Talk:From Bakunin to Lacan/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am reviewing this article for GA. Going through it I find it interesting and well written. I will enter some initial comments below and may add more as I become for familiar with the article.

• Comments

• Per WP:LEAD you should avoid using jargon in the lead. These terms are all jargon: essentialist elements, anarchist theory, post-structuralist, classical anarchism, post-anarchism, postmodern philosophy, contemporary anarchism.
• The article never does explain, for the average reader, what the point of this book is (outside the jargon) or why it is important. See Wikipedia:Explain jargon. eg Anarcho-primitivists and others
• Much of your explanation of the book's context is merely quotes, rather than putting thoughts into your own word.
• "Another significant factor in the intellectual climate of the book's release was the rediscovery in the 1990s of anarchist theory within academia" - the "rediscovery" of anarchism theory within academia? Can you elaborate on this? What was the context?
• "Aimed at an academic rather than anarchist audience, the book was criticised in Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed #57 for its unsophisticated, cursory understanding of and engagement with anarchist theory." - I am not clear of the relationship of the first part of the sentence to the second. Is the implication that because it was aimed an academic audience, the book was unsophisticated, and only showed a superficial understanding of anarchist theory? That it was superficially "engaged" with anarchist theory? Could you elaborate in words the general reader could understand.
• "Newman's was a more substantive account of post-anarchism than previous efforts, and influenced later approaches to the philosophy." - This statement in the lead is not elaborated upon in the article.
• "New Formulation reviewer Michael Glavin cited Newman's ignorance of the initiative of anarchists to decentralize power and of anarchist forms of organisation such as trade unions, federations and affinity groups as evidence that he failed to understand power and wrongly conflated it with domination." - this again is jargon and does not give examples of how "failed to understand power and wrongly conflated it with domination".
• "Since the publication of From Bakunin to Lacan in 2001, there have been several attempts to develop an account of postanarchism that, while retaining many of Newman's specific conceptions of the anarchistic qualities of radical post-structuralist thought, would take postanarchist theory beyond academic discourse and into broader and more diverse environments, as originator of postanarchism Hakim Bey had intended." - What were Newman's specific conceptons? How would one take them beyond academic discource?
• "The book utilises the work of French philosophers Michel Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari and Jacques Derrida as well as classical anarchist thinkers such as Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, recognizing "proto-poststructuralist" Max Stirner as an important forerunner of postanarchist thought. Newman focuses particularly on the work of Deleuze, Derrida and psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan." - more jargon

• "Newman's attribution of an essentialist conception of human nature to modern anarchists" - what does this mean?
• This article needs to have the jargon explained in language that the general reader can understand. It reads now as if it is a series of excerpts from book reviews of the book.
• Why does Hakim Bey redirect to Peter Lamborn Wilson?

I think if you translate the jargon into wording for general readers, this will be a very good article. This does not mean that you cannot use jargon and wikilinks. Rather, it means that you have to set some context. The reader should not have to click on every wikilink and ponder what classical anarchism is versus the several other kinds of anarchism you mention, in view of academic arguments about post-structuralist, classical anarchism, post-anarchism, postmodern philosophy etc.

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. It will take some time to respond and work though each of the points you note above, and cannot address them all immediately. However, I can satisfy the last by quickly explaining that Hakim Bey redirects to Wilson for the inverse reason Samuel Langhorne Clemens redirects to Mark Twain. Bey is an established pen name of Wilson, as noted in his respective article. Rather than rewriting this article to provide that context, the article for Wilson should have provided his pen name alias in the first sentence to assist redirected readers. I've altered that article to simplify the number of edits needed for this one to progress to GA status. --Cast (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have placed the article on hold. I know you cannot make the changes quickly, but I look forward to reading them. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Question - Which of these Anarchist schools of thought would you say best reflects "classical anarchism"? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Without getting sidetracked by the nitty gritty of what some sects don't consider to even be part of the anarchist tradition at all, I would include all those developed during the 19th century. On the article you reference, those would be mutualism, individualist anarchism, and those listed under "social anarchism" (collectivist, communist, and syndicalist.) --Cast (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Cast here. "Classical anarchism" refers to modernist, mainstream pre-War anarchism. The term is mostly used in contrast to those currents of anarchism developed in the 1960s and afterward. Skomorokh 13:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding jargon. Does "jargon" simply mean technical/specialised terminology? Or does it refer to simple concepts dressed up in overwrought language? "Anarchist theory" seems to me to be a very easy phrase to understand – theory which is anarchist, while "essentialist" is a concise but technical term. I agree that terms like the latter might need explaining, but terms "anarchist theory", "classical anarchism" and "contemporary anarchism" simply join two well-known terms together to produce a result intelligible to anyone who knows what both mean. Skomorokh 13:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding purpose and significance. The purpose of the book was to highlight the essentialist character of anarchism and its consequent faults, and by using ideas from post-structuralism seek to overcome those faults. The significance of the book is that it was more substantive than previous versions of post-anarchism, and influenced subsequent versions. This is clearly stated (though perhaps with jargon) in the lede and in the Background and Reception sections. We can rework the wording if necessary, but I think the assertions themselves are there. Skomorokh 13:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - in the lead would it be ok to say something like "anarchism, the philosophical school holding that government is unnecessary and harmful...", "that no formal governement is necessary" or whatever? Just some basic explanation of terms to orient the reader not familiar with the subject. In other words, uses some vocabulary that is not part of the anarchist jargon. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yup, will do. Skomorokh 15:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - this link is dead: http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=04/11/26/8462989 - or screwed up. I just get nothing when I click it.

http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/other/postanarchism.html - but it is hosted on geocities

—Mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That geocities site is the official homepage of Killing King Abacus, a noted insurrectionist journal. The review was originally published in Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 00:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK. I will take your word for this as I accept you as a knowledgeable member of the wikipedian community on this matter. Having gone through the article several times and read the wikilinks, I have concluded that this article is as clear as it ever will be, since the subject seems complicated everywhere I look, with different terms used etc. This article is comparatively clear!

—Mattisse (Talk) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's a reflection of the insularity of the anarchist and academic communities. There is little in the way of material produced aimed at a general audience. The upshot of this is that we end up straying into OR when trying to put things in understandable terms. Regrettable all round, really. Thanks for the research :) Skomorokh 00:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Adequate references b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Passes GA. Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)