Template talk:Anarchism sidebar/Archive 1

message: Seriously, I liked the template vertically :( I think it should come back, the communist template is like that, as is the new libertarianism template.
For a verticalist template again!--Che y Marijuana 09:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why I didn't revert it immediately in the first place... it was really a thing of beauty, I was very proud of it.--Pharos 09:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the guidelines are *not* followed more often than they are followed, then de facto convention is to not follow the guidelines. Philwelch 06:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horizontalism, again 

message: Can we make this template float to the right side, like other such templates? The current style makes the page layout of pages that use it look bad. – Mipadi 00:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Float 

message: The anarchism template seems to be getting overly long.  At this rate the template will end up longer than the articles, see Christian anarchism.  Any ideas? --nirvana2013 10:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the anarchism template too long? 

message: Here are some of the changes I've made and why:
1) Articles that incorporate the 'Libertarianism' template and not the anarchism template have no place on this template. Assumedly, every article on here should refer back to the template. There's point on including articles that don't. Another example. Autonomist marxism references communism and not anarchism, at all. It shouldn't be listed as an anarchist school, and it isn't anywhere but here. I moved it to the "see also" section.
2) I've removed links to stubs that have no information on them and are dubious already. Maybe include later.
3) Some of the 'schools' listed are not schools but tactics.
4) Half of the things in anarchism and culture have nothing to do with culture. I've split the sections
--FluteyFlakes88 00:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, green anarchism and eco-anarchism are the same thing. Go for it. Hogeye 17:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganize Template PLEASE READ BEFORE COMPLAINING

message: I'm goal with my recent set of edits is to tighten up the template, maybe reduce its size, and include a section on history. One idea is to create a meta-list for anarchist lists so we only have to include one link to it on here. I'm moving around some of the schools that aren't really schools at all but a theoretical point (post-leftism). Some questions we should discuss:
*Is anarcha-feminism a school or just a theoretical point. IE, does it have any exclutsive ideology attached to it or is it something incorporated by all other schools listed?
*Should Social Ecology be listed?
*(will add more here as I work) --FluteyFlakes88 19:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the term "school" at all, but anarcha-feminism probably isn't a "complete" anarchist theory (though it might be a complete feminist theory) because it generally leans on anarchist communism et al for a number of points, (even as it remains critical of them). But still, most of these "schools" are hardly all that independent. Christian anarchism is making a similar point (that anarchism is a necessary component of Christianity), as is post-anarchism (which is more-or-less a post-stucturalist revision of anarchist communism). Green anarchism is another blanket term, often tied to others, making its own point. Black anarchism (or anarchist people of color) (not listed here) also makes a similar statement. Libertarian socialist is a very broad term, and probably shouldn't be listed as a school or anything else. Individualist anarchism is again very broad. I'm not sure how the Situationists relate to anarchism exactly, or whether they should be included here at all. To put it short, I'm pretty uncomfortable with the list in general. Sarge Baldy 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal/Edit Summary 

message: I removed agorism and anarcho-capitalism. There is a hot discussion on the anarchist talk page that needs to be resolved before some of the more evangelical anarcho-capitalists begin inserting their ideology into all things anarchist. On the anarchism page, it still has not been resolved as to whether or not include anarcho-capitalism at all. Most people seem to agree that it is a libertarian philosophy with some anarchist influences, but not a school of anarchist thought.--AaronS 19:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add that, if it is decided that anarcho-capitalism should be included, it should not be placed on the top of the list, like it was before, since it is by far one of the smallest movements that could be considered to be anarchist, and hardly the most important.--AaronS 19:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Censorship of schools you don't like is POV.  Alphabetized is fine by me. Aaron, look up the definition of anarchism! Hogeye 14:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It has used it in the past, and will again. Hogeye 16:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I should add anarcho-communism to the libetarianism template, then?
Through discussion on the anarchist talk page, most people came to the conclusion that anarcho-capitalism was better suited under the umbrella of libertarianism. --AaronS 15:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha! You and your two friends may have so decided, but it is obviously not a consensus. Hogeye 16:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho-capitalism and using Wikipedia as a soapbox 

message: I'm not going to bother reverting Hogeye's reverts now that I've read the policy on the three revert rule. I placed a notice on his user talk page asking him to stop, but he keeps deleting it along with another complaint from another user. Since he hasn't participated in any discussion, I'm going to report him to an administrator. --AaronS 18:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it particularly entertaining how he changed "anarchist communism" to "anarcho-communism" just so anarcho-capitalism would be sorted above it. How completely childish. Sarge Baldy 10:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hogeye's reverts

message: From the article on CrimethInc. it is stated that CrimethInc. is a mindset rather than a group or organization. Judging from this statement, I propose that CrimethInc. should be added under the "Schools" section of the template. Kazhivlad 02:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Regardless of what CrimethInc. says, hardly anybody considers them to be a school of anarchist thought. If anything, they fall under post-left anarchy. --AaronS 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed, they are post-left. They are also really cool, I suggest everyone read Days of War, Nights of Love, and Recipes for Disaster is awesome. Their fic is decent, I like Off the Map more than Evasion. But they are not a school, no way. The Ungovernable Force 06:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Crimethinc is actually the antithesis of a "school" since they disavow all ideology, labels, and artificial culture. You can call that pretense, bcrimethinc publications often contradict one another, sometimes on purpose, sometimes not. For instance there is an assault on the concept of the city in Days of War but a celebration of it in Anarchy in the Age of Dinosaurs. Different collectives and individuals under the crimethinc banner have different ideas. The whole point behind post-left sort of thought, crimethinc or not, is to move away from ideology and embrace questioning, contradiction, and self-analysis. --Tothebarricades 10:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: e.g. postmodernist crap :) *joke* - FrancisTyers 01:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CrimethInc. a "school"? 

message: I'm not that old on wikipedia so I'm wondering why I can no longer edit the template. Have I been blocked? There is no mention of this on my talk page, or on anywhere else. Thanks for the help. --FluteyFlakes88 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template has been blocked by an administrator, per my request, due to a revert war initiated by Hogeye (talk). Please see the Wikipedia policy known as the three revert rule for more information. While you're at it, take a look at the guideline for wikiquette. It will save you a lot of trouble. :) --AaronS 21:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue has been resolved. Collective decision multiple time on this page have agreed that Hogeye's edits are simple POV trolling. We've already discussed this. Blocking the template only prevents us honest participants from working on it. Hogeye has already been blocked here twice before for trolling against a collective agreement. I say just block him for good. --FluteyFlakes88 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to voice your concerns to Voice of All, the user who blocked the page. Hogeye is indeed very disruptive. The rare occasions during which he actually engages in discussion, he usually only incites flame wars. I've voiced my concerns on his user talk page, but he keeps erasing them. By all means, complain to an administrator. --AaronS 22:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if it's protected, why is an-cap back on?!!!! The Ungovernable Force 04:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: More importantly, why didn't he list the protection, and why did he revert it before protecting it. This all seems sketchy to me. --FluteyFlakes88 05:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't list the protection because putting a protected message on the template would make it occur in all articles with the template. And Voice of All didn't revert anything here so far as I can tell. I do think he's a bit easy on the trigger finger though, there wasn't a whole lot of a "dispute" here. Sarge Baldy 05:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your indeed right. I apologize to VoA. --FluteyFlakes88 05:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've just unprotected the template. Sarge Baldy 04:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blocked?

message: How is nihilism a school of anarchism? Some anarchists are nihilists, and some nihilists are anarchists, but one is hardly a school of the other.Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nihilism? 

message: Wääh. I don't like it. It looks... odd. Here (using Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.3) a little blue thingummywut shows up underneath the A... and none of the OTHER templates have links! :O
Not very good arguing here, but hey, I don't like it. I'd revert it but that'd be evil. What does everyone else think? Jobjörn 20:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really like it either. How I have things set up I get an underline beneath it, and it's rather annoying. Although the anti-war template does the link but not the underline? So maybe if someone fixed that it'd be OK. Sarge Baldy 20:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Goddamnit. Go away blue line. LINES AWAY! Sesame, open! ARGH! Experts on templates required here, obviously. Jobjörn 20:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I put it in. I'll get rid of it. -- The pic in Template:Anti-war topicsis smaller. I could fix this one. Some other time though. -- ActiveSelective 21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Now it's great. Let's leave it at that for now. Jobjörn 08:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote strongly to NOT link the picture.  As Jobjörn mentioned, none of the other templates have such image links; and not just templates, the entire encyclopedia.  There's no precedent for introducing this kind of inconsistency.  I wanted to find the image that was used, and it required: viewing the source of the article to see what template was included, going to the template page, and looking through the template source to find the image tag.  This should not be necessary.  The wiki software is designed so that every image links to its image page; respect that, don't find ugly hacks to work around it. ~ Booya Bazooka 18:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clickable picture 

message: I was under the impression that there was some sort of old consensus on NOT listing "national anarchism". Perhaps I am wrong. Until we have that figured out, however, I would suggest that 89.57.15.190 does not add it again, mmkay? Great. Jobjörn 19:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Anarchism 

message: I always thought that the whole block being left-aligned looked strange, so I changed it to a center alignment.  What do you think?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.. I guess I don't really care either way. Sarge Baldy 02:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centered text 

message: Rather than alphabetized, isn't it better to use some reasonable categorization of traditions? Perhaps a Misc. Leftie category could be added, with post-left, postanarchism, etc.  72.204.5.50
:I don't particularly like it, personally. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical grouping