Template talk:Anarchism sidebar/Archive 4

message: can we add a link to this?  which section would it go under?--Urthogie 20:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to [[anarchy]] 

message: Hello.  The Anarchism image on the politics portal was changed to a black flag to more broadly encompass the topic.  It would make sense to do the same with this template.  Votes can be placed below.  Marc Mywords 22:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I swapped in the black flag image on this revision and then reverted myself so that everyone can see one edit with the black flag logo in place.  I did a straight swap of one for the other, but the flag did not show up for me.  I don't know if it's just my computer or what have you, but if someone can make it work, then great.  But I'd like to see it in place on a revision before I pass judgment.  I see nothing particularly wrong with the A sign, but I'd like to see the flag before I decide for sure.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I an't see the flag image there. But, I don't see why it would be preferable to the circle-A. The circle-A is instantly recognisable, a more basic image, and less ambiguous (consider that non-anarchist groups have used black flags). ~Switch t c g 03:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the image 

message: This section seems somehow arbitrary and undergoes a lot of change.  I was wondering if a little classification might help.  Perhaps beginning with "Traditions" and listing only those which together encompass all anarchists, like "individualist, social" and perhaps "without adjectives".  I can't think of any of the other schools that wouldn't fall within one of these.  That would at least be a standard rather than a matter of individual editor preference.  It would then be followed by a "schools" section that includes "Capitalist, Christian, Collectivist, Communist, Eco, Feminist, Green, Mutualist, Philosophical, Primitivist" and "Syndicalist".  Does this seem workable? Etcetc 06:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you dig back in our history, "Traditions" was the original title here, but it got shot down big time.  "Schools of thought" became the more-encompassing title as a result of discussion, if memory serves me correctly.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The exact label is less important than the general cleaning up that categorization would allow.  The first two or three all-encompassing labels could be "schools", "traditions", "modes of thought" or whatever.  I felt that the "schools of thought" would be better reserved for the subsequent ones, but its really a side issue to the idea of presenting a sort of non-controversial main set under which all the rest can fall.  I'm also not suggesting we list the other schools under any particular branch, because that itself would probably cause a lot of controversy, rather that primary branches be listed and the schools get their own section below that.  Of course, categorization itself is a potentially controversial issue, as many anarchists believe their personal philosophies transverse hard ideological lines, but it might be less controversial than the kind of ad hoc group we have under schools at any particular time.  Etcetc 04:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Etcetc raises some interesting points, suggesting a higherarchical structure of "branches" and "schools of thought". The issue is not so  much whether "many anarchists" beleieve their personal philosophies transverse hard ideological lines, but to produce something less POV, something less slanted to the opinions of a what is a tiny minority of humanity. Certainly many social commentators - Anton Pannekoek for example -  have seen anarchism representing more a class pespective - principally that of the lower middle-class. Clearly this is a conceptual analysis, the considered view of a scientist who was deeply involved in political analysis. Such a viewpoint could well be much more useful than the self-conception of self-identified anarchists.Harrypotter 15:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, any proposed classification scheme really should be backed up by published sources, otherwise the entire template could be considered original research. Aelffin 16:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, suggested changes seem arbitrary. -- Vision Thing -- 13:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schools of thought 

message: I have removed Celtic anarchism from the template and put the linked page up for speedy deletion. This would seem to simply be an advertising stunt for a new list set up on riseup.net.Harrypotter 20:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Celtic anarchism

message: The inclusion of this article (heck, the existence of it) in the template is ridiculous. The situation described has nothing do with anarchism. Thoughts? Murderbike 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since most of the world (or that is to say, the mainstream media propaganda machine,) describes Somalia as an "anarchy," this may be as good a time as any for us to address it.  This article seems to largely tack on an "anarcho-capitalist" critique, but surely there must be some more balanced perspectives we can interject into the article.  Have any articles on the subject of Somalia ever been published in anarchist periodicals or by anarchist authors?  If we can improve the article itself, removing it need not even be an issue.--Cast 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least, I think that it is unquestionable that there is a difference between anarchism and the popular use of the term "anarchy" as being equivalent to "chaos" or whatever. I would suggest immediately changing the title of the article, removing it from this template, and from there working on the content of the article. Murderbike 00:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarchy and chaos While it is true that Somalia didn't happen as a product of an anarchist social movement, it was still an anarchy; it had no rulers. Not all anarchies are chaotic, but this chaos was an anarchy. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, like I said, there is a difference between the popular idea of "anarchy" and Anarchism. This at least, is why at least the title of this article should be changed, and the article removed from this template. As to you claiming that "it had no rulers", if you read the article, there were plenty of rulers. They're called warlords and whatnot. Anarchism (as the article title specifies) has to do with NO rulers, not a whole bunch of "less powerful than a president" rulers. Murderbike 00:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Murderbike on this.  Somalia was and is clearly not an anarchist society.  So perhaps if the nature of this article is not to be changed, it should be renamed.  Alternatively, if there has ever been, even remotely, an explicitly anarchist social movement in Somalia, or again, if an anarchist writer has ever published an analysis on the subject, now is the time to interject that into this article.  Otherwise, it should be renamed entirely.--Cast 01:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure These are cogent arguments. Discussion about renaming the article should probably occur on its talk. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I only brought it up here because I want it removed from the template. I tried to start the conversation about the article itself on its talk page, to no avail as of yet. This feels like consensus on removing from the template. Am I wrong? Murderbike 02:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to remove it from the template, I don't think there is anyone who could reasonably argue with you at this point.  As Haller pointed out, if nothing else, that article goes against the grain of the rest, meaning it ought to be removed for being the bad apple of the bunch.  But I would still like to discover some small jewel of anarchist history in the rough.  I'm going to continue seeking out an authentically anarchist history from Somalia, and if I find it, expect to see Anarchism in Somalia added back in (hopefully with fewer reasons to make Emma roll in her grave.)--Cast 02:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I was bold and moved the article to Anarchy in Somalia. Skomorokh incite 17:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I less boldly removed the article from the template. Murderbike 23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Meh, I'd never heard anarchists talk about this until this article came up. Of course, I don't talk to a lot of anarcho-capitalists. Though, with the changes you've made, it doesn't seem like there's much argument for keeping it out of the template anymore, unless we just wanna play the "anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism" card. Murderbike 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even that line would cut it - the article barely cites anarcho-capitalists, rather scholars who don't refer to ideologies at all, merely "statelessness" and "anarchy" and the effects thereof. Since you removed the article from this template and don't have a major problem anymore, I'll go ahead and re-include it.Skomorokh incite 23:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, i didn't mean that that card could kill the article, just keep it out of this template. But it's pointless nitpicking anyway. Murderbike 00:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anarchism in Somalia]] 

message: I'm in the process of trying to salvage the Anarchy in Somalia article and I'd appreciate any input from editors familiar with anarchism-related articles. The vast majority of references are either from statist organisations (pov) or academic economists (fine, but undue weight) so if anyone knows of any anarchist literature on Somalia that meets WP:RS, it would be of great help. I also intend on adding the revamped article to the history section of this template unless there are objections. Skomorokh incite 23:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, I'd never heard anarchists talk about this until this article came up. Of course, I don't talk to a lot of anarcho-capitalists. Though, with the changes you've made, it doesn't seem like there's much argument for keeping it out of the template anymore, unless we just wanna play the "anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism" card. Murderbike 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even that line would cut it - the article barely cites anarcho-capitalists, rather scholars who don't refer to ideologies at all, merely "statelessness" and "anarchy" and the effects thereof. Since you removed the article from this template and don't have a major problem anymore, I'll go ahead and re-include it.Skomorokh incite 23:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, i didn't mean that that card could kill the article, just keep it out of this template. But it's pointless nitpicking anyway. Murderbike 00:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated version 

message: I can't see why black bloc goes in culture. I suggest moving direct action, propaganda of the deed, free store, squatting, etc. into a section on tactics. Jacob Haller 19:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me. Murderbike 20:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: One more thing: perhaps we should use direct action as the section title. Jacob Haller 20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be a little less user-friendly for folks who aren't well-versed in anarchist theory though. Murderbike 20:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved Black bloc from Theory to Culture because it is cultural phenomena, as opposed to being a theoretical concept.  I have something of a problem with the term Tactics.  It has military connotations that most of the articles that are likely to fall under this subject won't have.  I think the word Praxis might be more appropriate.  But I also think that this section will see a lot of crossover with Culture.  At what point is a subject a cultural phenomena, or a tactic/praxis?  In which section should articles like Infoshop or Free school go?--Cast 05:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine by me. In the anthropological sense, everything here is culture. But black blocs, or the most effective black blocs, are organized around protest tactics and their functional demands, not around any one cultural identity. Jacob Haller 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tactics section?

message: [show] link is on top of subject headings "Schools of thought" and "Theory and practice" in Firefox and IE. Looks untidy. Widen box margins, or place [show] under headings? nirvana2013 11:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm checking that with Firefox right now, and that's not true on my machine, though it was true with some of the wider titles on the narrower template. I suggest going to 200 pixels and if that doesn't work, resetting your default font size. Jacob Haller 18:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [show] link 

message: Am I the only that isn't seeing the circle-A image at the top of the template? I can't even find in the history when it got taken out. Murderbike 18:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing it, either.  However, I checked, and :Image:Anarchy-symbol.svg is still live on the system.  My guess is that this is some sort of transient problem that requires no action on our part.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't see it either. Jacob Haller 19:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Transient problem"? You have a problem with transients? What have transients ever done to you? Fascist! Murderbike 20:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Transient problem", meaning that the problem is likely temporary and will go away on its own.  Also, quick reminder: Be nice.  This isn't Indymedia.  Calling people fascists is not permitted.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think he was joking. :P Zazaban 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was, too, but it still doesn't hurt to remind.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I thought it was an obvious enough joke. I'll put the serious face back on. Murderbike 21:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did realize it was a joke at the time, but I did forget to mention at the time that I thought it was a joke, and didn't realize it until it was too late.  Sorry 'bout that.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The circle-A image