Talk:Anarchist symbolism/Archive 1

message: I removed the blurb about the V from V for Vendetta as an Anarchist symbol. Although the comic "V For Vendetta" has a very strong anarchist current in it, I dont belive that the "V symbol" is nessisarily an anarchist symbol, or that it is used by alot of anarchists.  In fact, there is/was a movement agienst the film V for Vendetta by anarchists.(Transcona Slim 01:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: V for Vendetta?

message: This article could do with a few more images:
#A picture of an anarchy symbol spray painted on a wall for the anarcho-punk section.
#That picture of the Spanish anarchist militiaman with the circled "A" symbol on his helmet. Apparently it was part of a BBC documentary.
If you can find or create any of these images, please do! Thanks. • Benc • 02:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Image requests

message: In section Black Flag, the following text appears.  "Also at about the same time, the British based journal Black Flag was started and is in existence."  This does not appear to be grammatically correct, but I'm not sure as to the author's original intent.  Recommend "...is still in existence today." or "...continues to exist.".
:Fixed. You know, you're allowed to (and are very welcome to) make any changes you feel like to the article yourself. :-) • Benc • 06:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous Text 

message: The anarchist tradition has always been anti-capitalist. Information on the symbols of free-market fundamentalism (often misleadingly called "anarcho-capitalism") belongs on a seperate page (which I do not have the time or inclination to create). AW
:That's just plain not true. It disobeys the requirement that Wikipedia follow the neutral point of view. You can claim that anarchocapitalists aren't real anarchists, but there is a substantial amount of controversy about it. Certainly all the anarchocapitalists would dispute that this is correct, thus, the claim is not point of view neutral. Any claim that they aren't "real" anarchists is at best an opinion, not some sort of "objective truth". 
:On the objective facts level, there are certainly propertarian anarchists that date back to the early 19th century and before, so you can't even claim that this is a new strain in the anarchist movement. It would be fine to say "some anarchists deny that capitalism is compatible with anarchism, while others claim that both traditions are present in the history of the movement", but it is not okay to pretend that there is only one objective point of view here.
:I would strongly demand that the page be made neutral on this point. If that doesn't happen, I'll bring this up for an appeal. --Pmetzger 16:18, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: After consideration and researching the origin of the section on the page and the origin of the symbol, I've restored (and made some minor edits to) the anarchocapitalist symbol section. If you would like to discuss ways to edit the text to indicate disputes about whether anarchocapitalism is anarchism, or to discuss linking to a page on that topic, I'm amenable to it. --Pmetzger 19:20, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I've determined the origin and linked to that on the page --Pmetzger 19:20, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree, this is totally unacceptable. If 213.100.52.73 has a problem with POV wording, they are free to change a word here and there — or better yet, add to this discussion. By and large, I feel that a compromise has been reached by those willing to talk it over here. Unilateral, repeated removal of the section is vandalism. I've left a note on User talk:213.100.52.73 asking them not to do it again. If they do, we need to report it to Vandalism in progress. Three strikes and you're out. • Benc • 02:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: In the interests of not biting newcomers, I've decided to give the anonymous user a second — and final — warning on their user talk page. Make that four strikes and you're out. • Benc • 09:52, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree. I think they've worn out their welcome at this point. Time to ask for their IP address to be banned. There are plenty of signs on Wikipedia indicating how to get help with stuff and how to learn the rudiments of interacting with others. I get the impression this person doesn't want to follow the rules. --Pmetzger 14:56, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally wrong page for a dollar symbol 

message: The person at IP address 213.100.52.73 seems to keep changing things to re-insert his point of view. This is not acceptable behavior. Anyone have any ideas on what the right thing here is? I'm happy seeing people discuss the language -- maybe it isn't as neutral as I'd like it -- but discussion, not vandalism, is the way to make forward progress.
:I agree, this is totally unacceptable. If 213.100.52.73 has a problem with POV wording, they are free to change a word here and there — or better yet, add to this discussion. By and large, I feel that a compromise has been reached by those willing to talk it over here. Unilateral, repeated removal of the section is vandalism. I've left a note on User talk:213.100.52.73 asking them not to do it again. If they do, we need to report it to Vandalism in progress. Three strikes and you're out. • Benc • 02:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interests of not biting newcomers, I've decided to give the anonymous user a second — and final — warning on their user talk page. Make that four strikes and you're out. • Benc • 09:52, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree. I think they've worn out their welcome at this point. Time to ask for their IP address to be banned. There are plenty of signs on Wikipedia indicating how to get help with stuff and how to learn the rudiments of interacting with others. I get the impression this person doesn't want to follow the rules. --Pmetzger 14:56, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: "The symbol can be seen as..." etc. This either needs attribution or shoudl be dropped. As it is, it's nothing but POV or original research. -- Jmabel 21:17, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
:After a 60 second Google search, I've found several sources, one of which is a 1986 poster from Australia. I've requested permission to use an image of it on this article from ipl.org. Note that Proudhon predates the symbol, so we're not going to get anything straight from the horse's mouth. • Benc • 10:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...can be seen as..." 

message: Could we get some examples of groups (and publications?) named "Black Cat" for this section? Also, there are anarchist small businesses?! This is surprising (and interesting) — please support this statement with facts, and possibly add info about such businesses to the main anarchism article. Thanks, • Benc • 06:54, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No strong objection, except that the Black Cat Cafe in Austin - one of the examples I provided - is legally a privately owned business (they needed to be for their liquor license) founded by someone who happened to be an anarchist. -- Jmabel 18:33, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Added reference to Autonomist Marxist use of Black Cat symbol. FTI: the difference between a collective and a co-operative is one of legal structure (co-ops need one by law, collectives have many (or no) structures)) and adherence to the seven co-operative principles. There are plenty of co-ops that fit Che y Marijuana's definition of co-op. While there are some Worker's Co-ops that employ people who are not a member of the co-op ther are plebnty that don't, as well as other sorts of co-ops (e.g. Housing Co-operatives that don't employ anyone at all. Tallus 16:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know of any collectives called "black cat" which are still open?  Last I knew the black cat in Austin had been hollowed out by a fire (and so isn't open anymore), and there hasn't been any effort to restore it.  I also heard (sometime last year) that the original owner was trying to sell what's left of the building. millerc 01:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black cat 

message: The Unicode character for circled latin letter A is not visible to some browsers.  In the line "The anarchy symbol that most people are familiar with is Ⓐ, which consists of the capital letter "A" surrounded by a circle.", Ⓐ is only visible as a small rectangle.  The Unicode for the circle-A, & # x 2 4 B 6 ; (spaced out here for convenience) is correct, but for some computers it will not function.  This may be more of a problem of Unicode, but I felt it should be brought to attention.  Anonymous Non-User 08 Oct 2004, 23:20 (EDT)
:Yes, it's a rather obscure character, I'm not sure it's useful to use it here. I have a pretty extensive font - no problem with, say, Chinese - and I can't see it. -- Jmabel 03:42, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
::I can see it, no probs.  — Chameleon 8 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)
:::And now I'm seeing it. Weird. I'm not aware of having changed font... -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 23:56 (UTC)
::::Arial Unicode MS helps on MS Word. Some fonts have more characters in them than others. Also, use "Alt + is" to get the ... thing ... where the so - called "shortcut" can be entered in: the "Character Code" box.71.141.154.252 04:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have that and some other pretty massive fonts. Obviously something was glitching half a year ago when I asked this. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the "& # x 2 4 B 6 ;" while trying to clarify the lead paragraph. My browser didn't display this in a meaningful way and I don't seem to be alone. If the code works on other peoples browsers then maybe it should be restored and I hope people will consider my edit the honest mistake it is. On the other hand if it just generates the Circle-A symbol then perhaps the full image next to it makes this redundant to the reader? Seferin 22:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unicode Circle-A

message: for sake of completion, shouldn't we add the sidebars (whether anarchist or libertarian) to these articles? i was going to go ahead with it but then realised there is probably a rift here, and i might as well check first. this coming from an individualist anarchist. Lockeownzj00 04:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that they haven't. Not a single image listed here is an Anarchist image, their imagery is all their own. The connection is tenuous at best, so I see no reason for it. Someone looking for a page on ancaps isn't going to be looking for the page on anarchism, and vice versa.-- Revolutionary Left |  Che y Marijuana 06:47, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
They are not using straight anarchist symbolism, but they are adapting it to their own ideology.  This isn't about what someone is looking for, it's about a related topic.  Clearly :Image:Libertatis Aequilibritas silver.jpg is modeled on the circle-A, even if anarchists would find that adaptation repugnant.--Pharos 06:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Still a tenuous link. I need a reason why the link would serve to do anything but imply a relationship that isn't there. I'm sorry if I'm being a little curt, but I just think it's an unnecessary weaving. Is there a Libertarian symbolism article perhaps? Place a link there to the ancap page.-- Revolutionary Left |  Che y Marijuana 06:57, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
I think I've made the relationship clear, but putting it in context; see my recent revision.--Pharos 07:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  anarcho-capitalist symbol articles 

message: Isn't there a connection of the Anarchist black flag to the black jack or Jolly Roger of pirates (that is, self-organized armed ships that recognized no state,and gave no quarter). --Error 12:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference for that connection? It seems right, but I have not read anything that would definitely say so. --albamuth 16:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Black flag

message: Does anyone have a citation from the anarchist press on the use of the Jolly Roger by anarchists and the motivations behind it? Or when it was first used? I wonder whether it may reflect Tariq Ali's invocation of pirates in his theory of the Temporary Autonomous Zone, or whether it predates that; also, presumably there is an element of pirates as defying law and government authority, and of this being a way to "show ones colors" as distinctly non-national. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jolly Roger 

message: I'm always suspicious of uncited additions about the Freemasons. In the case of the material recently added here, I am particularly so. A circular "O" does not derive from omega, it derives from omicron. I have, indeed, seen Christian (and possibly Masonic) use of an alpha embedded in an omega, but not in an omicron. Again, without citation I seriously doubt this claim of connection. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lacking response, I am removing this. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry it has taken so long, but I have now supplied images and citations for thisd important piece of information about the origins of th encicled A.Harrypotter 23:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice work! - Jmabel | Talk 18:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemason? 

message: I'm not really familiar with the "queer anarchist" movement, however, wouldn't the term "queer" itself be considered homophobic? I hesitate to edit it, in case I am wrong. (Which is quite likely to be the case.) Regards, --ScottishPinko 20:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least in the U.S. (and I would have thought in the the UK) the term has been quite reappropriated. See, for example, queer studies, Queer Nation. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or LGBTQ. The Ungovernable Force 06:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queer anarchists? 

message: From the article: "It is possible, though unlikely, that they were unaware of the color's use by Anarchists, whom they disliked as much if not more than ordinary Socialists." Anything is possible, but this would seem extremely unlikely, given the syndicalist backgrounds of many early fascists. Can we delete this unfounded conjecture? Unless I hear objections I will do so, and someone is welcome to beat me to it. - Jmabel | Talk 16:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purported fascist ignorance 

message: Someone told me that Satanists believe that the A symbol represents Asmodeus.  Has anyone ever heard this before and is it accurate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.141.143.70 (talk • contribs) 2 April 2006.
:Never heard it, but it wouldn't surprise me. An a with a circle seems pretty simple, I wouldn't be surprised if it was used by some other group earlier. The Ungovernable Force 06:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchy Symbols Represents Asmodeus? 

message: I've cleaned up the lead paragraph including the removal of weasel words and an attempt to improve clarity. The lead paragraph still needs a bit of work. I've only done a couple of edits so try to be patient if I've messed anything up. Seferin 22:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean the lead paragraph of the Circle-A section, where you edited. Sorry, but I think that you are headed the wrong way. In particular (1) it was appropriate to indicate that this is simply the best-known symbol today, not at other points in history (2) unless cited for, the claim that "the circle is symbolic of unity and organization"—or of anything—smacks of pure conjecture. Similarly the remark about the symbol generating a feeling of solidarity. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking again, I see that most of what I find objectionable was there before you edited. I've added . - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph 

message: Have found an example of the circle-A being used during the Spanish Civil War at http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/spancivwar/flood2/sobrera.gif - interestingly this is fairly similar to the anarcho-punk usage (as oppose to the more "neat" version used elsewhere). do we want to include this?
The statement "Contrary to some historians accounts, the IWW (like activist Joe Hill) never died and remains an active labor union today." seems a little odd as, as far as I am aware, old Joe is no longer with us. Am therefore going to remove the part in parentheses.
Also, the statement "Many Anarchists have been freemasons and rosicrucian imagery of this type was used by the Golden Dawn." require substantiation. While the cite given for Giuseppe Fanelli seems fairly in-depth I couldn't find any other on Google on him in particular or anarchism and Freemasonry in general; if anything most anarchists seem to be anti-Masonic. I don't dispute that Freemasons and others may have used the circle-A before anarchists, but evidence is needed to show a causal link. --Black Butterfly 08:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few things 

message: Both images are needed as the full scope of the image is not coneyed in the detail, but without the detail the use of the image does not make sense. The purpose of the entry is to make information known. Removing important material may end up with an uncluttered blank page, but that is hardly helpfulHarrypotter 12:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about removing :Image:Kunst und Natur.jpg instead, then? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The simple Circle-A is already present in the Infobox. - Jmabel | Talk 18:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for both images of @

message: Ok I'm quite confused at this.  I read a majority of the Anarchy article and the symbolism article, and not ONE person said anything about the A being inside the circle.
This article is the ONLY place I have ever seen the anarchy symbol drawn INSIDE the circle.  I'm not alone in this as I just asked a bunch of people online.  The REASON the A is to be drawn OUTSIDE the circle is to represent what Anarchy itself IS.  Not being held by any bounds, restrictions, or laws.  I KNOW Anarchy means so much more, and I never knew the rich history behind it until I read the article on wiki.  In fact I see that there are citations needed for the logo itself, so there is no real backing to displaying it as such.
I'm not really artistically inclined, but could someone PLEASE replace the anarchy logo with the correct one?  Or at least see if they can find the origin of the symbol as we know it today?
I'm thinking that finding information pertaining to this will be difficult simply because of the nature of anarchy itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.203.134 (talk • contribs).
:The article says The circle is symbolic of unity and organization.
:The circle does not represent restrictions and bounds. It represents unity. In fact, the circle itself is used as a symbol of anarchy on some occasion; in example in the logo of the Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation (Logotype, Flags. Here, the circle represents unity and organization, as in the slogan "An injury to one is an injury to us all".
:The circled A you are used to is to be found here: Anarcho-punk.
:Further: do you see the irony in trying to maintain one of two symbols of anarchy is the correct one? ;) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a severe misunderstanding of what Anarchism is all about -- by the same logic, it would be fine to propose a swastika as the symbol of anarchism, just because some dude feels that would be right. Unfortunately this misconception of Anarchism is pretty common -- Anarchism is not against conventions per-se, but only against those conventions that haven't been arrived at in free consensus. At any rate, I think both versions of the symbol would deserve to be presented here. In my feeling (I can't back this up with any references though), the A with the lines going outside the circle has more of an 80ies and punk ring to it. If you haven't come across the other version at all outside of this article, clearly you need to take another look at the world around you. It's all over the place, and not only in recent years. Just as a random example, take this 1976 poster for a talk on Bakunin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bakunin_and_Anarchism_poster.jpg Lodp 17:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the A drawn inside the circle? 

message: This was cut by someone who called it "total bullshit". How constructive and polite.
The "A" has an additional symbolic meaning in Italian: autogestione (literally self-management), meaning self-determination. This refers to the radical action of factory workers taking control of their factories, running them democratically without a boss.
Probably the best reference I could turn up quickly was , but here are a few other decent online examples:   A Google search on the word will find quite a few more (mixed in with maybe 20% off-topic links, including a much recurring "Microsoft In Autogestione" where I honestly cannot tell why they chose to use this particluar word.). Autogestione was also the name of an Italian anarchist magazine back in the early '80s (I don't know if it still survives, but I'll try to search down a copy); it used the circle-A in its logo; the symbol was not particularly widely known at that time. 
The word also exists (obscurely) in English as "autogestion" and in Spanish as "autogestión". I'm sure it is used in some other languages (my Googling also turned up French, because it is also the same word), but my reading on anarchism has been mostly in English, Spanish, or Italian. It's mentioned in our (pitifully short) article on Workers' self-management. It is the title of the related French-language and Spanish-language articles on that topic. Here is (much to my amazement) a use of the word in a Library of Congress country study: . And here's a quite good discussion of the topic in Spanish . Again, Googling will turn up many references. 
Possibly this is open to some dispute, but it is clearly not "total bullshit". Now, do you care to drop the "bullshit" attitude and discuss this? - Jmabel | Talk 04:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autogestione, redux 

message: I just removed this new next from the page: 
It is important to note that the red and black flag is not exclusively anarchist. Other revolutionary syndicalist and revolutionary socialist movements have utilized it, including Augusto Sandino and some non-anarchist syndicalists during the Mexican Revolution as prime examples, and the Marxist-Leninist party that took Angola out of colonialism also uses a variation on a red and black flag. 
Although I know that flags utilizing red and black have been used by non-anarchist groups, is there any source that the flag being discussed (the one with a diagonal division) has been used by non-anarchists in any extensive way? Any comments? Perhaps mention that other red and black flags have been used by other groups, but as far as I know, this specific flag is exclusively anarchist. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 03:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from the page 

message: There's some problem with the black flag image (in my browser, at least). In the article, I don't see anything in the image, just a big white expanse. If I highlight it, it turns grey as expected. If I click it I go to the image detail page where I do see the flag. Christian Campbell 03:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black flag image not displaying in the article 

message: I deleted the mention of the Irish folk song from the black rose section, as the song has nothing to do with Irish nationalism.
http://www.irishfestivals.net/littleblackrose.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.59.162 (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Rose edit 

message: So, an anon IP fairly legitamately removed this section, being that it's been tagged as OR for awhile, and is unsourced. I'm not personally knowledgeable of an-cap symbolism and whatnot, so maybe somebody else can find a source for this before readding the info? Murderbike (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am similarly unfamiliar, but I have been monitoring the page and wondering about the threshold for inclusion. Shall we say that if no coverage in reliable sources for a symbol may be found, and it is not the symbol of an organization notable per Wikipedia standards, it does not deserve inclusion on this page? Effectively, that would mean removing the Mutualist, Agorist, Eat the Rich and GNU symbols. скоморохъ 03:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Origin of the Voluntaryist V. There is a widely used Agorist Action Alliance (A3) logo, which might take the place of the other. Libertatia (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the input, but it seems to me, that most any "symbol" is "made up". The circle-A didn't appear in nature for the exploitation of the struggling masses. Murderbike (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voluntaryist V 

message: The page is very cluttered with images – completely understandable given the nature of the topic.  Maybe to improve the layout, a gallery should be introduced for the "other" section.  Post thoughts here if you care to discuss alternatives.--Cast (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks ok at my screen res, but if we are to increase the images/text ration (i.e. by re-adding the recently removed gnu/agorist/mutualist symbols), it should be an option. The desirability of a gallery seems to depend on whether or not there are 3-5 related symbols which can be described in one or two paragraphs. At the moment the only image cluttering the Other section for me is the "Eat the Rich" symbol Which image groupings did you have in mind? скоморохъ 14:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please pardon the late response.  I was referring to both the "anarcho-capitalist" section and "other symbols" section, which were cluttered prior to my creating this section.  As I look at the layout now, it seems to have been improved slightly.  I won't raise the issue again until I see the page becoming cluttered again.--Cast (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: I was looking for information regarding the history of the star in anarchism, but couldn't find anything.  Anyone have some info about it?  It's the reason I came to this article.72.78.251.171 (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Star/Red Star 

message: I was wondering if the red circled A, used by anarcho-punk bands (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Circle-A_red.svg)
should be included in the symbols.
You could argue that it was just like the regular cirlce-A, but it has notable differences in look (the red color, the a being bigger  then the cirling o) and it's usage is also different. It's mostly used by (anarcho)punk bands to represent their anarchist beleifs.
So I thought it should be added as a symbol or at least mentioned as a variation on the circle-A symbol.
ComicKurt: That is not death wich can eternal lie and with strange aeons even death may die. 18:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho-punk red circled A 

message: who deleted it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonfeluch (talk • contribs) 13:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, it's not a symbol, the author his/herself described it as being something they just made up.  This article is about actually used anarchist symbols. ProbablyAmbiguous (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what has happenet to christian anarchy symbol 

message: Not to put too fine a point on it, I think this section is shit. I mean, it's shit anyway, as a discussion of alchemical symbology; but it's especially shit as a serious exposition on the history of the Circle-A before its use by anarchists. You might just as well incorporate that bit on the Christian Alpha-Omega: it's an incidental (and accidental) use of the same or similar symbol by a totally different and much less public group at a completely different time period, and with utterly different intent. There's no connection between the two, and I move that the section Pre-anarchist usage be deleted.
Nuttyskin (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that motion, and have enacted it. Plrk (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-anarchist usage

message: A user added the link Christian punk to the "See also" section of this article. After scrolling down somewhat, I found the link - an "Omega-A" symbol which represents the Christian concept of God and also plays off the circle-A as a punk symbol. I don't entirely think it's appropriate (and the link should at least be to that section), but I'm raising it for discussion. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 04:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar appearing symbol, used by a totally unrelated sect, is not really worth linking too in my book. I mean, we could link to anyone who's ever used a black cat as well. Murderbike 09:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really totally unrelated? There have always been christian anarchists, as oxymoronic as that may be. I mean, some people even call themselves queer muslims. I was stunned by the assertion that the circle-A is actually an "A & O" symbol. It's not totally outlandish to assume a connection to Alpha et Omega as used by esoterics. Some renditions of A & Ω resemble the Ⓐ: . Of course it's speculative, but I wouldn't dismiss it rightaway. Of course if such a connection exists, it cannot be related to christian punk because that is a very recent phenomenon.--87.162.35.68 (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Christian punk]] link

message: I just noticed that this photo shows a flag with a skull and crossbones (and dollar signs) on it an anarchist rally in 1915. I wish we could see more of what was on the flag, but maybe we'll someday know what manner this symbol was used back then? Murderbike (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found another one [here] showing what appears to be the same flag with the text "Broadway 26 26". What the heck does that mean? Murderbike (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A threat against Standard Oil? The wiki image metadata say May 1st, 1914, not 1915. That was shortly before the Lexington Avenue bombing when dynamite intended for Rockefeller/Standard Oil blew up on the activists.--87.162.35.68 (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jolly Roger 

message: I would like to consider adding the "Anarchy Bumblebee" to this article, but first its history must be confirmed.  The website lists it with the caption "FAUD's Anarchy bumblebee."  Looking around, I discovered the FAUD to be the Free Union of German Workers, an anarcho-syndicalist outfit founded in December 1919, by Rudolf Rocker, Arthur Lehning, & Augustin Souchy.  (Daily Bleed, Blackend Flag, and the Kate Sharply Library for the sources:
1899 -- Arthur Lehning lives. German anarchist. Founder, in December 1919, with Rudolf Rocker & Augustin Souchy, of the FUAD. Establishes & becomes curator of the monumental "Bakunin Files", with the International Institute of Social History of Amsterdam, in 1971. (http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/sinners/RockerRudolf.htm)
1945 -- Germany: Julius Nolden freed from Luttringhausen prison with the arrival of the Allies today. Previously head of the FAUD, on Pentecost Sunday of 1947 he met in Darmstadt with other comrades to establish the Federation of Libertarian Socialists.
Nolden was head of the anarcho-syndicalist FAUD (Free Union of German Workers) in the Rhineland & one of 83 sent to prison for "preparing acts of high treason." Unfortunately several of the 83 were murdered in prison by their captors."
(Also:   ) 
So, anyone know if this Bee is really associated with the FAUD?  If not, where does it come from?--Cast 23:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In eure Hand, / Arbeitsbienen, / Werkstatt und Land, / Forst und Maschinen!Lied der schwarzen Scharen, circa 1930. Anarchy in the hive ;)--87.162.35.68 (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAUD's Anarchy bumblebee? 

message: I decided to be bold and remove large chunks of the Circle A in popular culture section. My rationale is as follows:
: * Given that the circle A is so heavily used nowadays it seems odd to single out specific instances (Ashlee Simpson, Hot Topic)
: * The section read as an anarchist perspective on what happened (e.g. describing the Sex Pistols' use as appropriation) rather than a neutral commentary.
If people want to reinsert things here please go ahead but bear the above points in mind when doing so. --Black Butterfly 08:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circle A in popular culture 

message: Might not the yellow-and-black (as opposed to gold-and-black) also be considered symbolic of anarcho-classical-liberalism, due to yellow's historical association with classical liberalism? Tisane (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellow = classical liberalism? 

message: I liked that little guy...  Seriously, though, why no black cat section anymore? 218.160.183.224 (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's Sabocat? 

message: This whole section may be original research. What is the history of the diagonally bisected black+color coded flag? Can someone find some references?
The section may need to be either expanded on, or removed.
66.108.243.166 (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly the black-and-red is well-known in Spain (for example, used by the CGT for the better part of a century). The rest of this though? I have no idea. - Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bisected flags and stars" 

message: This article should include something on the irony of symbolism in Anarchy. I mean, c'mon folks - if the idea of anarchy is no structure, a widely recognized symbol meaning "Anarchy" is the first sign of structure and governance. It's kinda funny that a group of people, brought together to be anarchists (and you just know they are going to defer to a leader in the group, because that's what people do) adopt a symbol? Seriously?  That isn't anarchy - thats a Condo Association. Real anarchy doesn't use symbols, correct?
68.252.62.180 (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You clearly have no idea what anarchism is. — Life in General Talk/Stalk 16:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do some research before spouting off nonsense. Like, Life In General says, you clearly are very much misinformed on this subject. The system that most Anarchists propose is VERY structured - You seem to be buying into the myth that Anarchist's advocate chaos. In fact, we'd consider Anarchism a very well organized answer to the chaos and exploitation inherent in the Capitalist system.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.162.153 (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The Irony of Symbolism

message: I've the black and red flag material before the other symbols as it came first and the rest are variations on it. I would also note that red is not the colour of "socialism" (anarchism is a school of socialism) as such, but the labour movement as a whole. Also, black and red flags were used in the 1870s by anarchists, so they are traditional colours and both come from the same source, the 1831 Lyons revolt. So the use of red and black by anarchists is because of their joint source in labour protests and the labour movement. I would suggest that the section gets modified to reflect the origins of anarchist use of the black and red flags in the general labour/socialist movement which it is a part of. BlackFlag  —Preceding comment was added at 15:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your change, purely on the basis of image alignment. This article has had to have minutely-tweaked balancing of images and your change seriously screws up the antecedent section. The significance of the red-and-black bisected flag is not in doubt -  it has an entire subsection devoted which accounts for half the bisected flag section to begin with. Wikipedia articles that are not exclusively historical follow topic-based rather than chronological sectioning. No problems with your proposed content changes. Skomorokh incite 15:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about black and red being used as Fascist symbols? Such as by the National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands and the Right Sector? 82.169.103.207 (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And also the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. 82.169.103.207 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: black and red flag

message: I'd like to propose that a section be added on the circle-E (for "Equality"). I'm not really sure as to its origin, although I would guess that it's even newer than the squatter's symbol, possibly originating within anarcho-punk culture and symbolism.  It is, however, used by many anarchists today, as evidenced by these photographs:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UHFNuAfw6UY/STMUtpIjP8I/AAAAAAAAAX0/XlY2XFywRB0/s400/anarchy+-+whoever+they+vote+for+we+are+ungovernable.jpg
http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0307/traitorsImage6.jpg
http://dangerousintersection.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/800px-g20_protesters_pittsburgh_pennsylvania_2009-09-24.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkkhrhTCg11qe86fxo1_400.jpg
BlackGoat138 (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ljgua124 (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circle-E 

message: Since it is entirely without references why is this section still here?156.22.9.252 (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bisected flags and stars 

message: Since we have a long standing consensus not to ghettoize any form of anarchism (anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism are both included in Anarchism for example), and as the Symbols section of Anarcho-capitalist terminology and symbolism is small enough that it wouldn't overwhelm this page, it should be merged so that we have a cohesive inclusive anarchist symbolism article. Anarcho-capitalist terminology and symbolism is largely reliant on unreliable sources, does not assert its notability,  is unlikely to survive a vote for deletion. Please indicate your support or opposition to the proposed merger here. Skomorokh incite 21:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. Murderbike (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally am okay with that, hopefully other anarchist of the culturally left-leaning don't get so upset which they have in the past as evident by the many discussions above this one. Lord Metroid 17:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Motion passed without opposition, impending merge Skomorokh incite 09:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm happy with the merger. Allixpeeke (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is really pretty bad, merging two totally distinct political traditions and their symbols into one. Really, what does anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism have in common beyond attempts by the latter to call itself "anarchist"? As for symbols, the flag of strikes being associated with gold? What a joke! As for "non-sectarian", that would assume that anarchists and "anarcho"-capitalists aim for the same thing, which they do not. Still, I do not have time for a pointless argument so I will leave my changes to showing when and why anarchists started using it. [User:BlackFlag|BlackFlag]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackFlag (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course if you poison the well by classing non-capitalist forms of anarchism as the "anarchism" opposed to anarcho-capitalism, the discussion is over already. Your subjective whim as to which anarchist school of thought to exclude is worth about as much as the individualist who refuses to allow anarcho-communism within the hallowed halls of anarchism due to its authoritarianism, the anti-fascist who denies nationalist anarchism or the insurrectionist who repudiates the supposedly submissive anarcho-pacifism. Anyone can indulge in these infantile definitional games (we even have an article on it); so you are right, the argument is pointless. Skomorokh incite 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's room for anarcho: communism/socialism, individualism, syndicalism, parecon, primitivism, transhumanism, etc in an article on anarchism.  All claim to aim for a society with no or as little as possible hierarchy.  So called "Anarcho"-capitalism simply isn't anarchism because it supports hierarchy based on wealth.  All references to anarcho-capitalism should be removed from articles on anarchism.  I'm similarly opposed to so called nationalist "anarchism".  Nationalism is based on racism and jingoism; it supports a hierarchy based on genetics and/or geography.  It isn't anarchism. Delirium of disorder (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unacceptable.  This is bias, pure and simple.  ANYONE who claims anarcho-X should be free to do so for any X, and anyone else attempting to stop them is betraying the fact that they wish to impose their will on others, thereby invalidating their own 'anarchist' position.Aquishix (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Ancap symbolism 

message: Why is a copyrighted corporate image with absolutely no ties to political Anarchism listed here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.46.227.226 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good question! Stamboliyski (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed it. The source doesn't mention anarchists using it as a symbol. Sargoth (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guy Fawkes Mask 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anarchist symbolism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060713032812/http://tallerediciones.com:80/cuza/masonesyobreros.htm to http://tallerediciones.com/cuza/masonesyobreros.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eskimo.com/~jonkonnu/cat&shoe.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080130063135/http://www.anarchyisorder.org:80/CD%234/TXT-versions/-%20History%20of%20Anarchist%20symbols.txt to http://www.anarchyisorder.org/CD%234/TXT-versions/-%20History%20of%20Anarchist%20symbols.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It looks like this article contains a lot of original research that lacks citations— just because you saw a flag like this once does not mean that the flag means what you think it means or is consistently used in the way you think it is.  Most of this kind of information needs to be removed unless someone can provide citations for it.  If the article contains unreferenced information that you think should be kept, act now to provide citations.  Otherwise I am likely to remove the unreferenced stuff soon.  KDS4444 (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lot of unreferenced original research here 

message: I have yet to check the texts on  but since I suspect Marshall has the better take (as the secondary source), I wanted to note on the talk page for posterity. There also used to be a lot of unsourced text in the article, so I suggest browsing the page history, as there's plenty to restore if you can also add the sources. czar 20:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Marshall vs. Proudhon 

message: , what page are you citing in this source? czar 02:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Affinities: A. Journal of Radical Theory, Culture, and Action, Volume 8, Number 1, Summer 2014, pp. 23-43  Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  , right, I have a copy of the source, but what specific page of it are you referencing? It doesn't look like it supports the whole paragraph at first glance (and there are better sources if it's being used only to associate the black flag with anarchism but wanted to check first). czar 09:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: if you have a better source on black flag--fine to replace. Rjensen (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ya my question was whether the source applies to the rest of the paragraph but it appears not czar 23:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evren 

message: This page seems to confuse anarchism with anarcho communism/syndicalism and the symbolism thereof, nothing about the philosophical principles of anarchism even mentioned in the text.138.106.57.132 (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho communism/syndicakism 

message: I found some information on the Black Star from the Polish version of this page, but I'm having trouble finding a solid set of resources as to its origins. I listed the resource from the Polish site, but if anyone has something better that would be great. I'm relatively inexperienced, so let me know if you have any pointers about how I could do a better job with edits, etc. Thanks!
Polk1986 (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black star 

message: Statements such as "The uniform blackness of the flag is in stark contrast to the colorful flags typical of most nation states", "the black flag symbolizes defiance and opposition to surrender", "The black flag represents the absence of a flag and thus stands in opposition to the very notion of nation states", and "the flag can be seen as a rejection of the concept of representation" (permalink) need a source and attribution. These are subjective opinions. Colors and flags can mean different things to different people. "According to anarchists" is neither a valid citation nor attribution to a specific author, both of which are required by policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black flag meaning 

message: "Black Flag White Masks: Anti-Racism and Anarchist Historiography" by Süreyyya Evren doesn't say anything to support these statements. The citation to Baillargeon (2013) that I added is a much better source for the flag association. If there are no sources that mention "the color black in general", then that part should be removed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evren, 2014 

message: NoMan NoName is a pen name like George Orwell. Sirus Kashefi is a respected anarchist academic and the name is in reference to anarchism. Vallee01 (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find any third-party information on the author of the paper "An Analysis of Anarchist Personality". Being hosted on Academia.edu isn't enough to make it reliable. Anyone can create a profile and upload documents. On what basis is this to be seen as a reliable source? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is reliable, going through the sources and being an avid reader of anarchism, he links a large amount of reliable sources. Vallee01 (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make it a reliable source. Anyone can write a paper and fill it with links to . I can use the pen name "PhysicsWizardSuperHadronParticleCollider" if I want; that doesn't make me an expert in particle physics. The source/author/publisher themselves have to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The relevant standard for academic writing is having been vetted by the academic community at large. By all appearances, this is a self-published paper by an obscure individual with no scholarly qualifications whatever. What is your source for describing the author as a ? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't appear to understand all information is excellently sourced, the information is completely verified. He has edited and created a large amount of anarchist papers. Moreover the information is certainly a reliable source, I don't know how much you know as to Wikipedia however most of all sources do not need to come from an academic location. Places like WSJ, Britannica and other locations are all reliable. This source is reliable due to the sources provided, and the way it is formatted. Vallee01 (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not how reliable sources work on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter how many papers the author has written or how excellently he sources his information. Anyone can write a paper citing Britannica; that means nothing if the author mis-interprets or misrepresents their sources. If you want to cite this author, it's on you to demonstrate their qualifications according to relevant third parties. That's a basic Wikipedia policy; see WP:V. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The paper is completely properly sourced, written and reviewed. The citations table is excellent.If the only issue you have with the paper is the person who wrote it, and don't even care or think it necessary to read the paper, instead being completely fixated on the writer, it might say something how you look at sources. When going over the paper it is cited correctly, it is reliable. However if you would like to go over it, and find some contradiction, or wrong information, go ahead. However the paper is well sourced and when you haven't even gone reading the paper you can't really state if or if not it should be used as a source. If you find anything questionable to the article it will be removed, and I will lament. However as far as I can tell it is properly cited and researched. Vallee01 (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, your personal opinion that the paper is  is not how we establish reliability. Who reviewed the paper? What are their credentials? If you want to cite this source, the burden is with you to show that the paper has been properly vetted. It's not anyone else's job to read your sources for you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sirus Kashefi 

message: this edit removed citations to Baillargeon (2018), Ehrlich (1996), Sartwell (2010), and Woodcock (2018) that were used to support the contents of the article. It also removed various formatting (publishers, dates, etc.) used to provide more complete reference information. What is the justification for these removals? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am readding them now, it is also fine if you would like to readd them. Please do not however remove properly sourced information from 2010, this article is completely properly sourced and hasn't been reviewed over the years to be a decent article, however you seem to have a fixation on removing already sourced material. Vallee01 (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  What sourced material is that? If you mean the part about "cults of personalities" etc., there is already a discussion about that under #Sirus Kashefi above. Please reply to the comments that have already been made there. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why on earth did you remove the Unicode symbols? Vallee01 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because Wikipedia is neither a how-to guide for anarchists on social media nor an indiscriminate collection of information. The page already has illustrations of various symbols; the Unicode symbols interfered with readability without adding any crucial information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Unicode symbol is objectively required, it shows clearly the A symbol in text, it shows on the first line the symbol, and upon preview it is viewed, nothing should be inferred it shows clearly on the first line. Let me just state there is no point from which you could state the removal of the Unicode symbols was justified, it will be re-added. The Unicode isn't a how to guide it is an excellent visualization. Vallee01 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unicode characters are not readable for many screen-reader users. See MOS:NOSYMBOLS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: There is only source which was recently added that is claimed to be "not reliable". That citation is contested and was added recently.
Remove:
 Vallee01 (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 2 November 2020 Remove "self published"