Template talk:Anarchism sidebar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconAnarchism Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Recent additions[edit]

Hi @VagueReptile, this template is not meant to list every variant of anarchism, as you have been adding. It's more of an aid to navigate between the major topics of anarchism. (Those who want the full list can use the categories.) czar 01:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, which tendencies should i remove? VagueReptile (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The tendencies which don't have articles of their own, that are just linking to subsections of much larger articles, would be a good place to start. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the rest of them VagueReptile (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, what is going on with those sections? I'm not sure how Anarcha-feminism, Relationship anarchy and Queer anarchism, fall under a "Free love variant". Free love is a concept used by both of these tendencies, but I don't understand how this makes them fit together as "Free love variants". Furthermore the "Dual power" category feels weird, considering what it links to is a very short and poorly-sourced paragraph about how it has been used by libertarian socialists. I'm not sure what dual power even has to do with anarchism in the first place, seeing as it's a Leninist concept. Maybe changing it into a section about "Organizational forms" of anarchism may make more sense? (Even then, it'd need reworking) --Grnrchst (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yikes, I only just noticed the "Free love variant" thing. Since "love and sex" is already under "issues", I'm going to rename that heading right now to "Gender and sexuality". That's just the first name that came into my head for that category so I'm totally open to changing/moving/whatever (it also doesn't fit with "variants" - but since that has a completely different meaning in the context of gender/sexuality/feminism, no good at all to use that). By the way, is it strange to anyone else that "transhumanism" is under "individualist"? I'm not really sure that's a meaningful place to categorize that. -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I noticed also that religion is here in a few places. In the interests of avoiding complicated explanations, I'm going to do a fix for that right now. If anyone thinks it's a bad call, by all means revert it and we can discuss what a better way to organize this might be. -- asilvering (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, uh, while we're here, this is currently over 400 lines long. That... is too many lines. "History" and "theory" are (imo) unnavigably long, and both are attracting a really disparate set of links. I made a draft clone of this and hacked at the history section (a History of Anarchism nav template of some kind might be useful to make?) to get it down into the teens, thoughts? [1]. -- asilvering (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also there doesn't seem to be much difference between the "Theory/Practice" and "Related topics" sections. VagueReptile (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? I'm all for removing unrelated things from either category, but one is almost entirely a list of "-ism" articles and the other isn't. -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I take that back, but there is overlap in the types of articles they contain, and I'm not quite sure where one category is supposed to stop and the other is supposed to star. VagueReptile (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed anarcho-transhumanism because it doesn't have its own page. I had put it there because its section says it draws heavily from individualist anarchism, although i can see how that might not have been the best place for it. VagueReptile (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I renamed dual power to methodology. I also moved anarcha-feminism to social variants (it emphasizes mutual aid), queer anarchism to individualist variants (it emphasizes individualism), and relationship anarchy and catholic worker to methodology (they emphasize certain methods of praxis). You can revert the changes if you dislike them. VagueReptile (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there some reason I'm not seeing why this vertical sidebar isn't divided according to the Classical/Post-classical/Contemporary divide that is in the Anarchist schools of thought article itself? Or, as was done before your changes, @VagueReptile, any divisions? (see: [2]). I'm not trying to put you, specifically, on blast here, but I don't see any real benefit to dividing up the "schools of thought" section at all, really. They clearly all share a conceptual link, and they're all only a word or two long. It's not a confusing section to read through. -- asilvering (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I merged all the subsections except for methodology (i can merge it too if people want) VagueReptile (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's probably easier for people to consider possible major changes or additions if you make a mockup in userspace first? If it's a minor change, or an urgently required change, working right in the template might be fine. For major rearranging and mass-adding or deleting terms, less so. I have the same query for this current incarnation of the sidebar: why is it divided in this way? It doesn't seem useful, and I'm not sure I understand why lines are being drawn where they are. -- asilvering (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@VagueReptile: Sorry for taking a while to get back on this, my focus has been elsewhere.
This methodology section is really strange. The inclusion of the Catholic Worker Movement as a methodology is just such an utterly baffling choice, given that it was a movement not an organizational form, nor was it even wholly anarchist. Also, how is relationship anarchy a methodology?
As for the rest of the schools of thought, it's now quite hard to read what with all the overlapping bracketed entries that sometimes go three levels deep. Grnrchst (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed changes[edit]

Quiet here for a week, but I don't know if that means "no objections" or "no one looked", so I'm making a new topic section for this: I have some proposed changes to the sidebar here [3]. Summary:

  1. bumped glossary up to the top, with "history" and "outline"
  2. schools of thought is collapsed back to the alphabetical layout from a month-ish ago
  3. history section significantly cut (I think it's down to 17 items?): the aim was to keep the most important events (objects, libraries, etc are all removed) and try to keep as much of a geographical balance as possible given what was there in the first place
  4. I don't think "Free Territory" or "High Treason Incident" are particularly useful phrases for someone who doesn't know what they are already, so they're now "Free Territory (Ukraine)" and "High Treason Incident (Japan)"
  5. history section is now possible to arrange in chronological order, so I did so.

I'll leave this comment to sit here for at least a few days in case anyone wants to weigh in. -- asilvering (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding people[edit]

I added some extra names to the "People" section, most of them being people of colour in the Anarchist movement. I added He Zhen, Lucy Parsons, Kōtoku Shūsui, Kanno Sugako, David Graeber, and Liu Shipei. Asterix12 (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just made a correction on the name He Zhen, putting "He" as the last name. Asterix12 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asterix12: Personally, I think adding Ba Jin is much better in terms of both influence and thinking. cc User:Czar. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 22:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, that's fine. We can add him, too. Asterix12 (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asterix12:Well, might be offensive, but Wikipedia isn't supposed to do like that. Therefore I called Czar for help. I believe the template now might focus too little on the East, but adding a lot is no good, too. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 23:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asterix12: It seems he is reluctant to sink his teeth into it. My opinion is that while He Zhen and Liu Shibei are important, they are not that important. If we talk about the longest-lasting influence, it is Ba Jin, who survived the struggle sessions during the Cultural Revolution; if we talk about the first person, it is Ma Junwu, who is generally considered to be the first person to introduce anarchism in its entirety; if we talk about the early influential, it is Liu Shifu, who is called the "soul" and even "Chinese Proudhon ", while Liu Shifu and He Zhen are more detailed. Of course, these are my personal opinions, after all, I am not the people of that time can not be so neutral. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 02:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, that's understandable. Asterix12 (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Workers' council[edit]

I have added Workers' council to the "Theory/Practice" section. Asterix12 (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2023[edit]

The addition of the Anarchist anthem "Daloy Politsey" to the Culture tab of the sidebar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daloy_Politsey It is both a slogan and a song commonly used by anarchist movements and activists in the 21st century, with evidence of recent usage within the article itself. (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: should WP:CONSENSUS be reached first for new items to be added? NotAGenious (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps I am rather new to this to be frank. It just fits the same descriptions as the other two songs there; A Las Barricades and L'Internationale. Since I can't edit it directly I am not sure what hte process should be. (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 15:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, how do you establish consensus then? Alastair Alan Percy Warner (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First step I would take is to go to the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism and explain very explicitly and very clearly what you want done to this template and why. If discussion is minimal after a couple of weeks, you could try an RFC. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]