# Talk:CLODO

https://machinesinflames.com/1
Can someone check the rights on these newspaper articles. One or more would make excellent images for the article. Etriusus (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Etriusus (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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)
It looks like there are a bunch of relevant sources in fr:Comité pour la liquidation ou la destruction des ordinateurs#Bibliographie et sources. Have you tried looking at those? I'd wager that the sourcing issues stem from most sources on this topic being published in another language (French).
Which images were you intending to use? As long as it passes the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, there could be a case for a fair use upload.
Any reason why the acts of sabotage are in a timeline rather than prose?
A bunch of these sources will be challenged, e.g., infolibertaire.net, HackerNoon. Sources should be independent, reliable, and secondary wherever possible. There are a number of primary sources in use here as well.
czar 05:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this meets 3a/b right now:
The French police thought they were part of Action Directe, but then what? There's an implied "but now they don't, for [some reason]". Is there anything at all that can be said about the cops' response other than "apparently never identified the members"?
Their most notable attack gets only 2 sentences. Seems... not so notable?
What's the outcome of any of this? Responses from press, politicians, anyone...?
When Kroker and Wilson are debating whether the group still exists, when was that? What was their reasoning?
I think the sabotage timeline needs more context - anything would help, really, to make this feel less like a list of trivia, which it obviously isn't.
asilvering (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Czar:and @Asilvering:, I've incorporated many of your edits and have substantially reorganized the page. I have good fix for the sourcing issue in the "sabotage" section and I aim to implement it in a bit. I can't seem to find anything more about the Sperry attack but most sources list it as one of the biggest attacks they're known for, it may just have to remain as is for now. I've kept a few primary sources but made them less prominent, as there is some information that is wholly irreplaceable otherwise. I tried to incorporate more quotes. I cannot find the Korker or Wilson sources so that sentence has been cut. Lead still needs work, haven't fully proofread the page, and I'm still digging through the French sources. Etriusus 06:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Looks like there's a fair amount of stuff in Google Books, searching for clodo and sperry. Here's one, for instance, that starts a chapter. czar 04:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey! Here are some news clippings on CLODO uploaded by the wonderful comrades at Destructionist International and their documentary project about CLODO; "Machines in Flames". I think there are more but I do not know if they will end up here. SP00KYtalk 03:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are two potential sources following the film, for consideration: [1][2] czar 12:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The term Neo-Luddite is used various times in this article and keeps being used. To me this seems reductive and incorrect. This question is itself brought up in the CLODO Speaks piece under 'Aren’t you really a bit retro, like the machine breakers of the 19th Century?'. Another issue here is that if you actually go to Neo-Luddites and read the article we can see it merely takes a bunch of disparate things an tries to create out of them a coherent ideology, it really is not fit for purpose to the point that it does a dis-service to the articles linking to it. 
I felt I should get other peoples opinions here first as this might be a little bit contentious. Thanks. SP00KYtalk 17:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@W1tchkr4ft 00: I agree that Neo-Luddite is a fairly broad definition that, in the grand scheme of things, likely can be distilled into "Technology bad". CLODO never explicitly called themselves Neo-Luddite but its a label given to them fairly consistently. I don't like invoking WP:TRUTH but CLODO as an organization really didn't give us much to work with. Even in CLODO Speaks, they don't explicitly state either way, rather they distance themselves from "the Loom/machine Breakers" only partially while still admitting to some parallels. Perhaps changing the ideology section to state that they never claimed to be Neo-Luddite but their ideology has been compared to that of Neo-Ludditism could suffice. Adding their opinion on the machine breakers wouldn't be a bad idea either.
It does seem like there is a much larger issue about the viability of Wikipedia's current Neo-Luddite article. That is unfortunately outside the scope of my expertise and arguably outside the scope of this article. The line Neo-Luddism distinguishes itself from the philosophy originally associated with Luddism in that Luddism opposes all forms of technology, whereas neo-Luddism only opposes technology deemed destructive or otherwise detrimental to society. actually fits with CLODO fairly well. Realistically though, that page needs serious work.
On a separate note, thanks for the French archive. My French is a bit rusty but I'm making good headway into the news clippings.
Cheers, Etriusus  (Talk) 21:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I did a but more digging. When CLODO says "machine breakers" they mean Luddite, not Neo-Luddite. Luddite is anti-technology, Neo-Luddite is anti-abusive technology. Nearly every source I'm finding describes them as Neo-Luddite and when read in that context, I think its safe to conclude that, even if they didn't outright call themselves Neo-Luddite, their beliefs fit fairly well into Neo-Luddism. I'll still update the Ideology section to reflect this. Etriusus  (Talk) 23:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

In March 1981, an IBM computer terminal at the Banque Populaire building in Toulouse was vandalized. While CLODO did not claim the attack, the newspaper Le Matin de Paris stated the attack was "reminiscent of the habits and customs of the deceased CLODO".
Based on the markings in the scan, this looks like 1987, not 1981, no? czar 12:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Czar: This was also mentioned in GA2. It is more than likely, 1981. The French roughly translates to "...yesterday morning at 6 a.m., in Toulouse. An IBM terminal of the main branch of the Banque Populaire was destroyed (pulverized?)...". It then goes on to mention a 1 year anniversary since the last CLODO attack. Other instances of 1 look very similar to the one on the above source. Additionally, the archive lists the date as 1981-03-21. I've changed it back for now. Etriusus  (Talk) 18:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree -- continental European handwriting puts a slash through the 7, and the 1s look like British/American 7s. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Christie, agree to which (1981 or 1987)?
Since it's written with the same handwriting, I similarly see the other Matin source as "10/04/80" with that "1" looking different than the "1 or 7" in the first Main source under discussion. czar 01:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I think it's a 1.  I do think the best thing to do would be to find an archive of Le Matin to settle it, but I'm pretty sure that's a 1. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)