Template talk:Anarchism sidebar/Archive 2

message: How does adding two ugly asterisks make the template look better? --AaronS 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they aren't ugly and template looks better, more encyclopedic that way. -- Vision Thing -- 20:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any other thoughts on asterisk? -- Vision Thing -- 20:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have moved beyond this, and are currently working on a redesign of the template.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "This looks better"

message: Stop debating about whether anarcho-capitalism is capitalism or not. I'm getting quite sick of it, especially since that is not the issue! The issue is whether anarcho-capitalism is disputed as a type of anarchism and the clear answer is yes, as evidenced by this discussion (and countless others). Stop engaging in pointless arguments and focus on the real issue at hand. No one has said they are going to take anarcho-capitalism off the template so stop trying to prove it's anarchism. The Ungovernable Force 02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, I think the question of whether anarcho-capitalism belongs in the template at all is still up for debate. It is a movement that is hostile to anarchism and the only thing it has in common with anarchism are the first six letters of its name. As such, it is properly left on the disambiguation page, or better yet on the Libertarian page (where it already is). Look at science and you will not find a link for "scientific creationsm (disputed)". Look at Jew and you will not find "Jews for Jesus (disputed)". --Aelffin 10:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just make the compromise. You're never going to get rid of them, they have too much influence in America and on the net. They are always going to be on the anarchism pages and will always be inserting their pov. The best we can hope for is to make sure people realize that most anarchists reject them as a part of the anarchist movement. The Ungovernable Force 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are three reasons not to drop it. 1) There are more anarchists than ancaps and our internet presence is growing faster than theirs, so we're likely to win out eventually, as long as we don't allow a precedent to be set now. 2) As long as we keep the argument going, ancaps and onlookers are being educated whether they like it or not. 3) Ancaps only want to be noted here and elsewhere because it gives them an opportunity to convert people, and that is something anarchists should oppose. While I think it is reasonable to have a remark within the body of the article to the effect that ancaps believe themselves to be anarchists, if you put it in the template you are incorrectly implying that other anarchists recognize them as such. Not only is that inaccurate, but it is quite offensive. --Aelffin 18:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't treat the Wikipedia as a battlefield. -- Vision Thing -- 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Sarge Baldy 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. I'll keep my personal justification to myself in the future. Noneltheless, it should be about accuracy. --Aelffin 01:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop 

message: I have said in the past that I fall squarely in the "ancap is not anarchism" school of thought, but--criticisms notwithstanding--if we accept that Noam Chomsky is an anarchist, then the quote below does provide some evidence that there has been at least some degree of cooperation between anarchists and ancaps in the past. I'm not sure if that is enough to make me change my opinion, but it does bear keeping in mind as we decide what constitutes a part of the movement.  
Excerpted from an interview in Z Magazine:
:Interviewer:Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others. Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?
:Chomsky:Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else. 
:    I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings. --Aelffin 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though Chomsky is widely described as an anarchist, and certainly seems to advocate elements of anarcho-syndicalism at times, he generally describes himself not as an anarchist but as a "fellow traveler".  In fact I've removed direct mention of him as an anarchist from the anarchism page a couple of times for that reason, but it always finds its way back and isn't a pressing issue in my opinion given his close association with anarchism.  Anyway, I'm not sure this quote demonstrates a great deal that is relevant to this template.  That there are overlap ideas between anarcho-capitalists and anarchists in general is already known, anarchists and anarcho-capitalists all rail against "the state" as such, and there are many issues subordinate to that issue that are shared.  However, there are also very striking differences between anarcho-capitalism and the rest of the anarchist traditions, and this has been noted by historians and anarchists and indeed anarcho-capitalists themselves for a long time.  Anarcho-capitalism is at the very least a subject related to anarchism, and at most a divergent tradition within it, between those two poles is where the debate lies, probably somewhere around a divergent tradition outside of it, imho.  That it is disputed or contested is something that seems rather beyond reasonable doubt.  Blahblahblahblahblahblah 04:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd say it fits most clearly in the "criticisms" section. But in order for us to have a debate, we'll need to agree on some criteria with which to classify a school of thought as "divergent from" or "convergent with" and "interior to" or "exterior to" the Anarchist and/or anarchist movement and/or philosophy. So far, we're all using different criteria and I'm hoping that providing other borderline cases (like Chomsky) will tease out what criteria each player is using. Then, maybe we can get somewhere. --Aelffin 19:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of the Literature 

message: I have personally witnessed disputes as to whether Christian anarchism is a form of anarchism. My intuition says yes, but I'm not speaking from an informed POV. Anybody willing to suggest that Anarcho-capitalism and Christian anarchism belong together in a "disputed" category? If so, what is the nature of the dispute. If not, what is the difference between the two disputes? --Aelffin 15:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is disputed, but not as much as an-cap. I mean, Tolstoy was a Christian, and he is considered an anarchist by most. Although I personally dislike the idea of Christian anarchists, I would consider them (misguided) anarchists. As long as they don't try to force Christianity on others, I don't see why their own personal belief in a god should exclude them from being anarchists, but it is fairly ironic. I do have friends (who have been involved in the anarchist movement for quite some time) who were surprised to hear Christian anarchists even exist and we spent time talking about how absurd it was. I think it's absurdity comes down to what defines them as Christian though. But there are some anarchists who are very adament in saying that anarchists can't be Christian or religious (which I find to be pretty ironic as well). The Ungovernable Force 05:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "It is disputed, but not as much as an-cap" Maybe it would be easier to put the disputed tag to anarcho-communism, that would save one a lot of talk in the future. WP:V does not allow one to base one arguments on "unknown masses." Intangible 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what's so "ironic" about it. They're anarchists because they're Christian, and they interpret the bible to forbid domination over fellow human beings, and their religion as incompatible with formal institutions. They're not anarchists who just happen to be Christian, so I don't see how they're "misguided". Unless you're saying their interpretation of the bible is wrong and they should learn to appreciate the church and state like their peers. Convincing them to keep the "anarchist" part of their philosophy and ditch the "Christian" wouldn't make sense to me, since the latter feeds the former. Sarge Baldy 18:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree. Though I find metaphysics and spirituality as a whole objectionable on epistemological grounds, I don't see anything inherently anti-anarchic about the more liberal interpretations of Christianity or any other religion, nor do I see anything in anarchist philosophy that justifies rejecting a person because they happen to subscribe to a particular mythology. Quite the contrary. --Aelffin 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I should explain more, because after re-reading my post and the reponses here, I think I may have not explained very well, and may have also come accross as a bit more antagonistic than I really feel. First, I tried to say an important part of this discussion is why they call themselves Christian and what that means to them (and same with "anarchist"). Some call themselves anarchists because they believe God should be the only authority, which seems pretty unanarchistic to me. What if I said "I'm an anarchist because the President is the only authority I will listen to"? Remember the slogan "No Gods, No Masters"? Anarchism has a long tradition of opposing churches, and in many cases religion as a whole. I have only met one Christian anarchist myself, which I fully admit is not nearly enough for me to make a reasonable and full assessment of the situation. First off, the guy I talked to was nice and definetly knew about anarchism and what it means, unlike some other self-proclaimed anarchists. At the same time, I didn't see the point of assigning such a high emphasis on Jesus, even if he did have some good things to say and had some anarchist leanings (depending on your interpretation of the Bible). Just because I really like and admire Emma Goldman doesn't mean I'm going to go around and call myself a Goldmanist and worship her as a figurehead. It just seems weird and cultish to me. And it smacks of hierarchy. And why do they believe the Bible is a legitimate source of authority, yet something like the Consitution is not? Neither seems to have more veracity than the other to me. It seems like a severe lapse in analysis to reject virtually all authority while clinging to another. But again, different people have different reasons for calling themselves Christian and I don't claim to know or understand them all. And not all Christian anarchists (or even Christians in general) necessarily fit into the model I'm describing. I'm sure there are some for whom none of these criticisms really fit, and there are probably others who deserve much more critique. And again, even for the ones who do fit into this, I don't really think it's important enough to make a big deal of, especially here on wikipedia. I don't personally understand why an anarchist would want to label themselves Christian and I find it somewhat contradictory, but whatever. As long as they don't try to force Christian morality and ideas on others I'm cool with it, since unlike anarcho-capitalists they don't advocate continued hierarchical relationship between people. The Ungovernable Force 07:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last point is the key distinction. Besides, I don't see Christianity as a truly heirarchical system; it's just a metaphoric heirarchy. Much like if I were to say "I want to devote my life to anarchist principles" or "I totally worship Milla Jovovich". That's all fine, as long as you don't make other people do it too. In fact, even if you truly did want to live a life of submission to somebody else, I don't see a problem with it as long as you don't insist other people do the same and as long as you haven't been coerced into making that choice or maintaining that position--and that's where the opposition to Church comes in. --Aelffin 09:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Except of course if they subscribe to the "mythology of capitalism." Intangible 18:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, the "mythology of capitalism" is like "mythology of government" or the "mythology of anarchists are f---ing terrorists". You just can't be an anarchist if you hate and reject most of what anarchism stands for. I mean, you wouldn't think it's possible to be a pro-government anarchist, right? --Aelffin 18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you suggest doing away with all democratic means? That sounds like nihilism to me. Why not kill the bureaucrats instead? Because that would be morally wrong! Intangible 19:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't understand what you're trying to say. What words above do you construe as meaning I want to "destroy all democratic means"? You're pulling that out of thin air. On the contrary, I want democracy. I want direct democracy where everybody has equal right to participate. Capitalism destroys democracy because only the ones with the $$$$$$ are able to participate. Capitalism is undemocratic because it takes poor people out of democracy. Capitalism is undemocratic because it lets people steal land and water and other things that belong equally to everybody. Capitalism is anti-democracy and capitalism is anti-anarchism. Actually, I'm so democratic that I haven't deleted anarcho-capitalism from the template yet. If we weren't anarchists, we would just make the change without listening to your opinion (you know, like you said you were going to do). So, I gave a handful of reasons why capitalism is anti-democratic. Maybe you could explain why I'm wrong, or even give one reason why you think capitalism is a good thing. I'm listening. --Aelffin 19:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That fact that I can decide myself what bread to buy, instead of having User:Aelffin decide what bread I should buy. That's real democracy, and it would be morally just. Is voting not pro-government? Anyways, this discussion is quite off-topic... Intangible 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Aelffin does not want to tell you what kind of bread you should buy. Why do you think User:Aelffin would tell you what bread you have to buy? Is that what you think anarchism is about? Nobody has a right to tell you that. That is your decision. In an anarchist system, you would also be able to decide what bread you want to buy. Not only that, but in anarchism, if you thought your favorite bread had gone downhill, you would have the right to fix the problem by going down to the factory to take part in the decisions about how the bread is made. You would probably be able to participate in a discussion very much like the one we're having right now, where everyone gets to say what they think and we won't make decisions until we've all had a chance to talk about it first. As a customer of the bread company, you are affected by the decisions made at that company, therefore you have a right to be a part of those decisions. I happen to live a couple of miles away from the Wonder Bread factory, but if I went down there and asked to speak with the owner about the way they make bread, they'd laugh in my face. In fact, in capitalism, somebody could come along and buy the bread company and close it down, and I would never have a chance to buy that bread again and I would never have a chance to tell them I want them to keep making my favorite bread. In capitalism, only the people with the money can make important decisions. Am I wrong? Then tell me why. If not, then how can you say capitalism is democratic? Anyway, to answer your question...voting can be democratic, if everybody gets an equal vote. Under capitalism, we all get to vote, but only the rich people get to have dinner with the senators and tell them what the policies should be. That's not democracy at all. --Aelffin 22:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I really like the way you explained that. It's much better than I could have. One more thing--if for whatever reason the factory still didn't want to make the bread you wanted, you would still have the resources available to go make the bread yourself without anyone else interfering. The Ungovernable Force 08:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DIY in the motherf---ing house! ......you know, like cieling repair and such.....um ok......dawg. --Aelffin 09:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, I have to say I find myself siding with Intangible on the reference issue. Even though it is completely and utterly obvious that anarcho-capitalism is disputed, and even though it is completely and nearly-utterly obvious that anarcho-capitalism is inherently anti-anarchist, I have to agree that we'll need to demonstrate those facts referentially before we can justify what amounts to censoring a minority opinion. However, we can't just throw quotes back and forth at each other because the references themselves use the term "anarchism" in several different ways, and we'll have to be clear about what *we* mean by anarchism for the purposes of this article. More on that in another thread... --Aelffin 18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I offered one reference earlier, from a non-anarchist. "The term 'anarcho-capitalism' for this domain of right wing libertarianism is generally regarded as a political oxymoron by anarchists" (Anarchism by Sean M. Sheehan, 2004). Sarge Baldy 10:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Disputed Schools 

message: Based upon our discussion, here is a sandbox proposal to work with. Edit it as you wish. We can fight over this one instead of the real one. ;-) --AaronS 03:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question, why is anarcho-primitivism not in the first area? Isn't a type of post-left and green anarchism? Is there something about it that makes it "anarchist influenced" (like an-cap) rather than anarchism? I know some people don't like it (and I have some problems with parts of it) but I'm not sure why it's in that section. Also, post-left anarchism is on there twice (under Modern Anarchism and Anarchist Theory). The Ungovernable Force 05:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaron's not the one who put it there; I did. The duplication of post-left anarchism was unintentional, but as it happens, it illustrates a nice point. If we break up the template into different sections, it's likely that some philosophies/submovements may fall in more than one category. As for anarcho-primitivism, I'm inclined to accept it into the fold though I have huge problems with its implications. However, I know there is debate in some quarters as to whether it's part of anarchism proper. The question has been mentioned in a couple of talks at the Institute for Anarchist Studies' R.A.T. conferences, and Bookchin's argued strongly against it. I don't know much about the history of the movement, but several primitivist travelers who held a meeting at a squat in my hometown mentioned Theodore Kaczynski as one of the key thinkers in the founding of the philosophy. If that's the case, and if anarcho-primitivism differs significantly from traditional branches of anarchism, then we have a situation parallel to anarcho-capitalism. Namely, a founder whose ideas are not founded on anarchist principles and a movement that only bears a superficial similarity to anarchism proper. Anyway, it's sufficiently controversial that I'd like to see a debate on the subject. Go ahead and edit the template as you see fit--that was Aaron's suggestion, and I'd like to see people adding links to a much larger number of potentially-related articles because the more examples we have, I think, the more likely the concepts will sort themselves out into an intuitive order. --Aelffin 13:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bookchin isn't even an anarchist anymore (by their own admission). I'm not sure Kaczynski really started it. I thought Zerzan was probably one of the major founders (although he later became friends with Kaczynski). I could be wrong of course. I do agree it is contentious though, so I can understand not putting it in. What do others think? The Ungovernable Force 04:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bookchin not an anarchist? Hadn't heard that. Yeah, I think anarcho-primitivism is harmless enough to put up with, and I think their vision has some nice asthetics, but they're definitely fringe. Which is not to say that eco-anarchism or Green anarchism are fringe...on the contrary, I don't know of any anarchists (except ancaps) who don't consider themselves eco-friendly, and sometimes/oftentimes that manifests itself a mild sort of luddism. I only mention it because (for some reason) people seem to lump primitivists into the environmentalist camp, but the connection is slim. Primitivists are an entirely different order of luddites. Primitivists will say things like "we oppose civilization as a whole" or "language is patriarchy". At least the ones I met. I was impressed by their ability to facilitate large group discussion and the roadkill-raccoon soup wasn't too bad either. --Aelffin 11:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Bookchin isn't much of anything anymore since he died yesterday (I found out soon after posting that last post). But in his later years he said he was no longer an anarchist. The Ungovernable Force 15:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I think separating into "Anarchism today" and "Historical tendencies" is probably better. - FrancisTyers · 13:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that we didn't have South American anarchism represented at all--which is especially egregious since it's been one of the most active areas in the past twenty or so year--so I added Especifismo (spelling?) and the Zapatistas...I'm sure there are other topics that should be added in relation to S.Am. Come to think of it, where's Hungarian anarchism and Japanese anarchism? Aren't there significant submovements associated with these anarchisms? --Aelffin 13:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theres pretty much as many anarchism in X as there are countries in X. - FrancisTyers · 14:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say for any region (x), the number of anarchist movements in the region (Ax), relative to the number of countries in the region (Cx) is represented by the inequality Ax>>Cx. --Aelffin 14:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha! :) - FrancisTyers · 14:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, is that a reference to Anal Cunt? I think so, but I could be missing something. The Ungovernable Force 05:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No; if it were I would have been more blatant about it. You have heard their cover of the Three's Company theme, haven't you? --Aelffin 21:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. This is just an experiment at the moment. --Aelffin 15:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good deal. Heck, if expanding the nav template results in some good new articles with enough central placement to ensure they get a dedicated body of editors, I can be happy with that result.--Rosicrucian 16:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest problem with this template, clearly, is that it's gigantic. Even how it is now it's probably too large. I'd suggest dumping the "Associated Concepts" section right out, although even then it's still too large. As Ungovernable suggested, post-left anarchism isn't needed along with post-left anarchy. I also don't see why "anarcho-primitivism" (actually a misnomor; it's just primitivism) is marginalized to inspired movements. Although I'm regionally biased, where I am saying you're an anarchist will have most people assuming you're a primitivist, green, eco-anarchist, or post-leftist. Or most often, some configuration along those lines. So from my standpoint, it's somewhat bewildering. Sarge Baldy 18:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've seen bigger templates work decently, like Template:ScientologySeries or Template:Christianity. Might be more of a layout task than trimming. I'll agree that "Associated Concepts" seems to paint with too broad a brush, and many items there should be trimmed out, or possibly the subsection eliminated entirely. Still, it might be good to look at other successful large nav templates for guidance.--Rosicrucian 18:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, even right now the template is almost as big as the scientology one. The version below even dwarfs the Christianity one. It would look very strange on a lot of pages, because it'd be far longer than the content of the articles. Sarge Baldy 19:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then is there a more effective way to use the space? Smaller type like on the Scientology template? Would that be worth a try or would it sacrifice usability?--Rosicrucian 19:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made it fatter, but shorter. What do you all think? --AaronS 19:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it does a pretty good job of presenting the breadth and diversity of the anarchist movement, and I like the organization. The placement of a couple links might be debatable, but it seems usable and inclusive, and overall it's pretty decent. --Aelffin 19:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it does not. It only talks about revolutionary anarchism. Someone like Proudhon or Benjamin Tucker would have balked at the "associated concepts." See also my earlier point of today above. Intangible 19:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if we say that the template's purpose is mainly navigational, then we need to include things that people associate with anarchism, rightly or wrongly. The differences can be tackled in the respective articles. I do think "Historical tendencies" is a little problematic...doesn't seem like the right term. Maybe these topics can be put under a header along the lines of "Anarchist approaches". Intangible, what "non-revolutionary" anarchism are you refering to? If there's something you'd like to add to the proposed template, go ahead. --Aelffin 19:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I might move the Individualists out of "Anarchism Today," given that most Individualists these days are instead Anarcho-capitalists or some other flavor. Other than that, as above we might tweak the text size on the individual entries, and spiff up the presentation a little. Such a big block of grey gets a little monotonous. As for Proudhon or Tucker, as discussed above this is a nav template not a philosophical debate. While I can agree as I said above that we are perhaps casting our net too wide on "Associated Concepts," I do not believe we have to go back to Proudhon for everything when we're aiming for ease of navigability.--Rosicrucian 19:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it seems strange to put the individualists in "Anarchism Today" since that was basically a nineteenth century movement. I might agree that the "Associated concepts" header may be a little too broad, but at least some of the concepts (anomie, and especially the autonomen, for example) are near enough to anarchism to warrant mention. --Aelffin 19:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many individualist anarchists around today, indeed, many people who describe themselves as "anarchists" probably take something from every philosophy. - FrancisTyers · 20:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if you use the term "individualist" loosely, but I doubt that there are many people familiar with the actual writings of the historical individualist anarchists. The only self-labeled individualist anarchists I know of are the ancaps. People who think of themselves as something and people who actually base their opinions on particular philosophies are two different things. --Aelffin 20:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps true, but we aren't being prescriptivist. - FrancisTyers · 11:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. To hold an ideology...any idiology is by definition prescriptivist. However, the post you replied to asserts no right or wrong position, it simply points out a narrower use of the term individualist. --Aelffin 15:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thinned it down a bit. --Aelffin 03:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still WAY too fat.  Let me tinker...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Consider it tinkered.  We do need, however, to give a good hard thought about what needs to go in here, because this thing is getting awfully big.  I'd cut a lot of stuff...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, sounds like that's the next conversation to be had. Suggestions to be cut? --Aelffin 10:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this as alternate wording? I changed "Historical tendencies" to "Historical approaches" (seems less vague) and "Anarchist-influenced philosophies" to "Offshoots" (acknowledges relationship without implying continued ties). --Aelffin 11:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Offshoots" definitely seems like a more graceful way to put it.--Rosicrucian 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would be interested in "associated concepts", as that seems to me like a good place to do some cutting, either to trim it, or cut it out altogether, since a few of those connections are kind of weak.  Additionally, I'm of the belief that any redlinks do not belong in a proper template.  So that would strike a good bit of it right there and bring it down to size, both long and wide.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that broken links should not appear on the template, but I think at least three of the red links are active and important enough to stay, even if we need to put up a stub article temporarily. Namely [Especifismo], [Social Insertion] (what I've heard called "Insertionism"), and Anarchsm by country. I think the template as it stands, as well as the sandbox template below are strongly eurocentric, which is particularly problematic since the most active areas of anarchism in the last 30 years (and the source of inspiration for the current upswing of anarchism in North America today) has been the South American anarchist experience.   --Aelffin 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking good, I've made a start on Anarchism by country by listing the various sub articles we have listed at Anarchism. - FrancisTyers · 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome...it's looking better and better to me. I started stubs on especifismo and social insertion, trimmed all of the remaining red links, removed a few of the associated concepts, and added a link to Freeganism since it's closely associated with anarchism and kind of high profile right now (they did a story on CNN!). --Aelffin 23:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: See link above. --Aelffin 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, typo. Got it. I figured as much, but some terms turn out to be genuinely bizarre spellings rather than simple typos so I figured I'd ask.--Rosicrucian 00:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: As it stands right now, the anarchism template that we're playing with is way too wide.  It loses its beauty when it gets too wide (it reads best visually when it's long and slender), and you also run the risk of crowding out your articles with a navigation sidebar.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinned it down a bit. --Aelffin 03:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still WAY too fat.  Let me tinker...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Consider it tinkered.  We do need, however, to give a good hard thought about what needs to go in here, because this thing is getting awfully big.  I'd cut a lot of stuff...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, sounds like that's the next conversation to be had. Suggestions to be cut? --Aelffin 10:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this as alternate wording? I changed "Historical tendencies" to "Historical approaches" (seems less vague) and "Anarchist-influenced philosophies" to "Offshoots" (acknowledges relationship without implying continued ties). --Aelffin 11:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Offshoots" definitely seems like a more graceful way to put it.--Rosicrucian 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would be interested in "associated concepts", as that seems to me like a good place to do some cutting, either to trim it, or cut it out altogether, since a few of those connections are kind of weak.  Additionally, I'm of the belief that any redlinks do not belong in a proper template.  So that would strike a good bit of it right there and bring it down to size, both long and wide.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that broken links should not appear on the template, but I think at least three of the red links are active and important enough to stay, even if we need to put up a stub article temporarily. Namely [Especifismo], [Social Insertion] (what I've heard called "Insertionism"), and Anarchsm by country. I think the template as it stands, as well as the sandbox template below are strongly eurocentric, which is particularly problematic since the most active areas of anarchism in the last 30 years (and the source of inspiration for the current upswing of anarchism in North America today) has been the South American anarchist experience.   --Aelffin 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking good, I've made a start on Anarchism by country by listing the various sub articles we have listed at Anarchism. - FrancisTyers · 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome...it's looking better and better to me. I started stubs on especifismo and social insertion, trimmed all of the remaining red links, removed a few of the associated concepts, and added a link to Freeganism since it's closely associated with anarchism and kind of high profile right now (they did a story on CNN!). --Aelffin 23:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too wide! 

message: Can anyone clue me in on this? It's a redlink, and it's coming up dry on Google.--Rosicrucian 22:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See link above. --Aelffin 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, typo. Got it. I figured as much, but some terms turn out to be genuinely bizarre spellings rather than simple typos so I figured I'd ask.--Rosicrucian 00:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Instertionism?

message: Seems we're losing a lot of vertical space just to the HR tags. Maybe we could trim it further vertically by giving each subsection header its own cell with a border, perhaps a contrasting BG color to call them out? I've tried it on the sandbox without much success so I invite anybody else to give it a try.--Rosicrucian 23:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further vertical trimming

message: We should go with the SVG. Per policy. - FrancisTyers · 15:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm. Good point. I'm going to test the images for scaling because I think the SVG looks kind of crappy. Of course, the PNG is only marginally better, so maybe... --Aelffin 15:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Makes a big difference for scaling it up, but they both look kind of clipped at the edges in the smaller versions. --Aelffin 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, no matter how nice a PNG is, it's still raster art, and scales like arse. Definitely prefer the SVG.--Rosicrucian 15:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Grab Inkscape and make a new version then :) Btw, what browser are you using, some might render SVG better than others. - FrancisTyers · 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compare 

message: Okay, so after much fiddling, this is my first crack at a space-saving, professional-looking template. It could use some color though, huh? --Aelffin 03:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed a minor mistake in the historical approaches, but this is looking nicely slick now.--Rosicrucian 04:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I tried to give it a little color by letting our green and red show through, but the palatte still seems a bit wrong to me. Ideas? --Aelffin 04:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The white-on-burgundy looks quite a bit nicer.--Rosicrucian 14:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The white-on-burgundy (i.e. the right-side one) looks a lot nicer than the other one, whose colors just look kind of funky.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, how about between these two? --Aelffin 18:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like either, sorry :( The colours look all wrong. - FrancisTyers · 18:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and change them up if you want. Or tell me what you're thinking and I'll see what I can do...anybody want to weigh in on the orange? --Aelffin 18:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: One word: Yuck.  The orange doesn't "work" with it at all.  I still stand by my original endorsement of the burgundy-and-gray one, which now is located to the left.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll come back to it later. Feel free to mess with the colors all you like. Anyone considered green? Or standard black-and-red? Maybe muted grays with a touch of blue. Earth tones? Let's look around at some other templates and see what looks good. --Aelffin 18:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Standard black-and-red would make the most sense.  With the other color schemes, I was thinking, what does this have to do with anarchism?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the standard black and red would make most sense, but personally I find it jarring and hard to read. I was aiming at something reminiscent of the black and red, but less high-contrast with the burgundy version but I personally find it kind of ugly. I've really abandoned the idea of making it somehow thematically consistent with anarchist symbology and now I'd just rather make something that looks clean and professional so it's easy to use. --Aelffin 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might then want to go with the "papayawhip" color that the template used up until April.  I always thought that looked sharp (this was the last version to use the color).  After it changed to gray, it became kind of depressing-looking.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that the same orange you didn't like earlier? Okay...here's black and red...--Aelffin 20:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.... Okay, enough for now. --Aelffin 20:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a lighter shade than the one I rejected earlier.  This one I brought up is closer to a "manila" color.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, red and black is anarcho-syndicalist as well as DIY punk. Black and white is more neutral. --Aelffin 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would support putting the left one in. Anyone object? The Ungovernable Force 21:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Too depressing.  I never liked the gray version in the first place.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about now ? - FrancisTyers · 21:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're going to either need to set a bgcolor, or ditch the white text.--Rosicrucian 21:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Then make the text something other than white. Maybe it's just me, but I can't read the headers anymore. Yours is the monochrome one, right?--Rosicrucian 22:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Found the problem. I use IE at work, and IE doesn't parse "grey" as a color, but it will accept "gray" and now appears correctly to me.--Rosicrucian 22:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that little tiny bit of whitespace between each section.  It looks a little more high-class that way.  Without it, as with the new gray one to the left, it looks a bit crowded.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I like the effect the cellpadding too, and the green and orange ones are probably the two tightest we have right now, layout-wise. Even if we tweak the colors, I'd suggest using the layout on those two as a guide.--Rosicrucian 23:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with going with the layout of the Green/Orange and the colour of the grey one.  - FrancisTyers · 15:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not an anarcat...that's an anarcat...  --Aelffin 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love that kitler pic, so funny. I see it's up for speedy deletion though. The Ungovernable Force 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, she's got my vote. So...are we rolling out a new template here or what?--Aelffin 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought someone might, but I don't really know what she has to do with anarchism....I think we should stick with the circle-A. The AnarchCat is nice, but if Intangible won't let us use red and black because it's too syndicalist, then he's definetely not going to want the cat. The Ungovernable Force 20:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template games 

message: OK, so which color scheme do people want? We have pretty much decided on layout already, no?
*Orangy/Beige lookin one. The Ungovernable Force 20:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll 

message: As I said above , content of first four templates is OR. My suggestions for content of template can be seen here. -- Vision Thing -- 17:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Ok, so there is some disagreement over where to place this. It looks like Sarge and myself want it in the "Anarchism Today" section, while some others feel it should go in the offshoots. I think we need to come to a consensus on this issue, so this is the place to discuss it. Anyone have any thoughts? The Ungovernable Force 18:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; this needs to be hashed out. As does the anarcho-capitalism issue. I think the new content is an improvement over the current template in that it makes a compromise on ancap (no disclaimer/no association), and it includes a few new hot topics in contemporary anarchism. I think there are two proper ways to go about organizing this information: Historical/Sociological or Theoretical/Philosophical. The first would organize based on which movements evolved from which while the second would organize based on the conceptual similarities between the different categories. --Aelffin 19:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho-primitivism 

message: Okay, since people are trying to implement template changes without asking the group, I suggest we go ahead and have a real vote. We can deal with content later. --Aelffin 22:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Poll