From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

IMPORTANT: Friendly advice for new contributors[edit]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to the National-Anarchism-related articles, categories, templates, and talk page discussions. Therefore, all content hosted in Wikipedia cannot be:

  1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a National-Anarchist blog or visit a political Internet forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite National-Anarchist views.
  2. Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics, especially those that advance or hinder the goals of the National-Anarchist movement, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries, especially for current affairs, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikinews, however, allows commentaries on its articles.
  3. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or National-Anarchist projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
  4. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting National-Anarchist causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

On the use of primary sources[edit]

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Therefore, extensive use of primary sources such as blog posts, articles and interviews of National-Anarchists by National-Anarchists should be avoided. As much as possible, we should use independent sources (journalists and scholars) when making a point such as stating that the use of the term 'right-wing' is, according to you, unfair and inaccurate. --Loremaster (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


It states in the article that its right wing than later in the paragraph it says its not. This need to be cleared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

From January 2010 to April 2010, the National-Anarchism article was destabilized by an intense dispute over whether or not Nationalism-Anarchism should be described as "right-wing" in the first sentence of the lead section of the article. This dispute led to a mediation cabal, which concluded with the consensus compromise that Nationalism-Anarchism should be described as right-wing because that it how it is described by the scholars who have studied it (not just critics who are antifascist militants). Stability was thus restored.
That being said, Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
In other words, although the article points out National-Anarchists do not think of themselves as "right-wingers", what matters is that an overwhelming majority of independent reliable sources (journalists and scholars) think that Nationalist-Anarchists are right-wingers. --Loremaster (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you User:Loremaster. Whoever is deleting the insertion of right-wing in the intro - please note that there has been a long and drawn out dispute which involved both Loremaster, myself and others - and which was solved with arbitration - see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/National-Anarchism. Please discuss the issue here before deleting the term. Thanks PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

This article has been reverted, reflecting extremely dated information.[edit]

The activities of NATA-NY are a matter of public record. Jay Cypher's contribution ("Anarchy as Spiritual Practice") to which an audio-recording was linked, has been removed in this earlier and (in my view) supremely biased and (absolutely and objectively) dated and full of innacurate information concerning the American iteration of this ideology, which is not ethnic nationalism. Deliberate or not, this article in its reverted form promotes a popular misconception of the ideology which has led to actual, physical violence against people, there is a sourced, specific instance of such violence which I included, in my laborious and painstaking edit, but which has been removed. --ObeseClover (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2015‎ (UTC)

I suggest you carefully read the content of the three sections above (IMPORTANT: Friendly advice for new contributors, On the use of primary sources, and Right-Wing?) before editing Wikipedia's article on National-Anarchism again. --Loremaster (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
That being said, I've edited the first paragraph of the article to take into account your criticism. --Loremaster (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your revision here and will very carefully learn which sources are appropriate and which are inappropriate, and what constitutes respectable scholarship; it is true that NATA-NY and their conflict with the broader Anarchist community in New York City is discussed at length (by people on all sides of the issue) in blog after blog -- I do understand that a blogspot is hardly legitimate or legitimate-seeming scholarship, but I find it very frustrating that those few scholars who are for Wikipurposes considered authoritative, have a demonstrable bias against NATA-NY and have not allowed them it speak in their own voices. -- (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2015‎ (UTC)
I understand your frustration. However, I don't make the rules all Wikipedia contributors must abide by. That being said, I've also edited the paragraph dealing with spirituality in the Ideology section of the National-Anarchism article to take into account your criticism. --Loremaster (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I am very grateful for your help in these matters (and don't want to appear impudent, being such a newbie) but I think the most significant problem in this article has yet to be addressed, which is the fact that when the article states, "National-Anarchism in the U.S. remains a relatively obscure movement, made up of probably fewer than 200 individuals, led by Andrew Yeoman of the Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA), based in the San Francisco Bay Area, and a couple of other groups in Northern California and Idaho," this is just plain false. Yoeman has been very publicly repudiated by Troy Southgate (and chosen to dissociate from N-AM) precisely because his politics were so whitecentric, etc. ( I don't believe BANA even exists at this time. NATA-NY ( is the only National Anarchist groupuscule of any significance in our country today. They are East Coast and are explicitly anti-racist ( I will try and find legitimate and authoritative sources for this (the primary document, above, of Antifa's flyer, is fascinating in any case), but this is utterly the case, and its a point of fact, not nuance or lens. Thanks.ObeseClover (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, I made a small edit for now (I replaced the word "remains" with "began"). I'll see what I can do later once I've done some research. --Loremaster (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I'm available to help in anyway I can, and I would be shocked if in all these piles of online material regarding these issues there isn't something authoritative enough to cite in this article that balances the currently very selective and misleading, agenda-driven perspective of this article, which just shocked me based on my years-long regard for Wikipedia as being so trustworthy and so objective. Foregrounding NATA-NY (again, the only N-A organization in the USA of any current significance of which I am aware) will not only reflect the actual 'offline' moment of this young ideology, but will reveal the nuances of National-Anarchism in its latest American iteration and the many instances in which it contradicts the biased perspective of "every scholar who has studied it" (as the article puts it). Thanks! --ObeseClover (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
NATA no longer identifies itself as a National-Anarchist movement, though: "Christian National Ancaps" is their new name. Ogress 17:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
ObeseClover, there is no "Southgatean" and/or "anti-N-A" agenda driving the perspective of this article. Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view often gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are, for example, critically negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Although there are piles of online material regarding the evolution of National-Anarchism, blog posts, articles and interviews of National-Anarchists by National-Anarchists (or N-A sympathizers) are primary sources that not authoritative unless independent reliable secondary sources confirm that they are (and there are currently too many sentences/paragraphs dependent on such sources as it is). Otherwise, any lone nut could create an obscure blog in which he claims to be the leader of a mass N-A movement and the Wikipedia article on N-A would be forced to mention him. In other words, find me at least one a mainstream journalist or academic who has written an article on how NATA-NY reveals the nuances of N-A in its latest American iteration and we will be able to update this article for the sake of accuracy and comprehensiveness. --Loremaster (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Ogress, if NATA-NY not only consider itself a group of heretics within the N-A movement but now no longer identifies itself as a National-Anarchist movement, they could still have a brief mention in this article (as long as we have independent reliable sources to support such a mention) but the entire article cannot be rewritten to reflect their particular ideology. --Loremaster (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I for one would be curious to know where Ogress is getting her information from in this matter? Because as someone with close and cordial contact with several of the members of NATA-NY, I can say they are indeed National Anarchist; is some lone nut creating a blog and claiming this and that? No. I am citing well documented stuff (see links, above) and I assure you that Ogress either misunderstands this issue (based on the distorted view of the subject so common to those who merely skim articles like the present example without digging deeper) or is trying to confuse the matter on purpose. I am not claiming some kind of conspiracy, there is a dearth of scholarly interest because it is so young an ideology, and there are more liberal/left professors at this moment than there are those sympathetic or even objective with regard to these novel and evolving political forms.
The NATA-NY Blog was provided as the justification for material above; upon loading the main page, I note they identify as Christian Ancap Nationalists in a mission statement on this very issue on the latest post of their blog. Ogress 00:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Ogress, if you will read even the first paragraph of this blog-entry, "I recently came across a group calling itself Christian National Anarcho-Capitalists. While this group doesn’t reflect my personal views or preferences, as a pan-anarchist I am for the proliferation of many anarchist societies based on the principle of free association, thereby enhancing genuine diversity, and “Christian National Anarcho-Capitalism” may well be one of these." Please re-read this until you understand that it says specifically here that Keith Preston, the author (who is not a National Anarchist or member of NATA-NY, by the way) explicitly says the term does NOT reflect his views, so please stop contributing until you can do so meaningfully. I am not mocking you but I'm questioning your sincerity. People deserve to stop getting beat up or having their concerts canceled by goons threatening the venues. Real harm is being caused by the lies you try and assert here. --ObeseClover (talk)
Listen, I'm not responsible for their getting beat up. Two down the author claims the NAACP was founded by "Jews and rich elites", so don't go peddling your "they're not racist" bullshit here. Ogress 05:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Ogress, your foul mouth and poor understanding of these topics I'm sorry to say will impress no one. Their critique of the NAACP's initial leadership is part of a broader understanding of institutionalized anti-racism which (in agreement with NOI and other Black Nationalist criticism) sees the NAACP as a bourgeois accommodation or co-option of the struggle for racial justice (I refer you to their statement on their explicit Anti-Racism, linked above); That the NAACP was initially at least (I'm unaware of the current situation) were headed by Jewish leaders and activists, this is only significant because the casual observer would expect PoC-centered organizations, like the venerable NAACP to have people of color in all leadership positions. I'll admit that the one sentence you'd quoted appears maybe antisemitic, but for you to argue this point betrays either a cynical dishonesty or an extremely ignorant and shallow grasp of the issues, and in either case, I think you are in some ways proving my point throughout this discussion. I urge you to resist the urge to be all defensive and obnoxious and agenda-driven here, when the question isn't "are they racist?" which one could argue forever, but how to foreground their own voices and not your childish slander in Wikipedia's article. --ObeseClover (talk)
Everyone here is well aware that the dearth of scholarly interest in National-Anarchism is, in part, because it is a "young" ideology that will probably always remain marginal. However, the "youth" and/or marginality of the subject is actually an argument for the article being shorter rather than longer. That being said, as long as the content of this article respects Wikipedia's guidelines, the fact that it contains criticisms of National-Anarchism (regardless of how dated and inaccurate they may be) that might have inspired some people to threaten or even physically assault National-Anarchists is not Wikipedia's responsibility nor it is a legitimate reason to edit this article to remove said criticisms. Lastly, when commenting on this talk page, please always sign your posts by writing --~~~~ after the last sentence of your comment so everyone knows it is you commenting. --Loremaster (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)