Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Repeating sections

Many (most?) of our top-level articles read like a copy-pasted patchwork of summaries from other schools-of-thought articles. Much of it is held over from early Wikipedia. The articles really need a rework towards their specific topic areas and histories, with historical sources specific to that school of thought (better bibliographies). Others probably need to be blown up and rebuilt altogether... There was one custom note written for Left-wing market anarchism (cited from The American as Anarchist) that repeated the same inaccurate claim in eight other articles. I imagine some subtopics wouldn't even warrant splitting from their parent articles once the duplicated content is assessed and removed. czar 03:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

political ideology (P1142) of anarchism (Q6199)

I'm working on a project that entails importing Category:Anarchists affiliation into Wikidata: political ideology (P1142) of anarchism (Q6199) (or subclass of (P279)). Then we can use Wikidata to populate a worklist of what can be translated from other language Wikipedias. For example, it becomes easier to see articles with good/featured status on other language Wikipedias as priority translations. Bulk of the work right now is confirming that the bios/orgs in the category are indeed affiliated with anarchism, so the connection isn't imported to Wikidata erroneously. Hoping to move to the category equivalents from other language Wikipedias, as there might be good articles written in Spanish, Russian, etc. that don't exist at all on enwp. Let me know if you're curious/interested and I can provide more detail. czar 22:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Rudolf Rocker image

Hi, does anyone know where this photo of Rudolf Rocker is from? The uploader claimed he created it himself, but that seems doubtful. It'd be nice to have some evidence of who created it and when it was first published to determine whether it's in the public domain. If we can't determine where it's from it might need to be replaced by a different picture of Rocker. Thanks for your help,--Carabinieri (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Unlikely to be the uploader's own work and could probably be deleted on those grounds. (User has a history of copyvio too.) c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rudolf Rocker.jpg The metadata lists "Fonds Chambelland" so a good chance it's deposited in http://histoire-sociale.univ-paris1.fr/spip.php?article285&lang=fr. But most of the work with these sorts of photos is finding the book/periodical of first publication (for copyright status), not necessarily the origin of loose photograph. czar 21:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Philosophy revisited

I've been working through the ATF's cleanup queues for over a year and find that many articles have only peripheral connection to "philosophy" or anarchism as a political philosophy. This has come up years ago and I think about it every time I add a "philosophy" banner to articles that have no more connection to "philosophy" as a defining trait than they do to "sociology" or "politics". Would anyone object to breaking out this anarchism WikiProject from under Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy so that our rating can work independently from the Philosophy project? czar 12:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Except for our small size, there's probably no reason why we couldn't function as an independent WikiProject, like WikiProject Socialism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Any other comments before I move ahead with this? Gave notice to the philosophy project. czar 13:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Done. Still cleaning up a few loose ends but ping me if anything hasn't sorted itself out in a week. czar 06:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

History of anarchism

I have spotted some issues with the article. Please have a look at the talk page (permalink) and have your say if interested. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

"How can I help?"

I created this page in response to a talk page message. If anyone has ideas for easy ways in which newcomers can participate, go for it czar 17:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful! One suggestion: what about renaming "Popular Articles" to "Most-Edited Articles" (high edit count is "popular among editors" perhaps but not necessarily "popular" in the sense of most-viewed... also, doesn't a high recent edit count imply instability, and as such, isn't that perhaps the last article a newbie should go to edit?) In its stead, I wonder if there should be a "Popular Articles" box that lists most-visited articles (most pageviews). Even further along that train of thought, what about a most-visited-lowest-class box? Or top-importance-lowest-class? Another thought: I wonder if the How-to-Help page should appear on the main project page in a "How to help" section, just to make it real easy/obvious for anyone stopping by? Final thought: what is the status of article assessments in this project–are they generally accurate/up-to-date–and if not, would an "assessment drive" be helpful to correctly populate and "top-importance-lowest-class"-type lists? ^Leviv_ich? ! 18:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

That's in the announcements template that shows on every project page (and in the talk page assessment banners), so wasn't intended specifically for new editors. And I changed it to "most-edited" but that's a bit of a misnomer too, since it's only the most edited from the last week. (The feature is called "hot articles" if that's any clearer.) "How to help" is listed in the announcements template too. I thought about removing the whole second row in the announcements template, which is in low use, to instead have a collapsible summary of "How to help", but not sure how much traffic the template drives or whether it's worth the effort. To the question, my impression is that editor visibility/community helps new editors stick around, ask for help, learn to collaborate, so I imagine that poking around a "hot article" is a better introduction than relegating them to an article with cobwebs. Or at the very least, that's what I would want for me.

For most-visited, lowest-class (i.e., most utilitarian potential impact), could use the actual "popular pages" tool but that doesn't generate an on-wiki list like "hot articles". For what it's worth, in my experience, editors don't respond well to randomly generated worklists. I haven't seen editors seek out articles by most utilitarian potential impact, but I have seen editors like to join lively, in-progress efforts and fall into articles/niches through serendipity.

For top-importance, lowest-class, can use the 1.0 tool (again, not automated for on-wiki, but likely doesn't need to be if only needs to be linked out for suggestions).

Ya, the project's front page needs some work but I'm still not quite sure what's necessary to list there. I tried to put most of the good links in the announcements template.

I'm up for an assessment drive but more on making sure that applicable articles are tagged as within the project's scope than whether articles are properly mid/low importance. (Other projects have done formal drives with checklists of articles, determining whether the quality tags were correct—it's a lot of unnecessary work with minor returns and I'd recommend against the formality.) And potentially even more interesting, when I'm finished with the project's cleanup queue (almost there!), I'm thinking about a stub drive to expand the project's 351 basic articles to something more substantive, even if it's just me. czar 19:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

These are good points. I think you're right about hot articles, which perhaps should be named "exciting articles", being of interest to a new editor. Maybe it would help to connect the topical categories that are listed with a "call to action", e.g. "anarchist biographies to create" or "French anarchist articles that need copyediting", etc. As for assessments, I find the many levels of both importance and quality to be confusing and unnecessary. It seems like there should be a top category (vital importance, featured quality); a bottom category (low important, stub quality); and then just a middle category for which the only criteria is "neither top nor bottom". ^Leviv_ich? ! 19:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there an automated way to query all anarchism stub articles in this category and list them in the "How can I help" page? The Category itself links directly to the talk pages and not the articles itself. And beside it, it would be faster if the stub articles are directly listed on the "how can i help" section! Ogat 19:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich, mostly agreed. If it helps, the top/mid/low comes from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Priority of topic. Open to ideas for those topical categories and I can put together a selection.

@Ogat, are you looking for a list of all stubs? My "351 basic articles" link from above should work. czar 04:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: Thanks; I had read the v 1.0 stuff before, and I support the idea of developing the core, but the implementation seems overcomplicated. As for categories, I was thinking something like:

Anarchist biographies (create  • expand  • copyedit  • research  • illustrate)

Anarchist organizations (create  • expand  • copyedit  • research  • illustrate)

Anarchist communities (create  • expand  • copyedit  • research  • illustrate)

Anarchist history (create  • expand  • copyedit  • research  • illustrate)

Anarchist media (create  • expand  • copyedit  • research  • illustrate)

Anarchist theory (create  • expand  • copyedit  • research  • illustrate)

Perhaps categories by continent?

Another possibility, if it's technically feasible, is to suggest specific articles, perhaps the ones with the most page views in that category or highest priority or both. Similar to the community portal:

Anarchist biographies
Create Redlink Redlink Redlink	Expand Article Article Article	Copyedit Article Article Article	Research Article Article Article	Illustrate Article Article Article
Anarchist communities
Create Redlink Redlink Redlink	Expand Article Article Article	Copyedit Article Article Article	Research Article Article Article	illustrate Article Article Article

An editor scanning the list might see something that "jumps out" at them and click, read, and edit. ^Leviv_ich 04:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Affinity Groups and "Class Struggle" federation

@Czar:, since I started modifying the anarchims navbox last year I noticed that here in wikipedia there are no articles for:

• Anarchist affinity groups, since the article Affinity group is for any kind of people organization and not specifically anarchist
• What the An Anarchist FAQ call "Class strugle federation" wich is described as another type of affinity group that differs from synthesis anarchism and plaformism types.

It´s described on the section J:

• What kinds of organization do anarchists build?
  • What are affinity groups?
  • What are "synthesis" federations?
  • What is the "Platform"?
  • Why do many anarchists oppose the "Platform"?
  • Are there other kinds of anarchist federation?
  • What role do these groups play in anarchist theory?
  • Doesn't Bakunin's "Invisible Dictatorship" prove that anarchists are secret authoritarians?
  • What is anarcho-syndicalism?
  • Why are many anarchists not anarcho-syndicalists?

Would it be ok if I create both articles based on these 2 chapters and reference the content using the same anarchists books and works already used by the faq inside those chapters? Ogat 15:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The Anarchism FAQ isn't a reliable source, so it shouldn't be used for statements of fact. The question is what literature discusses "anarchist affinity groups" as an independent topic to warrant treatment as a separate article. (E.g., is there enough literature on "class struggle federations" to warrant a separate article about the concept?) Ideally, if the sourcing exists, you can expand the concept summary style within an existing article until it warrants a split out into something separate. When making new articles, we look for significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) (The gist being that it's impossible to do encyclopedic justice to a topic if there is no extant, reliable coverage to cite.) Feel free to bring sources here and we can discuss where/how best to cover? Other editors might pitch in with sources too. czar 04:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

fwiw, the articles on platformism and the International of Anarchist Federations are really shoddy on sourcing as well, so if there's any way to combine all of them into something broader on anarchist organization, might be better off. czar 04:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Tagged for a long time

Wanted to highlight these few individual articles, which have been tagged for cleanup for a while, in case anyone might be interested in resolving the issue or in discussing to make the issue easier for someone else to take action:

1. Direct action has been tagged for "limited geographic scope" since 2013. Ostensibly this means adding more sources on direct action used in non-US contexts per Talk:Direct action#Globalize.
2. Libertarian socialism has been tagged as "too long" since 2017. Makes sense. It needs a machete to stay on topic. Looks like someone went too hard on summary style copy-paste a few years back.
3. Anarchism in Ecuador, Anarchism in China, Buenaventura Durruti each have general references but need specific inline footnotes. If searching the source for the right page looks infeasible, we should TNT so someone else can be clear to expand from scratch.
4. Individualist anarchism: overreliance on primary sources, tagged since 2016. It goes into the weeds and reads as an essay at times because it isn't summarizing secondary sources. Could start by simply pruning back the quantity of primary source claims?

czar 04:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism needs a TNT. A good book that might help us re-write this particular article would be Libertarian Socialism: Politics in Black and Red but doesnt really help in terms of structure. There is this chapter also at p 75 Cinadon36 (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice. Let's continue this one at Talk:Libertarian socialism#Cleanup for length. Open to ideas on the other articles listed above. czar 04:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Anarchist Archives

Hi does anyone know what is going on with anarchist archives as per this talkpage question? Mujinga (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

it appears there is no plan, so i'll carry on Mujinga (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Calendar?

What happened to the calendar that used to be here? Nemophilism (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nemophilism, were you thinking of Portal:Anarchism? czar 01:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, thanks! Been a lot of years since I was around here, got lost. Nemophilism (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

my anarchist flag designs

• 
  mutualism
• 
  agorism
• 
  veganarchism
• 
   info-anarchism
• 
  crypto-anarchism
• 
   queer feminist anarchism

hi, i just wanted to ask whether you have some use for my anarchist flag designs. above are my six favourites, i made 12 in total so far. they tend to use well-known symbolism if possible, but some of them (such as the colors and symbols for info- and crypto-anarchism), i entirely made up. i could also make standalone versions of the symbols if you want. or other anarchism-related redesigns just ask. :) --sofias. (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Opensofias wow, I love these!! <3 --Manicatorman (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Opensofias: These are great! But where's the scientific anarchism flag? Cinadon36 06:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting but maybe as good a time as ever to note that we already have an issue with flag citogenesis—it's unclear whether some of these color combinations were already in use before Wikipedia or if we spurred the invention of symbols/identities/brands/flags for individual schools of thought. My inclination would be to not use these in articles (mainspace) until they have wider currency. If only for internal use, no worries. czar 17:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Is Andy Ngo within project scope?

[1] @MJL, what coverage of Ngo links him to anarchism, per our project scope? I don't see anarchism mentioned as having any bearing on his connection with Antifa, hence why the word isn't used once in his article. czar 16:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: my apologies. I didn't realize you were a member of the project (I had assumed someone else from WP:ANARCHISM must have tagged it originally). I'll self-revert, and I'm sorry for the inconvenience. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC of interest: left-right chart

The following RfC may be of interest to members of this group: [2]. --MarioGom (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC

Invitation to participate in an RfC at Talk:Antifa_(United_States)#RfC to add a new section ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infoshops

Template:Infoshops has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mujinga (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC

I'm writing you here to invite you to discuss and reach a consensus on Talk:Left anarchism, Talk:Anarchist socialism, Talk:Socialist Anarchism, Talk:Socialist Anarchism, Talk:Socialist anarchist and Talk:Socialist anarchists since no one replied me yet. I invite more users to partecipate to Talk:Anarchism as well. Thank you.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Template Libertarian socialism navbox

Who has the technical ability please move Template:Libertarian socialism navbox to Template:Libertarian socialism. "Navbox" in the template's name is excessive clarification. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The Anarchist Barnstar

I've made the Anarchist Barnstar. The Barnstar criteria: Awarded to users who've shown great editing skills in improving articles related to Anarchism. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Anarcho-tyranny

Talk:Samuel T. Francis § Proposed merge with Anarcho-tyranny

This merge discussion could use outside opinions. czar 02:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Call for portal maintainers

Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Anarchism? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely because of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian, if I understand correctly, it has no active maintainers, yes? I would be willing to help but does the page get enough traffic to actually warrant the life support? czar 00:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Big changes under discussion regarding Libertarianism

I just realized this Wikiproject exists, and thought it would be worth notifying you all of a big dispute brewing regarding Libertarianism, Left-libertarianism, and especially Right-libertarianism (the origin of the dispute), including where in there anarchism / libertarian socialism fits. None of those pages seem to be listed within the purview of this Wikiproject otherwise I'd have notified you all sooner; seems to me like at least the first two really ought to be, given their content.

Talk:Libertarianism#Eyeballs_needed_at_Talk:Right-libertarianism and on is where the main discussion should be happening, but in fact most of it seems to be happening over at Talk:Right-libertarianism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Request disabling automatic insertion of template

The template {WikiProject Anarchism |class=start|importance=low} is being added automatically to Talk:Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. This should be discontinued. Apart from President Trump's June 10, 2020 tweet (not a WP:RS) denouncing "these ugly Anarchists", the article space does not connect Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone to anarchism. NedFausa (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProjects define their own scopes. It's clearly noted in the popular press as being anarchical, per your own note, and we both know the press is just catching up, but that's besides the point because the long-standing consensus is that the project tag reflects interest of a group of editors and does not categorize an article as necessarily "belonging" to a topic field, i.e., they're not categories and the tagging decision is up to the project's participants. I see no question that this article is completely within our scope. czar 05:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You have either misunderstood or are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote. Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone is not, as you contend, clearly noted in the popular press as being anarchical. To the contrary, as I indicated, President Trump's tweet is the only such source. NedFausa (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It's literally titled an "autonomous zone" and is commonly understood (in cited reports) to be decentralized, hence Trump's tweet. It is the epitome of anarchical, which is enough to be of interest to this project. czar 08:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: The WikiProject alone decides what is in its scope. Not the media. Not you. Besides, there are plenty of press articles on CHAZ that mention anarchism or anarchists. [3][4] Your comments here and your behavior on the CHAZ article seem unnecessarily combative to me. My sense is that if someone took the time to look through your contributions they would find you have been violating WP:3RR. gobonobo ^{+ c} 08:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. The New York Times mentions anarchism only once, citing a sole "28-year-old protester and self-described anarchist." That hardly qualifies as confirmation of an anarchist community. The Spectator presents an opinion piece by Sam Leith, who writes, "I'm watching with special interest and excitement the emergence of a miniature anarchist state in Seattle." He admits, though, that "it's hard to tell what's happening in CHAZ exactly. …this six-block social experiment might risk collapsing out of anarchy." My sense is that anarchists, eager for a contemporary real world example of their moribund political philosophy, have pounced on the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, claiming a connection to anarchism that has yet to find a single expression from the community itself. CHAZ's only purported communiqué is a 1,461-word DEMANDS OF THE COLLECTIVE BLACK VOICES AT FREE CAPITOL HILL TO THE GOVERNMENT OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. Not once does the word anarchism appear. NedFausa (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: I don't think you understand how this decision is made. To repeat: WikiProjects define their own scopes. It doesn't matter what you or the media or the article says. If WikiProject Anarchism wants to tag it on the talk page, they can. Daask (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Crump pamphlet and reliable sources on Japanese anarchism

Moved from User talk:Czar § Reliable source on Japanese Anarchism

Hi! I've been doing some work improving articles related to anarchism in Japan, and came across your edit from January 2019 to the article on Kōtoku Shūsui, removing John Crump's pamphlet 'The Anarchist Movement in Japan, 1906-1996 as an unreliable source. Up to this point (in edits to Japanese Anarchist Federation and Heimin Shinbun) I've been utilising it as a factual source despite its bias due to the expertise exhibited by Crump in a number of other works on the subject. Particularly on some specific claims such as the precise founding/dissolution date of an organisation, I don't necessarily see it as being particularly open to bias, even if he does exhibit a clear political leaning in the pamphlet.

I'm willing to defer to you on this though due to your experience - do you think I should avoid using the pamphlet altogether as a source, only use it for very specific claims, or feel free to continue to cite it as I have? (Let me know if I'm asking this question in the wrong place!) Sparkledriver (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Sparkledriver! Thanks for asking. I'm of two minds. On one hand, reliability rests with the editorial process (i.e., what body is verifying the work for us?) and if I recall correctly, I didn't see the publisher (the British Anarchist Federation) having an editorial process for its pamphlet series. I haven't seen the print version, so I could be missing something, but generally pamphlets aren't designated as reliable sources for an encyclopedia and partisan org publishers usually make no claims to journalistic standards. It's strange because Crump has already published two books on the subject, which brings me to the other hand, that Crump's pamphlet OCLC 51959102 could ostensibly stand as a subject-matter expert source (which comes with standard restrictions) but why hasn't this info been published in an independent reliable source? Surely he has access to many methods of publishing this kind of work, especially if it's one of the main, accessible overviews of the subject. I haven't gone through his books myself—and I just found a bunch of new sources in what appears to be an excellent bibliography doi:10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp0062—but I would hope that there are better sources for the conclusions he makes/summarizes in the pamphlet. It is in a gray area so open to other perspectives/info. And I'll take this to a wider audience (WT:@) in case someone has extra sources. czar 01:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page, in case anyone else has suggestions czar 01:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sparkledriver, reading the pamphlet, it says it's a summary of Crump's Hatta Shūzō book, so for this case the easiest answer is to cite that book directly czar 02:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I looked at both the pamphlet and the book a while back. From what I remember (I'm not entirely certain), most, but not all, of the information in the pamphlet is also in the book. I think the pamphlet did have some stuff on the more recent history that wasn't in the book, but I could be wrong. I agree with Czar on the reliability question. The pamphlet is probably a borderline case. Crump should certainly be considered an expert on Japanese anarchism, but this is essentially a "self-published source" (well, it's not published by Crump himself, but like Czar said, there's no reason to consider the British Anarchist Federation a reliable outlet). A while back I started expanding the article on Japanese anarchism, but ultimately concluded that it was impossible to really do this subject justice without reading the Japanese sources, which I can't. I pretty much stopped at that point. Long story short, I'd encourage you to take a look at Crump's book. On the post-WWII history, "Anarchism in Japan" by Chushichi Tsuzuki is also good (cited in the article anarchism in Japan). I remember there were also several other good sources in English on the history of Japanese anarchism but they were all about the older stuff, meaning before WWII, but I could also look those up if that helps.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I've looked through that book, since it's relatively easily available online, and it seems to have solved a lot of the sourcing problems. However as you said the book doesn't seem to contain anything about the post-war anarchist movement, so (while the issue is reduced) the sourcing problem still remains for his claims about the post-war situation. As well as this, the bibliography from The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest cites the pamphlet (more specifically, it lists it in its 'References and Suggested Readings')! It says it's published by Kate Sharpley Library, which just seems to be a collection of this kind of literature & so doesn't add any reliability.

There is a frustrating dearth of sources that discusses the history of the JAF in as much detail as the pamphlet does - the common trend seems to just be saying 'founded in 1946, collapsed by 1968'. I should be able to fill in several holes by referring more strongly to other sources I've used, but I still can't find anything else specifically supporting the one claim that 'anarcho-syndicalists reconstituted the anarchist federation in June 1951'. It's an annoyingly central claim to leave a hole in. However, since it's also a relatively minor (entirely fact-based) claim & Crump is an expert in the field (so much so that the Encyclopedia feels comfortable citing the pamphlet), it's my feeling that it would be acceptable to leave it in even if no other source for the claim can be found, as long as it's only used for strictly limited claims of that type? Sparkledriver (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at Tsuzuki's paper. It has a lot of information on the Federation. Marshall's Demanding the Impossible also has two or three pages on the post-war in Japan, but that book has so many errors I'd probably use the pamphlet before I use it.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I have actually read Tsuzuki's paper, it's the most reliable source I could find on the topic & have been using it consistently. However neither in it nor Marshall's book (which I've also looked at) nor the other sources I've been using (see Japanese Anarchist Federation#References for those which I've been using so far) contain a specific claim about its refounding as the pamphlet does. Sparkledriver (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I see that now. I guess I have nothing to add then, except that the Schnick dissertation might also be a bit iffy per WP:SCHOLARSHIP ("Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence").--Carabinieri (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Duly noted; the dissertation seems not to have been cited widely so I'll use more reliable sources in its place. Regarding the pamphlet again though, do you find any problem with my reasoning for keeping it in a limited fashion? I apologise for being so unfamiliar with the lines around reliable sourcing! Sparkledriver (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No need to apologize at all. I think in terms of the reliability guidelines, you're probably on solid ground using the pamphlet for narrow claims like that. As to the refounding of the Federation: I just had another look at Tsuzuki and they say it wasn't until 1956. Is there any way to know whether it was in 1951 or 1956?--Carabinieri (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

+1 Agreed that occasional use can be justified as a subject-matter expert source—just wouldn't want to use it as the basis for an article or for exceptional claims. It's probably one of the trickier sourcing issues we'll see.

One more complicating factor is that the Anarchist Library/Libcom rehosting of the text is... technically a copyright violation. We typically don't link rehosted texts unless they shows permission/consent of the author/publisher/rightsholder. The publisher could reupload it though. I also looked up Crump (died in 2005) and found some publication history on the pamphlet, if helpful. czar 18:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Carabinieri: I honestly don't know how to resolve that conflict. Tsuzuki wrote "In [1956], the anarchists revived their Federation with the Kurohata (Black Flag) as its new organ." - I'd assumed that this meant that the Federation (which had existed beforehand) was metaphorically 'revived' by the beginning of the publication. However I could understand that someone might disagree about that, so it might be a better idea just to say in the article "By 1956, the Federation had been re-established"? Sparkledriver (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) Yeah, I took that sentence to mean that the organization was re-established in 1956, but I see that it could be read differently. I think your suggestion is fine. Maybe the question could be settled definitively by finding someone who can check some sources in Japanese, but I think your suggestion is definitely on the safe side.--Carabinieri (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Statistics section, updated

Greetings, for Anarchism WP, I added wikilinks "Quality operations" and "Popular pages". JoeNMLC (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Anarchist ribbons

Introducing ribbons to go along with the Anarchist Barnstar, see Wikipedia:Ribbons#Topical_Barnstar_Ribbons:

File:Anarchist Ribbon Shadowed.png

File:Anarchist Ribbon.png

— Jerm (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to demote Wikipedia:Anarchism referencing guidelines to essay

There is a ongoing Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to demote Wikipedia:Anarchism referencing guidelines to essay, the talk page of that guideline carries a WP:(A) project tag, and one of the suggested destinations for the page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Anarchism/Referencing. Comments are invited. –xeno^talk 12:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Would there be any interest in overhauling this essay? If so, perhaps it could be added to this project page more prominently. I took a peek, and it looks like it would need a ton of work. For instance, some suggested sources like Infoshop News seem to have died a few months ago, while others seem to have taken a sharp heel-turn and are currently re-posting nonsense like Breitbart and James O'Keefe's twitter posts. In contrast, some newer anarchist outlets might be worth adding to the list of anarchist media. If not, it might be worth TNT-ing. I'd be happy to work on it a bit myself, though I'm mostly unfamiliar with this topic. Jlevi (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather deprecate it. The essay was written for another time and nearly all of its advice is outdated—its listed reliable sources are not reliable and in general we should avoid primary source claims, not find reasons to balance them. We've been better about this in the last couple of years, undoing years of WP articles sourced directly to theorists, but by now there are plenty of better options (i.e., secondary sources) to use when summarizing theoretical stances of anarchists. czar 06:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Czar. In retrospect the decision to move this to the Wikiproject was not very helpful, since its being here gives the false impression that there's a consensus in its favour among project participants. Simply put, I don't think there are any contexts in which an anarchism-specific referencing guideline, or even an essay on the topic, would be necessary. I'm sceptical that there ever was such a need, but if there was it's been conclusively overcome by the vast amount of scholarship on anarchism published in the last decade, and changing approaches to sources in Wikipedia over the same period. As such, best to tag as historical or deprecated and forget about it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Jlevi (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Depicting anarcha-feminism

Talk:Anarcha-feminism#Protected edit request

This discussion on how to visually depict anarcha-feminism would benefit from more voices. czar 17:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject tag/box Question

Hi. When i see: {{WikiProject Philosophy |class= |importance= |1= |anarchism=yes}} but it is not really in the scope of philosophy should i be changing it to: {{WikiProject Anarchism |class=|importance=}}? It is my understanding that the former is the older tag whilst the latter is the newer. But i may be wrong. Another question, If it is Anarchy related but does also fall into the realm of philosophy does it only need the Formr or does it need both? W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@W1tchkr4ft 00, yep, that's right. Eventually should do one last sweep and deprecate the old template but either works for now. If the article would, separately, fit under the scope of WP:WikiProject Philosophy, yes, would tag for both (same as you would for any other relevant WikiProject, e.g., biography, books, sociology). If unclear about a WikiProject's scope, usually their main page will clarify. czar 04:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll be sure to move all i see over. :) W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion

Hi WP Anarchism, I was wondering if anyone would like to offer an opinion on a discussion taking place at Talk:Autonomous_social_center#Requested_move_10_November_2020. Thanks for any comments! Mujinga (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Squamish Five

Hi, i am trying to get the page Squamish Five‎ together a little. as it lands under the anarchist domain is there anybody here interested? TL;DR - was a canadian anarchy-insurectionalist feminist group in the 1980s, seem to have disapeared from both popular history and our own anarchist histories. I'd especially love to have more here on the 'Wymns Fire Brigade' W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@W1tchkr4ft 00, looks like there's a fair amount of newspaper material available through newspapers.com, so I'd start there with sourcing. You can request access via WP:TWL. Looks like there's enough on the film for a dedicated section if not a summary style split to its own article. czar 01:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh cool. I'm not sure I have the bandwidth to contribute significantly, but this is a very cool page. I wish you the best in shoring it up. Jlevi (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Anarchist Organization Stubs

Would a category similar to Category:Political organization stubs be useful in helping with some more neglected articles in our wikiproject? W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

: @W1tchkr4ft 00, in my experience, adding categories doesn't bring significant visibility to articles. Stub sorting is more for peace of mind. For categorization purposes we already have category:anarchist organizations. czar 23:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Czar. :) W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Auguste Vaillant

I think there's scope for expanding the Auguste Vaillant article to include the events on day of the bombing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundersparkf (talk • contribs) 11:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Thundersparkf, go for it! But per that link, (1) cite La Matin directly and (2) are there no secondary sources that have evaluated this newspaper's contemporaneous claims since 1893? A source with more analytic distance is preferable. czar 18:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Given the length and depth of his his article in French, I agree that there is plenty of space for expansion.--User:Namiba 16:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Gritty_ ??

Hi, can someone explain to me why Gritty_(mascot) Is Wikiproject Anarchism? I can not wrap my head around.

Sorry for putting this here but I find it is very rare that i get responses on talk pages of stubs and starts..

W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably [[5]]? I suppose for some reason some online communities have attached anti-capitalist/socialist/anarchist/antifa memes to the figure? Looks like there are more sources that could be added to support these statements: [6][7][8][9]. Can't account for why people have done this, but they have, so I suppose it's relevant to the wikiproject... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Jlevi (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Per Gritty (mascot)#Reception, the mascot has been widely appropriated as an icon for antifa/anti-authoritarian organizing. czar 23:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

This is very confusing. It is a Corporate Mascot. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@W1tchkr4ft 00: Bear in mind that Wikiprojects are not part of the encyclopaedia and that a tag that states an article belongs to a particular Wikiproject is not part of the article, so very few readers will see it – it's not as though we're placing Gritty in Category:American anarchists. Wikiprojects will also often encompass articles that are obviously opposed to their area of focus, because that opposition is an important aspect of both topics (for example McCarthyism is in WikiProject Freedom of speech and Ku Klux Klan is in WikiProject Civil Rights Movement). This isn't exactly the same as those cases but indicates something important: that it's useful, and does no harm, for Wikiprojects to sweep up articles that are only tangentially related to their topic in the interests of comprehensiveness. (For further background information on how a corporate mascot may also be an anarchist symbol, you could look at the articles on détournement and culture jamming, though neither is in great shape.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I have read the situationists but this is still very confusing to me that peeople would even consider this inconsequential corporate mascot at all relating to anarchism or anti-fascism, especially considering it's an american one. I guess i just dont understand the connection. This still confuses me on a political/philosophical level but I understand more on the level of wikipedia and wikiprojects itself I think. Is there any recomendtions you have as to how the détournement can be improved? It is in my opinion a very important topic to both Anarchy and the Left. Many thanks, User talk:Arms & Hearts. :) W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Upcoming edit-a-thons

Some upcoming edit-a-thons that might pique your interest

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Online edit-a-thon Tech February 2021 (Feb 19–21)
• fr:Wikipédia:« Les 150 ans de la Commune » : mois de contributions (March 1–31)

czar 04:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Phineas Phisher/Fisher

Hi, i was considering making an article about phineas-phisher who you can find out about here,here ,here for a few examples, a quick search of google books as well as a browse of a few I own shows: A ecent amount of hits, but i am unsure if this person passes is enough Notable. Could I get some feedback here before I begin? It would be much appreciated, Thanks. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@W1tchkr4ft 00, go for it! Looks like you can start with a translation of de:Phineas Fisher (wikidata:Q78054885), though I haven't reviewed those sources. The Vice/Motherboard sources are good. WP:ArXiv is a preprint repository for academic papers so you would want to confirm that it has been through actual peer review first. Crimethinc is not a reliable source but would work as a self-published source as an interview. Can also use the following from Ars Technica[10], The Hill, Wired, others[11][12][13][14][15]. czar 22:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Czar, I started in the hopes that others would agree it's worthy. My draft and personal notes are over at: User:W1tchkr4ft_00/sandbox/PhinFisher if anyone would like to help or add anything. :) I do not understand though what is the difference between a 'Reliable Source' and a 'Self Published Source'? Say for example, what qualitatively is the difference between Motherboard and Crimethinc or the Washi? I do not understand it. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

A reliable source has a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, and/or editorial pedigree, i.e., it has set editorial operations by which others sources have deemed the publication reliable for statements of fact. Versus, say, a blog or a wiki or a forum in which the author is not known as authoritative and isn't backed by a rigorous process to determine accuracy of their claims.

A self-published source such as a personal blog or tweet is a primary source, having no editorial distance from the subject, and thus we only use their claims under very stringent circumstances to fill in gaps that cannot be provided by existing secondary sources. So an interview can be used for some uncontroversial claims about an individual, but beyond that, we'd rather hear those claims from a source known for verifying its material than simply repeat whatever potentially self-aggrandizing comment the individual may have said to boost themselves. Experts publishing on the topic of their expertise get some leeway here, but the point is to defer to secondary source editorial practices for secure vetting whenever reasonable. More about each type in their links. czar 23:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a mess of a policy. I do not agree that places like The Hill or Wired has any claim to 'editorial pedigree' and accuracy. They are motivated by both market forces and the party-politics of there country, a country, namely the USA, very susceptible to media distortion and dishonesty, Organizations that must keep up with clicks or keep government sources happy can never by any thinking person be _really_ taken seriously, this has been triply true in recent history for information security related things (Everyone is russia? A game The Hill was happy to play, for example). I simply see no reason to have this kind of unfounded trust in huge media organizations with vested interests and enslaved to market forces over a publication like crimethinc who may have a bias but certainly no more so than more 'mainstream' publications. Size is the only difference I see between them. I will try to stick to 'Reliable Sources' as much as I can but we should be aware that 'Reliable' is purely in name only and certainly detrimental to writing an actual good, informative article. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Gabriella Coleman is a recognized scholarly expert on Anonymous, and other high profile hackers. She writes about Phineas here, hacker, hoaxer, whistleblower, spy. I think generally, Motherboard (Vice) should be considered a reliable source for publications on hackers, since they tend to be technical/authoritative in nature. Shushugah (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, @Shushugah. Yes Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai is the one who covers Phin over at Motherboard and is probably the best source on her, It is certainly worth to bear in mind that most other news websites are usually just re-iterating the motherboard pieces. Anyways, I started a draft here that's less full of notes than my userspace one if anyone would like to contribute directly, check and such: Draft:Phineas_Fisher. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I will note, that a self published source like a tweet can be a secondary/distanced source, for example a verified BBC news tweet link, and a blogger can be distanced/commentator from a topic, but Wikipedia community don't have a very good process for...reviewing blogs on a case by case basis; blogs also do not make a claim to a general/consistent standard, the way a university publication might. That said, most news sources do not claim to be objective either, they're often times highly biased but reliable secondary sources. I am sure you know most of this already, but wanted to emphasize that. While Wikipedia aims to have a neutral tone, it doesn't claim to be a neutral Wikipedia. The policy decisions are extremely opinionated and relies on verifiable information, not "truthful" information. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth Shushugah (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Louise Olivereau

If anyone is looking for a project, I started Louise Olivereau, an IWW activist who went to prison for opposing WW1.--User:Namiba 17:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Created Libcom.org article

I see that Libcom.org was deleted several times in the past, and would love your assistance in finding reliable sources covering it. It's absurd, that the de-factor source of anarchist literature is not on English Wikipedia. Shushugah (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I personally haven't come across much written about Libcom.org, with the website itself the subject of reliable source coverage. czar 22:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Good luck finding sources. They simply may not exist. Unfortunately there are many publishers and distributors who carry the collected knowledge of entire sectors, and well known to everyone in the field, yet themselves are not the subject of review. See WP:WikiProject Academic Journals for stories about sectors of research held in journals for which there is no meta information. I appreciate you posting because I wish we could someday encourage some kind of third-party knowledge creation for critical sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Not so many sources exist, but enough do, that it survived it's 4th Wikipedia:Articles for deletion! See Talk:Libcom.org#Sources Shushugah (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Anarcho capitalists and anarchism

Should anarcho-capitalists count as anarchists for the purposes of categorisation? Equally, can anarcho-capitalists also be free-market anarchists and thus, provided sourcing, be classed as anarchists? This question is motivated by a recent dispute on whether David D. Friedman can be sorted under Category:Jewish anarchists, see here. 15 (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Who say, that they are anarchists? Please bring references for this. ★ Mr. Schnellerklärt (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Schnellerklärt, anarcho-capitalists themselves. I just say that Category:Jewish anarcho-capitalists exists, better just to go with that then. 15 (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I tink, we need something to show everyone direct, that anarcho-capitalists are not really anarchist, but they say, that they are anarchists. ★ Mr. Schnellerklärt (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Reams have already been written on this question and the consensus has been clear that reliable, independent sourcing does not place anarcho-capitalism in the wider anarchism tradition. For starters, see the archives of Talk:Anarchism and Template talk:Anarchism sidebar#Anarcho-capitalism. Discussion of Friedman's categories should take place on the subject's talk page. czar 16:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Article assessments

Hi all. I just went through the unassessed articles linked to the WikiProject and cut down substantially on the backlog. The only ones I left unassessed were the articles that I either created, translated or have actively contributed to. If other people from the WikiProject could assess these I would very much appreciate it.--Grnrchst (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Meijer

Just had to share this. Did you know that the founder of the supercenter chain Meijer was an anarchist? Absolutely fascinating and now a new article—Hendrik Meijer (businessman)—thanks to @WMrapids. czar 23:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

FAR for James Joyce

User:Buidhe has nominated James Joyce for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of CrimethInc. as a source?

Hi everyone. Czar recently removed a citation from the Anarchism in Brazil article as it was published by CrimethInc. (which I have provisionally reverted as CrimethInc. isn't the source, just the publisher of an English language translation) on the grounds that it is not a reliable source. Has there been any discussion on this in the past on the reliable sources noticeboard? If not, would it be worth opening up a discussion on this? I ask because I'm aware of a number of articles that still cite CrimethInc. articles, so I want to know if their reliability (or unreliability) has been previously established by community consensus. Thanks. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

To the general question, there is is no reliable sources noticeboard (RSN) discussion but it's a foregone conclusion as CrimethInc claims no semblance of editorial control, e.g., fact-checking policy, reputation for accuracy, or journalistic reputation/pedigree. And that's before RSN even considers ideological bias—unless the point is to present the opinion of a partisan group, we're looking for neutral sources for neutral reporting. As primary source reporting for an action in which CrimethInc was involved, I can see a potential (albeit weak) case, but if CrimethInc is the only source reporting on basic facts, such as whether anarchists were involved in the 2021 Brazilian protests, then there's high potential that the wider world of journalism does not consider that fact significant/noteworthy. CrimethInc's advertised posting/vetting practices are in line with Libcom.org and Indymedia, which are both unreliable/unfit for encyclopedic citation.

To the specific case, that CrimethInc article is a repost and translation of this blog post, which is even less reliable for statements of fact. Either way it can't be construed as reliable reporting. Reliability is part of the editorial chain. If CrimethInc added a layer of editorial vetting, fact-checking, temperance, those are the practices that make the citation stronger for encyclopedic citation, similar to what a reputable newspaper/periodical would do. But a site that reposts personal opinion without any degree of accountability for details—it's just like citing random Internet information, which is why we have reliable source policy in the first place. But if you'd prefer a formal verdict, a formal RSN thread is the way to go. czar 15:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• reliable CrimethInc. is a top 10% publisher in terms of quality, editorial review, stability, fact checking, and all the other indicators. Most publications which persist for decades with regular publishing by multiple writers are also in that category. This publisher does not immediately fail RS. Obviously this is an anarchist organization, but especially on a topic like Anarchism in Brazil, both the mainstream and anarchist publications are going to have their biases.

They do fact-checked reporting worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, such as https://crimethinc.com/2021/09/08/the-government-didnt-remove-the-statues-we-did-a-chronology-of-statue-topplings-during-the-george-floyd-revolt

Articles on monuments in Wikipedia would be incomplete without citing anarchist sources because the anarchist demographic is at the forefront of certain issues. People who are there in person see it; alternatively in mainstream news a lot of demographic erasure occurs.

The cite in the Brazil article is a matter of journalistic observation, not quantitative fact checking. It simply says that anarchist groups protest against a part of the government, which is a believable claim following years of similar published claims. That is not the kind of claim that needs fact checking beyond coming from a publication with a reputation for reporting on such topics. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#CrimethInc. czar 02:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

325 citations

Hi, I have a question: Since 325.nostate.net is down (and will likely not be back up as we know it due to nostate.net servers being raided by the cops on March 29, 2021 and it's administrator being charged with terrorism offenses over the website, see link) I would like to know if when I come across citations that use 325 do we simply switch the citation to 'dead' leaving the link to the original article (that is unlikely to ever be back up at the old URL) in the citation or do we remove the 325.nostate.net links all together as they will not be coming back up, instead linking only to archive.org? I hope this makes sense and thank you in advance! x SP00KYtalk 06:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @W1tchkr4ft 00, that's right, you can mark |url-status=dead for websites that have been archived. I've also just manually set the domain as dead within the Internet Archive bot so that they're handled automatically in the future. If there is no archive, i.e., the content is gone, it's better to replace the source/URL.

Looking at its current usage, however, most of these instances should be replaced anyway with a higher quality reliable, secondary source. czar 16:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, It's something i've been trying to be mindful of as I edit things and to not add more but it is currently already used in a lot of places. Thank you for adding it as dead to the bot, that should make things a lot easier. Much appreciated Czar, thank you! SP00KYtalk 22:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Stub expansion project: Final push

Hey everyone. You may have noticed that we are approaching our goal of 80% of our articles being Start-class or above. At the time of writing this, we are 8.3% (111 articles) away from this milestone, so I thought now would be as good a time as any to kick the stub expansion project into a high gear. I'm trying to expand stubs that I find myself, recently I have expanded a number of stub articles including "Anarchism in Georgia", "International Alliance of Socialist Democracy", "Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation", "Communist League (UK, 1919)" and "Vanguard Group (anarchist)" among others, but haven't given them a new rating as I don't want to rate my own work. I'll be contributing further to expanding stubs and rating stubs that have been expanded by others, if anyone else would like to help out I would appreciate that greatly. You can find a list of stub articles under the Anarchism WikiProject here. Cheers. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nice work! Feel free to assess your own articles, especially as everything below GA-grade has more to do with breadth and completeness than quality review. User:Evad37/rater is a good tool for this. I'm going to keep chipping away at the maintenance/cleanup categories but was thinking that getting 100% of stubs to Start class would be a great subsequent milestone (as WP:SE did, though ours has way more articles). czar 23:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm also a bit squeamish about re-rating articles based on my own edits, but Tranny (book) should now be comfortably beyond Stub-class. — Bilorv (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Great, i'll help where I can. I bumped two or three up today, including expanding First_of_May_Group to hopefully a Start Class level. Will try to do more as well as more work on the other recently rated articles where possible. SP00KYtalk 05:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I just completed a manual sweep of every Stub class article, promoting approx. 40-50 articles to start status. I also expanded a few stubs to start class as well. There were a number of articles that had been significantly expanded since they were assessed, and hopefully, my assessments were correct (feel free to double-check my work). I tried to be a tad bit conservative with my assessments so there still are a number of stubs that could easily be brought up to start class with minimal effort. I will begin reviewing the Start/C/B class articles within the next week or so. Ideally, there will be a few articles almost ready for GA review.Etriusus (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort! Looking like we're fast approaching the goal, with only just over 30 articles left to expand. I'll check out the ones we have remaining and see what more I can do. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The May Pamphlet at FAC

This project hasn't had a featured article candidate in a while so I thought I'd mention that The May Pamphlet, an article on Paul Goodman's early anarchist essays that I've been incubating for a few years, is up for nomination, if you'd care to review it against the featured article criteria. Happy New Year, czar 19:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Anarchism Barnstar

I was digging through some of the templates when I came across Template:The Anarchist Barnstar and User WP Anarchism (I lost the original link, oops). We should consider putting these up front on the project page, especially since I had to do some digging to find them all. Additionally, a link to, or inclusion of Political Ideologies and Anarchist History userboxes would be a welcome inclusion. Maybe a few carrots will entice everyone through those last 30-40 stubs that need expanding 👀.

Also, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anarchism/Participate page's wording needs to be updated. It still uses the syntax back from when this Wikiproject was a task force of Wikiproject Philosophy. Etriusus (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed the syntax. Have not fixed the "anarchist editors unable to arrange their names in alphabetical order" because I can't be certain they aren't Situationists doing this on purpose. -- asilvering (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

PhilLiberty cleanup

• PhilLiberty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@BeŻet, Tamzin, and Grnrchst, I saw that there was a fair amount of cleanup from PhilLiberty (SPI; ANI)—thanks for looking into it. Are there any prior edits that need group review, or has it all been settled? czar 05:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I got everything that hadn't already been reverted as a normal editorial matter, but I welcome further review. That's everything since their recent return to editing, at least; they'd been mostly inactive for a few years before that. Someone may want to look back at at least some of the past 16 years of block evasion and see if there's any lingering POV edits to revert, but at a certain point, looking through 1,600 edits, it becomes diminishing returns to find the needles in the haystack. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I tried to monitor the articles during his recent waves of edits, and I think things are back to what they were. I don't think any of his edits were valid or worth including - I'm pretty sure all of them were POV pushing. There's one change however, albeit unsourced, talking about how some of free-market anarchism has been influenced by anti-state liberalism, and I'm wondering if there's any truth to it. BeŻet (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Free-market anarchism definitely has some influences in classical liberalism: Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Herbert Spencer and others have all had their own influences on individualist and market-orientated strains of anarchism (see: Benjamin Tucker and Josiah Warren). I'm not sure what "anti-state liberalism" is supposed to mean though? It's not a term that I have come across before and on a quick search the only thing I can find of it is a Journal of Libertarian Studies article about Gustave de Molinari.[16] This may be a better discussion to have on the Free-market anarchism talk page. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

New GA review

Is been a while since I've put out an anarchist GA. I've been fostering the CLODO article for some time now and I'd love some constructive criticism on the page before I take it to GA review. Its a niche neo-luddite anarchist group that was operating for only 4 years. My main concern is its limited content and overall page layout. It appears GettyImages has the rights to images from their arson attacks, so that's a no go. I'm still planning on giving it some touch ups (especially the lead and links). Etriusus 04:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice! Will respond on the talk page: Talk:CLODO czar 05:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for interview

Hi everyone. Today I was approached to be interviewed by The Commoner, an online anarchist publication. I'm hesitant to take up this offer for a number of reasons: firstly, I wanted to ensure I got the consensus of others working on WikiProject Anarchism, as such media attention could affect us collectively; secondly, I'm not sure what the Wikipedia policy/guideline is on media appearances by Wikipedians, or even if there is one; thirdly, I worry that it could attract negative attention in the form of harassment or vandalism; and finally, I'm personally worried that I as an individual couldn't comprehensively answer questions about a project with such a broad scope, in a way that abides by Wikipedia guidelines. If anyone could offer their thoughts and/or advice on how to handle this, I would greatly appreciate it. Obviously, if other members of the WikiProject strongly object to this, I will refuse comment and leave it at that. Best wishes. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Is the topic of the interview Wikipedia? BeŻet (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, specifically about the work that I've been doing on it lately. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's wonderful for you to be recognized for your work! So to that extent I'm supportive. Wikipedia editors are interviewed by press all the time and it's always as individuals, so no expectation of speaking "on behalf" of the community or anyone else. In a quick search of the guidelines and in my years, I'm not familiar with an internal public press or media training guideline. To that end, I don't think you need our permission/consensus but thoughtful of you to ask. I'd wager the risk of backlash of a small Internet publication writing on a niche topic to be small. Altogether, I imagine it's more likely that this would attract more positive interest to our (highly visible, somewhat arcane) project than negative backlash. If it delves into controversial areas, you can always decline to answer, like any interview. That last concern is real, though. Sharing publicly identifiable info is a decision you cannot reverse. There are policies in place for on-wiki harassment but the WMF's ability to intervene gets fuzzier (at least to me) the more it starts going off-platform, e.g., to social media. Long story short, if anyone brigades your user talk page, we can handle it but I'd agree that if you don't want this to bleed into your personal life, to be careful about answering those types of questions. I'm happy to join you either to help answer broader questions or just in solidarity if you would like—just let me know (and can always email me here). Also it might help your decision to know more about what exactly they want to discuss and what privacy protections they would agree to keep. czar 14:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• unqualified support I support you in any case. Here are some practices which make interviews better -
  • disclose at a relevant wiki project (you already did this)
  • if the interview is cool then share with WP:Signpost at the "in the media" section after publication
  • I know that many people feel touchy about individual Wikipedia editors speaking on behalf of the community, but I say do it without being shy and use your best judgement. Too often the bigger problem is lack of outreach, not outreach in error. I would rather actual editors represent the community than Wikimedia Foundation staffers, and WMF staffers are not shy at all about claiming right to speak on behalf of all of Wikipedia. Following that lead and precedent, just do it.
  • If something goes wrong, or if there is harassment, come back for community support. The only times that I can think of having withdrawn support from someone is when they speak negatively in an inappropriate way. If you get confused about what to say, then whatever else you do, avoid complaining and do not insult or speak negatively about anything. If you think you need to complain, then do it in a positive way, like saying "editors would benefit from more support" not "this (entity) is bringing us down".

Do it! Bluerasberry (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a member of this WikiProject (I'm a member of the sister Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism) but I support you doing the interview and happy to monitor pages for potential vandalism. BeŻet (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Soft Support I agree with Czar that the risk is minimal. I would love clarification on if it is a written response or an in person/over video interview. I think i've personally been soured by recent media developments, particularly the trainwreck at r/antiwork but I believe you're knowledgeable and able to handle an interview. Additionally, this will likely be a friendlier interview since everyone's interests align, so I don't foresee anything particularly controversial coming from this. Will you have access to any of the questions beforehand? I have a limited amount of media training so I may be able to help in some capacity. Etriusus 02:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• The interview will be written responses and I'll be able to get access to the questions beforehand. As for the r/antiwork drama, I know well enough to not ever accept an interview on a Fox News talk show. Cheers. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Soft Support You seem to want to do it and that's nice and i don't want to dissuade you. But i will tell you in my experience with journalists, be VERY careful and never trust them. Journalist will lie by omission, twist your words, create a completely different narrative around what you intended with your words and even if the jurno themselves seems nice and has good intentions you can never know the intentions of their editor. I don't want to dissuade you and I want it go go well but also in my own experiences and in the experiences of those around me it's really easy to be burned by these people and far to common. The problem you have to remember is simply that after you give them your words all power, control and knowledge is out of your hands until publication. TL;DR by all means do it but be cautious and untrusting. SP00KYtalk 14:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Scope of Anarchist economics

Talk:Anarchist economics § Scope

This article has had myriad scoping issues for some time. Inviting feedback on the article's talk page, linked above. czar 16:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Anarchist zines IA collection

Recently created collection of interest on the Internet Archive: [17] -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Requesting help with Makhnovist articles

So I have been overseeing the expansion and restructuring of articles related to anarchism in Ukraine lately, this has included particularly big efforts on the articles about Nestor Makhno, the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine and Makhnovshchina. I have done a lot of work so far, but there is still a lot more work to do, which has brought me to levels of exhaustion and burnout that may force me to take some time off. As such, I'm requesting some help from others with these articles. Anything you can provide would be great. This is just becoming far too much for me to take on by myself right now, at least until I can replenish my energy a bit. Thanks all. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Grnrchst, where did you leave off and what remains to be done (where do you need a hand)? Looks like two of those three are nearly 150 kB of prose, which is three times the recommended article length! Likely that some content can be pared down or split into separate articles. Enjoy your hearty, restorative break and the articles will always be here for you when you're ready. czar 02:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

So the Nestor Makhno article needs more sources in the middle section of the biography and more added to the "personal life" section, was also thinking about adding a "political ideology" section but need more info on that first. The Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine needs more sources throughout, as it's largely based on Skirda 2004 at the moment. And the Makhnovshchina article's "history" section needs rewriting with better sources. I have also detailed further info about my processes in the respective talk pages. I'll have a think about what splits can be done. Thanks for the kind words. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Related effort, for those interested in working on the above topics: meta:Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2022 (no relation/planned prior to the war) czar 03:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I have nothing but time, can you recommend what books would be good to give a read over in order to help in places that need some Love and Care? Cheers, SP00KYtalk 20:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC).

Palij 1976, Darch 2020, and Patterson 2020 all look like good bets czar 05:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for offering to help, Spooky. I would highly recommend Darch 2020, it's probably the most well-researched book to date on the Makhnovist movement. The other principle sources that I've been using include Malet 1982 and Peters 1970, both cited in the articles. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

theanarchistlibrary.org

I found this Anarchist library with hundreds (if not more than a thousand) of online accessible books and articles on a wide variety of Anarchist topics.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Paradise Chronicle. To be honest, there are a few problems with citing The Anarchist Library. The principle one being that doing so often amounts to a copyright violation, as many of the texts there seem to directly pull copyrighted works (without listing whether or not they were given permission to do so). Other problems include that TAL versions of texts have different page numbers listed than the original text and that many of the texts there aren't really reliable sources. Grnrchst (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, fair point, but I still see it as useful because if one is interested in a specific article in the TAL, they could see if its also available somewhere else like the Wikipedia library.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Our vital articles

Hi everyone, hope you're all keeping well! I'm currently making my way through the final touches for the article about Nestor Makhno, which is considered to be a Level 4 vital article, in hopes of getting it reviewed for good article status. This got me thinking about the other vital articles that we currently have under our care. What with the cleanup picking up steam (almost 2/3rds done), I thought now would be a good time to bring up and discuss how we can better focus on improving our vital articles.

I've mentioned elsewhere that I have very little interest in theory articles, so I'd probably be more focused on the historical and biographical articles. Aside from Makhno, I have collected biographies about Mikhail Bakunin, William Godwin, Emiliano Zapata and Buenaventura Durruti, and history books about the Spanish Civil War, so these will likely be the ones I move onto once I'm satisfied with the article on Makhno. Has anyone else in the WikiProject adopted any of our other vital articles? If not, would you be willing to? Thanks and best wishes. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Vital articles GA or FA: 19.8% complete

(18/91)

Yes! I love this project. I'm currently working on Paul Goodman's (VA5) FA status this summer for his 50th death anniversary in August, and Francisco Ferrer (VA5) is close behind. I've been wittling at the bibliographies for our other vital bios and have a few shelves of histories and biographies to put to use. But given how long Goodman has taken—close to a decade when considering the offshoot articles—I'm mindful not to prematurely commit to an article set, especially given my pace. (E.g., consider how much energy you put into the Makhno Army articles and then think about the leviathan that is the Spanish Civil War...)

I'm most interested in Kropotkin (VA4), Tolstoy (VA3), Bakunin (VA4), or Michel (VA5) next, in terms of a total rewrite. I keep an eye on upcoming vital anniversaries so I have a bunch of sources from the recent Commune/Kronstadt anniversary. Emma Goldman (VA4) is at risk of losing its FA status without some updates/improvements/rewrites, so I started working through its sources. Same for getting Anarchism (VA3) to FA status. Most likely I will end up working on a FA about a book or manifesto with an upcoming anniversary.

As for the cleanup project being 2/3rds done, the total project article count has increased by a third since last July with the addition of previously untagged biographies, so its final phase continues to slog along. I wasn't sure if you'd want to pursue the stub expansion effort from last year once the unsourced overgrowth is pruned back. Namely those expansions and translations would be the hardest part of getting the cleanup queue back to zero. I personally find the vitals to be more fun but I'm slowly doing everything at once. czar 16:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind thoughts, I can assure you that I will not be entering into writing about the SCW too hastily. I'll probably be starting off with Godwin, just rounding out his biography that's mostly already written. Then I'll likely move onto Bakunin, as I find his life incredibly interesting, so I'll give you a ping when I get around to that.

I do have a couple of stubs in mind that I can get around to expanding at some point. Just off the top of my head: The Law of Freedom in a Platform; the General Confederation of Labor (Spain); and the Network (Russia) are all topics that I know I can get sources for. Grnrchst (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry about that with the biographies, that's on me (as czar knows well, from following in my wake...). But I think I've got all of them now, unless there are any lurking adjective+anarchist biography categories that have a high proportion of articles in them that were never also added to something in Category:Anarchists by nationality. For a more fair comparison of work done, 831 articles have been resolved since July of 2021, so if one looks at the goal as "fixing 989 articles" instead of "literally reaching zero", there are only 158 to go.

I'd love to adopt Louise Michel but realistically speaking I won't have enough writing time free for... ages. (And I should "finish" Nikolai Utin and Federated Legion of Women first, or I'll feel guilty about abandoning them.) I'll be hitting the expansion/translation cleanup list instead, since it's easier to do in smaller chunks. Also, penance for adding all those biographies to the cleanup list. -- asilvering (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Update: I have just submitted the article about Nestor Makhno for peer review. If anyone here is up for helping look over this article, in preparation for a GA submission, I would appreciate that a lot. Cheers. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Will take a look! Also welcome feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Goodman/archive1, for anyone interested. czar 18:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I just noticed that Wikipedia is still looking for more level-5 vital articles in the subjects of History and social studies. Is there any articles we have under the WikiProject that you feel should be added? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I added a bunch (the main ones) a while back. I think we have all of the ones that won't be challenged at that level but would be curious what others think.

For reference, here is our project assessment table for what other editors have categorized as top, high, or mid (i.e., not "low") importance. (I'd be in favor of removing this importance level from our project template but that's another discussion.) czar 21:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

James Robert Baker Featured article review

I have nominated James Robert Baker for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Grnrchst's interview with The Commoner is live

Part 1 & Part 2, for those interested, following up from the previous thread. I highly recommend Part 2—worthy of The Signpost, in my opinion. :) Nicely done, @Grnrchst!

And here are tweets for sharing: 1, 2. czar 04:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this, @Grnrchst! -- asilvering (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Smallbones The Signpost's editor says Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#5_days_until_publication that he wrote to the Commoner and asked for a Wikimedia-compatible copyright license to republish the article in The Signpost. Has anyone been in contact with him or The Signpost about this? It seems like something this kind of publication might encourage, either for both parts or for part one linking to part two on the main site. I am an editor for Signpost; let me know if I can assist.

Thanks Grnrchst for interview. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I see the conversation - it is on Grnrchst's talk page. Thanks, all sorted for Signpost. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Cheers for the kind words and encouragement everyone! I really enjoyed doing this interview and am glad to see people have liked it. Hopefully I answered the questions to everybody's satisfaction. :') --Grnrchst (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This was a very good interview and they gave you a fair shake, it seems my pessimism was unwarrented, nice one @Grnrchst. <3 :) SP00KYtalk 17:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Improving "Consensus decision-making"

Hello WikiProject Anarchism people. I have been gradually trying to improve Consensus decision-making for over a year now. Yesterday I added a section on Consensus decision-making#History. However, I've mostly been alone in my editing. Not only would it be more fun to edit with others, I grow slowly uncomfortable about having too much editorial influence (and therefore having increased risk of my work being later removed).

Consensus decision-making is currently rated C-Class, despite being 1 of just 14 Top-importance anarchism articles. Perhaps some of you are interested to get involved? DougInAMugtalk 15:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Douginamug: I gave the page a quick run-through and can identify some prose and citation issues. I'll eventually get around to help fixing these issues. What do you aim to do with the article? General improvement? GA status? If you want to take it all the way to WP:GA I can help with that and would gladly walk you through it all. I will warn you in advance that topics this broad in scope are a bit outside my wheelhouse but should be doable. Etriusus (Talk) 21:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Etriusus Great that you're interested! I would like to generally improve the article. In particular I'd like to make it more encyclopedic, as the article seems to be written mostly by proponents and detractors, moving away from NPOV. I was mostly aiming to bring it from 'C' to 'B', but if you're willing to help get it to GA, I will gladly set my sights higher and accept your help. DougInAMugtalk 12:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Any more sources on the KPAM?

Hi everyone. I recently went through the sources I had available to me and expanded the article on the Korean People's Association in Manchuria. What little information I was able to glean, I have now added to the article, but this represents the extent of it. I was wondering if anybody here knows of any further sources that I could add to the article? If not, it seems like this version of the article may be more-or-less complete. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It's inaccessible to me but search for its Korean name[18][19] and a whole library's worth of stuff shows up. Other places to check: Anarchism in Korea § Bibliography, WorldCat subject headings[20][21], LOC subject headings[22][23]. The main difficulty here is that English-language sources are unlikely to be as rich as the Korean-language sources and even then, there are many different permutations of the name to search. I found some English-language mentions in ProQuest, for instance, but it'd be a fair amount of work to track down full texts that likely only allude briefly to the "Korean Anarchist Federation". I'd say this article sufficiently covers the main sources for GA status. Might want to look at combining some of the short sections, if possible. czar 14:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Aye, I figured this would be the case. Unfortunately I can't read Hangul, so the Korean language sources will be mostly inaccessible to me, even with machine translation. I'll have a peek through the other English language sources available.

Which sections do you think would be best to combine? Grnrchst (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Made an edit—feel free to revert czar 04:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Grnrchst, I would like to know whether you could understand Chinese, there exists a number of sources there. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 06:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately my Chinese comprehension extends to the basics: "Hello", "Goodbye", "Please", "Thank you", "1, 2, 3, 4", etc. Thanks for mentioning that though. At the very least I'll be tracking sources in Korean and Chinese, maybe put them together in a further reading section. That way if anyone with the necessary comprehension wants to add further inline citations, they're waiting for them. Grnrchst (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yi Jeonggyu

Can someone who isn't about to fall asleep very carefully go over the earwig copyvio report for this article that just passed a DYK nom? It's checked off as "no copyvio or close paraphrasing", but the editor who recently closed the nomination made some alarming edits (eg [24], changing "about" to "approximately" with the edit summary "removing copyright concerns") - if there are copyright concerns here, that edit wouldn't fix them. There will be some false or irrelevant positives for sure, but it looks like some sentences are very close to how they appear in Anarchism in Korea. Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion here: Talk:Yi Jeonggyu#Close paraphrasing czar 04:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hunger Strikes

Especially with what has been happening recently (the Michailidis Hunger strike currently and the Romanos hunger and thirst strike of a few years ago) I have been thinking about anarchists and the tradition of hunger strikes. Do you think it would be most pertinent to add them as examples along with the suffragettes and Irish Republicans under the Hunger strike page or do you think this would be better placed somewhere else? I assume for example we probably have some prisons related articles or sections it could be better placed in. Sorry for the vague question, It is just something I am unsure about, Thank you for your patience! SP00KYtalk 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

First thought is that this is probably a matter for the article's talk page so those who are maintaining the page can weigh in. At first blush, the article's structure is inscrutable—is it meant to be mainly a vessel for noteworthy hunger strikes? (I would think, beyond its origins, it should have lineage on how it connects with lineages of philosophy and protest, e.g., with nonviolence movements.) Really depends on the sources. I haven't looked but I don't recall coming across sources on hunger strikes as a distinctly anarchist tradition and I'd personally want that kind of metasource on a wider trend before connecting isolated/individual hunger strikes as if to imply a tradition. But perhaps you have those sources? Worst you could do is write up some text and see what sticks. Be bold! czar 07:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Despite there being many examples, historic from Singh, Sacco to the 1921 USSR hunger strikers and many contemporary european examples over the recent years, I think you are correct in it being pertinent to have a metasource on the trend before adding examples to this page, which i sadly do not know of, I hope someone writes such a thing one day!

I would like to improve this page regardless and I think you have given some good criticisms, I will take your advice in hand.

Many thanks as always! SP00KYtalk 04:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Tom Cornell, Catholic Worker

Catholic Worker Tom Cornell has died. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Makhno Stamps

I want to draw attention to a particular image used on various Makhno-related wikis. These currency stamps (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ukraine_rizn012.jpg) and their vectorized image (Makhnovshchina#/media/File:Makhnovist Stamp.svg) are not authentic. The biggest give away is the use of the red hammer and sickle, which was not used by the Makhnovists and even amongst Communists was not yet widely in circulation in 1919 . The Ukrainian wiki for Makhnovist ruble points out that Makhnovists did not produce their own bills/stamps, etc., and specifically refers to this image as a forgery. I was unable to track the stamp sheet's exact origin (online or otherwise) but I could investigate further. UnknownVolin (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting—thanks! I've added clarification to the image descriptions and linked their talk pages to this discussion. Pinging the uploaders @Anizotropia and Thespoondragon. czar 06:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I propose removing the images from Makhno-related wikis unless their authenticity can be proven. Especially the stamps' use of the hammer and sickle is misleading. UnknownVolin (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I've cleaned up all instances of the stamp and its vectorization, save for the example on the Ukrainian WP that refers to the image as fake. Everyone should feel free to restore if/when its authenticity or an alternative can be proven. czar 16:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)