Talk:Anarcha-feminism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Anarcha-feminism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

anarcha-feminism shouldn't be redirected to anarcho-feminism

Hmmm, I disagree that anarcha-feminism should be redirected to anarcho-feminism. As far as I know, ending things in "a" is the feminine version of the masculine Greek way of ending things in "o", and hence, if *anything* should be "anarcha", it should be anarcha-feminism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, if I'm right, i think this page should be moved to anarcha-feminism, with anarcho-feminism being a redirect (but who even uses that term? I've never heard of it). -- Clockwork

Anarcha-feminism gets a lot more Google hits that anarcho-feminism, so I've moved it there. Angela . 01:08, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that that is a valid reason for moving anarcho-feminism under anarcha-feminism. First of all, there is no grammatical gender in the English language. Second, Goggle hits mean nothing. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. And finally, gendering anarchist feminism is antithetical to anarchism and feminism. Why would we want to make anti-sexism (even if we could in English) feminine? This only perpetuates the painful stereotype that feminism concerns women only.

As such, I do not support your move.

Furthermore, I disagree that "many advocate anarchistic forms of matriarchy" (how can you do that, anyway?). Perhaps I should rewrite this page... -- Clockwork

I agree with Clockwork. None of you mention Anarcha, a black slave experimented on without anaesthetic 30 times in the 1800s http://www.nathanielturner.com/anarchas_story.htm. She is relevent to feminism, and possibly the source of the term anarcha-feminism, since all other anarchist terms use anarcho - anarcho-sindicalism, anarcho-capitalism - perhaps this is a case of modern feminists losing their history.

Redirect to anarchism

I saw no discussion about that whatsoever, did it take place somewhere else. I think that it should have been a reverse move (i.e. move content from Anarchism here, especially seeing how Anarchism article is so huge anyways. Beta m (talk)

Category:Women anarchists

Hey, I was thinking that there should be a list/category of women anarchists in history (as distinct from theorists calling themselves "anarcha-feminist" because that term is quite new). Any comments? An An 02:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

A list would be nice, but I don't like the idea of categorizing people by sex (as it overemphasizes gender differences). I'm also not sure if we could justify having a "List of anarchist women" when we already have a "List of anarchists", since we'd be repeating ourselves unless we completely cut the "List of anarchists" in half by gender, which isn't an idea I much like. Sarge Baldy 04:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Stuff from main anarchist article

This is more developed and in-depth than the Anarcha-fem page is. I'm dumping it here for reference. It'd be good to keep the articles in line. An An 02:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

===Anarcha-feminism=== Anarcha-feminism is a kind of radical feminism that espouses the belief that patriarchy is a fundamental problem in some societies. Feminist anarchism, or anarcha-feminism (a term allegedly created during the 1960s' second-wave feminism), views patriarchy as the first manifestation of hierarchy in human history; thus, the first form of oppression occurred in the dominance of male over female. Anarcha-feminists then conclude that if feminists are against patriarchy, they must also be against all forms of hierarchy, and therefore must reject the authoritarian nature of the state and capitalism.

Anarcho-primitivists see the creation of gender roles and patriarchy a creation of the start of civilization, and therefore consider primitivism to also be a anarchist school of thought which addresses feminist concerns. Eco-feminism is often considered a feminist variant of green anarchist feminist thought.

Anarcha-feminism is most often associated with early 20th-century authors and theorists such as Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre, although even early first-wave feminist Mary Wollstonecraft held proto-anarchist views. In the Spanish Civil War, an anarcha-feminist group, "Free Women", organized to defend both anarchist and feminist ideas.

In the modern day anarchist movement, most anarchists, male or female, consider themselves feminists, and anarcha-feminist ideas are growing. The publishing of Quiet Rumors, an anarcha-feminist reader has helped to spread various kinds of anti-authoritarian and anarchist feminist ideas to the broader movement.

Anarchist feminism

It seems there's a slight distinction between anarcha-feminism, which stresses anarchism, and anarchist feminism, which usually (but not always) stresses feminism. The terms overlap quite a lot, but I could also see keeping a separate article for the two topics. As it is, this article tends to overlook feminists using anarchism as their basis of criticism. What makes sense to other people? Sarge Baldy 04:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

By the definition in the intro (and simple logic), anyone who is both anarchist and feminist is an anarcha-feminist. (It is irrelevant when the term was coined. The discussion below is ridiculous.) anarchist feminist = anarcha-feminist PhilLiberty 04:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Anarcha-feminism

MrVoluntarist seems quite adament that this sentence "While anarchist feminists have existed since the late 19th century, the term "anarcha-feminism" was not coined until second-wave feminism in the 1960s." Implies that the early 19th century anarchist feminists were anarcha-feminists. Given that the sentence explicitly states that anarchist feminists predated the term anarcha-feminism, and that the term was not coined until much later, how could the sentence possibly have this implication? Blahblahblahblahblahblah 19:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It just needs to make clear right up front, right off the bat, that there was no anarcha-feminism until the 1960's. It's an important issue because of the previous handling of e.g., Molinari's anarcho-capitalism. A lot of people are trying to edit the article to give subtle implications that e.g., Goldman was an anarcha-feminist, when that's just not true. MrVoluntarist 19:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be comparing two different things. Molinari was a capitalist who Rothbard himself (the first explicit anarcho-capitalist to my knowledge) said would have rejected the label anarchist. Thus, there are solid reasons for not declaring Molinari an anarcho-capitalist (i.e. that he himself did not consider himself and according to Rothbard would not have considered himself an anarchist). So Molinari only meets one of the criteria for objectively declaring him an anarcho-capitalist, he was a capitalist. Contrary to this, Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre both explicitly stated that they were feminists, and that they were anarchists. Furthermore, no anarcha-feminist (or anyone else) has ever, to my knowledge, indicated that Goldman or de Cleyre would have rejected the title anarcha-feminists, unlike what Rothbard did in regards to Molinari. Thus these cases are strikingly different, yet you seem to be expressing a desire to treat them exactly the same.

Even given this difference, this page does not directly state that the late 19th century anarchist feminist were "anarcha-feminists" as such, because in fact they were not. However, this ultra-thin "possible interepretation" of believing that they might have been anarcha-feminists because the article does not explicitly state otherwise is not problematic to me because there is no reason to believe that they would have rejected the title, and because they explicitly endorsed both its constituent parts. In other words, there are no basic problems of definition here, no one is using these words differently. In fact, the primary reason I'm rejecting this "originated" claim is because it would be so hard to demonstrate exactly when the term, much less the philosophy, originated. I don't think wikipedia is the place for making this determination, so I think it is best left up to the reader, rather than the editor.

I don't know what your beef with the Molinari pages is, but if you think they need to be changed, please do so. If those pages explicitly state that he is not an anarcho-capitalist, then I think that should be changed as well, because again, wikipedia should let the reader decide these things for themselves when the case is open. We provide the evidence (like the Rothbard quote for example), and the reader can assimilate it. But this is something we should work on over at Molinari, not here. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It really, really, really doesn't matter which interpretation is more reasonable, Kevehs. If they didn't call themselves anarcha-feminists, Wikipedia cannot insert the interpretation. Period. End of story. Game over. Call it a day.

Molinari did call himself a liberal, and he did explicitly call for private defense. Together, that makes him an anarcho-capitalist.

That is exactly the same ultra-thin interpretation involved in placing Goldman in this article. You cannot say a philosophy existed until it was called that specific name.

That is the standard used in denying any lineage of anarcho-capitalism before Rothbard. I'm not going to let you violate that on this article. MrVoluntarist 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is denying any lineage here, I'm certainly not. But as to the specific title of anarcho-capitalist for Molinari, since Rothbard himself claimed that Molinari woud deny it, I don't know why you are obsessing over it. But again, your problem is clearly with the Molinari article, not this one. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Blah, I don't appreciate you rudely breaking up my post. You better fix that up before someone decides to remove it. MrVoluntarist 22:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, not my intention to be rude. I will refrain from breaking up your comments in the future. I'm relying on communication here, not chest-beating, so now that you've read it I have no problems with you deleting it if the format bothers you to the point of ignoring the content. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read it and I'm not going to read it. What you did was rude, and I can't tell who said what. Might get deleted if you don't fix it. Just a warning. MrVoluntarist 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh huh. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 22:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well what do you know, the mysterious "someone" turned out to be you. Big surprise there. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 03:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Make sense. MrVoluntarist 04:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it curious and a bit ironic you would accuse this user of being Kevehs, who left Wikipedia before you even joined. Who were you in a past life? Sarge Baldy 05:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: Mr V removed a bit of text on the pretense that I broke up his comments, as can be seen above I apologised and refrained from doing it again, but he still felt the need to remove the discussion, perhaps because he didn't like what it might reveal. Here is the text he removed transplanted, with the above text still in tact so that his reason for removing it no longer stands: Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If I'm Kevehs who would that make you... Hogeye? Oh wait, that would mean you were using a sock puppet to avoid a ban, opps! Anyway, no such interpretation is being inserted. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Then why did Rothbard say Molinari would have objected to the title? Right right, because Molinari thought anarchism implied socialism. In other words, you want to use your definition of anarchism to call Molinari an anarchist, rather than using his. But that means there is a conflict over definition, right? So... show me a similar dispute over the definition that applies to the anarcha-feminists. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevehs, for fixing the breakup of my posts. Let see if we can get you to fix rude defacement of my posts in less than a week, next time.

Sounds to me like some male egos are posturing here, dear me, hissy fits by males over an article on feminism! Perhaps some [female] feminists might like to comment on this predictable male temper problem?

In response to the non-rude posting of your comments:

First comment: from the fact that you are Kevehs (and Revkat), it does not follow that I am Hogeye. What kind of logic is that anyway?

Second comment: I'll avoid the rudeness again. This distinction is arbitrary. It doesn't matter what definitions they used for what. Molinari believed in what is now called anarcho-capitalism. That is not disputed. But since he didn't use that term, we can't call him one. Goldman and Cleyre believed what is now called anarcha-feminism. That is not disputed. But since they didn't use the term, we can't call them one. All you've done is hunt from some difference that has nothing to do with your original standard. MrVoluntarist 18:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just say that although de Cleyre and Goldman weren't anarcha-feminists due to the lack of the term during their period, that they are often considered anarcha-feminists in retrospect (with a cite that says this of course)? Or if we can't find that, say they were both avowed feminists and anarchists, and use cites to show how they influenced the idea of anarcha-feminism? It would be like how we say Godwin is considered by many to be a proto-anarchist, even though he never claimed the title. Say they are proto-anarcha-feminists or something like that. The Ungovernable Force 06:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC) I just found a quote from the UK encarta that says "it also inspired an anarcho-feminist, the Russian-American Emma Goldman, who advocated the social and sexual liberation of women," in reference to Stirner's ideas. [1] Ironic since I wasn't looking for anything about anarcha-feminism at the time. The Ungovernable Force 06:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcha-feminism is the same thing as anarchist feminism, in the same way anarcho-communism is the same thing as anarchist communism. It gets a bit silly to say you can't call Peter Kropotkin an anarcho-communist because the term used in his day was anarchist communist. Sarge Baldy 07:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Blahblahblahblahblahblah and MrVoluntarist, please stop!

Or: regarding the philopsophy/term anarcha-feminism and when it originated/was coined.

Hello fellow Wikipedians!

I think what we're seeing here is some sort of low-intensity revert war.

And it's really really really annoying. Especially because the edit summaries say hardly anything about what the problem actually is - although I have come to understand that it's a problem with these sentences:

While anarchists who were also feminists have existed since the late 19th century, the philosophy of "anarcha-feminism" did not originate until second-wave feminism in the 1960s. (User:MrVoluntarist's personal favorite)

and

While anarchist feminists have existed since the late 19th century, the term "anarcha-feminism" was not coined until second-wave feminism in the 1960s. (User:Blahblahblahblahblahblah's personal favorite)

While I can see where the problem lies, the way to solve it hardly lies in bickering like five-year-olds in a sandbox. Will you PLEASE stop and discuss what it shall say here instead? I'll take part in that discussion. For now; I'll just remove the damned sentence.

Sincerely, Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already discussed this with Mr. V, both on this talk page and others. A long time ago someone edited the Molinari and anarchism pages to suggest that anarcho-capitalism originated during Molinari's time. I objected to these edits based on the fact that Molinari never considered himself an anarchist (in fact explicitly rejected the term), and I argued that anarcho-capitalism could not have existed "as such" before the term existed. Consequently, for a short time I simply removed the claims, but as they were continually reinserted I eventually added another sentence after them indicating that the philosophy had not originated until later when Rothbard coined the term. This is what apparently drove Mr. V crazy. Eventually, someone simply removed the claims on those pages concerning when anarcho-capitalism originated, problem solved. But Mr. V did not like this situation and soon went to the anarcha-feminism article to insert these claims of origination. Note that he is not sourcing his claim at all, simply repeating the false assertion that "this is the standard Kevehs (myself) applied".

He leaves out the fact that the Molinari and anarchism articles no longer make ANY claim to date of origination, like the one he insists on adding here in obvious retaliation. He also leaves out the fact that while the early anarchist feminists like de Cleyre and Goldman both considered themselves "anarchists" AND "feminists", thus making the application of the term "anarcha-feminist" to them somewhat natural, Molinari did NOT accept the term anarchist and according to Rothbard himself would not have accepted it. In other words, there is no reason to think that Goldman or de Cleyre would have objected to being called anarcha-feminists, while we know as a fact that Molinari rejected the term anarchist and even the man who first coined it insisted that Molinari would have rejected anarcho-capitalist.

Then, of course, there is the minor fact that even without Mr. Vs edit the article DOES NOT make the claim that the early anarchist feminists were "anarcha-feminists", in fact it explicitly states that they were not, but rather that the term did not originate until later. But this isn't good enough for V, he is sure that somehow I'm trying to trick the readers and insists on applying this misplaced standard, which has no source or credibility, as some kind of strange vendetta against a position he insists is identical to the (now long since resloved) Molinari case. That is all there is to it, he has added no new info to our discussions since he started doing this many months ago. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 14:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I am delighted at least one part is able to explain him/herself in a civil manner. I have notified User:MrVoluntarist on his talk page and I expect him to do the same. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take the time to explain my side. Kevehs (a.k.a. Blah...) is not comfortable with the idea that there were people with the same anarcho-capitalist philosophy as Rothbard, before Rothbard. He wants to believe that the idea of anarcho-capitalist was a 20th-century invention. And that's okay. That's his opinion. But the fact that he is uncomfortable with it does not suffice as reasons to suggest that Molinari did not hold anarcho-capitalist views. Kevehs has tried at every corner to remove the implication that Molinari was anarcho-capitalist, merely because he didn't use that term and, "Wikipedia cannot insert the interpretation". Applying this exact same standard, one cannot say that Goldman or Cleyre were "anarcha-feminists". They never ever once used that term.

What is the difference? Kevehs holds the personal belief that Goldman and Cleyre would have gladly accepted the "anarcha-feminist" label. Being dead of course, they can't resist his anachronisms. The fact is, we don't know. Kevehs thinks it's "obvious" because of the verbal similarity. Unfortunately, that simply will not do. If Wikipedia can't retroactively apply clear-as-day terminology for Molinary, it can't do it for anyone, no matter how trivial. In addition, I do happen to find it objectionable that Goldman and Cleyre would have accepted the label -- "anarcha" rather than "anarcho" just seems like the kind of pettiness they wouldn't tolerate, especially since they wanted equality.

This principle extends to delineating the historical appearance of "anarcha-feminism". If there was no anarcho-capitalism until someone called it that, there was no "anarcha-feminism" until someone called it that. To imply that anyone before the coining of the term was an "anarcha-feminist" is to retroactively shove an anachronism on them we don't know if they would have accepted. And of course, Kevehs wants to circumvent this problem and just leave implications that this philosophy was around before the 60's. It wasn't. That's why we specifically have to say that it (anarcha-feminism) originated in the 60's. Did it have influences from philosophers before them? Sure, just like anarcho-capitalism had influences before Rothbard.

As long as Kevehs wants to continue his crusade of deleting any implication anarcho-capitalist beliefs existed before Rothbard, then to be consistent, we must remind readers that anarcha-feminism did not exist before the 60's rather than try to subtly circumvent the standards. MrVoluntarist 16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, MrVoluntarist, you claim that "Kevehs [[[User:Blahblahblahblahblahblah|Blahblahblahblahblahblah]]] holds the personal belief that Goldman and Cleyre would have gladly accepted the "anarcha-feminist" label." While this may or may not be true, I fail to see where this belief is manifested in his/her favorite sentence "While anarchist feminists have existed since the late 19th century, the term "anarcha-feminism" was not coined until second-wave feminism in the 1960s". To me, it seems that this sentence states:

that anarchists who were also feminists have existed since the late 19th century, and
that the term "anarcha-feminism" was not coined until second-wave feminism in the 1960s.

As thus, wherein lies the problem? How does it label Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre as anarcha-feminists? Or, even, how does it label either of them as anarchist feminists, as they are not even mentioned in that paragraph?

Eh, and further: Blahblahblahblahblahblah, what is the problem with MrV's sentence "While anarchists who were also feminists have existed since the late 19th century, the philosophy of "anarcha-feminism" did not originate until second-wave feminism in the 1960s"? Does the problem lie within the usage of the words term and philosophy?

Could you both accept the following proposal?

While anarchist feminists have existed since the late 19th century, "anarcha-feminism" didn't arise until second-wave feminism in the 1960s.

Sincerely, Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Jobjorn: You are correct that the statement "While anarchist feminists have existed since the late 19th century, the term "anarcha-feminism" was not coined until second-wave feminism in the 1960s." does not specifically call out Goldman and Cleyre, but the problem is that it still implies that the philosophy of "anarcha-feminism" existed before 1960, and as per Kevehs's standard, Wikipedia cannot say this, because "a philosophy called X does not exist until people call it X." (The current article does call out the two women later and imply they were anarcha-feminists, and this needs to be corrected.)

I like your proposal, and if supplemented with further clarification that Goldman and Cleyre inspired rather than themselves were anarcha-feminists, would remove the anachronisms and be consistent with Kevehs's standard. MrVoluntarist 17:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the implication that Mr V claims, that the article subtlely hints that these two women were anarcha-feminists. In fact I think the article as written clearly implies that they were not. My problem with the claim to origination is that they are not sourced. Mr V is simply using this standard because he thinks its the standard I used on the Molinari article, he isn't actually using any legitimate source to back the claim that it originated in the 1960s. So your compromise sentence does not work for me either. I would have no problem with "While anarchist feminists have existed since the late 19th century, "anarcha-feminism" did not arise as such until..." Because I believe that is a weaker claim that would not scream out for a source. I also have no problem, and have not had any problem, with indicating that Goldman and de Cleyre inspired anarcha-feminism rather than were anarcha-feminists, because that is true.

And Mr V, you know already that my dealings on the Molinari article and others were merely to suggest that anarcho-capitalism did not arrive "as such" until Rothbard. Which is a fact, btw. There may have been instances of other attempts at a compromise during your previous revert sprees, but those were just such, attempts at compromise. My proposals have been outlined on the relevant talk pages to be totally consistent with the standards I'm applying for this page. There is no double standard here, except the one you keep pulling from your imagination.

Finally, I think you have proven beyond any doubt that you are merely editing this page to prove a point, which is a violation of wikipedia policy. I'll be quite happy with any compromise Jobjorn can produce, but I would be amiss not to warn you against such behavior V. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 17:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Kevehs, how can you say that the article doesn't imply Goldman and Cleyre were anarcha-feminists? Look at this:

An important aspect of anarcha-feminism is its opposition to traditional conceptions of family, education, and gender roles. The institution of marriage is one of the most widely attacked. De Cleyre argued that it stifled individual growth, and Goldman argued that it condemns women "to life-long dependency, to parasitism, to complete uselessness, individual as well as social." Anarcha-feminists have also argued ...

It mentions the two right along with statements about "anarcha-feminism". No mentions about earlier inspiration, etc. It's just "Anarcha feminists believe this and attacked this. De Cleyre argued ..."

Your statements about your position on Molinari are false. I advise that Jobjorn read Talk:Gustave de Molinari. There you quite clearly did argue for some kind of double standard to keep people from finding out that the substance of anarcho-capitalist philosophy was around before Rothbard. At one point, of course, you lost it and made your postings impossible to follow and refused to correct them, and then left Wikipedia. So, I'm not sure what your statements there are supposed to prove.

Next, I agree that, at some point, someone should find a source for the term "anarcha-feminism" arising in the 1960's, although I wouldn't use the lack of a citation as the basis for deletion since that's pretty common knowledge. However, that's a far weaker claim than the one that Goldman and Cleyre "inspired" anarcha-feminism, which by the way isn't source at all. So, first things first, please.

Lastly, I don't understand why you keep arguing that I'm "editing to make a point". I'm editing to keep consistency, and if that appears to you to look ridiculous, what does that say about your standard? I'll ask that in the future, you stop trying to bring us down these irrelevant tangents, such as your presistent attempts to say that I'm Hogeye. MrVoluntarist 17:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You wanna see if my standard is consistent? Sure, lets take the last thing I said on the subject on that very page:

There already is balance. Goldman is not refered to as an anarcha-feminist, and if she is then she should not be. Molinari is not refered to as an anarcho-capitalist, nor should he be. That is the same standard applied to both cases. Kev 21:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I still have no idea where you are coming from on this one Hogeye. (btw, if you don't want me to assume you are Hogeye, its kinda hard not to given your behavior, have the decency to admit who you are, I've been upfront about it from the begining- you've weaseled around the matter)

If you want to call for a cite claim that de Cleyre and Goldman inspired anarcha-feminism, go ahead. Its just more evidence of the ridiculous extremes you will go to, but all it requires on your part is a "fact" tag. Its not an excuse for you to push this origination claim.

And yes, you are trying to make a point, please keep denying it, I find it funny. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Jobjorn, please note Kevehs's insistence in calling me Hogeye, which is completely inappropriate. He's made the accusation before, now it's up to admins to handle. I'm not Hogeye, so that's not a problem.

I'm glad you agree that any implication that anyone before the use of the term "anarcha-feminism" can be called an anarcha-feminist, and that we shouldn't insert any such implications. Such a policy supports my edits. Of course, it is extreme to demand a citation for "Goldman influenced modern anarcha-feminists", but it's precisely as extreme as demanding a citation for the claim that Philosophy X didn't exist until people called it Philosophy X, or that anarcha-feminism was coined in the 60's! MrVoluntarist 18:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not calling for evidence that the term was not coined until the 60s. However, a call for the claim concerning the origination of the philosophy seems entirely reasonable to me. It is different to say that a term originated at such and such a date and that a philosophy originated at such and such a date, and that is precisely why the Molinari article that you are so obsessed about currently has no origination claims in it.

And you don't think its a bit odd for someone to reveal that they know you but insist on remaining anonymous? Why bother telling me that you know me from outside wikipedia in the first place, if you don't want to reveal who you are? Given the choice of taking you at your word and therefore some kind of creepy stalker, or assuming that you are just Hogeye trying to sound like someone else, I'll prefer the latter. Anytime you would like to clear up this little mystery you've worked to create, please feel free. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The philosophy could not have originated before it was under that name, remember? (i.e., your standard)

As for my identity, sorry, I'm not going to let your browbeat me into giving up privileges I was guaranteed as a condition of signing up for Wikipedia. In any case, from the fact that I recognize you from before, it does not follow that I'm stalking you -- I could have been (actually, was) following anarchism-related talk pages for some months before signing up, and recognized your posting style. There are only a few pseudo-intellectual sarcastic strawman-lovers it could have been, so it wasn't hard to guess it was you. If you honestly believe I'm Hogeye, again, this is something for you to handle through the appropriate channels, not here. All that matters here is getting the appropriate content in the article. MrVoluntarist 19:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Gee, here I am "browbeating" you into revealing your identity, when all you did was say "I know you from outside wikipedia, but I refuse to tell you who I am". You want all the advantages of being anonymous, without the cost. You want to insist that you know me, that you have had dealings with me before, but remain anonymous. It doesn't work like that. If you want me to stop refering to you as Hogeye, you can take it to the proper channels yourself. I have this funny feeling you aren't going to do that, because eventually there will be a checkuser, and you won't like the results.

BTW - you did not "recongise" my "posting style". My name on flag was Kev and Kevehs. My name here when you first began to post as an anonymous IP was Kev and Kevehs. Your brilliance at pattern recognition begins and ends at the fact that I carried the same name over. Nice try to get a low blow in there, but as the talk page on Molinari indicates, it was I who recognised you by your behavior, not the other way around. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 19:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

When did I say I knew you from outside Wikipedia? I said I knew you from your posts on Wikipedia anarchism-related talk pages. I posted anon here a small number of times, noticed certain characteristics of your posts, and when you came back as Revkat and, now, Blah... I figured you were the same person. The only "advantage" I get from this is ability to predict the kind of posts you'll make, and I don't need anonymity for that. If you really, really seriously believe that I am a banned user, it is incumbent on you to go through the proper channels. I welcome such a move, because I have precisely nothing to be afraid of. I'm not Hogeye. Give up your obsession. MrVoluntarist 22:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And now, back to what we were really discussing!

And now, back to what we were really discussing! That wasn't, in case you would care, not about Blahblahblahblahblahblah's former aliases, MrVoluntarist's possible former aliases, or whether said MrV knows Blah from real life or not. The topic of our discussion was, and should be, anarcha-feminism.

So, what I can gather from your long, mainly off topic, posts is that

You're both good at using a lot of words without ever actually getting to the point.
You're both good at subtly insulting each other.
Gustave de Molinari explicitly rejected the term "anarchist" (as it carried socialist connotations)
Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre are, due to a case of bad wording, implied to be anarcha-feminists
Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre are, undeniably, anarchist feminists
MrVoluntarist does not want Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre to be referred to as anarcha-feminists
Blahblahblahblahblahblah does not want Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre to be referred to as anarcha-feminists

Is this all correct? Oh, and when replying, please refrain from referring to each other with now un-used usernames. If Blahblahblahblahblahblah's signature and userpage header says his alias is "Blahblahblahblahblahblah", then it is, no matter the names of past incarnations of his account. Likewise for MrVoluntarist's possible former aliases. This as per the Wikipedia standard that I should not be called 83.233.5.170 just because I once edited under that "alias".

Sincerely, Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that all seems correct. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 22:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, then we can work on removing the implications that Cleyre and Goldman were anarcha-feminists so as to have a standard that allows you to satisfy your worldview which requires you to believe no one held the philosophy now known as anarcho-capitalism before Rothbard. MrVoluntarist 22:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You really don't know when to quit Mr V. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 22:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear sir (MrVoluntarist), I must agree with Blahblahblahblahblahblah here - can we agree on leaving Rothbard out of anarcha-feminism? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to appease all parts, I've made some edits to the article. However, the problem now lies within this paragraph:

An important aspect of anarcha-feminism is its opposition to traditional conceptions of family, education, and gender roles. The institution of marriage is one of the most widely attacked, not only by anarcha-feminists but also anarchist feminists in general. De Cleyre argued that it stifled individual growth, and Goldman argued that it condemns women "to life-long dependency, to parasitism, to complete uselessness, individual as well as social." Anarcha-feminists have also argued for non-hierarchical family and educational structures, and had a prominent role in the creation of the Modern School in New York City, based on the ideas of Francesc Ferrer i Guàrdia.

It cites three anarchists, of which two were also feminists (at least judging by their articles here on Wikipedia). No anarcha-feminist is however cited. Unfortunately (for us, in this case), it doesn't exactly lie within the nature of the anarchist ideologies to produce official ideologicians and thinkers, unlike communism has (or had) a tradition of doing. Perhaps, however, we could dig up some other sources for this? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record -- the terms "feminism" and "anarchafeminism" were not really current at the time of Goldman & De Cleyre. Both identified themselves as anarchists and have been identified as feminists and anarcha-feminists. In fact De Cleyre expressly identified herself as an "anarchist without adjectives". They were making a major anarcha-feminist critique -- that is, an anarchist critique of issues of concern to feminists. I believe the term really came about from the 1960s/1970s women's movement as feminist activists sought to identify a particular strand of radical feminist critique, and looked to Goldman, De Cleyre, and other anarchists who were speaking on feminist issues. --lquilter 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of Criticisms

Two problems with the Criticisms section:

The section has only criticism of the name - anarcha- vs. anarcho- feminism, and lacks any other criticism of substance. In doing so, it suggests that other criticisms do not exist. I'm sure there are some.
The discussion of naming should probably be in some kind of sub-section; otherwise its own importance is elevated inappropriately.

Now, if only I had some ideas about the standing criticsms on the topic, I could actually be useful!

JBazuzi 05:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

JBazuzi, your 100% correct. The current criticism section is probably original research. It should be remoed and replaced with a reliably sourced criticism of anarcha-feminism/anarcho-feminism--Cailil 18:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entire section as per WP:OR. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that rather than just removing what I had added [not as a valid edit but as information to be used by someone who knows how to do it properly in Wikipedia] you might have taken on board the valid point that not only should the title anarcha-feminism be anarcho-feminism, but that the word anarcha is a proper name, Anarcha, a black slave woman who was operated on 30 times without anaesthetic. I also gave two sources for this, which if you bother to check them out back this up. Clearly none of you have heard of Anarcha, illustration that America has successfully whitewashed her out of history, and still Sims is lauded as the founder of modern gynaecology, with nothing of his concentration camp methods mentioned. Has anyone bothered to ind out is self-named anarcha-feminists call themselves thus for Anarcha, or out of ignorance of her? Yet again, Wikipedia seems to shut out those outsiders who would like to contribute, and deletes everything they add without a stated reason. Bit fascistic don't you think? Much like Sims and his experiments were fascistic. This isn't OR, it is widely known information that many would like buried; you too?

Contemporary Anarcha-feminists

We need some prominent anarcha-feminists listed in the article, preferable with links to their Wikipedia articles. PhilLiberty 04:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. McElroy is not the only one, of course. I also did a minor rewrite of the material PhilLiberty inserted about McElroy and individual feminism. See Talk:Feminism for further explanation, but basically to my knowledge McElroy is the foremost proponent of "i-feminism", and so I contextualized the material that way, and also reworded a somewhat awkwardly phrased (and slightly misleading) reference to differences in Europe & US. --lquilter 14:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Individualist anarchist feminism

The last two sentences of the intro paragraph don't belong in the intro, in my opinion. It should go later in the article, perhaps as its own section. --Billyjoekini 21:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. --lquilter 23:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sketchy sentence

Early feminist Mary Wollstonecraft held proto-anarchist views^{[citation needed]}, and William Godwin, her husband, is often considered an important precursor to anarchist feminism^{[citation needed]}. -

I have removed this sentence for the time being. I am not convinced that reliable sources could be found to support it, particularly in the case of Wollstonecraft. I have read a fair bit on MW (see bibliographies on Mary Wollstonecraft and the pages on her works) and none of these sources makes a point of emphasizing her proto-anarchism. Godwin is often considered a proto-anarchist, if not an anarchist, but rarely have I seen him classified as a feminist (see caption on Fanny Imlay). I think the more precise formulation might be that others took Godwin's works to their logical extreme while he did not. However, I do not have any sources on this - I am only speculating because these statements are so at odds with what I have read. Historians of feminism and anarchism might read the past differently than the literary critics and biographers I have read so far. Until we have some solid evidence for these claims, I feel it is best to remove them. Awadewit | talk 14:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the "Mary Wollstonecraft held proto-anarchist views" is a new to me. I've not come across anything saying that before either--Cailil ^talk 14:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Social anarchism

Is Anarcha-feminism considered to be a form of social anarchism?--Fang 23 (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never come across a reference that says so, and I would be wary about including it as it is a form of anarchism primarily characterised by feminism, rather than the manner of social co-operation that characterises anarcho-syndicalism, collectivist anarchism and anarcho-communism. Incidently, would you be interested in summarizing Anarcha-feminism for the Anarchist schools of thought article, similar to what you did for National-Anarchism? Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 15:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think I will summarize Anarcha-feminism in Anarchist schools of thought article (maybe tomorrow or another day or today im not sure exactly when).--Fang 23 (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. Skomorokh ^incite 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Done![2]--Fang 23 (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link

The link to RAG website is broken - there is a temporary blogspot in operation ragdublin.blogspot.com but wikipedia won't let me put it in - cos it's a blogspot? 83.70.54.90 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Illiteracy

Y'all do know that the "o" in "anarcho" when it's linked with another word, such as in "anarcho-capitalism" is actually a genderless CONNECTING VOWEL, not a suffix indicative of gramatical gender such as "os" in say... "anarchikos" in Greek? Right? And they say women have better linguistic skills... Let me just throw here "anarcho-feminia" or "anarcho-feminy" wich might just have done the trick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anarcha-feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080922025342/http://www.infoshop.org:80/faq/secA3.html to http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA3.html

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120706170427/http://endehors.org/news/individualisme-anarchiste-et-feminisme-a-la-belle-epoque to http://endehors.org/news/individualisme-anarchiste-et-feminisme-a-la-belle-epoque

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anarcha-feminism. 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/20070926225244/http://www.biresource.org/pamphlets/history.html to http://www.biresource.org/pamphlets/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

"Anarcha"

Could we get a possible etymology for the term 'Anarcha-feminism'? I notice that the first published usage of the term 'feminist anarchist' was in 1970, yet there is no clear origin for the 'anarcha' prefix, which I think is important since English doesn't inflect for gender in nouns, i.e, 'anarcho-feminism' isn't like Spanish where the -o is indicative of masculine gender.

Stevo D (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anarcha-feminism. 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/20070814044505/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/bisex_movements%2C2.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/bisex_movements%2C2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anarcha-feminism. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Italians

I barely know enough about this to ask the question: should there be some mention of Italian and/or Italian-American anarcha-feminists? E.g. Maria Roda, Ernestina Cravello, Ersilia Cavedagni and others with connections to Paterson, NJ. --MopTop (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

"Female anarchist migrants such as Ninfa Baronio and Maria Roda were few in number but immensely important."^[1]

"This article explores this world of diasporic anarchist feminism from the vantage point of Paterson, New Jersey and New York City. This history, but also the broader history of Italian women’s political activism in the United States, has long eluded scholars."^[2]

Because Paterson was a center of the international anarchist movement....there is more archival material pertaining to these activists. But women's groups developed throughout the New York metropolitan area, involving immigrants from all over Italy."^[3]

"From the 1880s through the 1940s tens of thousands of anarchists were active in the United States, the overwhelming majority of them first- and second-generation immigrants."^[4]

^ Zimmer, Kenyon (2015). Immigrants against the State: Yiddish and Italian Anarchism in America. University of Illinois Press. p. 66. ISBN 9780252097430.
^ Guglielmo, Jennifer (2010). "Transnational Feminism's Radical Past: Lessons from Italian Immigrant Women Anarchists in Industrializing America" (PDF). Journal of Women's History. 22 (1): 10–33.
^ Guglielmo, Jennifer (2010). "Anarchist Feminists and the Radical Subculture". Living the Revolution: Italian Women's Resistance and Radicalism in New York City, 1880-1945. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9780807898222. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
^ Zimmer, Kenyon (2010). "'The Whole World is Our Country': Immigration and Anarchism in the United States, 1885-1940" (PDF). University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved December 30, 2017. (Doctoral dissertation)

Okay, I'm going to be bold and add a short section about this. I'm sure it's flawed, but it's better than nothing. --MopTop (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Image caption

Per WP:BLP, we require published, reliable sources for any characterization of living people. Labeling the people in the image at right as anarchists because they are displaying anarcha-feminist symbolism is obvious WP:SYNTH. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a better caption might be "anarchist and anarcha-feminist flags being displayed at Cologne Pride"? And yes, the A-in-circle/Venus symbol hybrid is a pretty clear symbol of anarcha-feminism. -- The Anome (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: @The Anome: I could create a collage of different images, so a protest, the flag of anarcha feminism and some more image, maybe of Emma Goldman. Also the flag you used was of queer anarchism not of anarcha feminism, just a heads up. Anarcha feminism is purple.Vallee01 (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The lower half of the flag in the image at right looks purple to me. The Venus symbol certainly suggests a variety of feminism. This is actually a perfect demonstration of the perils of interpreting images without published descriptions to draw on. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's better, but I would omit being displayed as trivial info and unnecessary passive voice. See the caption I originally added. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is this a thing?

"Anarcho-feminism" is the strangest ideology I have ever heard of. This isn't about the article, I just wonder, why is anarcho-feminism a thing? Frogface08 (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

What? Anarcha feminism is a way of viewing the state and all unjustified system as inherently patriarchal and oppressive. This includes capitalism and other such things, however this is a talk page on the discussion itself. Vallee01 (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Raised fist logo?

This 2007 zine is a primary source for the raised-fist-in-Venus-symbol design used on page 6. Even if the source commented on the symbol instead of being an instance of use of it, it's a self-published source just like most zines. We need a proper reliable source to justify including this image. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The raised fist is a symbol of militancy, and the venus symbol a symbol of feminism; without further external evidence, I don't think it can be regarded as anything other than representing militant feminism. Anarcha-feminists might well use that symbol, but so can other militant feminists, and so that doesn't make it a symbol of anarcha-feminism. However, since the page is now admin-protected, I won't be editing it further until the protection is lifted; this is a job for uninvolved admins from here on in. -- The Anome (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note also my comments above about fig. 5.5 in Rachel Jones' thesis. -- The Anome (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I just saw Jones's description of the "feminist fist" in her thesis as well. If there are no objections I'll file a protected edit request to remove the image. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The Venus symbol more specifically is a common symbol of anarcha feminism. Irregardless even if it is used by other feminists (it is extremely commonly). The image should still be kept as something else possibly: "The Venus symbol, a symbol used by anarcha feminists", and because radical feminism is linked to anarcha feminism, it definitely should stay as it is related. I disagree it should be removed. Vallee01 (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Your own source doesn't say this. Can you provide a source for this? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The venus symbol is a symbol of feminism in general, not anarcha-feminism in particular. The argument "some anarcha-feminists use X symbol, therefore X is a symbol of anarcha-feminism" is invalid; it's like saying "some anarcha-feminists wear shoes, therefore shoes are a symbol of anarcha-feminism" (or, indeed, to conclude further that shoe-wearers are anarcha-feminists). -- The Anome (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Well considering it has roots in radical feminism, which anarcha feminism is, and because it has a relation to anarchism in general it should be kept. I will provide sources soon. Vallee01 (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't an article about radical feminism or anarchism in general. Images should relate specifically to the topic of the article – see WP:PERTINENCE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Kowal, 2019

Kowal, Donna M. (2019). "Anarcha-Feminism". In Levy, Carl; Adams, Matthew S. (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism. Springer International Publishing. pp. 265–279. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75620-2_15. ISBN 978-3-319-75620-2.

Could be useful for building the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

@Vallee01: I've removed this image from the article: without any evidence that the people pictured are anarcha-feminists, it's potentially misleading. -- The Anome (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Anarchist symbolism
The the symbol of anarcha feminism displayed extremely clearly on their banners Queer anarchism Anarcha feminism Anarcho communism/syndaclism

@The Anome: Look at their flags, what on earth. They very clearly are, the very article in Russian translates to "Russian anarchists". Do you know anything about anarchist symbolism?

Another protester in the front clear has the flag of queer anarchism, and another protester in back has the flag of Anarcho communism/syndicalism. Please for god's sake don't edit articles unless you know at least partially some symbolism, I won't be surprised if you saw a protest in which they have red and black flags and think they are protesting for cereal. Because they have anarchist flags in this picture. Vallee01 (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Anome: Because you do not know the symbols of anarchism I made something for you to look at, the flags are anarchist. They're 3 different flags, Anarcha feminism, Queer anarchism, and Anarcho communism. https://imgur.com/a/b9Ws8RV Vallee01 (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vallee01: granting that the flags symbolize queer anarchism and anarcha-feminsm (do we have a reliable source for this?), the image from a single protest is WP:UNDUE for the lead section. Nor should we add images that are merely decorative. Open to suggestions for a different placement within the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Anome: Please go and replace the caption on the article feminism, apparently people showing anarchist or feminist symbols aren't 100% anarchists or feminists to you. Either that or it is double standard "Feminist protesters at the International Women's Strike in Paraná, Argentina (March, 2019)." Can't call them feminists to you. As to the image it is perfect it shows the symbolism of anarcha feminists extremely clear, with people as well. There is no better image. Vallee01 (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

We're discussing this article, not any other. I disagree that the symbols are shown particularly clearly here. Nor does a single group of protesters adequately illustrate an entire movement. Even if this were the "best" image available, it would still be inappropriate as the lead image for the entire article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't need to perfectly show the movement, no image can ever do that, the point of a thumbnail needs to give a vague understanding of the article. It shows the symbolism of anarcha feminism and it shows people protesting for anarcha feminism. Please what policy is their that you can't call people with feminist flags feminists? And what policy is there that you can't call anarchist protesters anarchists. No policy exists. Vallee01 (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Which reliable source says the people in the image are protesting for anarcha feminism? Without such a source, that statement is WP:OR. Your own interpretation of the image doesn't count – that's a basic Wikipedia policy. Nor does this image illustrate much about the topic. The Venus symbol design is inconspicuously placed, and the "anarcha-feminist" flags are small and in the background. The most obvious element is the banner in Russian. It's not clear how these words relate to anarcha-feminism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

So you are saying that the black-and-purple flags are anarcha-feminist symbols? (That seems plausible -- but citation, please.) If so, you could say that the picture depicts at least "some demonstrators carrying flags symbolizing anarcha-feminism". But you cannot do that using your own synthesis of facts to state that all the demonstrators in the photo are anarcha-feminists. Worse than that, the flags are not prominent in the image, and the people carrying anarcha-feminist flags (there seem to be two) are not even visible in the photo; that is to say, there are no clearly-identified anarcha-feminist people in the photo at all; you are simply assuming the others share their ideology.

On the other hand, if they were all marching behind an anarcha-feminist banner, there would be no issue, but the fist-and-venus symbol is insufficient to do this; it only represents militant feminism, not anarcha-feminism specifically. At this point, all we can say is this is "a group of militant feminists, of whom two (not visible in picture) are carrying anarcha-feminist flags". Which is pretty weak for an article header image. -- The Anome (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Without a reliable source, we can't label the people in the image as anything; see WP:BLP and WP:LABEL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Anome: There is something called common sense on wikipedia its an unofficial policy. Anyway ^[1] the only use for this symbol is for anarcha feminism. No other ideology or group uses a bisected side of purple and black based off the CNT, also in shot there is an anarcho communist flag clearly. Vallee01 (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCOMMON. And the source you cited appears to be a retail site copying wholesale from Flags of the World, which hosts user-generated content. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/qt-a_fem.html

@The Anome: @Sangdeboeuf: Thoughts: https://imgur.com/a/JZacTcd Vallee01 (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the image collage shown here as an improvement. (1) The image at lower right merely shows the same symbol as one of the flags at the upper left. (2) The symbols in the upper-right image are obscure. (3) And problems with the lower-left image have already been articulated. (2) and (3) make this collage a confusing hodgepodge of unclear visual information. Anarcha-feminism encompasses more than some protest banners or even protest marches themselves, so none of these images have sufficient WP:PERTINENCE for the lead section. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vallee01: @Sangdeboeuf: I'm not persuaded by the synthesis of multiple images into one; it seems to extend WP:SYN even further. There are a whole bunch of different intersectional/niche-movement flags in both group pictures; queer anarchism, trans anarchism, you name it. I'd stick with the image I added; there seems at least to be consensus that the black-and-purple flag with a venus-and-fist overlay is clearly an anarcho-feminist (or at least anarchist and feminist) flag. -- The Anome (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and the symbols that are shown are mostly indistinct. I have other problems with the image collage as well, which I described above. I'm not sure any of these are appropriate as the lead image – anarcha-feminism is more than a protest movement. But if I had to choose one, I'd go with the (cropped) Cologne Pride image which at least foregrounds the relevant symbols. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Anome: Trans and queer anarchism are both directly related to Anarcha feminism, because you didn't understand the black and purple flag was of anarchism I don't think you know much on anarchism. Of course that's fine I edit articles on Physics from time to time although I am only a student, however keep in mind some competence is required, please familiarize yourself with some anarchist ideology because stating "intersectional/niche-movement flags in both group pictures; queer anarchism, trans anarchism, you name it" is simply not true, as queer anarchism is part of anarcha feminism thought. Vallee01 (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vallee01: you still haven't provided a reliable source. As far as the lead image goes, I think the Spanish protest banner you added is preferable to any other image here. It has both the graphical Venus symbol associated with anarcha-feminism, as well as a slogan that summarizes the anti-domination tenets of the movement. Plus, it's a visually cleaner image. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

https://terlinguatradewinds.wordpress.com/2017/08/25/anarchist-flags-anarchism-symbols-anarchy/ This article an anarchist website shows the bisected purple black flag is only used by Anarcha feminists, it is literally the defining symbol of Anarcha feminism. This is a reliable source as it makes clear anarcha feminists use thing flag. This debate you're engaging in you have no way of winning. It's a bisected purple black flag, in the background there is clearly an anarcho communist flag. You want to get caught in a circular debate so you can deny the absolute obvious, either that or you simply know little on anarchist symbolism. If you don't know much on anarchist symbolism that is fine however maybe familiarize yourself with some anarchist symbols before editing anarchist articles? Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, any source making the claim that only Group X uses Flag Y would have to be ironclad indeed, since it's tantamount to proving a negative. A WordPress blog is manifestly not a reliable source. The same goes for a retail site, or any other user-generated source. I searched for the volunteer-edited Flags of the World in the RS/N archives, and most users seem to think it's problematic at best. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have bad news you're going to need to remove the entire section in anarchist symbolism, go ahead remove it. I assure you it will be reverted as it has been there since 2010, remove sourced information for 2010, becuase that source is used. It is reliable it states such and makes it clear, you can't really debate this. Another example would be something like the Polandball, Polandball blogs can be used to state "Polandball has become a popular subject on different sites", it can also be used for as an example "Certain countries are drawn in not a ball". As well as this Wikipedia can be used for a source on Wikipedia. You can't really debate this has already been proven that is flags of Anarcha feminism, so from here on out the topic is going to dropped. Vallee01 (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Declaring, You can't really debate this...the topic is going to be dropped is an oddly authoritarian statement from an avowed anarchist, not to mention being in direct conflict with the process of collaborative editing used on Wikipedia. Any issues with a different article are beside the point – see WP:CONTENTAGE and WP:OTHERCONTENT. Wikipedia is not a reliable source; this is stated directly at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Why are we even discussing this? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: No it's simply you're denying the flag of anarcha feminism. You are stating the flag of Anarcha feminism is not anarcha feminism. You are simply stating wrong information, that's it. The bisected flag of anarchists represents anarchism. Red and black for Syndicalism and Communism. Green for green anarchism, purple for anarcha feminism, and pink for queer anarchism. If you want to discuss other things like improving the collage, possibly remaking it, removing it or so one, but as to the discussion of the purple and black flag, there is no point to discuss it anymore, you can look up "anarcha feminist flag" it is the first thing that is brought up. Vallee01 (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If you want to talk so to how to improve the thumbnail image I am all for that, maybe remaking the collage to represent more I 100% agree the current is not the best, and only shows anarcha feminist protest which the movement is so much more. However we need to end this circular debate on the obvious, the bisected purple and black flag is the flag of anarcha feminism, just as the bisected flag of red and black is of anarcho syndicalism. Vallee01 (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Great, then provide a source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

There already is a completely reliable source presented, which is already used on Wikipedia. Obviously wikipedia is not a reliable source however when information from 2010 on page that has been reviewed states anarchist symbolism. It's clear the source does prove the point, that's it, it's already been proven. Vallee01 (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You seem to not care the actual symbolism, a simple google search of "anarcha feminism" would show this however here is you're source that you wanted from a reliable place an academic site: https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/452987 . Can we move on from this circular discussion? Vallee01 (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

That page has "enwiki" in the domain name, "Wikipedia" right at the top, and "Wikimedia Foundation. 2010" at the bottom; it's obviously a Wikipedia mirror – not reliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Things don't come much more circular than that. @Vallee01:, if this is the best you can come up with, you might want to consider that you may not actually have WP:RS evidence to support your assertions. I'm happy to accept flags, banners or graffiti with a prominent anarchy-A-and-venus-symbol as unequivocally symbolizing anarcha-feminism. However, I don't think you can represent a group of people, some of which are carrying anarcha-feminist flags, as being a group of anarcha-feminists. -- The Anome (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the page has been admin-protected, and that my one edit since that has been related to this discussion, and slipped through because I'm have admin rights and didn't notice the protection. I think it's a valid policy-compliant edit that I would have made anyway had I been uninvolved in this discussion, but I should make it clear that I was editing in my capacity as an editor, not as an admin, and that I'm happy for any other admin to revert this if they feel it breaches policy. (I should also note that personality rights might be an issue for how images of people shot in Germany are captioned, so extra care might be warranted.) @Vallee01: if you regard this edit as non-compliant, you are welcome to bring this to uninvolved admin attention via Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- The Anome (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: In an abundance of caution, I've now self-reverted the edit in question and put in a protected edit request, see below. -- The Anome (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Anome: The black and purple flag that is literally the key symbol of anarcha feminism. Irregardless it has already been proven, a simple google search would prove this. In complete honesty no other source is needed however simply to prove this to you take a gander at this source:

Here is a peer reviewed paper by the "MASTER’S PROGRAMME IN URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNINGFACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCESUNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI" a 66 page long peer reviewed thesis on Anarcha feminism and patriarchy made by Rachel Jones published in 2020: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/317083/Rachel_Jones_USP2020_Thesis.pdf?sequence=2. Here is what was written on her (Rachel Jones) by a 3rd party: https://bouve.northeastern.edu/institute-of-health-equity-social-justice-research/rachel-jones-biography/. She is a defining person in gender studies and has been defining in her field. Give it a read she has done amazing work in the field. To prove the obvious to you go to page 36. "Figure 4.6. Anarcha-Feminist FlagGraffiti(Top Left). ‘Hyggelig’ Sticker (Bottom Left). Snow White Sticker (Right). Photographs: Rachel Jones." showing the purple and black flag. Page 39 goes into even MORE detail, page 39:

"These include symbols generally accepted as feminist, such as the female symbol ♀or the anarcha-feminist flag (black and purple bisected flag). Whilst these messages are extremely activist, and show others in the area that they are not alone with their thoughts, it is obvious that those outside of the activist network will not be able to understand what the message means, with the exception of the female ♀symbol". Please drop it now. Vallee01 (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any disagreement between us regarding the black-and-purple flag. I'm perfectly happy to accept the purple-and-black flag as a symbol of anarcha-feminism, as it's self-explanatory standard flag symbolism: the black flag of anarchism bisected diagonally with the purple of feminism. Either the purple-and-black flag or the venus-and-circled-A symbol are fine by me. You might want to note that the flag currently at the top of the article combines both. -- The Anome (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: Thank you! Rachel Jones' thesis is an excellent source. It also supports my position on this exactly, see figure 5.5 in particular, identifying the flag and the A-and-venus as anarcha-feminist symbols. Note that the centre image in fig. 5.5 is idenfied as a "feminist fist", not an anarcha-feminist symbol. -- The Anome (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Moving on, the issue with the simple image is it doesn't display enough, it doesn't display the effect that queer anarchism has onto anarcha feminism. It doesn't show protests really, it doesn't show the militancy, philosphy, anarcha-feminist communities and people, that's why there should be a collage. I agree with you the current image is actually better then the Russian anarcha feminist protest, however it doesn't show nearly enough, so that's why there should be a collage images, similar to the George Floyd protests, the movement is so complex and diverse it needs it. Vallee01 (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no one image that can be for the George Floyd protests there are so many groups engaged in the protests: liberals, anarchists, conservatives, anti fascists, A-political people, conservatives. And there has been peaceful and violent protests, there has been autonomous groups established and so much more, so there needs to show it all. The protests, riots, the autonomous zones etc... Vallee01 (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This, unfortunately, is original research on your part. -- The Anome (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear how we would go about graphically displaying the effect that queer anarchism has [on] anarcha feminism...militancy [or] philosphy. Not even a collage of images can do that, because those are all abstract things. I maintain that photos of specific protests are inappropriate for the WP:LEADIMAGE of a movement with such deep historical roots and varying kinds of associated actions. Anarcha-feminism is more than a protest movement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Anome: Indeed, I did not participate in much of the editing on the George Floyd protests, however I did watch the chaotic creation of the article, the same is correct about the Kenosha protests. Vallee01 (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Well in the collage their could be prominent anarcha feminists, anarcha feminist communities, and queer and feminist flags in the same shot. The exact image the Russian protest. It might not be able to show the entirety of the ideology of anarcha feminism but it can get close. Vallee01 (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

That seems extremely dubious. How does a collection of protest flags from the 2010s adequately (I did not say "perfectly") represent 100 years of associated writings, thought, and activism? See WP:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images...should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works...not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." I don't see an easy representation of the topic in any of the proposed images, so I think it's best to leave it out entirely. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree, the current collage is not adequate at all and needs to changed. The collage should be changed and to display more of the movement. The current collage is not adequate and I agree so then what images should be present on a collage. Anarcha feminism is so much more then a protest movement it an entire philosophical school of thought with it's own writings, and thought (as you stated). The question therefor is what images should be present. That's why there needs to multiple images not simply a singular one. Vallee01 (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again, there is no collage of images (of people, signs, protests, etc.) that can represent an entire school of thought. For the record, I think a purely abstract image like the black and purple bisected flag would be fine, since it doesn't represent any one person or group. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If so what do you think about the page Feminism, feminism is a much more broad philosophy then anarcha feminism. Why then do you think you can't show a protest as a thumbnail? Vallee01 (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I would remove that lead image as well, for similar reasons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

* I have moved the following from the section #Protected edit request below to keep discussion focused on the topic at hand. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: You state you are fine with a "purely abstract" thumbnail what would be you're opinion on something similar to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vallee01/sandbox, the anarcha feminist flag could be replaced with the image of the purple flag in the bottom left, and of course the collage would be updated with more historical images like Emma Goldman and other Anarcha feminists. Vallee01 (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

As I already stated, the collage is visually unclear and the subjects do not appropriately represent the topic. If you want to propose a different collage with different subjects, go ahead. I'm not sure how historical figures qualify as "purely abstract" though. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I removed the following from the article earlier in an edit that I have now self-reverted, since it was made through the protection by mistake. It removed this image and caption:

[[File:AnarchaFeminism.png|thumb|upright=1.4|Collection of anarcha-feminist, protests, symbols and flags]]

My rationale is that there is no evidence that the protests were anarcha-feminist, only that anarcha-feminists were present (or, in the case of one image, impliedly present, since the actual holders of the anarcha-feminist flags are not actually visible in the image), and moreover that other, non-anarcha-feminist symbols are also in evidence. Add to this the existence of German personality rights laws, and you've got good reason to remove the image. -- The Anome (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Great act of good faith. Vallee01 (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps then it could be stated "anarcha feminist flags" or something else, it displays the Venus symbol, queer anarchism, anarcho syndicalism (a bisected red/black flag can be seen), and anarcha feminism all in one shot with a protest. Vallee01 (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Support removal for reasons expressed above under "Lead image". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment I think there should be more then simply remove or keep the image. I agree the image at the pride parade is a better image singularly and if you HAD to choose one image over the other, the pride parade is clearly better. However I feel no reason why there should not be a collection of images. A simple anarchist flag at a pride parade isn't a image to display the whole movement. Vallee01 (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. Which is why I favor omitting the lead image entirely. As I stated above, It's not clear how we would go about graphically displaying the effect that queer anarchism has [on] anarcha feminism...militancy [or] philosphy. Not even a collage of images can do that, because those are all abstract things...How does a collection of protest flags from the 2010s adequately...represent 100 years of associated writings, thought, and activism?—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  - If we agree that both images should be removed and instead work towards creating a new collage of images, including the pride parade image. I would completely support removal. Vallee01 (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
    - Why would I agree to creating a new collage of images when I have said multiple times now that no lead image is the most appropriate option? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
      - I disagree completely then, anarcha feminism needs something to represent it by and thumbnail is needed completely, it gives context to the entire article and is extremely important. Vallee01 (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
        Why is it so important for this article and not, say, Anarcho-syndicalism, Queer anarchism, or just Anarchism? And how to you propose to give appropriate "context" to a movement that's been around for over a century? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
        The current discussion is centered around this article. However this article image is extremely important to give context to the reader and a slight visual aid to the text. By creating using an image to repersent something you can state a thousand words and give a representation to the current situatiom. I think that queer anarchism should have as an in-depth as anarcha feminism however that will have to wait. Vallee01 (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
        You're just repeating yourself. How would an image give context? How is it a visual aid? How does it represent the topic? —22:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
        The first image shows clearly anarcha feminist flag with the Venus symbol as well as being at a pride parade which is extremely important to anarcha feminism, the second image is more related to queer anarchism something which is related anarcha feminism. The third image shows a anarcha feminist protest which shows clearly, and the forth is a close up of anarcha feminist symbolism, it provides information to the reader very well. With that in mind it could be improved massively. For starters it only is images of contemporary anarcha feminism, and second it only shows protests, which could be shown far more. Vallee01 (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The first image shows clearly anarcha feminist flag with the Venus symbol – The cropped version shows the symbols more clearly, but still has a lot of distracting background information.
...as well as being at a pride parade which is extremely important to anarcha feminism – Citation, please.
the second image is more related to queer anarchism something which is related [to] anarcha feminism – Queer anarchism already has its own page. We should only have images that are specifically relevant to this topic.
The third image shows a[n] anarcha feminist protest – Anarcha-feminism is more than a protest movement. Again, citation, please.
...which shows clearly – Disagree. The anarcha-feminist flags are in the background and not fully visible. I doubt anyone who isn't already familiar with anarcha-feminist symbols would be able to pick out the relevant flags from the jumble of other flags and symbols here.
the fo[u]rth is a close up of anarcha feminist symbolism – On this I agree, and this fourth image (at bottom right) could stand on its own if a lead image is really needed.
With that in mind it could be improved massively – Then suggest specific improvements. We don't need a lead image at all, and not having a better one isn't a reason to keep this one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Acedemic paper by Ruth Kina: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/subjects/politics-international-studies/staff/ruth-kinna/#tab1 who stidies at Oxford and has taught at Cambridge, she is a complete expert on anarcha feminism and anarchism.

"At Loughborough, Ruth is a member of the Anarchism Research Group and the Politicised Practice Research Group. She has been editor, now co-editor, of the journal Anarchist Studies since 2008 and is series editor of Rowman and Littlefield's Radical Subjects in International Politics: Action and Activism. She was co-convener of the Anarchist Studies Network (a specialist group of the UK Political Studies Association) from 2008-2020 and a member of the PSA Executive 2008-2009. She is a member of the Association for Political Thought, William Morris Society, Utopian Studies Society, British Association for Victorian Studies."

Acknowledging anarchism’s principled opposition to “all hierarchy and oppression,” she sets out a “newer woman question” to fill the gaps in anarchism’s default rejection of sexism by the adoption of “principles specific to its emphasis on feminism” and by the drawing attention to the “still necessary” task of making “gendered concerns... central.”18These critiques of anarchism highlight some important tensions in anarchist feminist thinking. Gaader’s proposal to theorize anarchism through feminism is particularly controversial because it appears to play down the concerns that some anarchists have expressed about the value of “the intellectual arts,” to use Lynne Farrow’s term. Even while academic feminism has played a significant role in shaping contemporary anarchist feminism and, particularly, anarchaqueer thought" Detailing anarcha feminism influence on anarcha queer though.

"The third wave revisions were made in the light of queer theory.71 Jeppesen and Nazar tie third wave anarchist feminism to movements within anarchism, notably anarchapunk/Riot Grrrl, to changes in global politics, especially the emergence of the transnational protest movements in the late 1990s and, beyond anarchism, to the theoretical foregrounding of “the intersectionality of identities and issues.” Information as to anarcha feminism has largely been defined by intersectionality and of Queer and non-hetrosexual thought.

I don't know how much you know about anarcha feminist theory, however hopefully this clears it up and shows the massive effect queer anarchism has to anarcha feminism and anarcha feminism to queer anarchism. They are both completely connected. Vallee01 (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest reading your sources more carefully before posting walls of text on talk pages. The first quote from Kinna's paper says that both anarchaqueer and anarchafeminist thought were influenced by academic feminism. The source that Kinna cites, by Sandra Jeppesen and Holly Nazar, specifically traces this influence to Judith Butler, Audre Lourde and Eve Sedgwick, none of whom appear to be associated with anarcha-feminism.
  "The third wave revisions were made in the light of queer theory" is paraphrasing an interview with a feminist media editor in Slovenia. Curiously, in the original interview, the interviewer corrects the subject, Ida Hiršenfelder, saying "there were no queer studies" at the University of Ljubljana at that time, and Hiršenfelder agrees that she meant "women's studies". Hiršenfelder is also describing the beginnings of her radio program, not third-wave feminism in general. Kinna appears to be mis-reading the source here.
  The second part of the latter quote again cites Jeppesen and Nazar, who do mention "intersectionality of identities" in relation to anarcha-feminism. But their examples of "intersecting issues" are "poverty and class, ... race, ... and sexuality or gender (reproductive justice)". They don't mention queer anarchism in this context, and intersectionality is not the same as queerness either.
  Overall, the word queer appears only 5 times in Kinna's paper (vs. 342 for feminism/feminist). In the two instances where Kinna herself uses the term, she doesn't say anarcha-feminism and queer anarchism are completely connected, whatever that means. I'm not seeing anything here to justify including an image of an anarcha-queer protest in the lead section, even if we had a good picture of one, which we don't. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  - You didn't seem to respond, intersectionality is directly related to queerness obviously and feminism and LGBT movements are completely linked, it obvious however considering you though the anarcha feminist flag apparently wasn't the anarcha feminist flag I doubt you're knowledge on anarcha feminism or feminism in general is very large. This shows extremely clearly queer anarchism effect on anarcha feminism, obviously queer anarchism and anarcha feminism are completely connected. You seem to have proven my point Anarcha feminism has a massive influence on anarcha queer thought, do you understand, it states so extremely clearly. If you actually read the paper instead of looking for the word queer it is shown actually 7 times, in the paper called: Anarchism and feminism the word anarchism is shown only 40 times. According to you're logic there is only a difference of 5 times behind the issues The term gender is only references 35 times and 8 times while citing citations, I guess the article has "very little" to say about gender. There is constant talk as to the sexes and fludity. We have an excellent picture already present Queer anarchist protest is shown and it is an excellent picture.
  - Also I think this could maybe go into administrator resolution dispute, you seem to be completely un-moving from you're position. It seems like you are trying to act like a judge. Have you once offered a different proposal to simply "remove the image"? I offered to numerous ways to improve the image, replace the image, re-word the image caption, yet you are don't want to compromise or change in you're position. I even said it would be fine to have a purely thumbnail of the anarcha feminist flag image whilst under it have a collage of anarcha feminists, anarcha, feminists protests something you supported, however later retracted. So what is you're proposed solutions outside of simply removing the image exactly? Compromise learn to have a different opinion state something other then simply "remove the image". Vallee01 (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Removed I have removed this image per rough consensus (2 out of 3 participants), although it would be helpful if more editors could comment on the issue — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Image on Queer anarchism

Sangdeboeuf Your issue with the image is completely subjective, it is literally a banner stating "Queer anarchism." Revert. Vallee01 (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I assume you mean File:Queer Anarchist CSD Berlin 2020.jpg. You're right, I do subjectively think the subjects are hard to make out, partly because the foreground figures are under-exposed. Please indicate where MOS:IMAGES gives objective rules about something like this. Overall, a banner that mostly just replicates words already in the text doesn't do a good job of illustrating the topic IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The image shows Queer anarchist protest that is it. It is a good illustration. If your only argument is "I don't think it looks good," that's not a valid justification for removing it. It says Queer anarchism, it is a good illustration end of story. Vallee01 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:IMAGES, Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary. It isn't just a banner, it's people holding a banner. Naturally readers are going to want to be able to clearly make out people in the image when those people are relevant to the main subject. This image is poor-quality in that regard. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new version of the image that addresses some of the problems I mentioned. But I don't think every section needs an image of a random protest march. Queer anarchism is a separate topic, and anarcha-feminism is more than simply a protest movement, as I've said before on this page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wimmin's Fire Brigade

Hi, could I put the action of Wimmin's Fire Brigade ([[Squamish_Five]) relating to firebombing of Red Hot Video and it's subsequent affects onto this page? If so, where? Thanks. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bethany Durham.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aniidorii (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lbargabus0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACHorwitz (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Luic San Saorn 1933.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

[1] Zimmer, Kenyon (2015). Immigrants against the State: Yiddish and Italian Anarchism in America. University of Illinois Press. p. 66. ISBN 9780252097430.

[2] Guglielmo, Jennifer (2010). "Transnational Feminism's Radical Past: Lessons from Italian Immigrant Women Anarchists in Industrializing America" (PDF). Journal of Women's History. 22 (1): 10–33.

[3] Guglielmo, Jennifer (2010). "Anarchist Feminists and the Radical Subculture". Living the Revolution: Italian Women's Resistance and Radicalism in New York City, 1880-1945. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9780807898222. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

[4] Zimmer, Kenyon (2010). "'The Whole World is Our Country': Immigration and Anarchism in the United States, 1885-1940" (PDF). University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved December 30, 2017. (Doctoral dissertation)

[5] ttps://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/qt-a_fem.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]