Template talk:Anarchism sidebar/Archive 4

link to anarchy

can we add a link to this? which section would it go under?--Urthogie 20:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The following has been relocated from Talk:Anarchism page:

And now a break from the arguments about anarcho-capitalism....

....and time to focus on something that may have even less of a place within anarchism: nationalism. Nationalist anarchism just got added to the anarchism template and I think it should be removed. What do people think? Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 05:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Cut. Jacob Haller 17:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove. I don't think this really even merits discussion. Blockader 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I could say "less" but it's certainly too marginal for the template. Owen 04:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that both National and Nationalist anarchism have now been removed from the template. My view was that as long as two separate articles exist side-by-side, and Nationalist anarchism had been added to the template (not by me), then National-Anarchism was entitled to the same deal; the banner is on both pages after all. I realise there is a controversy over the anarchist status of the Nat-Ans, and frankly they're not my favourite people right now, but I don't know why people aren't entitled to the information that not only have there been nationalist currents of anarchism (and at Nationalist anarchism a few of us are trying to write a serious article on that, not merely a soapbox for the Nat-Ans) but also that National-Anarchism is rather divergent from even other nationalist anarchisms. Let's have the signposts up so folk can check them both out and make their own minds up.

Is it widespread on Wikipedia for people to speak in code and/or pronounce summary judgments on articles with barely any discussion? UF, I've no idea what IMO means in your template edit summary, but what really has me baffled is the comment that an article of this nature "doesn't even merit discussion". The subject-matter of the more general article - that nationalism permeates the sources of anarchism (Proudhon, Bakunin) and that nationalistic groups have arisen right out of the heart of the anarchist mainstream - certainly does merit discussion. I admit that it could do with comprehensive sourcing and I am working on that, but in the meantime some informative external links have been coming together, so there is clearly discussion going on out there.

I also fail to see how an article which deals with Proudhon's and Bakunin's nationalism, or Landauer's (he was the foremost German anarchist of his day), and offers scope for expansion in these areas, could be called "marginal". Come and work on the article but don't inhibit its growth by leaving it off the template, which is the most prominent evidence a lot of people will get that the subject exists. (I can add a 'See also' link on certain other anarchism pages but I don't think it would be as visible.)

Oh, and by the way, UF, I'll get down to that post you left on my talk page as soon as I can; it calls for a reply of comparable length. Gnostrat 14:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to nationalism is basic to anarchism. There can be different kinds of opposition, some more cosmopolitan, some more culturally-specific, so perhaps an issues-article might have some relevance. OTOH, Proudhon's anti-semitism, etc., like his sexism, etc. is generally considered a character flaw, not a theoretical contribution. Jacob Haller 01:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How is opposition to nationalism basic to anarchism?Anarcho-capitalism 01:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism centers on national identity, the national will, and the nation-state as an expression of both. National identity is defined by birth (either descent-based or territorially-based) so it is not voluntary association. (Cultural identity is defined by language, practice, etc. in contrast to national identity). National will? I can't figure out what that could mean. The nation-state ends up doing meaningless things like 'defending national honor' and 'protecting national values' among its other depredations. (we have this taboo against marijuana in this country; therefore it will be legally banned...) Jacob Haller 02:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from my POV that anarcho-capitalism is the true anarchism, I don't see anything as being "basic to anarchism," as far as allowing some type of self-styled "anarchism" into the article. Terrorism ("propaganda by the deed") is part of "anarchism," even. Theft is advocated by many anarchists. There is no single "anarchism." There is no idea that unites all the philosophies. There are just various philosophies and people claiming to be "anarchists" all conflicting with each other. So, I don't see how it's relevant whether nationalism is "voluntary" or not - as far as what is allowed to go in the article, that is.Anarcho-capitalism 02:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but most anarchists would disagree with you on both points. Personally, I'm conflicted on my beliefs regarding nationalism, which depends partially of course on how nationalism is defined. But based on some definitions of it, I tend to be more open to the idea than some other anarchists, which I think is largely due to my background in cultural anthropology. I'm still very wary of it though, and would never call myself a nationalist for a wide variety of reasons. Regardless, national and nationalist anarchism are not significant movements within anarchism, and I don't think they should be taking up space on the template, which I think should focus only on highly notable and significant trends in anarchism. We can link to it in the anarchism category and such, but they really shouldn't be on the template. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there'd be no point in me restoring the template links if you guys are just going to remove them again. I'd hope to build up to something approaching consensus before proceeding and in this case it looks like a tall order. But for starters, I can't see that it matters how much support anarcho-nationalism has at the present time. That's an accident of history (I would guess largely down to the anti-nationalist reaction in the wake of the Nazi and Franco disasters). This interpretation of anarchy had a lot more support in the past (JH, it's not just about Proudhon; I've mentioned Bakunin and Landauer, and a case might be made for Kropotkin and Makhno) and that makes it historically important, if nothing else. Who is to say that it won't hold the field again? How will things fall out 100 years from now? Maybe today's mainstream will look like a temporary aberration conditioned by its time.

Proudhon's, and Bakunin's, anti-semitism is really a separate issue and has no necessary connection with their nationalism; maybe a future rewrite of Nationalist anarchism could address that point. Anyway, nobody could accuse Landauer of anti-semitism; he was a Jew who renounced Judaism, that's all. Still, on what criteria are we picking and choosing which bits of Proudhon's anarchism are 'the real thing' and which are character flaws? Isn't it retrospective, arguing that 'real' anarchism is where most anarchists are at now, and therefore early anarchists were 'not quite there' yet? This is an encyclopedia; it isn't for us to make those sorts of subjective value-judgments as to what should come under the 'anarchism' category. That decision can only be settled by some Olympian historian hovering at the end of time. What we do here is record that there's this school which identifies itself as anarchist. If there's a dispute about what anarchism means, we record that too. What we don't do is use classification as a subtle way of telling people what to think. If it isn't clear what's included, either we throw everything in and leave it for people to make their own minds up, or we might as well do away with the template and explain that 'anarchism' is too subjective to serve as a meaningful overarching category.

JH, a part of your argument (nation-states as an embodiment of national identity and 'national will') is in straw man territory, since anarcho-nationalists don't advocate the nation-state and don't hold that it is an inevitable extrapolation from nationhood. It's an argument that reminds me of the Jewish practice of 'building a fence around the Law', i.e. putting something innocuous out of bounds so that people don't get within spitting distance of the thing that's actually forbidden. Because statists and militarists have exploited the feeling of nationhood, that is supposed to damn nationalism itself. 19th-century nationalism (with important exceptions like Hegel) was founded upon the vision of the peaceful coexistence that would become possible between nations once each had control of its own affairs within its own space. That's why nationalists tended to look at nationhood as an intermediate stage in the direction of European union. It wasn't their doing that conservative elites regained the initiative late in the century, hijacked the national ideal and arrested the process halfway in order to maintain their local power bases.

I take your point that, even in the absence of a territory or a state, people are not voluntarily members of a descent-based ethnic group, but then we are not voluntarily born into anything. Our very existence is imposed upon us unbidden and we simply do the best we can with it. What is the alternative - the disruption and breakdown of all ethnic groups and cultures? In that case, how is your non-nationalist version of anarchism not going to end up as genocidal as the Nazis were in the name of nationalism? You might not necessarily be killing people, but you are killing inherited ways of living that have proved their survival value. Without those underpinnings we all fall into the abyss of an atomized global monoculture and then we might as well be dead anyway. Gnostrat 03:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to begin. Nationalism turns nationality into the key organizing principle of the whole society. So nationality could be harmless and nationalism still be harmful. Anarchism regards free (and equal) association as a key organizing principle of a healthy society. Now how can everything center around nationality and free association? They are two incompatible principles. Jacob Haller 06:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The important thing is that nationality has nothing to do with culture, and culture has nothing to do with nationalism. In fact the word "nation" refers to birth; "culture" refers to growth (and potentially choice). Jacob Haller 06:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I debated some of these issues with a Greek nationalist elsewhere. I was somewhat sloppy with my word choices, but this should explain where I'm coming from even out of context: Jacob Haller 06:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Some people, born into Greek families in Greek communities, will find that Greek culture doesn't mean much to them; other people, born in non-Greek families in non-Greek communities, will find Greek culture does mean a lot to them. I wouldn't want to seperate either from their families, but I would want both groups to find whichever community best fits them. I was born into one culture but have discovered another culture which echoes through my dreams.

In anarchism, larger or smaller enclaves of Greek culture could emerge wherever Greek people have settled in numbers. In statism, surrounding states may want to coopt or destroy such enclaves. When they impose one national identity, one language, one religion, etc., they not only take away the different identities of the other groups, but they take away the old identity of the main group and twist it to become an instrument of domination.

When several groups live as equals, each group can pass their traditions to their children and those who settle among them; when part of one group lives as rulers, and the other groups live as an underclass, the latter groups can only pass fragments of their traditions to their children, and fragments of their traditions to their rulers' children. Instead of each group learning what they can from the other groups, each group loses much if its own tradition and gets only random jumbles of other traditions.

Of course, this being Wikipedia, the effects of nationalism are less important than the definition of it. But this should make clear: I do not intend to 'build a fence around the law.' Jacob Haller 06:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It was perhaps a mischievous remark on my part. Your concept of an anarchist world, as you have clarified it, assigns a primary value to cultural survival and I accept that you are not envisaging assimilationism of ethno-cultural identities. Since you allow that 'nationality' might have some value, I do think we have common ground here. The internal contradictions in your treatment of nationalism bother me though, but at least part of the difference seems to be terminological. You're still arguing that anarchism necessarily rejects nationalism as such on the basis of attributing to it the flaws in statist nationalism. But what anarcho-nationalists mean by nationalism seems quite compatible with what you are saying about 'nationality'.

Monolithic statist nationalism has all the warping effects on traditions and culture which you describe, but that is not what anarcho-nationalists have advocated. Actually there are a number of anarcho-nationalist positions but usually it is put in terms of rejecting the identification of nation with the territory of a state, but still with allowance for some degree of separation if and where this is desired, which may take the form of a rigid communal separatism or alternatively, some more inclusive arrangement where a guest community maintains a special identity within a host community. Relations of oppression and dominance between groups (which may also simply be unintended consequences of relative numbers where a small group lives dispersed among a larger one) are exactly what a measure of territorial separation avoids. It is precisely a device for attaining equal relations between communities so that traditions can be passed on unadulterated, and has been the tried and tested solution throughout history and prehistory, regardless of whether we are talking about nation-states or hunter-gatherer bands. People who find themselves culturally beleagured can gravitate to where it is practical for a group of them to set up the structures to cater for that lifestyle.

Civil strife is all the more likely wherever two (or more) large cultural groups live together in a common territory under a common political system - even if it's the most direct form of democracy - so that the autonomous development of each is frustrated by the other community, with its different priorities, putting its oar into the shared decision-making processes. In such cases it's a fair assumption that territorial separation prevents conflict and may well prevent far more conflict than it ever generates between neighbouring groups; even more so if we throw in the anarcho-nationalist supposition that all this is worked out in the absence of a nation-state with its unstable political system to stoke up militarism.

The reason for still calling it nationalism is to signify a rejection of the kind of uniform mishmash in which peoples would not simply learn from each other's unique cultures, but would mutually absorb, amalgamate and hybridise each others' cultures until there will no longer be anything unique to learn from. It signifies the determination to preserve a special identity, and it makes no difference in practice whether that identity, and membership in it, has been inherited or chosen. Unity of biological descent has always had a large, but not exclusive, input into nations' self-image.

I think it is interesting that you still visualise 'enclaves' in an anarchist world. Enclaves are a version of territoriality. Far from a general indiscriminate mixing, you are envisaging free people freely choosing to discriminate as to where, and among whom, they live. Which is all that 'nationalism' essentially is: the birds-of-a-feather principle. I think you've thereby answered your own question about how nationality, based on birth, can be compatible with free choice. Some things are given by nature/heredity/genetics, whatever (and culture, by the way, can be no less compelling a factor than birth). We demonstrate our free agancy by what we choose to do with them.

I wouldn't agree that culture has nothing to do with nationality. They are conceptually distinct, but that doesn't mean thay are unrelated in practice. More or less, all national cultures start from within a fairly limited descent group; some remain identified with that group, and others grow by drawing in different people from the outside. I can't see the relevance in terms of practical consequences. Nor can I see how the idea of anarchy that you have described is anything other than anarcho-nationalism without the name. Gnostrat 15:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to make a personal attack, Gnostrat, but considering that your page indicates some subscription to Christian Identity philosophy on your part probaly inclines many people here to view your positions and edits with skepticism. Again, no insult meant, just stating something i see as an issue. Blockader 16:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be an issue. You judge a case on its own merits, not on the basis of who the advocate is. I'll be dealing with the CI question at some length on my own talk page. Briefly: there are many versions of CI, some anti-semitic and others not, some prepared to work with Black nationalists and others dismissive, some into discussion circles and others into shooting the sheriff and expropriating banks. This isn't the place to go into all that, except to say that what inspired me at the time was the positive message of 'Aryan' cultural survival, which I came at from a 'left-wing' angle on a basis of no-double-standards. (There are Celtic, Australian aboriginal and Native American activists who would give all they've got for separate nationhood but let a white Anglo-Saxon take up the cry and straight away s/he is a 'fascist'! Do some people deserve a culture and others have to make do with the monoculture? If that's the message from anti-fascists, then they could be stoking up resentment which will sooner or later boil over into real fascism.)

For the record, it was the negative messages that had me backing off in the end. It's one thing to positively explore your heritage, and something else to sit through meetings of paranoiacs who only want to discuss Elders of Zion, financial conspiracies and Jews under every bed. Gnostrat 17:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A theod [or it's members, to be precise] may see themselves as a nation (defined by birth, either within territory x or from ancestors y) or as a culture (defined by shared practices, traditions, etc.). I think an anarchist theod-ism has to be cultural, not national, and in practical terms has to respect other cultures like its own. Jacob Haller 00:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Respect for other cultures, yes: a million howling yesses! On terminology though, more people are familiar with the word 'nation' (which usefully preserves continuity with the historic locus of pro-'theodic'-diversity values in 19th-century nationalism), and they can grasp that since it is defined by birth, it isn't determined by statehood. 'Nationalism' is also preferable since 'theodism' has the disadvantage of being already in use as a synonym for Germanic neo-paganism. Finally, if a pastoral 'theod' out on the savanna wishes to define itself exclusively by descent, no anarchy worth its name could (or should) deny it that prerogative. That's about respect too. Gnostrat 17:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Black anarchism

I have removed Black anarchism from the template in light of the arguments above. I have also removed the "debate" which has been mislocated onthe talk:Anarchism page. My view is that both Nationalist anarchism and Black anarchism should be on the template as they relate to general phenomena, but not National-Anarchismwhich relates to a specifc organisation. I find a lot of the debate on this topic besides the point, as the issue is not whether editors agree with this or that poltical viewpoint, but whether a phenomenon exists. When people remove material without even adding a comment on the relevant talk page and then declare that the topic does not merit discussion, this goes against the very guidelines of wikipedia. As much as I deplore Gnostrat's viewpoint, I do notsee that talk pages are s utable place to take them to task.This can be done on is talk page if necessary. "Opposition to nationalism is basic to anarchism" has little basis in reality, as evinced by the Nationalist anarchism, whether or not a significant number of anarchists think so. The fact that some people wish to erase any reference to the phenomenon of people combining anarchism with nationalism should be an issue of concern to anyone who wants to have a template that accords with wikipedia standards. Aside from all the chit-chat about what people consider what the society envisaged by anarchists should be like, only Owen has made a relevant comment:

Nationalist anarchism is too marginal for inclusion.

Perhaps people could focus on this issue. Bearing in mind the phenomenon encompasses such seminal figures as Bakunin, Proudhon, and Landauer, I think the phenomenonclearly is notable, and Jacob Haller's suggestion that such aspects of the founding fathers of anarchism that he fins unpalatable are "character flaws" is simply POV. I feel that the page could be improved so that it is useful particularly for those people who would navigate wikipedia in search of a better understanding of the social movements that have shaped modern society rather than simply being misled by those who would rather they were not exposed to certain political phenomena which do not fir with pre-determined dogma.Harrypotter 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Talk:Anarchism was not the place for this debate. I believe I did attempt to address the issue of marginality in my posts above, but it hasn't really been picked up. I have also argued that all ideologies which exist and define themselves as forms of anarchism should indeed be included on the template regardless of whether or not others would see them in that light. The point of the above discussion is to lead towards a consensus for reinstating Nationalist anarchism on the template (I concede your point about National-Anarchism as something more specific) and it would be useful if it wasn't left to turn into a dialogue between Jacob Haller and myself.

There is really nothing of what you have written above that we are in disagreement about, and I'm not sure what you find so deplorable about my position. Please do take it up with me on my talk page if you are so inclined. Gnostrat 21:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that someone readded Black anarchism to the template, and checked here to see why it wasn't on there already, and yet this section titled "Removal of Black anarchism" only really talks about National anarchism. Is there a reason Black anarchism was removed from the template? Murderbike 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Black anarchism was actually most recently removed when "minor" topics were pruned in this revision. We've discussed this a section or two below under the heading, "Template inclusion criteria?". SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Changing the image

Hello. The Anarchism image on the politics portal was changed to a black flag to more broadly encompass the topic. It would make sense to do the same with this template. Votes can be placed below. Marc Mywords 22:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I swapped in the black flag image on this revision and then reverted myself so that everyone can see one edit with the black flag logo in place. I did a straight swap of one for the other, but the flag did not show up for me. I don't know if it's just my computer or what have you, but if someone can make it work, then great. But I'd like to see it in place on a revision before I pass judgment. I see nothing particularly wrong with the A sign, but I'd like to see the flag before I decide for sure. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I an't see the flag image there. But, I don't see why it would be preferable to the circle-A. The circle-A is instantly recognisable, a more basic image, and less ambiguous (consider that non-anarchist groups have used black flags). ~Switch ^{t c g} 03:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Template inclusion criteria?

Considering Francis Tyers's recent pruning of "minor" topics from the template, it brings up a good topic of discussion: What criteria do anarchism-related articles need to pass to be included on the template? I will be the first to admit that the template was on the road to getting out of hand (though not there yet). So before it does, and to prevent a possible edit war, let's figure something out.

And for the record, I have no problem pruning out "minor" articles. I just want to be sure we've established a thought process to determine what's minor and what's not. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The removal of these "minor" articles seems arbitrary when one takes a look at those that were not removed. Schools will continue to pop in and be removed at nothing more than individual editor's whims unless some standard is suggested. Etcetc 11:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just gonna see what people thought of throwing the Anarchist Catalonia article into the "by region" section before doing it. Murderbike 18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would hold on that for now, until we figure out just what exactly is template-worthy and what's not. By the way, anyone have any thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had my say in the anarcho-nationalism discussion above. I'll simply reiterate that there is no objective basis for leaving any school off on grounds of numbers alone. Any concept of anarchism that has ever been significant in history deserves a place on the template, even if it looks like a 'minor' current now. Significant, I mean, in terms of consequences or in terms of the development of the idea. A small movement might have a big past, or might leave important and/or lasting entails on whatever follows it. However, it makes sense to me that a line should be drawn (not on a basis of size, but in terms of levels of distinctiveness) between movements or schools or currents (template-worthy) and particular groups and organisations within them (not template-worthy). In general, if a school is notable enough to have an article, it's probably notable enough for the template. It isn't overlong or crowded compared to some other templates, and if it does start to look overgrown, dividing the schools by category (economic, ethnic, religious...) should at least keep it neat. Gnostrat 03:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point your attention to {{Political ideologies}} in which we have used criteria for inclusion based on external sources. Perhaps such a scheme could be applied here as well. C mon 06:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, that by removing articles like Black anarchism, and leaving out those like Buddhist Anarchism and others, we just run the risk of contributing to a culture of bias. Murderbike 03:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of USA from regions

I have made the region connoted by "English Tradition" Anglosphere for gretaer accuracy, and there is no need to include USA as this is part of the anglosphere anyway.Harrypotter 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is seems as ridiculous as removing Spain to combine it with the rest of the Spanish speaking world. There completely different contintents with completely different histories. Murderbike 17:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

now that i look at Anarchism in the English tradition, it seems even more ridiculous. To the outsider, Anarchism in the US has been reduced to a few sentences amongst paragraphs of Anarchism in England. Why do you think this is a good idea? Murderbike 17:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well clearly the USA is part of that tradition. Of course the page could be improved, but that's not an issue for the template. Of course it is ridiculous to have a separate section for Spanish anarchism when they chose to organise in a peninsular fashion. I have amended the tempalte accordingly.Harrypotter 18:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why expanding the section on a language-based tradition is better than having a link to a REGIONS article in the "By Region" section of the template. The section isn't "By language". And the Anarchism in Spain article doesn't seem to mention Portugal at all, so having an Anarchism in Portugal article makes more sense, but that's not really the point. The Anglosphere is not a region, and we're organizing articles by region here, not by language. Murderbike 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the problem is that there was a link to Anarchism in the English tradition, which actually constituted the Anglosphere. So if it is regional then lets remove the english tradition completely. Also the USA is not a region but a state. If we are to include a region then it should be something like America or North America. Also the point about Iberico is that that was the name of the FAI, the main anarchist organistion in the Iberian peninsular and Spain. Indeed some of the anarchists there were quite happy to organise without regard to state boundaries.Harrypotter 19:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i didn't mean to imply that Spain and Portuagal shouldn't go together, just that it didn't really relate to the reason for putting in "English tradition" and not "in the United States". as to whether or not the US is a region, i think it might be as much of a region as anything else it's huge, North America is a continent. It would be like lumping in all of Europe, ignoring the differences in traditions. Hmmm, the articles seem to be mostly written by country, why not change it from "by Region" to "by Country"? it makes more sense once the articles are looked at. Murderbike 20:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that perhaps Anarchism in the English tradition should be changed a little? Almost the entire body of the article discusses anarchism in England. There is only the briefest mention of the United States, and nothing on Africa, Canada, Australia or any other countries in the anglosphere. If the article's scope were narrowed to Anarchism in England and the sentence on the US and list of US anarchists removed, it would pose no problem to also include Anarchism in the United States in the template. Without that link, the US - which has given us numerous notable anarchist activists, thinkers and events - is reduced to a mere sentence.

I think including both and changing the focus of English tradition to England is the best result. The English tradition isn't even a region.

"By Region" and "by Country" are both fine with me. I lean towards "region" though for ease of fitting in any new articles and because of my own opposition to the concept of "country". But that's just me. What about "Geographically"? ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 05:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Geographically sounds good because it is broad. One problem with going by region is that, like it or not, the border of a country is often a serious cultural barrier as well. It doesn't make sense to combine Mexico and the US together, even if they have shared regions. Heck, the US itself is multiple different regions (Appalachians, Pacific Northwest, Southwest, etc). Geographically gives us more leeway, since we can use any geographic division (region, country, continent, etc). Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 16:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism in the English tradition should definitely be split into Anarchism in the USA and Anarchism in England (or possibly Anarchism in the United Kingdom). Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and moved Anarchism in the English tradition to Anarchism in England, and removed the small amount of info regarding anarchism outside of England (there are still mentions of the US, Australia, NZ and SA, but these are as parts of English colonialism). I changed "by region" to "geographically" in the template, and added both Anarchism in England and Anarchism in the United States. We seem to have achieved consensus. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 07:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yayeth! I changed Ibérica to Iberia, though. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it, thanks! Murderbike 17:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Exclsion of Jewish anarchism

No doubt in many ways the decision to make geographical refrences is a great imrovement, however I can't help thinking it gives the whole template a somewhat Bakuninist twist. By focussing on territorialism, it perhaps unwittingly excludes Jewish anarchism. While this is in line with the anti-semitism of Bakunin and Proudhon, should it really be incorporated, even if only implicitly in the formulation of this template, I wonder?Harrypotter 22:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've never read any Bakunin (except that quote about the destructive urge), or even the article here on him. nevertheless, it seems that the section that's in the Anarchism page listing Jewish Anarchism, Muslim Anarchism, and all the others that are more religion/culture based could be given their own section in the template, much as there in the main article. Thoughts? Murderbike 03:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jewish anarchism covers more than just anarchism as Judaism, it covers anarchism in Jewish culture in general (see Who is a Jew?) - for example, the article mentions Emma Goldman who was definitely an atheist. So while it covers religious Jewish anarchism (Judaic anarchism?) it covers cultural Jewish anarchism as well. But being a Jew is not geographical, by region, country, continent or otherwise. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 14:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, Jewish Anarchism got put into the "and Culture" section, and I'm thinking that these should go in somewhere as well: Buddhist anarchism, Islam and anarchism. Murderbike 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put Black anarchism and Nationalist anarchism in the culture section (Black anarchism is not a "school"! Perhaps Christian anarchism and Buddhist anarchism belong here as well. They also certainly aren't schools.?Harrypotter 15:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The culture section could be the place for specific ethnic anarchisms, but nationalist anarchism is a theory that isn't restricted to just one culture. You have white, black, Irish, panSlavic and Indian-oriented nationalist anarchisms. There are (or there have been) groups that support any non-statist or anti-statist nationalisms by anyone, anywhere. It's a general idea (school, movement, current, whatever). It doesn't belong in with a list of culture-specific anarchisms.

As for whether we call something a school, I think that term implies something you belong to after reflection. An ethnic identity isn't like that. We don't choose our race, and you can debate how far we get to choose our nationality. So it's problematic to call them schools if they're ethnic. But religion-based anarchisms ARE schools, in my opinion, because you can decide you're going to be a Buddhist anarchist or stop being a Christian anarchist, just like you can decide after reflection that you're a communist or syndicalist or mutualist. Buddhism and Christianity aren't cultures: there are societies that are overwhelmingly Christian or Buddhist but have different cultures from others that are equally Christian or Buddhist. And some cultures include people of all religions and none.

To sum up: we should have a section for particular ethnic cultures (including Jewish), but religious anarchisms and Nationalist anarchism should be put in with the rest of the schools. Gnostrat 16:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree that "christian" and "nationalist" should be in the "school" section, i haven't read the "buddhist" article yet though. But I changed the header for "Anarchism in Spain" to read "Spain" instead of "Iberia" as the article focusses on Spain, and not the whole Iberian peninsula. Murderbike 17:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Mother Jones

To my understanding, Mother Jones was a socialist, but not an anarchist, and her article mentions nothing of her supposed anarchism, I would suggest removing her from the template, unless someone can show evidence of her anarchism. Murderbike 18:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Murderbike, you're right--my mistake. I will remove her name from the template. --DieWeibeRose 22:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How would folks feel about adding Bill Haywood and Joe Hill? --DieWeibeRose 22:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Bill Haywood was an anarchist per se? (as opposed to a non-anarchist-syndicalist influenced by anarchosyndicalism)? Same question for Joe Hill.

How about adding Albert Parsons and/or August Spies? Sandino? Frank Little? Ralph Chaplin? Nestor Makhno? Bookchin? Godwin? The Shelleys? Jacob Haller 00:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Haywood was absolutely not an anarchist, he may have associated with them, but he was an authoritarian unionist, and staunch supporter of the USSR. Parsons, Spies, Makhno, Godwin, the Shelleys, I'd say yes. Murderbike 06:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm no scholar of Haywood, but I'm not so sure that Haywood was not a "prominent anarchist" (see Haywood's revolutionary imperative).

I know the question is subjective but I think the template should be reserved for anarchists who were prominent as anarchist activists/theorists. I don't think a person makes the cut if they were just a prominent person who was an anarchist e.g. Mary Shelley, but that's only my opinion. To conserve space, perhaps only the last names should appear on the Template. What do you all think? I'm going to add "Haymarket Martyrs" which redirects to Haymarket Riot. --68.252.9.25 03:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Prominent Anarchists section

This seems unnecessary to me. It makes the template unnecessarily large, and just invites all sorts of conflict over inclusion. Prominence is ill-defined, and probably can't be well-defined in a non-controversial manner. If we limit ourselves to just a few figures from each of the schools listed on the template, we'll still end up with many more names than we should probably include. A link to the anarchists category page would be useful, but the current list of "prominent" figures shows what a hodge-podge it is likely to remain. Libertatia 20:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Then let's get rid of it. And agred - the template is kinda long as it stands now. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just like the list of anarchist musicians, it's too easy to include people based on loose evidence and whatnot. Murderbike 04:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll remove it right away. For the record, it was added by DieWeibeRose (talk · contribs) three days ago. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 06:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That looks a lot better! SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim that I had the right list but I think having a list of prominent anarchist on the template is a useful and valid way of helping people learn about anarchism. Some people relate much better to personalities and personal experience than abstract concepts when learning. I also suggested a way to reduce the space for the names.

The editors of the communist template were able to arrive at an acceptable list of names and I don't see why the editors of the anarchism template can't, too. In any case, since most of you don't find the prominent anarchists list helpful, I'll drop the matter unless I hear, on my personal talk page, from someone else who wants to revisit the matter. --DieWeibeRose 21:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Communism has had leaders. Of the seven people on the Communism template (Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Rosa Luxemburg, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Mao Zedong), three (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) have lead nations with extremely large populations. Trotsky was not only a famous and important military commander, but also the founder of a quite major branch of communism. Marx and Engels were instrumental in the development of communism - I mean, they wrote the Communist Manifesto. I'm not sure why Luxemburg is included (and why, say, Che Guevara or Fidel Castro is excluded), but still.

Coming up with a similar list concerning anarchism isn't as easy. The anti-authoritarian mindset of anarchists have successfully prevented the emergence of any major leaders: sure we have ideologicians like Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, but are they as important to the anarchist movement as Marx and Engels are to the communist? Anarchism hasn't hade any state leaders, or led any armies (well, perhaps Buenaventura Durruti and Nestor Makhno, but when their historical importance is measured against that of Trotsky, they are insignificant).

I feel a list of persons on the anarchist template would add undue weight. Sure, we can name some "famous" anarchist thinkers, but who can we name from the Spanish Revolution? I'd say the Spanish Revolution was the moment of history were anarchism really really mattered. Yet, few - even among anarchists - can mention any "prominent" anarchists from there, except possibly Durruti.

What we perhaps should add, though, is a list of historical anarchist movements - such as the Spanish Revolution, the Free Territory of Ukraine, etc. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Schools of thought

This section seems somehow arbitrary and undergoes a lot of change. I was wondering if a little classification might help. Perhaps beginning with "Traditions" and listing only those which together encompass all anarchists, like "individualist, social" and perhaps "without adjectives". I can't think of any of the other schools that wouldn't fall within one of these. That would at least be a standard rather than a matter of individual editor preference. It would then be followed by a "schools" section that includes "Capitalist, Christian, Collectivist, Communist, Eco, Feminist, Green, Mutualist, Philosophical, Primitivist" and "Syndicalist". Does this seem workable? Etcetc 06:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you dig back in our history, "Traditions" was the original title here, but it got shot down big time. "Schools of thought" became the more-encompassing title as a result of discussion, if memory serves me correctly. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The exact label is less important than the general cleaning up that categorization would allow. The first two or three all-encompassing labels could be "schools", "traditions", "modes of thought" or whatever. I felt that the "schools of thought" would be better reserved for the subsequent ones, but its really a side issue to the idea of presenting a sort of non-controversial main set under which all the rest can fall. I'm also not suggesting we list the other schools under any particular branch, because that itself would probably cause a lot of controversy, rather that primary branches be listed and the schools get their own section below that. Of course, categorization itself is a potentially controversial issue, as many anarchists believe their personal philosophies transverse hard ideological lines, but it might be less controversial than the kind of ad hoc group we have under schools at any particular time. Etcetc 04:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Etcetc raises some interesting points, suggesting a higherarchical structure of "branches" and "schools of thought". The issue is not so much whether "many anarchists" beleieve their personal philosophies transverse hard ideological lines, but to produce something less POV, something less slanted to the opinions of a what is a tiny minority of humanity. Certainly many social commentators - Anton Pannekoek for example - have seen anarchism representing more a class pespective - principally that of the lower middle-class. Clearly this is a conceptual analysis, the considered view of a scientist who was deeply involved in political analysis. Such a viewpoint could well be much more useful than the self-conception of self-identified anarchists.Harrypotter 15:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, any proposed classification scheme really should be backed up by published sources, otherwise the entire template could be considered original research. Aelffin 16:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, suggested changes seem arbitrary. -- Vision Thing -- 13:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Celtic anarchism

I have removed Celtic anarchism from the template and put the linked page up for speedy deletion. This would seem to simply be an advertising stunt for a new list set up on riseup.net.Harrypotter 20:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Navagation Frames

Please view at: example closed

I have considered the Anarchism Infobox a tad large for a while now, and that it would aid in formatting several Anarchism related articles if it where some how shortened. I've taken it upon myself to perform a small experiment in the vein of the Changing the image comment, self-reverting the image so that the experiment could be viewed by others without causing an immediate problem should it be rejected. I just now realize that what I should have done was create a sandbox version for everyone's benefit. I apologize. However, I invite everyone to view this alteration and comment as to whether or not this would be an improvement.--Cast 06:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

link?Skomorokh ^incite 11:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Here: [1]. This is what I get for assuming people could click on the history tab on their own, right? ¯\(º_o)/¯ --Cast 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the putative sandbox, but that is much of a muchness. I approve of your version with two caveats:

• It seems to unnecessarily widen the template.
• There seems to be an arbitrary space after the first line in each section i.e. between Capitalist • Christian and :::Collectivist • Communist in the Schools of thought section.

Once these difficulties are rectified I see no problem with the condensed version. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 16:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A sandbox version is now available at the top of this subject. Your second caveat is corrected easily enough, but please understand that widening the infobox was very much necessary. When I left the box at its original length, I found that the frame headings were running against the show tabs. The sandbox contains two versions of the infobox. One thin, the other widened. Please compare. I widened the infobox only as much as was necessary to avoid this problem. The infobox as a whole can be thinned if the headings will be shortened. The largest (or longest?) problem was "Anarchism Geographically". If this could be shortened, the infobox could be slimmed down considerably.--Cast 17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from now, thanks. I've shortened the headings significantly, with the exception of "Relationship to other philosophies" which you seem to have (inadvertently?) excluded from the sandbox versions. I don't know how to concisely express this in one phrase. Any ideas?

p.s. Do you mind if I edit your sandbox? Skomorokh ^incite 17:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for pointing out my omission, and have now included the "Relationship to other philosophies" section in the sandbox. Note that its inclusion required further widening of the template. Within the second version we see that having multiple lines for a heading is not possible, so there is no option other than shortening the headings. To correct this situation, I've also now put up a third infobox with edited headings for comparison. This is the thinest version I could produce without the bleed over effect. Please consider it. And I encourage you and other fellow anarchists/rabble rousers/helpful people to assist me in this little project by editing the sandbox as you see fit.--Cast 17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Very kind of you to allow us grubby anarchists get our paws all over your pristine template ;). I've shortened the remaining heading to simply "Relationships". Should we be bold and implement your version? Skomorokh ^incite 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have expected to wait a little longer for input from the Revolutionary Anarchist Wikipedian Committee (RAWC ¯\(º_o)/¯), but this has been very productive. I think this project is neatly squared away. Let it be done.--Cast 18:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the template, great work. The RAWC has been uncharacteristically agreeable and co-operative lately. The Libertarians, Socialists and Neo-fascists might prove a more interesting challenge for you if you feel up to it. Best of luck! Skomorokh ^incite 18:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be late for the meeting. Real life is horrible sometimes. But, belatedly, I consense to this change. It looks good. Murderbike 20:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Motion to censor Comrade Murderbike for unanarchistic and oppressive tardyness. Skomorokh ^incite 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism in Somalia

The inclusion of this article (heck, the existence of it) in the template is ridiculous. The situation described has nothing do with anarchism. Thoughts? Murderbike 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Since most of the world (or that is to say, the mainstream media propaganda machine,) describes Somalia as an "anarchy," this may be as good a time as any for us to address it. This article seems to largely tack on an "anarcho-capitalist" critique, but surely there must be some more balanced perspectives we can interject into the article. Have any articles on the subject of Somalia ever been published in anarchist periodicals or by anarchist authors? If we can improve the article itself, removing it need not even be an issue.--Cast 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, I think that it is unquestionable that there is a difference between anarchism and the popular use of the term "anarchy" as being equivalent to "chaos" or whatever. I would suggest immediately changing the title of the article, removing it from this template, and from there working on the content of the article. Murderbike 00:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Anarchy and chaos While it is true that Somalia didn't happen as a product of an anarchist social movement, it was still an anarchy; it had no rulers. Not all anarchies are chaotic, but this chaos was an anarchy. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said, there is a difference between the popular idea of "anarchy" and Anarchism. This at least, is why at least the title of this article should be changed, and the article removed from this template. As to you claiming that "it had no rulers", if you read the article, there were plenty of rulers. They're called warlords and whatnot. Anarchism (as the article title specifies) has to do with NO rulers, not a whole bunch of "less powerful than a president" rulers. Murderbike 00:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Murderbike on this. Somalia was and is clearly not an anarchist society. So perhaps if the nature of this article is not to be changed, it should be renamed. Alternatively, if there has ever been, even remotely, an explicitly anarchist social movement in Somalia, or again, if an anarchist writer has ever published an analysis on the subject, now is the time to interject that into this article. Otherwise, it should be renamed entirely.--Cast 01:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure These are cogent arguments. Discussion about renaming the article should probably occur on its talk. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I only brought it up here because I want it removed from the template. I tried to start the conversation about the article itself on its talk page, to no avail as of yet. This feels like consensus on removing from the template. Am I wrong? Murderbike 02:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to remove it from the template, I don't think there is anyone who could reasonably argue with you at this point. As Haller pointed out, if nothing else, that article goes against the grain of the rest, meaning it ought to be removed for being the bad apple of the bunch. But I would still like to discover some small jewel of anarchist history in the rough. I'm going to continue seeking out an authentically anarchist history from Somalia, and if I find it, expect to see Anarchism in Somalia added back in (hopefully with fewer reasons to make Emma roll in her grave.)--Cast 02:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, certain ancap sources used one port in northern Somalia, not the rest of state-defined Somalia, as an example. However, most of the "anarchism in x" articles discuss the "anarchist movement in x," rather than "x as an example of certain anarchist principles," and it is doubtful whether most anarchists would consider polycentric law an anarchist principle. Jacob Haller 01:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and moved the article to Anarchy in Somalia. Skomorokh ^incite 17:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And I less boldly removed the article from the template. Murderbike 23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Updated version

I'm in the process of trying to salvage the Anarchy in Somalia article and I'd appreciate any input from editors familiar with anarchism-related articles. The vast majority of references are either from statist organisations (pov) or academic economists (fine, but undue weight) so if anyone knows of any anarchist literature on Somalia that meets WP:RS, it would be of great help. I also intend on adding the revamped article to the history section of this template unless there are objections. Skomorokh ^incite 23:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I'd never heard anarchists talk about this until this article came up. Of course, I don't talk to a lot of anarcho-capitalists. Though, with the changes you've made, it doesn't seem like there's much argument for keeping it out of the template anymore, unless we just wanna play the "anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism" card. Murderbike 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not even that line would cut it - the article barely cites anarcho-capitalists, rather scholars who don't refer to ideologies at all, merely "statelessness" and "anarchy" and the effects thereof. Since you removed the article from this template and don't have a major problem anymore, I'll go ahead and re-include it.Skomorokh ^incite 23:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

PS, i didn't mean that that card could kill the article, just keep it out of this template. But it's pointless nitpicking anyway. Murderbike 00:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tactics section?

I can't see why black bloc goes in culture. I suggest moving direct action, propaganda of the deed, free store, squatting, etc. into a section on tactics. Jacob Haller 19:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Murderbike 20:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: perhaps we should use direct action as the section title. Jacob Haller 20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That might be a little less user-friendly for folks who aren't well-versed in anarchist theory though. Murderbike 20:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved Black bloc from Theory to Culture because it is cultural phenomena, as opposed to being a theoretical concept. I have something of a problem with the term Tactics. It has military connotations that most of the articles that are likely to fall under this subject won't have. I think the word Praxis might be more appropriate. But I also think that this section will see a lot of crossover with Culture. At what point is a subject a cultural phenomena, or a tactic/praxis? In which section should articles like Infoshop or Free school go?--Cast 05:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd put em in Praxis, personally. Murderbike 05:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. In the anthropological sense, everything here is culture. But black blocs, or the most effective black blocs, are organized around protest tactics and their functional demands, not around any one cultural identity. Jacob Haller 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So, some anon user boldly made the section "Theory and practice", which kinda makes sense to me. However, I would move Black Bloc, Free School, Free Store, Indymedia, Infoshop, and Squatting to this section. Thoughts? Murderbike 17:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[show] link

[show] link is on top of subject headings "Schools of thought" and "Theory and practice" in Firefox and IE. Looks untidy. Widen box margins, or place [show] under headings? nirvana2013 11:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm checking that with Firefox right now, and that's not true on my machine, though it was true with some of the wider titles on the narrower template. I suggest going to 200 pixels and if that doesn't work, resetting your default font size. Jacob Haller 18:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The circle-A image

Am I the only that isn't seeing the circle-A image at the top of the template? I can't even find in the history when it got taken out. Murderbike 18:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it, either. However, I checked, and Image:Anarchy-symbol.svg is still live on the system. My guess is that this is some sort of transient problem that requires no action on our part. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't see it either. Jacob Haller 19:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Transient problem"? You have a problem with transients? What have transients ever done to you? Fascist! Murderbike 20:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Transient problem", meaning that the problem is likely temporary and will go away on its own. Also, quick reminder: Be nice. This isn't Indymedia. Calling people fascists is not permitted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he was joking. :P Zazaban 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he was, too, but it still doesn't hurt to remind. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was an obvious enough joke. I'll put the serious face back on. Murderbike 21:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did realize it was a joke at the time, but I did forget to mention at the time that I thought it was a joke, and didn't realize it until it was too late. Sorry 'bout that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Purged the cache. It's fixed. Murderbike 22:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)