Talk:Contemporary anarchism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Launch ready?

Would you say this article is ready to be launched? Zazaban (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Contemporary anarchism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Contemporary anarchism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "graeber":

• From Anarchism and Marxism: Graeber, David (2004). Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. ISBN 0972819649.
• From Anarchist schools of thought: David Graeber and Andrej Grubacic, "Anarchism, Or The Revolutionary Movement Of The Twenty-first Century", ZNet, retrieved 2007-12-13

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Horrible entry

Jesus Christ, this is a horrible entry. The content is all over the map and doesn't represent contemporary anarchism in the slightest. Indymedia? That project includes some anarchists, but it's not representative of contemporary anarchism. The articles on anarchism here at Wikipedia continue to suck, which is probably why most anarchists read and contribute to wikis run by anarchists. Chuck0 (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So, edit it. --Cast (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous

Hey guys I just need some help with this reference raht hurr that I just can't seem to get working. You see, I'm relatively new to this and I can't figure out how to get the source to display properly under the "References" section. Regards,

TROLL

Anondoesnotforget (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Call for an entry on National Anarchism and Tribal Anarchism

Both NA and TA have come to prominence in recent years and should be included in this page. How do other editors feel it should be included? --Rjuner (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say definitely not. They are an extremely tiny fringe movement within anarchism, and are shunned by the vast majority of it. They aren't part of the mainstream of contemporary anarchism at all, and are barely notable enough to have an article to begin with. Zazaban (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

From my experience, most coverage NA has recieved relates to either criticism or refernces made to its San francisco area activism. Any article or section written to wiki-standards would be bare and critical. I think it would be better to expand and verify the main NA article first. --Cast (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Following up, I just realized the NA article has been improved since the last time I saw it. Although it could still stand to be improved with formatting and layout, its coverage is greater than I'd realized. I would say now that if it were to be summarized on this page, we face the greater problem of how to properly layout and format the sections here. A new section on contemporary nationalist developments should be created, into which NA may be a sub-section. Other nationalist developments to be given a subsection would be Anarchism in Korea. Although our main page for that subject is in woeful need of expansion, I am aware that Korean anarchists are controversial for the widespread espousal of electoral politics in South Korea (as a result of Korea's unique history as an colonial state, and the anarchist participation in the anti-imperialist liberation movement.) A sub-section on Korean anarchism would also need to note that several founding Korean anarchists have been posthumously declared "nationalist" heroes by the South, and "communist" heroes by the North. Black Ram and other nationalist groups with syncretic anarchist tendencies should also be mentioned in another sub-section, or share the same sub-section with NA. The sub-section should include a Template:Main link to Anarchism and nationalism. A suggested layout would look like this:

• Contempoary schools of thought(All schools emerging in the 20th century—not 19th.)
  • Anarchism and green politics (primitivism/eco-anarchy/veganarchism)
  • Anarchism and economics (Free market/agorist/anarcho-capitalist)
• Analysis and critique (post-left/academic/"new anarchism")
• Anarchism and nationalism
  • Leftist syncretic developments (black anarchism/feminism ?)
  • Conservative syncretic developments (NA goes here)
• Tactics
  • Street protest (Reclaim the street/Black bloc/Especifismo)
  • Logistics (Infoshops/websites)

Please note that I'm not separating NA from the "schools of thought" section because of bias. Looking at the NA page, I take note of one particular line: "Scholars who have examined national-anarchism generally consider it represents a further evolution in the thinking of the radical right rather than an entirely new dimension." If it is the case that NA is emerging as a conservative application of anarchist philosophy, rather than an emergent anarchist concept, then I think some kind of distinction should be made. Along similar lines, we need to consider where spiritual anarchist themes goe in here. What is to be done with anarchism and Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism? Are these schools, or syncretic critiques?

On another note, this page largely seems poorly conceived. It's a harsh jumble of pages trying to do different things. This article tries to provide summaries for schools of thought, when we already have the Anarchist schools of thought page; at the same time, this page tries to provide developments in anarchist protest tactics, such as the black bloc, but it gives a greater summary to that tactic than any of the schools of thought; in the section on anarchism and computer culture, it doesn't provide a section summary to explain how that section is different from the section on schools of thought, and gives reference to a non-anarchist aligned project, Indymedia (it's progressive/leftist). This whole article needs a new layout to focus on how the schools of thought are contemporary. It needs a summary to explain that the section on the internet does not make the internet anarchist, but rather that there are contemporary pro or anti-technology dialogues taking place in anarchist theory. --Cast (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"National anarchism" is an oxymoron, so any Wikipedia entry on this topic, or inclusion of it in another article, would constitute original research in its most blatant form. Anarchists have always been against nationalism, racism and fascism. Chuck0 (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, not always, just like not all anarchists have been feminists or cool with animals. That doesn't change my personal opinion that the best anarchists like dogs and are down with a sista's struggle, but lets be honest in the face of history. Anyway, the inclusion of references to NA, in context, would not be original research. The ideas and its proponents are notable enough to warrant mention in its own article, and it would be negligent on our part to turn out heads from it, hoping that ignoring it will make it go away. I think the best thing anti-nationalist anarchists can do is highlight NA in frank and honest terms. That means including references to it where appropriate, and then backing up those references with complete citations. If NA is as controversial as many anarchists feel it is, let that controversy be known to anyone who will read about it on Wikipedia. Best that people understand what these ideas are and who represents them, than that they should get a biased view in favor or against. I trust in the basic intelligence of the average reader to make a valid assessment of these if we are honest in our presentation. --Cast (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This same argument is constantly pushed by right-wingers over at Libertarian socialism (i.e. "Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron, so we can't include it."). That's not how Wikipedia works. If national anarchism is not covered here, it won't be because some editors thought it was an oxymoron or because they are "shunned by the vast majority" of anarchists. The reason it won't be covered is that covering it would be giving undue weight to a a fringe viewpoint. I agree that "national anarchism" is an oxymoron. I disagree with the characterization of "libertarian socialism" as an oxymoron (I think that any free society will be socialist, and that socialism is impossible without personal freedom). But none of this is relevant here. Basically, national anarchism is an extremely tiny and non-notable movement, and that giving it anything more than a sentence (and I think a sentence might be too much) in this article (given the enormous volume of reliable scholarly literature on anarchism, none of which even mentions nationalist anarchism) is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. But what I definitely don't want to do is open up a bunch of doors for right-wing nuts to come in and start saying "Well, anarchists are shunned by the large majority of people, so we can't include their views."-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. My wording above sucked, I meant to imply something along the lines of WP:FRINGE, but it came off as you said. Zazaban (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Using blogs as a source

I have a doubt about this: A number of popular movements in the global South, like the Zapatistas in Mexico and Abahlali baseMjondolo in South Africa...; How can uscundercurrent.wordpress.com be used as a source here? That doesn't count as scholarship where I'm from. —Zujine|talk 18:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Anarchy in the UK by the Sex Pistols

This is essentially a joke song and always was. It was just intended to shock. Neither Lydon, Matlock nor McLaren were ever in any sense anarchists. The lyrics begin "I am an anarchist; I am an anti-Christ." Lydon wasn't a Satanist either. It's obviously tongue in cheek. The article should not take this song seriously. SmokeyTheCat 06:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It very obviously does not take it seriously as a position for anarchist politics. It states that a very famous song associated with anarchy plays on mainstream negative connotations. It all but states that anarchists are nothing to do with it. All that is necessary is to edit the sentence to make the tone more dismissive of this equation. Go ahead and do that. --Cast (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Imclogo2.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Imclogo2.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Global South

The section on Neoanarchism in the Global South is lacking and only lists two examples, one of which (the Zapatistas in Mexico) doesn't qualify as being in the Global South by most accounts--see map on Global South. Does anyone have a suggestion for improvement, or can we just move the relevant information into another section that makes sense (deleting this section)? —Zujine|talk 05:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Contemporary anarchism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Contemporary anarchism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "acracia.org":

• From Anarchist schools of thought: "La insumisión voluntaria: El anarquismo individualista español durante la Dictadura y la Segunda República (1923-1938)" by Xavier Díez
• From Anarchism: "Proliferarán así diversos grupos que practicarán el excursionismo, el naturismo, el nudismo, la emancipación sexual o el esperantismo, alrededor de asociaciones informales vinculadas de una manera o de otra al anarquismo. Precisamente las limitaciones a las asociaciones obreras impuestas desde la legislación especial de la Dictadura potenciarán indirectamente esta especie de asociacionismo informal en que confluirá el movimiento anarquista con esta heterogeneidad de prácticas y tendencias. Uno de los grupos más destacados, que será el impulsor de la revista individualista Ética será el Ateneo Naturista Ecléctico, con sede en Barcelona, con sus diferentes secciones la más destacada de las cuales será el grupo excursionista Sol y Vida.""La insumisión voluntaria: El anarquismo individualista español durante la Dictadura y la Segunda República (1923-1938)" by Xavier Díez

Reference named "ppu.org.uk":

• From Anarchism: ""Resisting the Nation State, the pacifist and anarchist tradition" by Geoffrey Ostergaard". Ppu.org.uk. 6 August 1945. Retrieved 20 September 2010.
• From Anarchist schools of thought: RESISTING THE NATION STATE the pacifist and anarchist tradition by Geoffrey Ostergaard

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)