# Talk:Anarchism

I have concerns that this article's dedicated criticism section may compromise its structural neutrality. It seems that this criticism section has three main points to make: that anarchism is unstable and violent, that it is impossible/utopian, and that human nature is inclined towards authority/hierarchy. Why this requires a dedicated criticism section with multiple meandering paragraphs, citing various political philosophers, is beyond me. In some cases, it's unclear whether the thing being criticised is actually the political philosophy of anarchism or the social structure of anarchy. In other cases, it seems to give undue weight to specific viewpoints; I already removed a couple paragraphs that I felt were obviously undue (see diff). 
I worry that, so long as a dedicated criticism section exists, it will be a magnet for POV editing by people who are both in favour of and against the subject. Per the NPOV guidelines on article structure, I think we should slim down this section and find a way to integrate the relevant parts of it into other areas of the article. I think this would create a more encyclopedic structure for the article and keep the focus on the subject itself. I have tagged this section for now and would like to see what others think before making any drastic moves. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. This section doesn't appear to add anything of value to the article. It could be replaced with a more neutral "response" or "influence" section, and some of the counterarguments presented could go under "schools of thought" (e.g. the bit on anarchoprimitivism). IMHO as it stands now, the section could be deleted entirely and not detract from the article. Note that I may be biased by my own lack of investment in the issue, lol. NuanceQueen (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
@Grnrchst, @NuanceQueen: This issue can be solved by creating another article featuring criticism of anarchism, just like other articles featuring criticisms of various economic systems and political philosophies such as: criticism of capitalism, criticism of socialism, criticism of libertarianism, etc. Erminwin (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
@Erminwin There's no official policy, but I believe Wikipedia is trying to move away from "criticism of" pages, since they often serve as a  WP:POVFORK NuanceQueen (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Really? Do you have any reason to believe this? i havent really seen any evidence of such an attempt so far. AssanEcho (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
From WP:POVFORK, conveniently linked in my above comment: There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead). [italics mine.] NuanceQueen (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
My bad! I thought you meant "criticism of" sections in wider articles, not whole articles that are dedicated to criticisms! Thanks for the correction. AssanEcho (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand how creating a POV fork would solve anything. It would just make the existing problem much worse (and those other "Criticism of" articles are complete messes as well). --Grnrchst (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Generally "criticism" sections and articles are not best practice. I would support reorganizing the pag3 to eliminate the criticism section with the criticism retained on-page and integrated more organically into the page structure. Simonm223 (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
@Grnrchst, @NuanceQueen. on reflecting I think the whole section should be entirely rewritten. Its current structer of "anarchism has [dododod] problem attested by philosopher [whoever]" repeating for multiple paragraphs is both a dull read and an inneffective way of communicating the subject, along side your point on how it will attract POV editing.
I think a better style would be focusing on specific parts OF (general) anarchist goals and philosophy and how philosopher [x] and sociologist [y] interpret them. for example
"A main goal of anarchism involves the total abolition of hierarchy, however Bertrand Russel stated that there are too many wider policies in modern society to be effectively dealt with by a single community". what do you all think? AssanEcho (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
@AssanEcho: I still think the contents of the section should be integrated into the rest of the article, but your proposal would be a marked improvement and could even make integration easier down the line. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! I just now impleneted a very rough outline of the section now, though its mostly by moving the Hobbes bit (which i new realise is without reference) and adding sub headings AssanEcho (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
@Grnrchst Sorry! I hadnt thought about WP:SYNTH or that my edit would reach into original research. but I'm not that familiar with secondary lit regarding anarchism (let alone lit that also has a history of it's critism) and I dont have time to search for and read for such texts so I cant really do anything to help at the moment. sorry! AssanEcho (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I disagree, all ideologies have their critiques and detractors, addressing both sides in a clear way both makes the article more neutral and makes it easier to get an understanding of the ideology. When certain articles have criticisms and others don't, or when an article is completely one sided for or against an issue, it's certainly less neutral, we shouldn't be afraid to show both sides of the argument.  Ben Carpendale (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

there is no information about Miguel de Unamuno, and Friedrich Nietzsche. 2A02:85F:9AF4:D673:78DF:2714:6BC:7992 (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Please see Miguel de Unamuno and Friedrich Nietzsche for information on these figures. This is an overview page for a whole family of political ideologies. Simonm223 (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

One of these days the controlling 'editor junto' will let this article be edited. One hopes. My theory: Anarcho-socialist sectarians (who control the article) don't want the article to reflect that most anarchists these days are anarcho-capitalists.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.180.250.20 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

With your multiple talk pages posts in the past months you must certainly know that if you want to edit this page you can either directly propose sentence changes or additions here or you can just make your own account (without even needing an email!). You could also just edit non-locked related to anarchism right now (like individualist anarchism, mutualism, Gift Economy, Green Anarchism, ect) to show your eagerness to contribute, which is far more productive than shouting into the void. AssanEcho (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)