchism as a whole meaning opposition to authority.

I see byelf2007 has done it again. How many times does it need to be pointed out that this article is about criticisms of anarchism, not "anarcho"-capitalism. Byelf2007, don't let your POV about what anarchism "really" is get in the way of your editing. As much as "anarcho"-capitalism bears absolutely no relation to anarchism whatsoever, whenever I edit general articles on anarchism I take into account that a lot of people do regard it as anarchist, and that unfortunately there is no concensus on it not being anarchist. Even within that caveat, it remains a minority current; a current that seems limited mostly to North America (that it receives so much coverage at all is symptomatic of systemic bias). At the moment I'm too busy to fix this article, but I'm definitely going to get around to it once I finish my ongoing work on some other articles. In the meantime, if anyone else can start working on fixing this article, please do.--Life in General (Talk) 00:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, criticisms of anarcho-capitalism or autarchism or what have you should be moved to articles on those subjects. The way the article is written now is very confusing. 137.165.175.57 (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Claiming that so called 'anarcho-capitalism' (aka so called right-wing 'libertarianism') is anarchism is incoherent and ahistoric, in doing so you disregard most of the history of anarchist thought (including self-described) (approximately 180 years), this article reads like it was written by a person suffering from Dissociative identity disorder. Anarchism and so called 'anarcho-capitalism' are too fundamentally different to be criticised in the same article (at least without substantial explanation given to their difference). 'Anarcho'-capitalism claims to be anti-state, but anything further than the most superficial inquiry reveals that it want's to do away with the bourgeois-democratic two-party political corporate-state-capitalist state and privatise the oppressive functions of the state, the very functions that allow the exploitation of workers by owners and managers who will now be even further integrated and centralised into this command and control structure.Autoarbitaster (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I recommend you take this to talk on the "anarchism" page, where you will find reliable sources which assert the notion that anarchism is variously defined and that it is generally defined in such a way that renders anarcho-capitalism a type of anarchism (regardless of the fact that the vast majority of early self-declared anarchists were social anarchists). Insisting that your opinion is correct without much explaining (other than a couple of brief arguments) doesn't do us much good. Your position has already been covered in this and other articles.
You may very well be correct that anarcho-capitalism should not be considered a school of anarchism and have plenty of good arguments for this position. However, wikipedia is concerned with presenting supermajority views as the truth. It is the currenty supermajority view that anarchism is variously defined and that it is generally defined in such a way that renders anarcho-capitalism a type of anarchism. Until you change enough people's minds about this issue, anarchism will remain generally defined in such a way that renders anarcho-capitalism a type of anarchism. In the meantime, wikipedia must report that this supermajority view is what it is regardless of whether or not that definition of anarchism is correct. Byelf2007 (talk) 26 February 2012

I have to agree with all the other users besides user Byelf2007 who:

1. don´t think "anarcho-capitalism" is a form of anarchism

2. even if we decided to include "anarcho-capitalism" as part of anarchism, we shouldn´t overpriviledge that particular minoritarian viewpoint (both from historical and theorectical points of view) in this article which refers to anarchism as a whole.--Eduen (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Revisions as of 24 November 2011[edit]

I've gotten around to fixing this article. Byelf2007, before you revert my edits, please read this. Your claim in one of the edit summaries that "that's what anarchism is--no monopoly on courts/defense. if this didn't apply to social anarchists, they wouldn't be anarchists," demonstrates a lack of understanding of anarchism. I won't even mention my own (much more specific) POV of what constitutes anarchism, I'll focus on the general consensus instead. As per Wikipedia's own page on anarchism, it is defined as a "political philsophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, or alternatively as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism (known as "anarchists") advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations." Leaving aside the fact that the "non-hierarchical" side of that definition already precludes the possibility of "anarcho"-capitalism being anarchist, that definition already opens the possibility of societies in which arbitration and defence are not run by private firms, but rather by society on a collective, directly-democratic and federated basis.

So the page as your edits have left it only does cover criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, because it only covers criticisms of the idea that "courts/defence" ought to be run privately.

Nonetheless, I've bent over backwards to accommodate you. All of your sections in this article have been retained as subsections under the section "Anarcho-Capitalism," along with one new subsection. All the sections that existed prior to your unilateral revisions are now subsections under "Social Anarchism." I'm afraid the two are often so divergent in their views that finding criticisms of anarchism in general, under the generally agreed upon definition, is almost impossible.--Life in General (Talk) 03:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There are two definitions in the anarchism article. One says its just anti-state and the other says its anti-hierarchy (basically social anarchism). I decided to go with common/primary definition, but, yes, we should also include criticisms of social anarchism since there's a possibility of that being anarchism, whereas no one says anarchism is ancap (I'm also pretty sure there's no "criticisms of social anarchism" article).
I will be making a series of edits and justify them in the edit summaries. If you want to revert them, please do them one at a time, and only after you've explained your position on talk (you haven't attempted to justify the majority of your massive edit and I'm sure I already have a bunch of edit summaries on the changes I've made). byelf2007 (Talk) 24 November 2011

"One says its just anti-state and the other says its anti-hierarchy (basically social anarchism)."

I suspect you really haven´t read any individualist anarchists such as Emile Armand, Benjamin Tucker and others who point out to "authority" as the things anarchism opposes and not just to the state. For the references for this check the introduction to the anarchism article.--Eduen (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous[edit]

This page in it current form is completely ridiculous. It contains perhaps three lines of anything resembling criticism of anarchism and the rest is a pro-anarchism tract. How could anyone possibly imagine that a statement like "This implementation of Anarchy definitely demonstrates that social anarchism is a realistic and well working alternative to the hierarchy-based forms of social organization." is neutral point of view.

Sensemaker

Neutrality?[edit]

I have to question the neutrality of this page. The majority of what's written here is a defense of Anarchism, rather than a legitimate presenation of proper criticisms thereof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.59 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've removed a particularly non-neutral paragraph, but at this rate there will be nothing left in the article... 77.175.87.201 (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

FAILED: merge to Anarchism[edit]

There was a proposal to merge this article into Anarchism. The proposal failed. — Lentower (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)