Talk:Precursors to anarchism
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the history of anarchism page were merged into Precursors to anarchism on 15:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Split from history of anarchism[edit]
Discussion at 
Talk:History of anarchism#Scope. Split, essentially, to keep the history article focused on the undisputed history of classical/Western anarchism and its global outgrowths. The precursors of this article may have some anarchistic tendencies but are not necessarily canonized as well as the European movement's history. czar 16:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Title[edit]
( "of" or "to"?)
—883652577
@Cinadon36, I believe "precursors to" and "precursors of" work interchangeably. I don't have a strong opinion either way—do you? (There are also lots of other synonyms for "precursors": forerunners, ancestors, pre-, proto-, etc. Tried to go with the one that was most natural/used.) And forgot to mention, the French and German versions of this article have sources we can use. czar 21:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Brethren[edit]
The Brethren can thus be seen as medieval individualist anarchists.
— https://books.google.com/books?id=IKZVKMPEQCEC&pg=PA34
dumping this here for later consideration czar 06:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Additional sources[edit]
Note to self to revisit Barclay, Graeber, Nettlau czar 12:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Doubts about the title[edit]
As I see it, 'precursos' would mean with immediate relation with something that comes, which also mean something that has prepared the 'ground' for this emergence. But by looking at it, i can see that the only distinctive reason for this article is too expand on the non-immediate and non-influencing kind of manifestations of 'anarchism'. Its a purely retrospective article, that applies backwards a modern concept, which is a marginal approach in history. Because of that I think that the best approach for the article is to differenciate the point where historiographic reconstruction goes, around medieval movements and so on, from the point where we are dealing with this kind of immaginative (which does not means unconstructive) approach, doing some big jumps with the intellectual history aspect of the thing. From this differentiation becomes clear that the reason behind the article should do the second thing, and let the first with the main history of anarchism. JoaquimCebuano (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)