Jump to content

Talk:History of anarchism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merger Proposal

Not much here yet. Libertatia proposed merging the History of anarchism and Origins of anarchism articles, adding relevent information from the more-heavily-researched Anarchism article. I will examine all three articles this evening. Jacob Haller 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we will need the following subsections: 66.44.54.88 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(1) one covering the precursors to anarchism (up through Godwin). 66.44.54.88 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(2) one covering the early development of classical anarchism (Warren, Proudhon & Stirner). 66.44.54.88 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(3) one covering the emergence of the major traditions. Although later mutualism and collectivism are both closely tied to earlier mutualism, aligning Tucker with Spooner and Bakunin with various communists makes good sense for that time. (However syndicalist-agorist ties screw with any two-way split for our time). 66.44.54.88 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(4) one covering anarchist participation in workers' struggles. Subsections could cover the first international, syndicalism, the Mexican revolution, the Russian revolution, and the Spanish Civil War. 66.44.54.88 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(5) one covering anarchism and its relationship with state-socialism, as well as autonomous Marxism, council communism, situationism, etc. (anarchism and other socialist traditions). 66.44.54.88 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(6) one covering anarchism and its relationship with geoism, distributivism, and radical liberalism, as well as agorism and [so-called] anarcho-capitalism. (anarchism and other libertarian traditions). 66.44.54.88 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(7) various recent phenomena. 66.44.54.88 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I still agree with Libertatia's merger proposal. I also suggest porting the origins and schools sections from Anarchism and reorganizing the history article around these. Jacob Haller 03:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Christiana

I visited the place recently. In fact they have very strict rules about no hard drugs and no motorcycle club colours. I don't want to start a discussion about whether they are really anarchist if they have what amount to laws, but the reference to herbs used for medicinal and recreational purposes - which fall outside the tobacco and alcohol monopolies exploited by the state and their business allies - seems particularly incoherent, unless the piece was included to show how anarchism is compatabile with the market.Harrypotter 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced

"Most contemporary anthropologists, as well as anarcho-primitivists agree that, for the longest period before recorded history, human society was without established authority or formal political institutions."

The only source for this statement is one single book about anarchism. (Which might be biased in favour of anarchism) It would be nice to reference the anthropologists who support this statement one by one.

--89.132.228.210 (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

<"there is a lot of unsourced material in this article, especially in the part about the CNT.">

I'm a little new at this and will make mistakes in protocol and format, so please bear with me.

I think there are more problems than lack of sourcing. I ran into a big objection in the first couple of sentences. In Attic Greek, arXe is never translated as "sovereignty." It is almost always given as "rule" though it can sometimes be rendered as "order" in the sense of an ordered or structured society, and in some cases as "command." But it is commonly taken as roughly synonymous with "state" (government) as seen by its citizens (i.e., a subordinate member of the hierarchy). Considering the importance of the term "sovereignty" in anarchist thought, this really needs to be rendered differently.

Proudhon on property and possession

I made a small edit, so that the article did not misrepresent the source given. On page 33 of the Selected Writings of P.-J. Proudhon, Edwards suggests that, in Theory of Property, Proudhon "reverses his earlier preference for 'possession' over 'property'..." This directly contradicts the notion that "property is liberty" refers to 'possession.' Edwards' statement is careless, and to some extent unsupported by the primary sources, even by his own selections from them. It is likely that opening the can of worms regarding what Proudhon really said about property is too much to tackle, given Wikipedia's limitations, but this statement from Theory of Property would be a key puzzle piece, if anyone wanted to tackle it: "Thus, on this great question, our critique remains at base the same, and our conclusions are always the same: we want equality, more and more fully approximated, of conditions and fortunes, as we want, more and more, the equalization of responsibilities. We reject, along with governmentalism, communism in all its forms; we want the definition of official functions and individual functions; of public services and of free services. There is only one thing new for us in our thesis: it is that that same property, the contradictory and abusive principle of which has raised our disapproval, we today accept entirely, along with its equally contradictory qualification: Dominium est just utendi et abutendi re suâ, quatenus juris ratio patur. We have understood finally that the opposition of two absolutes—one of which, alone, would be unpardonably reprehensive, and both of which, together, would be rejected, if they worked separately—is the very cornerstone of social economy and public right: but it falls to us to govern it and to make it act according to the laws of logic." Libertatia (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

See if this helps. -- Vision Thing -- 19:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We have two sections on the origins of anarchism

'Pre-anarchism' and 'precursors to anarchism', ought to be merged. Zazaban (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, yes, they should. That is a chore.  Skomorokh  23:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Done, and done. Wasn't actually very difficult, most of the stuff from each section did not overlap with the other, thank god. One wonders how in the world that even happened in the first place. Zazaban (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Fantastic, that's a great start to reform. These major-topic anarchism article have shit merged into them from everywhere.  Skomorokh  23:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Expansion is needed, especially in the 19th century section. I'm pretty sure the main anarchism article has more information on that period than here, which is a problem. I think the 19th and 20th century sections could be subdivided down into periods. Off hand, I can suggest, maybe, 1793(or 1800 if we keep the 18th century section)-1840, 1840-1872, 1872-1895, 1895-1921, 1921-1945, 1945-1978, and 1978-present. But we can't do that until we add a lot more information. Perhaps the early history could also be subdivided into ancient, middle ages, and early modern, but again, it's too soon for that. Zazaban (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
My eventual goal is to have this article detailed enough to have articles split off from here, like 'Anarchism in the 19th' century, etc. Zazaban (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
How about this: Under 19th century, 1800-1840, 1840-1860, 1860-1880, 1880-1900, and under 20th century, 1900-1920, 1920-1940, 1940-1960 (not sure about this one, nothing happened during this time), 1960-1980, and 1980-2000. Zazaban (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
What is the significance of the divisions? I'd be more inclined use fewer top-level sections (as now) and have subsections within them more topically-orientated. It also might be worth considering moving the "Historical examples of societies successfully organized according to anarchist principles" and "Examples of organizations with anarchist qualities" sections elsewhere (or doing away with them entirely on WP:NOR grounds), so as to keep this as a chronological history.  Skomorokh  19:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Kill those sections, they already have their own article over at List of anarchist communities, there's no reason to have them here too. Zazaban (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Anarchism in the 19th century.

This section is just terrible. There is a series of crappy, two sentence paragraphs that need to be expanded. The bit on Stirner is alarmingly brief, for example. I'm going out for dinner, but I'll work on it when I come back. Zazaban (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Anarchism in the 20th century isn't much better, in fact it may be worse. More a third of the whole thing is just on the spanish civil war, more than the entire last sixty years of the century is given. Zazaban (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Cut out the oversized section on the civil war. It's not important enough to be given that huge a section in a general history, especially when all of individualist anarchism is given a sentence. My god, individualist anarchism has one measly sentence, and it only mentions Stirner, I will work on that. Wow. Zazaban (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The section certainly needs expansion, particularly in dealing with late 19th century activities and related violence in Europe including the deaths of several state monarchs and leaders. I have a couple of sources ---- around here somewhere..............71.219.130.34 (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Early history

The section makes a couple of claims I noticed right off the bat that I felt strongly enough about to stop and discuss reall quick before I take any action. There are a lot of claims with no references. The classic introduction about the Illiad and Herodotus's Histories are not referenced but cite the primary works. There seems to be some academic sources missing here and they are of great value. Ithink there is a n entire section of history missing on the early Greek and Roman portion. Could use some eyes.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of anarchism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of anarchism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "almeralia.com":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

anarchism

anarchism as a political philosophy may express the viewpoint not of the -desirability- of the state, but its legitimacy-- as from such a viewpoint:

that moral and ethical systems, and ultimately the power relations that govern human society are such, that the existence or non-existence of government is at best a secondary issue.

to re-phrase, anarchist philosophy may recognize that the human condition, that human reasoning and behavior, is not determined by government -- that government derives its existence as a consequence of the social contract by which "people" confer on to government legitimacy -- and furthermore, that if the conditions of this "contract" are not met, that no legitmate government may exist.

though, in practical and contemporary usage, and in this sense, not as a -political philosophy- but as a social and cultural movement, anarchism is the result/or expresses the undesirability of rules, the illegitimacy of formal institutions, and the corruption of ostensibly objective moral systems, such as the legal code. -- anaceus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.85.203 (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

anarchism II

i believe, as the preceding is a more accurate definition for "anarchism", and appropriate for anarchism stub -- it may be necessary to re-write the introduction to this article. i will attempt to do this. -- anaceus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.85.203 (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The current version of the definition of anarchism in this article is in accordance with the main article on anarchism. It is almost extremely well sourced and any change of it will have to be consulted at the main anarchism article. But by reading your proposal i can tell you that it is centered on a definition of anarchism as anti-statism and anarchism has always been defined as much more than anti-statism.--Eduen (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of anarchism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of anarchism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "naturismo":

  • From Individualist anarchism in France: "el individuo es visto en su dimensión biológica -física y psíquica- dejándose la social."EL NATURISMO LIBERTARIO EN LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA (1890–1939) by Jose Maria Rosello
  • From Anarcho-primitivism: "El individuo es visto en su dimensión biológica -física y psíquica- dejándose la social." (Roselló)
  • From Green anarchism: "EL NATURISMO LIBERTARIO EN LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA (1890–1939)" by Josep Maria Rosell
  • From Anarchist schools of thought: "el individuo es visto en su dimensión biológica -física y psíquica- dejándose la social."
    "EL NATURISMO LIBERTARIO EN LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA (1890–1939)" by Josep Maria Rosell]
  • From Individualist anarchism: "Proliferarán así diversos grupos que practicarán el excursionismo, el naturismo, el nudismo, la emancipación sexual o el esperantismo, alrededor de asociaciones informales vinculadas de una manera o de otra al anarquismo. Precisamente las limitaciones a las asociaciones obreras impuestas desde la legislación especial de la Dictadura potenciarán indirectamente esta especie de asociacionismo informal en que confluirá el movimiento anarquista con esta heterogeneidad de prácticas y tendencias. Uno de los grupos más destacados, que será el impulsor de la revista individualista Ética será el Ateneo Naturista Ecléctico, con sede en Barcelona, con sus diferentes secciones la más destacada de las cuales será el grupo excursionista Sol y Vida."[http://www.nodo50.org/ekintza/article.php3?id_article=310 http://www.acracia.org/1-23a58lainsumision.pdf "La insumisión voluntaria: El anarquismo individualista español durante la Dictadura y la Segunda República (1923–1938)" by Xavier Díez

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on History of anarchism. 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) 09:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of anarchism. 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) 01:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

Some issues with the article

  • Lede:Does not summarize properly the article. But as the article needs to go a facelift, I 'd suggest we deal first with the other issues and fix the lede at the end.
  • Herodotian style. There is a tendency in the article to list the facts, constructing an article which is like a list of events, rather than explaining how each epoch (ancient world, middle ages, enlightenment etc) shaped the anarchist ideas- and what was the impact of the anarchist ideas to the various great events of history (ie the french revolution)
  • The consequence of the herodotian style is we have an article that is too big. Maybe some sections need to move to other (newly created) articles and leave in this one just a small summary.

I 'd like @Czar:'s opinion on that. I will also add it at project's anarchism talk page so, hopefully, more editors will get involved. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed this article needs a lot of love. It's a big project so might be hard to find takers. A few thoughts:
  • The scope of the article is tangled in whether it's trying to be an all-encompassing history of all anarchism or mainly, and what I imagine most readers are expecting, a history of the 19th/20th century European or Western social movement (and its international influence) Proudhon through Spanish Revolution. Pros/cons to either approach.
  • I recommend viewing this article's ideal as a summary style outgrowth of Anarchism#History. That main section should essentially be an outline that we would expand in this article. (The main article might too need a revamp.)
  • I haven't gone into the page histories in a while, but my impression is that most of WP's overview articles on anarchism (e.g., histories and schools of thought) simply copy paste the same paragraphs across articles, hence their length and lack of applicability. (This repetition of paragraphs is evident when links go dead and are flagged in articles simultaneously.) The result is the wall of text you mention. On personal experience, I stop reading when I see a wall of text, knowing that it requires a certain commitment to either reading the section in its entirety (and hoping that it is comprehensive) or knowing that it is more likely that I'll find what I'm after through a skim. I find that walls of text also make it really easy to sneak in details de jour from passersby, as it isn't edited tightly enough to have clear editorial discretion and restrictions.
  • Agreed with your points. (Funny, I recalled the style of Herodotus style more favorably than I regard the style of most contemporary scholarly monographs, but looking back at his Histories, point taken. WP certainly has a penchant for lists of facts, though. I like to link to Wikipedia:Temple of Facts.)
  • In the meantime, I encourage clearcutting to get the structure to something more readable, and splitting out into further subarticles as needed.
(not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 17:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

ref 62

Regarding Ref 62 of the current version a) is not RS and b)text violates WP:CLOP. Unfortunately on the specific site (now dead) there is no mention of the copyright policy. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

McElroy and freethought

Is Wendy McElroy a RS in context? She is heavily used in the history of anarchism in the States. She is also used in Freethought:

  • In the United States, "freethought was a basically anti-christian, anti-clerical movement, whose purpose was to make the individual politically and spiritually free to decide for himself on religious matters. A number of contributors to Liberty were prominent figures in both freethought and anarchism. The individualist anarchist George MacDonald was a co-editor of Freethought and, for a time, The Truth Seeker. E.C. Walker was co-editor of the freethought/free love journal Lucifer, the Light-Bearer."[41] "Many of the anarchists were ardent freethinkers; reprints from freethought papers such as Lucifer, the Light-Bearer, Freethought and The Truth Seeker appeared in Liberty...The church was viewed as a common ally of the state and as a repressive force in and of itself."[41] Here the text goes like this:
  • "Freethought also motivated activism in this movement. Freethought was a basically anti-Christian, anti-clerical movement, whose purpose was to make the individual politically and spiritually free to decide for himself on religious matters. A number of contributors to Liberty (anarchist publication) were prominent figures in both freethought and anarchism. The individualist anarchist George MacDonald was a co-editor of Freethought and for a time The Truth Seeker. E. C. Walker was co-editor of the excellent free thought/free love journal Lucifer, the Light-Bearer.[73] Many of the anarchists were ardent freethinkers and reprints from freethought papers such as Lucifer, the Light-Bearer, Freethought and The Truth Seeker appeared in Liberty, with the church being viewed as a common ally of the state and as a repressive force in and of itself.[73]." It is a duplicate. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Pateman, Walter, Newell

In the current version, at section "The emergence of anarcho-communism", there are three citations that need more details.

  • 92, Pateman, p. iii.
  • 93, Walter, p. vii.
  • 94 Newell, p. vi.

Can we identify the sources?

"Pateman" must be Barry Pateman. He wrote extensively on anarchism [1]. "Walter" must be Nicholas Walter. He authored 4 books[2] "Newell" must be Peter E. Newell [3]

Any ideas on how to spot the specific books?Cinadon36 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed the entire paragraph as there were some other problem concerning references as well.(diff) Anarchism in the States is also discussed in the previous section, so there was a little bit of overlap. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Use WikiBlame to see when a phrase was inserted into the article. Usually with citation text, you'd be able to see whether the editor also added a text to the bibliography, which might have disappeared when the article degraded over time. Alternatively, if the text was summarized or copied from another article, you can find the source citation that way. In the case of Pateman: [4] is duplicated from other articles but none of them include the proper bibliography. (These low-quality, duplicated sections are a recurring problem in our high-level anarchism articles.) czar 11:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I had already checked wikiblame and it was @Eduen: who added these citations. Eduen authored most of this article and I 've thanked him for doing so.[5] But since he has not been active lately, I didn't ping him earlier on this matter. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Modern Schools

I feel that Modern schools, now discussed in "revolutionary wave" section, do not really belong there. But I cant say where they do belong. I am hesitant on creating a new section, as there are many already in the 20th century.Cinadon36 (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that Ferrer schools need not be a large chunk of the overall "history of anarchism". Would be enough to allude to the Ferrer movement's impact in conjunction with Ferrer and the history of anarchism in Spain. It's also a good example of how ideas spread in the international anarchist movement. czar 23:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

neutrality and falsified source?

This is unproductive. Please suggest text- or issue-specific changes if something is wrong. czar 21:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

not mention Bakunin dictatorship.

not mention Kropotkin (and others prominent anarchists) stance during WW1.

Just propaganda.

Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no mention of Bakunin's dictatorship because this article should not present the secondary/fringe opinions of each philosopher. We strive to explain the main anarchist thoughts, that shaped or had great influence on the anarchist movement. The same goes to Kropotkin (and other 14 anarchists). There is no mention of Kropotkin's ethics, morality, the theory evolution through mutual aid, even if they had much more effect on the anarchist movement comparable with the alleged "invisible dictatorship". During WWI, the main position of anarchist was that the War was a consequence of capitalism and imperialism (if I recall correctly). If there is some space in the article, the anti-War opinions of the anarchist should be mentioned. I changed the title of this section as it was not neutral. Cinadon36 (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
its just anarchist  propaganda. like Socrates as an... anarchist the same time that marshal says only libertarian. Censorship of everything. it is the anti authoritarian way i suppose Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
per article Socrates, far from being an anarchist, held some views that could be seen as anarchistic. I think that's enough. Cinadon36 (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

==

the source says libertarian not an anarchist, this is another falsified source. I think that it is enough propaganda and falsification of sources.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
To be clear: this is not a falsification of Marshall. The word libertarian is nearly a synonym to anarchism, and have in mind that the phrase used in the text of WP article is "could be seen as anarchistic".Pay attention, not anarchist, but anarchistic. Having said that, I wont object if the phrase is changed to the the word "libertarian". The reason is that the root anarch- is already used in the sentence and doesn't sound pretty nice. I must notice though, that the claim that there is "propaganda" or "falsification of sources" is kind of exaggerating to the extreme and far beyond. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
the user just admitted what i previous wrote. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

censorship in Wikipedia about negative options of anarchists. Socrates the source says libertarian but here is presented as anarchist etc.

many NOT TRUE things. falsified sources. anybody who cares? Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I admitted what??? And caps lock are not necessary. No need for yelling in here. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
not need for falsified sources as well Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review

Per, [6], dropping some quick thoughts:

  • Article could use a "Background" section to explain anarchism and set up the article for anyone who isn't navigating directly from Anarchism#History
  • Lede could also do a better job of first introducing the topic: worth repeating what anarchism is and the scope of its history (what time periods, areas?) as an introduction. Then the rest of the lede should be a straight summary of the rest of the article, e.g., it should touch on each of the article's sections.
  • Can install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to see and resolve the harv footnote errors
  • Any source that's not in use should be kicked to a separate "Further reading" section to distinguish between what's not in use
  • There are two {{citation needed}} tags and some paragraphs missing footnotes at their end—if that content can't be sourced, the text should be removed
  • Keep an eye on global perspective. This "history of anarchism" should also include major activity in non-Western parts of the movement. (See the anarchism by region/country part of {{anarchism}}—lots of those are in dire need of cleanup too, and the better they get, the easier it'll be to import/paraphrase their content into this article.)

I can swing back and get more granular once the bigger stuff is addressed. Nice job cutting out the primary/questionable sources so far czar 23:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Czar: for your comments, I haven't seen them earlier even though I am watchlisting the page. As for your comments:

  • A background section would be useful. We can place a short definition of anarchism (or a couple of definitions) and another issue that has been baffling me, the approaches to anarchist history. There is a not-that-fringe opinion, can't remember who the author is, that anarchism history starts in the 19th century as a respond to capitalism. Even Stirner is not anti-capitalistic enough to be considered an anarchist! We should mention somewhere this specific perspective as well.
  • I usually leave lede at the end, when the whole article is done with all the changes that may happen, so to summarize it as good as possible.
  • I am using various shared-PCs and I am sure if I can install anything.
  • citation needed problems have been addressed.
  • Surely, western literature most commonly address anarchism and its history as a European (+north american maybe) adventure. There is bias towards this specific point. But I can't see how we can easily address the issue effectively as most publications focus on Europe. Not Europe, Western Europe. Not Western Europe, France. Not France, Paris. Not Paris, MontMarte. (ok, I am exaggerating a little bit.) I accidentally found a book by Mbah and Ramnath that look promising. I ll see what I can do.

Thanks for the comments and sorry I answered with such a delay. Cinadon36 (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

PS-I used the script, works fine! Deleted all sources not in used. Cinadon36 (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Scope

The scope of the article is tangled in whether it's trying to be an all-encompassing history of all anarchism or mainly, and what I imagine most readers are expecting, a history of the 19th/20th century European or Western social movement (and its international influence) Proudhon through Spanish Revolution. Pros/cons to either approach.
— #Some issues with the article

  • I'm not sure whether the question of "the history of anarchism's scope" is in itself noteworthy. E.g., re: that "not-that-fringe opinion ... that anarchism history starts in the 19th century as a respond to capitalism", is that question of definition itself the subject of commentary? If so, I'd relegate it to a section on "Historiography" perhaps, but wouldn't include it as part of the article's setup.
As a reader, I'd want some background on what anarchism is, some quick/brief sense of the precursors or forerunners, and the development of the idea. In terms of how best to organize, Demanding the Impossible's table of contents is a good outline for this article, I think:
  1. Background (what is anarchism, briefly)
  2. Precursors (what preceded classical/Western anarchism, briefly, with emphasis on the rise of prehistoric anthropology and pre-anarchism libertarians)
  3. Classical anarchism (the European-centric movement and its outer branches, mainly told through its key thinkers)
  4. Around the world (the outer reaches of how the European-centric ideas spread—lots of global detail)
  5. Post-classical (modern/contemporary anarchism)
Optional: Historiography section
The afterword of v3 in Graham's history also does a good job of showing the arc.
Graham, Robert (2013). "The Anarchist Current: Continuity and Change in Anarchist Thought". Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas. Vol. 3. Montreal: Black Rose Books. pp. 475–587. ISBN 978-1-55164-337-3. OCLC 824655763.
In light of the above, I've merged the current early history of anarchism to precursors to anarchism as a summary style split. I think there is more to say in that split article than warrants including in the general history of anarchism. (And just as the sources do, I think it's better to keep the history article focused on the major points of Western/global anarchism than its precursors, which sometimes have only a tenuous connection to anarchism.) So feel free to pare down those sections in this article, and eventually I'll expand the respective sections of the split precursors article.
czar 16:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Czar. I was baffled myself for the undue weight of the precursors of anarchism( "of" or "to"?). I will try to shorten the sections and move them into a single one. I am not very certain on "around the globe" section, as it's tricky. Anarchism currents in Latin America and Asia, are connected to Classical Anarchism. And modern currents in Mexico and Syria, are part of contemporary Anarchism. As for Post-classical, IMHO is the most interesting part, and more difficult to handle. I 'll see what I can do. Grahams book is great and I totally forgot of it while re-shaping the article. It would be great to have a Historiography part. The clock is ticking. I have listed the article for a copy-edit review and as I can estimate, the copy-edit team will be here in a couple of weeks or so. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I have been thinking about your proposal Czar, on precursors of anarchism. It suggests that the individualist philosophies, groups or struggles in the ancient world, were not "real" Anarchism, which is not the case. The term anarchism may have been invented and used during the previous 200 years, but the meaning of the world is stretching back in time. This view is shared by RS (see article) and will not be presented with proper Due Weight if we proceed with "precursors of anarchism". Cinadon36 (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
By the same token, that article could be written as "history of libertarianism". My thinking is less to segregate the faux from the real philosophy, but if we're treating the scope of this article (or at least its core) as "classical anarchism" or "the anarchist movement", then "precursors to anarchism" could similarly be "precursors to classical anarchism" or "precursors to the anarchist movement", not inferring any lesser status but keeping the focus from getting unwieldy or in the weeds on particular details. czar 02:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

New table

How do you feel about this table? I am not very certain about it. I 'd like to insert a table so to clarify to the reader the various trends of anarchism. Of course, it is hard to provide clarification as these philosophical currents intermingle with each other, but what is your opinion? The "Era" coloumn is created by me- this is another problem. It would be erroneous to hint that current anarchist is...postmodernists. How to address this problem?

The evolution of anarchist philosophies
according to Paul McLaughlin[1]
Philosophy Era Notable Thinkers
Early anarchist philosophy 18th to early 19th century Godwin
Proudhon (mutualism)
Stirner (egoism)
Classical anarchism mid-19th to early 20th century Bakunin (Collectivist-anarchism)
Kropotkin (Anarchist-communism)
New anarchism 20th century Malatesta
Goldman
Chomsky
Neo-classical anarchism late 20th century Bookchin
Individualist anarchism 20th century Herbert Read
Postmodern anarchism
(poststructuralist anarchism
and Post-anarchism)		 Contemporary Todd May
Saul Newman (Post-anarchism)

References

  1. ^ McLaughlin 2007, p. 167.

Thanks. Cinadon36 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


  • My sense is that this stuff would be best expressed in prose, either a Background/Overview section or the lede itself! (It's not like these eras have definitive bounds.) I get the idea, that the idea is to see/understand this at a glance, but it also makes each era seem more definitive and separate from each other than they are, right? czar 21:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Its a subject which people are not familiar with, so it may be beneficial to have a table to give a reader some semblance of what the topic covers. It can complement an expansion of content in the article via prose.Resnjari (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Czar and Resnjari: for your comments. Maybe we can use dotted or dashed lines to divide the rows- and placing a note that dashed lines represented that these philosophies intermingle with each other, what do you think on that? too complicated? Cinadon36 (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Too complicated or at least not obvious enough, I think. Writing out in prose still sounds like the way to go czar 02:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah ok. @Cinadon seems to have a grasp of this topic and knows the sources well. Add it in as prose then. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Looking at this table again, it also gives May and Call as much weight as... Bakunin and Kropotkin? That seems disproportionate. czar 03:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that 's a fallacy I do not know how to fix.Cinadon36 (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Berneri wording issue

There is an issue here that needs the attention of more editors.

Here is my version: "The prominent Italian anarchist [[Camillo Berneri]], who volunteered to fight against Franco, was instead killed in Spain probably either by a USSR agent or Italian secret forces as they both sent to Spain agents to commit political assassinations. Informal Communist police tried to install a Reign of Terror.{{sfn|Graham|2005|p=66}}{{sfn|Marshall|1993|p=466}}{{sfn|Avrich|2005|p=916}}"

Here is Αντικαθεστωτικός version: The prominent Italian anarchist [[Camillo Berneri]], who volunteered to fight against Franco, was instead killed in Spain probably by Italian secret forces<ref>The Spanish Civil War: A Very Short Introduction, Helen Graham, Oxford U.P., page 66 The Italian secret police, Mussolini’s OVRA (Opera per la Vigilanza e la Repressione Antifascista), were almost certainly responsible for the assassination of leading Italian anarchist Camillo Berneri and his secretary Francesco Barbieri during the May events in Barcelona</ref>, but some sources claimed that he is killed by gunmen associated with the Spanish Communist Party.{{sfn|Marshall|1993|p=466}}{{sfn|Avrich|2005|p=916}}

Αντικαθεστωτικός version prioritizes the opinion of Graham H. while there are two other RS claim otherwise. I think both opinions should be treated equally, as a)All authors are RS b)Graham H is not certain, others are and c)we should keep it as short as possible as the real issue is not the murder of an individual, but the grey activities of USSR who were suppressing anarchist in order to gain ground themselves. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_anarchism&type=revision&diff=885503294&oldid=885502967
It's leading expert uptodate opinion again
two anarchists historians. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Helana Graham is surely a RS but Marshall's book does not fall short. According to WorldCat "Demanding the impossible: a history of anarchism by Peter H Marshall: 40 editions published between 1991 and 2012 in English and Spanish and held by 1,789 WorldCat member libraries worldwide " First editor was en:HarperCollins. It has been cited 784 times according to google scholar. As for [[Paul Avrich]'s book, he is surele RS as well, it was published by Princeton University Press and has been cited by 179 other sources, according to google scholar.[7]. The political beliefs of authors are irrelevant to our discussion. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This is supposed to be an overview article, so why does it need to go into the specifics of Berneri's death at all? If the circumstances of his death were important aspect of anarchist–communist relations in the Spanish Civil War, certainly we'd be able to cite a source that says so, right? czar 03:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Czar: Berneri's death was mentioned in the article before I 'had made my first edit here. As it was cited, I left it there. When reading RS (Marshall), I saw that he was mentioning Berneri as an example of USSR and orthodox communist aggresiveness against anarchist. This was one of the reasons the "anarchist" revolution lasted until 1937 (did't carry on until 1939). So if you suggest we leave Berneri's death out, and stick to the broader view, yes, I totally agree. Cinadon36 (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
If the source covers it, could generalize on the relevant factors that limited the Spanish Revolution but yeah, probably don't need to go into Berneri in particular czar 06:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Berneri death has two versions. In the first version he was killed by Stalinists. In the second he was killed from Mussolini police probably to blame the Stalinists and so to enforce the conflict between them. IMHO we must not delete the facts about his death now. Also we must add what anarchists did after May of 1937 (the major split of anarchists participate in the government/army) but this is for another section to discuss, i guess.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Cant understand the reasoning of now. Why not now but later? @Czar: George Orwell wrote documanted it at Homage to Catalonia. That wouldnt be RS though, but I am sure RS can be found. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Unless a source connects the importance of Berneri's death as an important event in the "history of anarchism", it reads like a minor point on its own. Cover the circumstances/impact of Berneri's death in his own article? czar 04:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
So? What now? This version attribute the death of Berneri only to stalinists. Is that correct when a RS from Oxford University from a lead expert in Spanish Civil war exists? Sorry i don't know well all the instructions of EN:WP, and probably some instruction will justify this. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I am working on it. It will be ready by noon. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I tried to keep it as small as possible.

The role of USSR to the Soviet is a matter of continuous debate, as the claims range from the betrayal of the revolution to that of actively assisting the rebels.[1] USSR sent troops and armour to Spain but only to a very small portion in compare with Nazi and Fascist assistance to Franco.[2] Stalin's policy by then was Socialism in one country but as the fascists arose in Europe, Stalin decided to help the Democrats in Spain as a gesture to the liberal powers of Europe.[3] While the assistance of USSR was paramount during 1936, as it was obvious that England and France would keep a neutral stance, USSR gradually abandoned Spain.[4]

References

  1. ^ McCannon 1995, pp. 154 & 166.
  2. ^ Payne 2008, p. 153. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFPayne2008 (help)
  3. ^ McCannon 1995, pp. 157–58.
  4. ^ McCannon 1995, pp. 172–75.
Sources
  • Still feels a bit overweighted, no? If anything, could add what role the USSR played in anarchist defeat, but the rest of the detail should really be covered in another article if not related to the overall "history of anarchism" czar 03:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if we could pack it to one sentence, it would be better. The essence should be like that while in the start USSR was helpful to the common antifascist cause, later on tried to surpress it's allies (anarchists, poum) and eventually left Spain. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

payne opinion is Offsetting the small numbers, however, was the skill level of the Soviet personnel. Not a single one was an ordinary infantryman.. i fear that is a not -in purpose- falsification of the source. But please help me to understand better :)Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Czar, what about this sentence: "During the course of the events of the Spanish Revolution, anarchists were losing ground in a bitter struggle with the Stalinists, who controlled the distribution of military aid to the Republicans received from the Soviet Union.[1] Spanish Communist Party-led troops suppressed the collectives and persecuted both dissident Marxists and anarchists.[2] The fight among anarchists and communists escalated during the May Days, the as Soviet Union sought to control the Republicans.[1] Worth noting that USSR provided some military assistance to the Republicans, while Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy funnelled much more support towards Franco.[3][4] "

References

  1. ^ a b Marshall 1993, p. 466.
  2. ^ Birchall 2004, p. 29.
  3. ^ Payne 2008, p. 153. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFPayne2008 (help)
  4. ^ Marshall 1993, p. xi.

Sources

What do you say?Cinadon36 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Still seems a bit in the weeds for an article dedicated to the overall "history of anarchism". How would you describe in a single sentence (overview) the USSR's role in the Spanish Civil War in relation to the anarchist Republicans? czar 13:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Anarchist historiography?

From reading the title, I immediately felt something was wrong: "The history of anarchism began with the first humans walking on earth." This is a bit bizarre, really, and is more a piece of anarchist historiography. In fact it runs quite contrary to the opening sentence of the Anarchism page: "Anarchism is an anti-authoritarian political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary, cooperative institutions and the rejection of hierarchies those societies view as unjust." The idea that these first humans worried themselves about political philosophy (which only emerged in antiquity) or hierarchy which only really gets discussed bu Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite in the (5th–6th century AD), although high priests had existed for sometime before this. This reality is reflected in the subtitle, "Forerunners of anarchism" and really anarchism originates in the European enlightenment. This retrojection onto early periods may well be a core part of Anarchist historiography, and perhaps this warrants a page in itself. However, as this is a page on the history of anarchism, perhaps it would be better to focus on making it precisely that. Leutha (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep @Cinadon36, is aware of this above but was waiting to redo the lede once the rest of the article was finished. But now might be the time :) czar 13:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Well spotted Leutha. The lede needs re-writing as it must summarize the article, so, I think it is good practice to leave at the end, when article has been stable some weeks. It is on my to-do list. Of course if anyone else wants to go ahead, I wont mind at all! Cinadon36 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Socrates, far from being an anarchist, held some views that were libertarian.

What does this even mean? Anarchism is libertarian by definition, and everything that follows this statement is perfectly in tune with anarchism. Also, the sentence is confusing because it's unclear whether it's intended to be the European or the US meaning of libertarian. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ianbrettcooper: It is supposed to mean that he was not a libertarian, at least with the typical meaning of the word. During the 19th-20th century, the meaning of libertarian was crystallized and Socrates does not quite fit in it. More to that, there is a debate among historians whether it makes sense to characterize people who lived long before the 19th century as anarchist or not. While I belief that it is ok, I wrote that phrase in an attempt to balance the two opinions. Maybe the result is not optimal though...Marshall's book is free online. You can have a look at the specific page and change the wording. Thanks for noticing. Cheers. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: What is the "typical meaning of the word"? There is no "typical meaning". The word "libertarian" has completely different meanings on different continents. A European libertarian is an anarchist - i.e. on the political far left - definitely not the same as an American libertarian, who is on the far right. It's like the word "republican" - it has a whole different meaning in Europe. The English version of Wikipedia is meant to be a global resource for English speakers, and not just a resource for Britons (or Americans or South Africans or Australians or any other English-speaking region or nation). It has to be clear for all, and this passage certainly is not, so it needs to be rephrased so that its meaning is clear to everyone. Currently, the phrase must leave most Americans very confused. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ianbrettcooper: I realize your concern. Is it better now? [8] Cinadon36 (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:History of anarchism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AIRcorn (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

old/abandoned review by Carabinieri

Reviewer: Carabinieri (talk · contribs) 05:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


I'm afraid this article still requires a good deal of work to be a Good Article. The following list of concerns is far from comprehensive and is only meant to give you an idea of some of the issues.

First, the prose needs considerable work. There are problems with the grammar and a lot unidiomatic expressions. It mixes American and British spelling. The article needs be thoroughly copyedited in this respect. A lot of the article is also written in the neutral and dispassionate language that we typically use on Wikipedia. Here are just a few examples of the prose issues:

  • One group of scholars considers anarchism is strictly associated with the class struggle Something is wrong the grammar (and the source also doesn't back this claim up)
  • Anarchist philosopher Murray Bookchin depicts it as the continuation of the "legacy of freedom" of humankind What does "it" refer to?
  • Along with the definition debates, the question of what it is complicates the issue. Is it a philosophy, a theory or a series of actions? We don't normally ask rhetorical questions.
  • Taoism, which developed in ancient China, has been embraced by some anarchists as a source of anarchistic attitudes I have no idea what "source of anarchistic attitudes" means.
  • There is an ongoing debate whether exhorting rulers not to rule belongs to the sphere of anarchism I don't know what that means.
  • Even though it was a religious revolution and strengthened the state, it also opened the way for the humanistic values of the French revolution. What is "it"?
  • Anarchism was then the main progressive ideology not only in Europe but in North and Latin America, Asia and Australia I'm not sure what "progressive" means in this context, but this statement is clearly untrue.
  • The anthropology of anarchists has changed in the new era What does that mean?

The selection of the content also feels fairly arbitrary. Just a few examples:

  • The (rather silly) idea that anarchism can be traced back all the way to antiquity is espoused by a lot of anarchists, but not by many serious scholars. Yet, a considerable portion of the article is devoted to telling pre-modern history from this perspective and presents this idea as true.
  • The first known political usage of the word anarchy[a] appears in the play Seven Against Thebes by Aeschylus, dated at 467 BC. There, Antigone openly refuses to abide by the rulers' decree to leave her brother Polyneices' body unburied as punishment for his participation in the attack on Thebes. Sophocles used the same theme 50 years later, in his tragedy Antigone, where the heroine challenges the established order of Thebes, coming in direct conflict with the established authority of the town. I see why the first use of the term is relevant, but why does the rest of this passage matter?
  • In Spain, Ramón de la Sagra established the anarchist journal El Porvenir in La Coruña in 1845 which was inspired by Proudhon's ideas.[61] The Catalan politician Francesc Pi i Margall became the principal translator of Proudhon's works into Spanish.[62] Later, he briefly became president of Spain in 1873 while leader of the Democratic Republican Federal Party. Proudhonian thought had influenced Spain's federalist movement since early 1860. [62] When Pi y Margall came into power for a brief period, he tried to implement some of Proudhon's ideas.[61] Why is this more important than, say, the reception of Kropotkin in Italy or Bakunin in the United States?
  • Why is there a whole section about the French May 68?
  • After the events of May 1968, Situationist International sprung up. Their main argument was that life had turned into a "spectacle" because of the corrosive effect of capitalism.[240] They dissolved in 1972. The Situationists weren't anarchists.
  • Neither the Zapatistas nor the PKK and YPG are anarchists. The conflict there emerged during the Syrian Civil War and is founded upon Bookchin's ideas of Libertarian municipalism and social ecology within a secular framework and ethnic diversity is clearly not true.

The structure of the article is also erratic at times. The bibliography is not presented uniformly. Most of the images lack copyright information.

Please let me know how you want to proceed. I don't think these issues can be ironed out in the framework of GA review, since they require a fundamental reworking of the article. I'd definitely be willing to work with you on this, but my time is rather limited and I have a few other things I'm working on.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Carabinieri. Please give me some time (one or two weeks) and I 'll provide answers, explanations and change some parts of the article. I look forward to a fruitful discussion. Cinadon36 21:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Carabinieri:, thanks for waiting, hope it didn't seem like ages. Ok, here is my respond.

Thanks one more Carabinieri for your comments on the article. While some of your conserns are valid, some others- on text- might need some discussions.

Styling issues
  • American spelling was turned to British [9]
  • "neutral and dispassionate language" I tried to use this kind of language on purpose.
context issues
  • The claim is backed. It s Levy 2011, not Levy 2019. I 've added one more ref that is backing that there are two different opinions on the origins of anarchism.[10]
  • "It" changed --->[11] Maybe it is better now.
  • Along with the definition debates, the question of what it is complicates the issue. Is it a philosophy, a theory or a series of actions? We don't normally ask rhetorical questions.---->Normally. I think it is an exemption that suits the purpose to illustrate the different views on definitions. I think is adds some colour to the article.
  • "I have no idea what "source of anarchistic attitudes" means"---->rephrased [12]
  • There is an ongoing debate whether exhorting rulers not to rule belongs to the sphere of anarchism I don't know what that means.--->It means that it is questionable whether asking for a ruler not to rule is an anarchist demand. It has been rephrased though, hope now it is better. [13]
  • Even though it was a religious revolution and strengthened the state, it also opened the way for the humanistic values of the French revolution. What is "it"?---> it is Reformation. taken care of. [14]
  • Anarchism was then the main progressive ideology not only in Europe but in North and Latin America, Asia and Australia I'm not sure what "progressive" means in this context, but this statement is clearly untrue.-->taken care of. [15]
  • anthropology of anarchists---->turned into "anthropology of anarchism".[16] The term is used in the literature. Antrhopology of anarchism examines the people involve in anarchism, the anarchists. Who are they? are they middle-class, working class? Are they educated? criminals or crooks? Staff like that.
  • The (rather silly) idea that anarchism can be traced back all the way to antiquity is espoused by a lot of anarchists, but not by many serious scholars.--->Silly or not, (I believe it is not but anyway), a considerable number of scholars trace the roots of anarchism back in ancient times. So I believe it should be included in the article. This debate is also explained in more detail at section "Backround"
  • Yet, a considerable portion of the article is devoted to telling pre-modern history from this perspective and presents this idea as true.----> I removed 1333Kb [17] Do you think it needs more trimming?
  • Why is this more important than, say, the reception of Kropotkin in Italy or Bakunin in the United States? ---> That is a difficult question. I opted not to give much weight on persons, but tried to explain the history of anarchism as a movement and philosophy.
  • Why is there a whole section about the French May 68?---> Removed the section [18] But I left the paragraph (one) because French May had an impact on contemporary anarchism.
  • The Situationists weren't anarchists---> Also, situationists influenced anarchism and its philosophy. It is only a sentence, Marshall discuss them in certain extent.
  • Neither the Zapatistas nor the PKK and YPG are anarchists--->The border among anarchist and nonanarchist groups are extremely hard to find. My criterion is whether a Reliable Source considers them as a part or strongly associated with the anarchist movement.
  • The conflict there emerged during the Syrian Civil War and is founded upon Bookchin's ideas of Libertarian municipalism and social ecology within a secular framework and ethnic diversity is clearly not true--->I have changed the wording. [19]
  • The structure of the article is also erratic at times. --->Can you please elaborate a little more?
  • The bibliography is not presented uniformly.--->I am not sure I understand what you mean. I am using Shortened footnotes. Bibliography is presented using {{cite book}}. PS-Oh! This[20]? Taken care of. [21]
  • Most of the images lack copyright information.---> I know next to nothing on how to overstep this issue. czar, can you pls give a hand here? thanks.

I like to thank you once more Carabinieri. I look forward on working with you to improve the article, regardless of the GA Nomination.Cinadon36 14:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll help with the image copyright info. czar 10:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I swapped a few out and the remaining photos should be sufficient for GA with their current licenses. Some of the older images are in legal limbo, as they are likely archival photos whose original authors/photographers and original publication dates will be hard or impossible to track. czar 14:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Czar, great job![22] Cinadon36 17:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cinadon36:, I wonder if the pre-history problem could be cleared up just by qualifying the claim back to the scholars you are citing? Something like "Many scholars of anarchism, including anthropologists Harold Barclay and David Graeber, claim that some form of anarchism dates back to pre-history." That way, you aren't making a definitive truth claim, but you are still including what is clearly an important part of an anarchist understanding of history - Manicatorman (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Manicatorman: Done![23] Cinadon36 04:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm taking so long, but I'll get back to you within the next couple of days.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No prob Carabinieri, pls take your time. Cinadon36 13:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank for your patience. I'll focus on two issues for now: neutrality/tone/accuracy and structure. I'd suggest that we can move on to other issues later.

I wrote before that "a lot of the article is also written in the neutral and dispassionate language that we typically use on Wikipedia". That was, of course, a typo. What I meant to say was that a lot of the article is not written in that kind of tone. I'll just go through some examples where I think the article is not neutral, its tone is not dispassionate, or there are inaccuracies. I have to emphasize that these are only examples:

  • Let's start with the "Background" section (which is really more about terminology than it is about background). The article says: One group of scholars considers anarchism strictly associated with class struggle. Others feel this perspective is far too narrow. This is referenced to Levy 2011 and McLaughlin 2007. Neither of them really say this. What Levy says is that Van der Walt and Schmidt "limit their project to 'class struggle anarchism'". This does not imply that they do not consider other strains as part of anarchism (although I believe they actually do), but only that their book is about class struggle anarchism. It's also misleading to say "one group of scholars" when it's really only referring to a single book. Levy says nothing like "others feel this perspective is far too narrow". I see nothing on pages 101 or 102 in McLaughlin that backs up either of these two sentences. The second paragraph in the section mentions several definitions of anarchism, but then repudiates them and seemingly presents de Agosta's definition as the correct one (also, I don't know what geohistories are). This amounts to taking sides in a dispute.
  • On the question of pre-modern anarchism: I'm not sure Manicatorman's suggestion to focus on "what is clearly an important part of an anarchist understanding of history" solves the problem for two reasons. First, this is supposed to be an article about the history of anarchism, not about the anarchist understanding of history. Secondly, whether or not there is a pre-modern anarchism is a matter of debate, but the vast majority of serious scholars implicitly (by simply not mentioning so-called pre-modern anarchim) or explicitly come down on the "not"-side. By going through all of the examples of supposed anarchism in Ancient Greece, Ancient China, the Middle Ages and so on, the article is at least implicitly endorsing the minority view that there were in fact anarchists in those eras. On top of that, this aspect makes up a considerable portion of the article's prose, thereby giving it undue weight. At times, the article actually endorses the minority view explicitly: for example when it speaks of "Taoist anarchism" (or when it claims that Taoists lived an anarchist lifestyle - I'm not sure what that means, summit hopping, living in squats, crust punk, and dumpster-diving for vegan food?) or "Islamic anarchism". The article also misrepresents Joll's views on the matter: Later in the 20th century, historian James Joll described the two opposing sides of anarchism. Joll quite explicitly does not consider dissident religious movements anarchist, he only points to certain similarities between anarchism and those movements.
  • The last decades of the 19th and the first of the 20th centuries, constitute the "belle epoque" of anarchism. Anarchism was then one of the two main working class ideologies not only in Europe but in North and Latin America, Asia and Australia. The late 19th, early 20th century wasn't just the belle epoque of anarchism it was the belle epoque. The second sentence is just not true. I realize that Moya claims it is, but an extraordinary statement like this requires a better source than an off-hand remark in a book about Latin American anarchism. In most countries before WWI, reformist socialism was the dominant ideology within the labor movement - we can argue about a few countries in Latin America and possibly about France. The majority of the working class, however, never joined the labor movement and would not have been anarchist or socialist.
  • The Federación Anarquista Ibérica (FAI) (Spanish Workers Federation) in 1881 was the first major anarcho-syndicalist movement. That's not right, the FAI wasn't formed in 1881 and it wasn't the first major anarcho-syndicalist movement. Also, the distinction between syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism is fairly murky and this matter is further complicated by the fact that the term syndicalism refers different things in Romance languages like French or Spanish and in Germanic languages like English or German. Anarchist trade union federations were of special importance in Spain. The most successful was the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (National Confederation of Labour or CNT), founded in 1910. Well, as far as I'm aware the CNT was really the only anarcho-syndicalist union federation after it was formed.
  • Propaganda of the deed, meaning the use of violence to achieve political ends, was employed by a fringe, but influential, part of the anarchist movement in the 1880s and continued for about four decades. What Bantman says is that advocates of the propaganda of the deed were a minority. That's a far cry from them only being an extremist fringe. and she wrote about how these small acts of violence were incomparable to the deluge of violence regularly committed by the state That seems to be endorsing Goldman's views. In Russia, Narodnaya Volya ("People's Will"), the revolutionary political organisation, assassinated Tsar Alexander II in 1881 and gained some popular support. However, for the most part, the anarchist movement in Russia remained marginal in the following years. Narodnaya Volya wasn't anarchist. Early proponents of Propaganda of the deed, like Alexander Berkman, started to question the legitimacy of violence as a tactic Were they really questioning the legitimacy of violence or its efficacy? The following sentence suggests it was actually the latter. And was this about violence in general or just individual terrorism? Also this is only referenced to Berkman's own book which cannot possibly back up the claim "Early proponents of Propaganda of the deed" in general were having this change of heart.
  • They were involved in an armed robbery and convicted of the murders of two people in 1920 Their involvement in the robbery is disputed. Anarchists participated in the failed October 1905 Russian Revolution even though anarcho-syndicalism had become a sizeable force in Russia. "Sizeable force" is fairly vague, but certainly an overstatement as far as what I remember of Avrich's book. Anarchists also participated in both the February and October revolutions alongside the Bolsheviks and were initially enthusiastic about the Bolshevik revolution Neither anarchists nor Bolsheviks participated to any significant degree in the February Revolution, since the vast majority of both were in exile at that time. Lenin had hailed anarcho-syndicalism before the revolution.[147] Anarchist objections to the revolution quickly arose. They opposed, for example, the slogan, "All power to the Soviet". All three of those statements are exaggerations. The co-operation between anarchists and Bolsheviks did not last for long. The Bolsheviks crushed the anarchists after seizing power Well, it was actually only a few years later, after the end of the Civil War.

I'll stop there, but really there are a lot more examples throughout the article.

A lot of the structure of the article doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand why certain information is included while other aspects are omitted. As a result, at times the article reads like a collection of somewhat random facts that doesn't follow any overarching narrative. Here are a few examples:

  • In Persia during the Middle Ages a Zoroastrian prophet named Mazdak, now considered a proto-socialist, called for the abolition of private property, free love and overthrowing the king. He and his thousands of followers were massacred in 582 CE, but his teaching influenced other Islamic sects in the following centuries I'm not sure what the connection to anarchism is.
  • Godwin, Proudhon, and Bakunin certainly don't belong in the "Forerunners of Anarchism" section, since they were actual anarchists. It also doesn't make sense to introduce Proudhon and Bakunin there and then again in the next section.
  • The section heading "Late 19th century to early 20th century, classical anarchism as a worker's movement" is unnecessarily long and complicated. It also doesn't make much sense for a section with worker's movement (which should actually be workers' movement) in the title to start with Stirner, who by the way didn't live in the late 19th century, and individualist anarchism. The discussion of Proudhon's influence in Spain seems arbitrary as I mentioned above. I also don't get why the influence of mutualism in the First International is discussed here when there is a whole section about the International.
  • Less than half of the section on anarcho-syndicalism actually discusses syndicalism (also, the use of anarcho-syndicalism is somewhat anachronistic, since it wasn't really used until the 1920s).

Again, I'll stop there. I think there's a lot to do in term tightening the structure of the article and focusing it on the key events.

Like I said, these are all just a few examples of broader issues that can't be fixed by just addressing the examples I listed.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I will need myself some time to make some changes to the article and provide an answer. Cinadon36 18:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hm, I see your point but I do not see how those examples justify the lack of neutrality. Nor have I seen in the examples given that there is an inappropriate tone. Have to note though those inaccuracies can not be avoided. There is no perfect article and inaccuracies are not listed in Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Some of your points are valid, some are valid but of low significance and some (the majority) are not valid, in my opinion. Saying that "these are all just a few examples" is making it tremendously difficult to access the article because you are actually claiming that there is a barrel without a bottom. How can someone access that claim? It is obvious that this GAN is not going well, nevertheless, the article is much better now, so I 'd like to thank you Carabinieri for your input. Anyway, here is my full reply:

Backround

I failed to understand what is the POV issue here. Maybe the wording is not perfect, maybe inaccuracies exist, but which POV is getting undue weight? Having read the literature, it is quite obvious that the timeline of the history of anarchism varies significantly per author. It is also obvious that this s dichotomy of opinions reflects the difference in the definition of anarchism.

I have tried to summarize a lot of work to one sentence: One group of scholars considers anarchism strictly associated with class struggle. Others feel this perspective is far too narrow Refs are Levy 2011 and McLaughlin 2007

  • Levy 2011: Levy does imply that many scholars consider anarchism not limited to class struggle. He does so when writing: "Standard accounts of anarchism(Max Nettlau, Jame Joll, George Woodcock, and Peter Marshall) combine rendition of histories of ideas, political biography, and accounts of political and social movement" These four scholars that are examing the history of anarchism since ancient times. The non-standard accounts consider anarchism starts later on. He also adds that anarchism and class struggle are in somewhat blended to each other: anarchist culture and anarchist practices seeped into the broader socialist and labour movements. More importantly, he laters adds that studying anarchism as a part of the social movement makes more sense, "anarchism is no longer approached as a context-less, ahistorical study in social pathology And after that, he mentions the work of Schmidt and van der Walt.
  • McLaughlin 2007. McLauglin explains the classical theory of Nettlau that anarchism spreads back to ancient times, but gives more credit to David Miller, which associates the origin of anarchism with the French revolution. According to David Miller, anarchism is the fight against the economic, social and political establishment of that era, which I translated as class struggle. Here is the quoted verbatim: "but for anarchism to develop beyond a stance of defiance into a social and political theory that challenged the existing order and proposed an alternative, such wholesale reconstruction needed to become thinkable. This reorientation of thought was the work largely of the Revolution, which, by challenging the old regime in France on the grounds of basic principle, opened the way for similar challenges to other states and other social institutions. Henceforth all institutions were vulnerable to the demand that they should be justified from first principles – whether of natural right, social utility, human self-realization, or whatever. From this source sprang the major ideologies – conservatism, liberalism, and socialism as well as anarchism – in recognizably their modern form. It is therefore appropriate that the first major work which indubitably belongs to the anarchist tradition – Godwin’s Enquiry Concerning Political Justice – should have been produced in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution (in 1793)ition – Godwin’s Enquiry Concerning Political Justice – should have been produced in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution (in 1793)

So, I think I have transferred the context of Levy and McLaughlin to the article, using my words. Maybe better wording would be more appropriate, but it is clear that there are two groups of mainstream position. A: anarchism starts in ancient times, B: anarchism starts at the end of the 18th century.

As for the second paragraph and de Agosta's definition, I think the attributed sentences bear less weight than the first. So I do not think that it rebukes the more mainstream definitions mentioned earlier. Certainly, de Agosta is RS and I think his opinion has a place in the article. Attribution was also needed because I found it hard to explain his definition without breaching copyvio. Well, I strived not to give a "neat definition of anarchism as by its nature, anarchism is antidogmatic, as Marshall puts it (1993, p.3)

As for "geohistories", Merriam-Webster has a definition.[24].

anarchist understanding of history AND "the vast majority of serious scholars implicitly..."


Manicatorman's solution[25] was great. Your first argument ("First, this is supposed to be an article about the history of anarchism, not about the anarchist understanding of history.", both Harold Barclay and David Graeber are mentioned as scholars, not as anarchists. Your second arguments (whether or not there is pre-modern anarchism is a matter of debate) lies on faulty premises. I think that the vast majority of scholars accepts that anarchism goes far beyond modern times.

  • Max Nettlaue starts from ancient times
  • James Joll starts from ancient times.
  • George Woodcock 1962 examines the history of anarchism as a movement and sets its starting point at the 19th century (p.239). But he starts his book with this sentence: ""Whoever denies authority and fights against it is an anarchist," said Sébastien Faure. The definition is tempting in its simplicity, but simplicity is the first thing to guard against in writing a history of anarchism." which implies a timeless approach to anarchism.
  • Marshall (1993) "As a recognizable trend in human history, the thread of anarchism, in thought and deed, may be traced back several thousands of years." (p.4)
  • Graham (2005): ANARCHY, A SOCIElY WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, has existed since time immemorial." (p=xi)
  • Levy and Adams (2019) -without a doupt both of them are serious scholars, mention the ancient roots of anarchism. "Anarchism is a political concept and social movement associated with future or here and now politico-social projects without the state. It is informed by a commitment to the autonomy of the individual and the quest for voluntary consensus. In historical overviews of anarchism, it is often presented as possessing family resemblances to political, intellectual, and cultural innovations in classical Greece, ancient China, medieval Basra and medieval Europe, Civil War England, and Revolutionary Paris. Equally, anthropologists will point to ‘stateless peoples’ throughout the world and throughout all of human history as evidence of the deep pedigree that informs anarchist rejections of the state as an organising principle, and, indeed for most of humankind’s existence, the state did not exist. As a self-conscious ideology—as an ‘ism’—anarchism may owe its existence to the political formulations and intellectual currents that shaped Europe in the wake of the dual revolution, but it is also, crucially, a global and not merely European tradition. Anarchism’s history—its tenets, concepts, approaches, arguments, and style—was thus nurtured by global currents that spread people and ideas around the world, and its local manifestation was often shaped by domestic cultural and intellectual traditions that make anarchism an elusively protean ideology"

So I believe there are quite many scholars that do not trash the theory that anarchism had can trace its roots much earlier than french revolution.

Lastly, I would like to mention that if you do not know the meaning of a word or a phrase, that does not mean they are inappropriate for the article. Geohistories, mentioned above is an example. It could be solved within seconds of google search. Islamic anarchism is also a valid phrase.[26] Apparently it is likewise Christian Anarchism. As for your argument here: (or when it claims that Taoists lived an anarchist lifestyle - I'm not sure what that means, summit hopping, living in squats, crust punk, and dumpster-diving for vegan food?)--->changed.Cinadon36 13:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"Europe but in North and Latin America, Asia and Australia."

I do not think that it is such a strong claim as reformists were not part of worker's movement but, anyway in order to reach a consensus fast, I will rephrase based on Levy 2004. Anarchism, Internationalism and Nationalism in Europe, 1860-1939

  • Levy (2004): Nevertheless the conditions that were present in the 1860s returned, at least briefly, spurred on the by the globalisation of capital and labour in the world economy during the Belle Epoque. The anarchists and syndicalists played a prominent part in a generic international movement in which international anti-militarism and industrial trade union organisation was disseminated by a new mobile proletariat of labourers, transportation workers and some skilled artisans, most notably, Italians, Spaniards, Russians, Scandinavians, Britons, Irish and Yiddish-speaking Jews.33 They were part of the vast labour migration between Europe, the Americas and the so-called “white” Dominions of the British Empire. This reached a crescendo just as a series of international strike waves surged through this global economy and clustered around the period of the Russian Revolution of 1905 and between 1911 and 1914. In parts of the British Empire and Dominions, this syndicalism was a white man’s movement of international solidarity.
The Federación Anarquista Ibérica (FAI) (Spanish Workers Federation) in 1881
  • You are right, the sentence is wrong. Changed.[27] irrelevant with the article, but on my defend, the sentence was in the article before I did my first edit (permalink)
  • Also, the distinction between syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism is fairly murky and this matter is further complicated by the fact that the term syndicalism refers different things in Romance languages like French or Spanish and in Germanic languages like English or German. You are right, there is some inherent vagueness within the term hence ambiguity will ensue sooner or later, but what would your suggestion be? I am just transferring what RS are saying.
Propaganda of the deed
  • What Bantman says is that advocates of the propaganda of the deed were a minority. That's a far cry from them only being an extremist fringe changed to small. [28]
  • That seems to be endorsing Goldman's views Not at all, it is attributed.
  • Narodnaya Volya wasn't anarchist. No, it was not. The article doesn't say so. Also, N.V. was influenced by Bakunin. Changed anyway. [29]
  • Berkmans opinion: I removed it per WP Primary. [30]
Revolutionary wave
  • Sacco -Vanzetti. Added "allegedly". [31]
  • sizable force. You are prob. right, it was a misrepresentation of Marshall. Changed [32]
  • Neither anarchists nor Bolsheviks participated to any significant degree in the February Revolution since the vast majority of both were in exile at that time--->It is true that Bolshevik leadership was abroad but the party was still functioning: "The February Revolution ended the autocracy. While the Bolshevik leadership living outside Russia played no role in this first revolution, local Bolsheviks organized the daily strikes and street demonstrations that convinced the tsar to abdicate."(Zukas 2009, ed. Ness, p=439) As for the participation of anarchist, their contribution might be insignificant for the revolution per se (not my opinion), but their action was important/significant if we are examining anarchist history. Marshall talks about their contribution, esp. Volin's(1993, p. 470). Berry David 2002 also claims that anarchists were for Febr. Revolution (2002, p.29) Why is this important for anarchist history? As D' Agostino explains, the co-operation of anarchist and bolsheviks during 1917, highlighters that anarchism and bolshevism are not two necessarily antagonistical or at least, not only antagonistical ideologies.(D Agostino, 2019, p.411)
  • All three of those statements are exaggerations--->not at all, they are well-sourced. I can not recall the author, I think it was M.Nettllau who said: "the honeymoon didn't last long" ( I remember it because it was kind of humorous the way it was put).
  • Well, it was actually only a few years later, after the end of the Civil War. I think that it 's hard to place an exact date to the turning point, but anyway, I changed the wording slightly. [33]
Structural issues
  • Mazdak--> Mazdak was one of the main libertarian tendencies during the middle ages. (Marshal 1993 p.86) Also "Kermani considered Mazdak to be the precursor of French anarchists..."[34]
  • Forerunners of Anarchism--> Changed
  • "Late 19th century to early 20th century, classical anarchism as a worker's movement" is unnecessarily long and complicated.--> You are right here, but I couldnt find a better solution. Well, the reason is that anarchist history is seated between mid-19th to mid 20th century. It was a pluralistic phenomenon which made it hard to trim it to a version with fewer subsections or less text. Suggestions for improvement are welcomed.
  • Less than half of the section on anarcho-syndicalism actually discusses syndicalism--> No, that is not true. 1st paragraph discuss a/s roots. 2nd is about Haymarket affair, that was a strike (the title of the section includes "organised labour") Is there a more appropriate section for the Haymarket affair? 3rd paragraph is on GCT, 4th is on a historical debate on the relation of a/syndicalism and anarchism. 5th is on CNT, an a/syndicalist organisation.
  • also, the use of anarcho-syndicalism is somewhat anachronistic, since it wasn't really used until the 1920s--> it is legitimate to use the term, as RS/authors also use it.Cinadon36 13:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Really?

wp:Villages were run by popular assemblies in a direct democratic fashion, without forcing individuals to join.

Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It is cited to a RS. Cinadon36 10:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Status query

Carabinieri, Cinadon36, where does this nomination stand. The last review post by Carabinieri was in early July, and responses to it seem to have been made in late July; it's now two months later, and there haven't been any edits related to the main review since then (only ones related to the "Really?" section just above). Can we get this moving again? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Carabinieri and Cinadon36: Still nothing since BlueMoonsets ping above. Will be closing one way or another if a response is not received soon. AIRcorn (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I do not know where the nomination stands, it is my belief that the article is suitable for GA. Cinadon36 06:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
This is not the first time this has happened (see User talk:Carabinieri#GAN reviews). I will take over if you are agreeable to that. AIRcorn (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Aircorn: Ok by me! Cinadon36 11:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

New Review

Okay it is a bit of a monster so will take me some time to get through. I don't really know the subject area very well so I see my role more as a lay person trying to learn a topic (a good goal for an encyclopedic article). I will ask queries as I read through it (I read the lead last) of things that I feel could be explained better or other tips. They are not all required to pass as a Good Article and I am happy for you to challenge anything I pose here. At the end I will compare it against the criteria and there may be some things there that are required before it can pass. So far I think it is excellently written and interesting. AIRcorn (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


  • Why are we highlighting Alejandro de Agosta's definition (sourced to his book). If it is important maybe introduce who he is.
  • The longest period before the recorded history of human society was without a separate class of established authority or formal political institutions. Having trouble parsing this.
  • These two currents of anarchism later blended to form a contradictory movement that resonated with a very broad audience. Curious as to what this entailed
  • William Blake has also been said to have espoused an anarchistic political position This doesn't flow from the previous sentence. Blake seems very English. I feel this sentence either needs expanding on into its own paragraph, given a bit more context or at least to be better tied back into the New World intro (or dissociated from it).
  • Religious dissenter Roger Williams founded the colony of Providence, Rhode Island, after being run out of the theocratic Puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636. Unlike the Puritans, he scrupulously purchased land from local American Indians for his settlement Not completely clear to me how this fits with the history of anarchism.
  • Kropotkin, however, traced the origins of the anarchist movement to the struggle of the revolutionaries I don't think we have been introduced to Kropotkin
  • Sean Sheehan points out that Same with htis fellow. I think it is our only mention of him
  • Godwin and Proudhon seem to be claiming similar things. I am not sure, or the article does not make clear, what the distinction is between Founder of Modern Anarchism and Founder of Modern Anarchist Theory.
  • Mutualists played an important role in the First International, especially at the first two Congresses that were held in Geneva and Lausanne, but as anarcho-communism was gaining ground, their influence was gradually diminishing in Europe. Instead, Mutualism found fertile ground in the United States among Individualists in the late 19th century. I found this a little confusing. Maybe First International needs to be introduced better. The gaining ground, but gradually diminishing seems contradictory. I see First international is introduced further down the page. Maybe a bit of shuffling would help with the flow.
  • Proudhonian thought had influenced Spain's federalist movement since early 1860. This is wedged awkwardly between two sentences describing Margall becoming president. Also this whole paragraph is sandwiched between discussion of Individualist Anarchism
  • The creation of the International Workingmen's Association (IWA, also called the "First International") in 1864, the clash between two different currents (Marxists and anarchists), and the final split in 1882, manifests the opposing perspectives of Marxists and anarchists towards the revolution and the emancipation of the working class. having a bit of difficulty following this. It seems to be detailing a few different things that created a division or do you mean the creation of IWA caused a clash which resulted in opposing perspectives?

<<Break "Emergence of anarcho-communism">>

Sorry got caught up in some real life issues. Hope to get back to this soon. Thanks for the responses. AIRcorn (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, great job, I will try to answer to your Questions in a brief but meaningful way. (and keep answers to one paragraph)

  • De Acosta Definition. There are various definitions of anarchism, so its history can take various forms. What is anarchism? A movement? An ideology? a series of events? What is the definition of anarchism? Kropotkin gave a definition in Britanica's article but that was more than 100 years ago. So, I had to find out a definition that it would help me to keep the article into one structure, but on the other hand, it shouldn't be too definite. As it is a controversial subject, I had to give to the reader the knowledge that there is no definite answer on the subject. I had a look at definitions of anarchism by various contemporary authors. Levy's and McLauglin's comments on definitions were pretty valuable and their opinion was added to the article. As for De Agosta, I had to mention his name because I used his verbatim, his exact quote. He said it so nicely, I couldn't find another way to tell it myself.Who is Alexandro de Acosta? "Alejandro de Acosta is a professor in the Department of Religion and Philosophy at Southwestern University. He has published a number of publications including a translation with Joshua Beckman of Carlos Oquendo de Amat’s Cinco metros de poemas (Five Meters of Poems), which is forthcoming by Ugly Duckling Press" (from the here pg xiiv) A book published by Routledge. Should I mention it to the article (at sources maybe?) Cinadon36 11:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)\
That sounds fair enough and I feel you do a good job of getting that across. When I see a name, especially when it is not blue linked, I like to know who this person is so I can get an idea of how much weight to give their views. I would just say "Alejandro de Agosta, professor of ?????? (religion and philosophy?), proposes ...." or whatever fits best. Doesn't need much, just enough to show this isn't just a dog with a blog. AIRcorn (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have to say that English is not my native language. Here is a suggestion for re-phrasing the specific sentence: "People lived through most of their history in without established authority or formal political institutions, mostly before the beginning of history." Would that be better? Any other suggestions? Cinadon36 21:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    Alt: "Humans, for most of prerecorded history, lived without authority-based political institutions." (If that's what is supported by the text.) This might be better phrased affirmatively, e.g., "lived in X type of arrangements rather than centralized/united political institutions" (because what is "established authority" here?) czar 23:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I really like your suggestions Czar, thanks for your input. Both are supported by the sources. I 'd pick the first suggestion as "X" might be a difficult word to find. Cheers, Cinadon36 07:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Curious as to what this entailed" -->so am I! Source does not discuss the subject any further, but it is pretty safe to assume that it created a pretty diverse movement/set of ideas. Professors and crooks, royals and penniless, you can find anarchists in various groups, be it social class, religious class etc. Cinadon36 09:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • On Roger Williams. Point taken, the sentence has been removed. [36] There was only one primary source. Have to say though that Roger Williams is briefly mentioned by Marshal's work p 496. There is an argument, which is fringe imo, that his effort was to built an anarchistic society by buying the land. It is suggested by M. Rothbard - but it is not RS. [37] Cinadon36 10:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • " what the distintion is between Founder of Modern Anarchism and Founder of Modern Anarchist Theory."--> Very interesting question. The simple answer would be that "Founder of Modern Anarchist Theory" is the philosopher that does not take any significant political actions (as in the case of Godwin). "Founder of Modern Anarchism" means that he was active in the creation of the political movement. But the line is blurred, as most of the founders were both philosophers and political activists (as it is the case of Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin). Of course there is much debate on this distinction. Isnt promoting a theory as anarchism, a powerful political action as well? Should we discuss this debate on the article? I am a little hesitant to be honest, I feel like we will turn the article to a difficult to read philosophical quest. If mentioning the terms "Founder of Modern Anarchism" and "Founder of Modern Anarchist Theory" creates a problem, I 'd suggest we avoid the use of those terms rather than trying to elaborate their meaning. I am not strong on this opinion though. Cinadon36 08:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Did Godwin call it "anarchism" or is that an anachronism? Could rephrase as him being known for first articulating what became known as philosophical anarchism? (The title of "founder" is more definitive than need be.) czar 19:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Czar I have now seen your q. I do not know of any source directly discussing your question. But many sources claim that it was Proudhon that was the first philosopher that used the word anarchism entailing its political meaning. (ie see Marshall's chapter on Proudhon). I know, it is not a definite answer... Also, I run into SEP's article on William Godwin. It starts with "William Godwin (1756–1836) was the founder of philosophical anarchism." Overall though, I am in favor of your suggestion. Cinadon36 00:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe there is a way to word it to make it clearer that one was the precursor. Proudhon seems the more notable from my reading of this article. It doesn't help that one mention is in a image caption that reduces the ability to provide context somewhat. AIRcorn (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • gaining ground/ contradiction--> I do not see the contradiction but we can use a better wording. As anarcho-communists were gaining ground, the influence of mutualists was diminishing. I rephrased the quote. [40] Cinadon36 08:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
That works AIRcorn (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Proudhonian thought had influenced Spain's federalist movement since early 1860" -->removed the phrase as the meaning is strongly implied in the next sentence. Cinadon36 09:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "The creation ....of the working class." ---> Well, my intention when adding this paragraph[41] was to give an ultra brief summary of the subsection. Needs reshaping though. I 'll see what I can do...Cinadon36 12:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC) PS-altered Cinadon36 17:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Other changes seem good. Thanks AIRcorn (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Break 1

  • With the aid of Peter Kropotkin's optimism and persuasive writing, anarcho-communism was the major anarchist current in Europe and abroad—apart from Spain. So what was Spain's? Does this relate back to Margall?
  • In the theory of the revolution of anarcho-communism What is meant by "theory of the revolution"? Also you have a quote, but reference Kropotkin and others making it unclear who the quote is from (I assume Kropotkin)
  • But the greatest contributing factor must have been the writings of Bakunin and Sergei Nechaev who were too eager to prompt a revolution. I am unclear if this refers to the abandonment of the Propaganda of the deed or the rise of it. I would have thought rise given what I had read before, but the ordering makes it seem like it is refering to the demise. I am also unclear on the preceding and following sentences position too.
  • In Europe, a wave of illegalism spread throughout the anarchist movement, with Marius Jacob, Ravachol, intellectual Émile Henry and the Bonnot Gang being notable examples. What is illegalism? I wikilinked it, but considering we use it in the heading I think a small description (embracing criminality as a lifestyle comes from the linked article) may be beneficial. I would start it in a new paragraph too.
  • After a controversial trial and a series of appeals, they were executed on 23 August 1927. I have never been a big fan of the use of controversial without context. I would rather know why it was controversial so I can at least judge for myself the nature of the controversy. Never mind, I see it explains it further on.
  • Anarchists who had fought in the civil war against the Whites (a grouping of monarchists and other opponents of the October Revolution) also fought the Bolsheviks, Ukrainian People's Army, and the Germans and Austrians who were there under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Is this still referring to the free territory?
  • Resistance to the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine led by Nestor Makhno, who had established an anarchist society in the region for a number of months, continued until August 1921 when it was crushed, as were the Kronstadt sailors, by the state. Is this still the free territory? Was it just sailors? The rebellion article suggest it was more. If you want to keep it as sailors maybe mention sailors along with the first mention of Kronstadt rebellion.
  • Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were amongst those agitating in response to Bolshevik policy and the suppression of the Kronstadt uprising before they left Russia. The timeline gets a little confused for me here. Goldman was suspected of being involved in McKinley's assassination, but here they are still in (or about to leave) Russia. Was she involved from Russia or is the chronology not linear? From what I can work out the Assassination was in 1901 and they left in 1921.
  • In France, where the far-right leagues came close to insurrection in the February 1934 riots, anarchists divided over a united front policy. Not sure what this mean?
  • in Aragon sometimes by force. Something missing here.
  • However, even before the fascist victory in 1939, the anarchists were losing ground in a bitter struggle with the Stalinists, who controlled the distribution of military aid to the Republican cause from the Soviet Union Repetition
  • Collectivised has been mentioned a few times. I think it needs a description - or at least a wikilink
  • During the course of the events of the Spanish Revolution, anarchists were losing ground in a bitter struggle with the Stalinists. Spanish Communist Party-led troops suppressed the collectives and persecuted both dissident Marxists and anarchists I am sure I have read this a few times now. I would move the whole "In Spain" paragraph from the previous section down and integrate it into the Spanish Revolution one.
  • In light of continual anarchist defeats, one can argue about the naivety of 19th century anarchist thinking. The establishment (state and capitalism) was too strong to be destroyed. It is uncertain whether these defeats were the result of a functional error within the anarchist theories, as New Left intellectuals suggested some decades later, or the social context that prevented the anarchists from fulfilling their ambitions. What is certain, though, is that their critique of state and capitalism ultimately proved right, as the world was marching towards totalitarianism and fascism. Thsi seems to veer to much into Wikivoice. I think it is important. Can it be attributed?
  • Is imported the right way to describe the spread into Asia? I might be, it just sounds odd to me.
  • In Africa, anarchism was not imported as had happened with Asia. I think this could be worded better.
  • It is worth noting that the notion of imported anarchism in Latin America has been challenged, as slave rebellions had not been a rare occurrence before European anarchists first appeared in Latin America Double negatives

<<Break -- "Individualist anarchism during the 19th and 20th century">>

  • Apart from Spain--->In Spain anarchosyndicalism (not anarchocommunism) prevailed. I changed the wording.[42] Cinadon36 08:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Theory of revolution-->refers on how a revolution should be achieved. What are the morals of revolution, the means, what are the objectives. Is it too vague of a term? Should we change it? // Quote --> Yes, it is Kropotkin but the user who added that quotation (not me) apparently read it at Pengam's (1987) work. Cinadon36 08:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
It seems vague to me. I read it as a concept, but if you are simply referring to an explanation then maybe remove the "in". I tried to reword it here based on what I think was meant. Feel free to revert or change. AIRcorn (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that is fine. AIRcorn (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Czar, but I changed it. :-) I hope it doesnt bother you. The problem is that we are talking for Bakunin's collectivism, not collectivism in general that is described at the Wikidictionary. The terms are not far apart, they are really close, but we can be more precise. Anyway, I inserted a sentence to clarify it. [49] As for the alliance with the socialists, I have checked at Marshall's book and at the The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism, and I found no mention of it. I think it doesn;t really worth to mention every alliance anarchists had with various left wingers, since two major books do not mention it, maybe we shouldnt either. Nevertheless, Palgrave's book chapter on 1868 supports what we have said in the article, so I placed Graham Robert (the author) within the {{sfn}}.Cinadon36 22:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Had another look and saw a link to Collectivist anarchism and Mikhail Bakunin#Collectivist anarchism. Not sure if I missed it first time or it was recently added. Either way that is enough for me. It also has a nice description. I tweeked it slightly[50].
It is almost identical wording under "Spanish revolution" (4th paragraph) and "Rise of fascism" (end 2nd paragraph). AIRcorn (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "In light of continual anarchist defeats"-->I attributed it. I thought about it and I was undecided whether to attribute tbh. On one hand, it is an opinion, on the other hand it is not disputed. Anyways, I opted to err on the safe side so there it goes.[51]Cinadon36 22:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
It was more the general tone than whether it was disputed or not. "One can argue" comes across a bit too much like an informal essay for my taste. That was the part I was thinking needed attributing (who is this one?). I am happy with how you have it now though if you are. I see this as collaborative so you need to be happy with any changes too. AIRcorn (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Break 2

Sorry this is coming in piecemeal. Should finish my read through this break

  • The first paragraph in "Individualist anarchism in the United States" is a bit disjointed. We go from individualism to Proudhon, capitalism and transcendentalism without much flow. Thoreau is briefly mentioned before jumping to Tucker. I feel too much is being squeezed into the opening paragraph. Maybe there should be more on Thoreau as he is mentioned as a "most notable example". I also think haymarket should be mentioned by name alongside Chicago as it has been a while since we were in 1886.
  • Impressionists and neo-impressionist painters were attracted by anarchism, most notably Camille Pissarro who fled to Belgium to avoid persecution after the assassination by an anarchist of President Carnot. Don't quite follow this. Who was assassinated and by whom? Was Carnot assassinated by an anarchist? Maybe assassination of President Carnot by an anarchist. Not clear why he had to flee because of this.
  • Anarcho-individualists and Bohemians, however, avoided the anarcho-syndicalist movement. Unclear as to relevance of this. How does the "however" apply and what does this add?
  • Even though the anarchists had a minimal role, the events of May had a significant impact on anarchism. Not really clear in the rest of the paragraph what the significant impact was.
  • Does the first paragraph in Contemporary anarchism fit here? The second paragraph reads more like it should be the opening one. Maybe shift it up a section?

Now the lead

  • Major tendencies of anarchism sprouted up as anarchism grew as a social movement, Tendencies? Is this the right word?
  • As the workers' movement grew, the divide between anarchists and Marxists grew as well. You haven't connected the two in the lead yet. In fact it seems rather clear to me that Marxism and Anarchism share a common history and I feel this should get a relatively prominent mention in the lead.
  • In the United States, anarchists were involved in the burgeoning beat literary movement, and some anarchist artists around the world were involved in the emerging avant-garde art scene. I don't recall reading this in the body
  • including most prominently the LGBT rights movement same with this and Anarchism prominently influenced the Occupy Movement this

Replies

Loose ends

As a matter of due diligence I have read through the previous review and the talk page. I didn't like to do this before my read through as I felt it might prejudge my review. I see I have covered some points brought up by Carabinieri, but am probably less harsh on them than they are. That is fine as the criteria can be read differently and we all have our own sticking points. I understand some of this might have been fixed before I assumed the role of reviewer, but will leave my two cents. Personally I don't care too much on whether it has mixed British American spelling, although the convention is to choose one so it would be best to do that when noticed (I assumed it was British). I understand their issue with some of the language, but I again am happy to allow a bit of literary license. Being an encyclopaedia doesn't mean we need to be boring and I didn't find anything too outrageous (apart from one paragraph I pointed out above). There were a few times it strayed into territory which wasn't obvious to me how it related to the history of Anarchism, which I pointed out, but overall it was easy enough to follow (although see below). Overall I feel they made good comments, but some of them maybe went beyond what the criteria strictly require.

An interesting discussion was recently opened up on the talk page by Oeqtte and I definitely can relate to some points they brought up at User:Oeqtte/History of anarchism. There were times when I got lost in the chronology. I don't think it has to be strictly linear, but it would benefit from being made more obvious when it does jump around.

I realise you have responded to some of my queries with questions and I will get back to them soon. It probably feels like a long drawn out process, but we are near the end now. AIRcorn (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Good for the most part. Some areas for improvement pointed out above. Lead needed to better summarise the body.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Quality of sourcing looks excellent. Will do some spot checks where I can to confirm reliability
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Very broad. While some question of focus was brought up in the previous review, and there were a few areas that were not obviously related, I don't feel it strays to far to be an issue with the GA criteria
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Overall I found it to veer on an overly positive look on Anarchism. A little surprising giving the violent tendencies I had always associated with the concept. It didn't shy away from these however and I didn't feel like it was too extreme in praise and am happy to pass this.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Potentially some issues to work out regarding the structure of the article re chronology. No major changes (except in response to my review) during the review process so not too concerned about that at this stage. It is hopefully something that can be worked out through normal editing practices. If it passes just try to keep the quality up if making major changes.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    File:Crass pete steve andy.png permission says see talk page, but there is no talk page. Others seem fine, even with some fitting under the NPG dispute. Generally images have to be covered in text. I am not seeing any mention of punk in the article outside the above mentioned image. There probably should be a mention of Anarcho-punk somewhere. While May day is mentioned a few times it is not mentioned under "Contemporary anarchism" where the photo is. Similarly with Seurat, although I am willing to give this a pass as neo-impressionist is mentioned. A Pissarro painting would be better. Others seem good. Proudhorn probably deserves a better caption though.
    The talk page is on Commons: commons:File talk:Crass pete steve andy.png czar 15:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay thanks. It has been replaced now anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

 Comment: What I have done to address those issues:

All good. Do you mind having a look at Kropotkins caption. I think tried to found Anarchism on a scientific base could be reworded, but couldn't think of a way to do it. AIRcorn (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I gave it a shot, hopefully you don't mind. I did intend to help more with copyediting but I've ended up being pretty busy lately. Oeqtte[t] 09:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we are pretty much there. Just go over my recent changes and address the last few points I made and I will look to close this. Thanks for your patience. AIRcorn (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I was hoping to close this soon, but there is a lot of ongoing discussion and editing.[62] It is a little unstable at the moment. The changes look pretty good so far to me so am not too worried about the quality, but would like to know if it is going to become reasonably stable soon and when I should take a final look at it. AIRcorn (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion is about section headings so there isn't a content dispute to interfere with WP:GACR#5. @Oeqtte, do you have any final copy edits to make before Aircorn takes a final look? czar 07:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah sorry about all that, I've been trying to get through it quickly but I'm still hoping to finish up with the classical anarchism section shortly. Oeqtte[t] 09:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
No problem, just ping me back here when you are done. AIRcorn (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Aircorn: It is finished. With any luck the others will get a chance to look over the changes briefly. Oeqtte[t] 14:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@Aircorn:, it seems that there are no major (or minor) changes under way. ps-Happy new year everybody. Cinadon36 18:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry people. Have only really been popping in briefly (or caught up in other issues) recently. Will have a look through this tonight. AIRcorn (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Aircorn, you 've been a fantastic reviewer! Thanking the rest of the contributors as well! Cinadon36 21:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Structure issues

I have written a brief critique of this article's structure here if anyone would like to read it. I'm not sure what others think of this. Oeqtte[t] 22:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your Q. You do have some valid points. Give me some time- a couple of days- and I 'll be back. Cinadon36 23:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the long section headings are an issue if they adequately summarize the contents. And calling them a "mess" seems particularly overblown. It's possible that some could be rephrased, but mind that the article is not following era-based periodization, partially because it isn't like this is following the singular evolution of a solitary idea. My 2¢. (I'll leave the phrasing to Cinadon.) czar 03:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Those were my initial thoughts as well. But I have to confess that structure issues baffled me a lot when I re-restructure the article in 2018. But that is old history by now. The problem with history of anarchism is while it stretces from prehistory to current era (according to some authors) there is a certain period (mid 19th century to early 20th century) in which most "action" took place. So the result is small sections for ancient times and current era, and a huge one for late 19th century. Moreover, while it would be convenient to separate the article in commonly used eras (ie industrial era as you suggested), this is not anarcho-centric, not supported by the literature (I haven't read everything, I admit it!) and will not reflect properly the history of anarchism, its growth or its (sadly) decline. As for your questions on individual anarchism (IA) and why they are a separated section from the rest. I deliberately separate them because section 4 had too many subsections. At least now they are less. And separation could also be justified because IA was only loosely connected to worker's anarchism, both ideologically and as a movement as well. Now more specifically,
  • "The fact that the French Revolution does not get a section of its own seems a bit ridiculous" --> why is that? French Revolution had a profound influence on anarchism but no anarchists were actually involved. If we start giving a sub-section to every great event that influenced anarchism, we might end with a multi-sectioned article that is not nice.
  • "Not much has to be said here. The title is an obvious mess." Why is it a mess? The title explain the era is about to be described and separates IA as well.
  • "The section would be better titled after their works" well, you have a valid point here. I will try to fix it. <more to follow> Cinadon36 08:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)PS-@Oeqtte: what title would you suggest? Cinadon36 08:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
On the French Revolution I stated that my thoughts were based on the sources I've read, you probably have a point though. For the Proudhon and Stirner section it's up to you—I'd suggest maybe something along the lines of the emergence or inception of anarchist theory. I have amended my review to address some other concerns as well. It's still not perfect so please ignore anything too dumb. Thanks. Oeqtte[t] 08:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
None of your remarks were dumb or even close to it. Quite the contrary. I 'd be hesitant to use the term you are suggesting because I 'd preferred something more specific to mutualism and egoistical anarchism. This is because anarchist theory didn't developed in a linear fashion and I 'd like this zigzag pattern this has to reflect to the titles of the sections (or subsections) somehow. Of course, there is no perfect solution for the structure, and all suggestion and changes should be welcome, irrespectively if the article gets a GA status or not. Nothing is written in stone (and evidence). Cinadon36 09:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
If you want the section to focus only on those two works, the title may as well be "What is property? and The Ego and Its Own". I do understand the need to segment the different developments of anarchism and as you say there is no definite answer. Oeqtte[t] 10:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I admit I have already thought of that. But as you say elsewhere, this title does not properly summarize the subsection. Also it might give a subtle clue that egoism and esp. mutualism were intellectual movements. That was far from being the case. The section is not about book reviews. I understand of course that those two books had a significant impact on the anarchist movement.Cinadon36 08:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
If you don't really think the content fits under one title then you might ask why it's grouped that way to begin with. That said the section isn't about all mutualism and egoisism, only a moment in their histories. I don't understand your concern of portaying something as too intellectual just for having a basis in written work. What do you mean by that? Oeqtte[t] 09:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
II think it could be fit under one title, as the context is about the very first steps of anarchist movement and though. This is the reason for grouping them together. Having a title in the section could hint that it is an intellectual movement. So, what would you say if we rename the title to: "The first steps/sprouts* of anarchism: mutualism and egoistical anarchism" *This wording really need to change. Cinadon36 10:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me that the section is more about "Proudhon and Stirner" as originators than about the works or their associated ideologies, so that's what I'd recommend (a shorter version of the current heading) czar 04:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Czar: Please also move it to the newly renamed "Early anarchism" section. Oeqtte[t] 06:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is that "Proudhon and Stirner" are more "classical anarchism" than "early anarchism", since Proudhon is the "founder" of modern anarchism. If sources define the classical period as starting elsewhere, would be happy to move it as you said. czar 06:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I just have to wrap my head around it. Saying early anarchism isn't really the same as the development of anarchism so it falls back into the problem of explicitly calling something anarchist before the term was adopted. Much of the section is still about pre-anarchist or proto-anarchist history so I'm not sure I agree there. Oeqtte[t] 06:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This also goes back to my point that the works (What is Property? and The Ego and Its Own) are part of the establishing of anarchism, while the influence of the men themselves may have extended elsewhere. It only makes it more confusing to have a section dedicated entirely to individualist anarchism only to put Stirner in with classical anarchism. Sort of a symptom of trying overly to group by school of thought rather than the natural flow of history. Oeqtte[t] 07:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I double-checked my sources, Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism groups Godwin, Stirner and Proudhon as "early anarchist philosophers" while Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism groups all three as "classic anarchists" along with Bakunin, Kropotkin etc. Oeqtte[t] 11:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Goodmorning Oeqtte (it is still morning here where I live), which page of Demanding the Impossible are you referring to? Cinadon36 10:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Good morning Cinadon36, part four of the book is titled "Classic anarchist thinkers" and lists several anarchists each in their own subsection. Some other examples include: "all the classic anarchist thinkers except Stirner" (p.39), "William Godwin" listed as a classic anarchist thinker (p.189), "classic anarchist thinkers from Godwin to Kropotkin" (p.417), "Amongst the classic thinkers, we find Godwin's rational benevolence, Stirner's conscious egoism, Bakunin's destructive energy, and Kropotkin's calm altruism" (p.624), "from Godwin onwards the classic anarchist thinkers" (p.643), "the classic anarchist thinkers, except for Stirner" (p.664). It is also worth noting that "classic anarchism" and "classical anarchism" are used interchangably and the text doesn't distinguish between early anarchism and classical anarchism. Oeqtte[t] 10:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Good evening! So Oeqtte there is no categorical sentence by Marshall that affirms that classical anarchism encompass individualist trends. That is why I prefer McLaughlin than Marshall in this part. He is more strict with meanings and his methodology is more credible. Anyway, this article isn't an academic paper. Pls go ahead with the changes you wish. Cinadon36 17:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Czar: For now I am going to go ahead with the changes since the sources suggest that if there is going to be an "early anarchism" period separate from "classical anarchism" it should include Godwin, Proudhon and Stirner. Please let me know if you have any sources that go against this. I'm also still not completely satisfied with the name. Oeqtte[t] 12:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I do. First, the history of anarchism, as already established, does not have clear periodization (hell, it doesn't have clear definition as an ideology) but that doesn't stop us from establishing what sources use most often. "Early anarchism" is going to have much more porous boundaries than something like "classic/classical anarchism". I suggest first defining the latter's boundaries to decide whether the section starts with or after Proudhon, and that will determine whether Proudhon gets pushed into the prior section. Right now, the logic seems arbitrary for adding Proudhon to "early anarchism" instead of "classical anarchism". The sections only have simpler titles—their scope should be viewed as unchanged. If you chafe at "early anarchism" I'd view it like this: Godwin is a precursor to "classical anarchism" but not a "precursor to anarchism", hence the interstitial section. Open to sources that prove or disprove this. czar 13:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Of the two sources I mentioned above the former considers the three to be a distinct group from classical anarchism, the latter considers all three to be classical (including Godwin) so neither supports separating Godwin by himself. If you look at it like that it's not really an arbitrary decision, but even if it was it means (1) the first section about explicit anarchism won't disclude the first explicit anarchist, (2) there is a bit less jumping around in the flow, and (3) there is one less section bloating the classical anarchism section. If you want it changed, I can't know what your sources or arguments are if you don't tell me. Cheers. Oeqtte[t] 14:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Czar: The point is that they don't adequately summarize the contents. Calling them messy isn't overblown when their styles are inconsistent, unfocused and at times confusing. The example of the title in two halves presents labour movements as a mere addition to the title when really the section is about "Labour movements during the 19tg h and 20th centuries", which would not only follow the style of the following section but also make clear why the two are separate (and you could come up with a better title even still). To your other point, sure anarchism is broad but presenting a disjointed history is only more confusing to general readers. Something as diverse as the history of Hinduism still manages to maintain a better chronology than the sections I'm criticising. I realise I may not have presented my thoughts very well so thanks for responding anyway. Oeqtte[t] 04:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I didn't understand where "The example of the title in two halves presents" refers to... I can not also understand why you claim that we are not following proper chronology. We do. We just separated individualists from worker's movement anarchism, as they were very distinct in nature and followed different patterns of development. Cinadon36 08:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm refering to the title that I specifically called a "mess", that uses a colon to join its two halves ("Late 19th century to early 20th century: classical anarchism as a worker's movement"). As for the chronology issues, I'm referring to those mentioned about the sections on Proudhon and Stirner, the various schools of thought, and colonialism. I have not been making accusations toward anyone though and I don't want it to seem that way. Oeqtte[t] 09:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Why are they "two halves"? Late 19th and early 20th century is one entity, many authors acknowledge that. Some referred to it as the golden era of anarchism.Cinadon36 09:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
And is your concern with the use of colons in headings like this in general or this specific section? The former is common, e.g., Noam Chomsky#Life. The latter I don't see to be an issue. czar 11:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
No, my concern is this specific example (for the reasons listed above) where it isn't used in a helpful way, nor is it necesarily used correctly, nor does it match the style of the rest of the article. These issues aren't present in the example you linked so what is it you disagree with? Oeqtte[t] 00:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
My example, as I said, was for general colon use in headings but that point is moot.
Looking at this specific heading in context, would simply "Classical anarchism" not suffice? It's not like "classical anarchism" would encompass anything other than the 19th/20th c. workers' movements, right? czar 04:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
If you want then I suggest you change it to that. Only it would then encompass individualist anarchism (which Cinadon36 is trying to avoid), and classical anarchism refers also to the schools of thought rather than just the era (which is just something to keep in mind to avoid confusing others). Oeqtte[t] 05:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Yep, just wanted feedback first. My understanding is that "classical anarchism" refers to both an era and the dominant schools of thought at the time; and that much like the term "anarchism", it refers to the socialist tradition, not American individualism. But what say you, @Cinadon36? czar 05:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure sources agree with that—though American individualism isn't the entirety of individualist anarchism anyway so I'm a bit confused. Also you'd have to change the Anarchist schools of thought, Anarchism and Outline of anarchism pages to be consistent in that. Oeqtte[t] 06:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Let's deal with the issues one by one. My understanding is that when talking about classical anarchism, we mostly talk about the workers movement anarchism, not individualism. But there is no definite line among the two of them. What is important though is to make clear that these two currents ("class-struggle anarchism" and "individualism") had different trajectories. I mean class struggle anarchism became a prominent movement during the second half of the 19th century and ended in Spain in 36. Individualists trajectory is totally different, they haven't been around the major milestones of social-anarchism. Have a look at literature, ie at McLaughlin book, (Anarchism and Authority, A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism (2007), I do not see that he considers individualists as a part of classical anarchists. Quite the contrary. And the same is apparent at Levi's The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism (2019). But if evidence is found that classical anarchism encompasses the individualism anarchism current, I wont object to merging the two section. Cinadon36 07:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I am all for separating the individualist currents from the class-based currents, I'm just skeptical that "classical anarchism" is a clear enough term consistent across sources. You're right, McLaughlin does categorize the different branches of anarchism quite neatly when it comes to theory, which is fine if that's taken as academic consensus. It's more about whether individualist anarchism is considered part of the classical anarchist era given the somewhat two-sided nature of the term, but I think Czar was just trying to clear that up earlier so I'm happy to leave it if others think it fits best. Pardon my confusion. Oeqtte[t] 10:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources

Is there any reason why the Goldman and Bakunin primary source refs can't be replaced with more reliable, summative, secondary sources? Also feeling uneasy about citing Bookchin and McElroy for synthetic comments on ideology, given their known partisanship/activism (and while noting their scholarship). Not sure how well their editors tempered/couched their claims. Thoughts? czar 06:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly my feeling,Czar. Cinadon36 07:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to notice that Oeqtte's changes are on the right path. Thanks Oeqtee! Cinadon36 07:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Cinadon36 (talk) and Czar (talk). Nominated by Miraclepine (talk) at 03:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC).

resolved
  • Note that I'm having trouble trying to word out the whole "anarchy older than society" thing, so I'll ask Czar and the reviewer to assist. ミラP 03:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be worth running a comparative hook, like "... that the history of anarchism ranges from the anti-globalization movement to prehistoric times?" or "... that in the history of anarchism, the X event was Y?". The "prehistoric" bit has a split article: Precursors of anarchism. Most of its contents are about ideological overlap with anarchist principles with no explicit link to what became known as the anarchist movement itself, so probably best to not make the history article's hook solely about prehistory. @Cinadon36, any ideas/thoughts on what might be interesting to call out on WP's main page? czar 11:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Czar, thanks for the ping. Well I 'd prefer something to be said/asked on the history of anarchism taken from the classical or current era. History of anarchism dating back to prehistoric times, it is an estimation shared by manys scholars, but not a hard fact. But it would be very difficult to find a fact because of the article being an abstract topic. So, may I suggest "... that French May was a turning point in the history of anarchism?" or "Proudhon was the first man in the history of anarchism to identify himself as an anarchist?" or "...the first time in the history of anarchism that the libertarian principles came closer to reality was during the Spanish Revolution of 36?" (I acknowledge that the latter is a little vague)Cinadon36 12:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I like.
@Cinadon36, thoughts? (Each of these claims need to be directly cited within the article with an immediate citation.) czar 03:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I like them both but I slightly prefer the forth option. Reason is that it makes sence to mention the classical era as that period gets the lions share compare to other parts of history of anarchism. I am ok with both alternatives though.Cinadon36 09:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@Cinadon36, for ALT3's claim, the article cites Berry 2019, pp. 457–465. Do you have a more specific location for this specific claim? For ALT4's claim, the article cites Kinna & Prichard 2009, p. 270, and Yeoman 2019, p. 441, as the end of the Spanish Civil War being the decline of anarchist thought but do you have a source that asserts that it is also the end of the "classical era"? (The DYK hook's text needs to be directly supported within the article.) czar 15:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Czar. For ALT3, the author does not specifically claims that it was a turning point, at least he is not using the specific words. Have a look at pp=464-465 (I can email you the book if necessary) I am adding a quote: "In that sense, it can be argued that 1968, as well as being the last nail in the coffin of orthodox Communism, also effectively redefined politics, and that we can find in 1968 the roots of the ‘unofficial politics’ which characterises the various ‘anti-capitalist’ movements of the 1990s and 2000s" But all pages cited are important as they set the context.

As for ALT4: Yeoman 2019 p 441: "Few anarchist movements have come close to the size and longevity of that which existed in Spain. The Republic’s defeat in the Civil War marked the end of a period of seventy years where libertarian ideas were articulated in mass movements across Europe and the Americas, in which the years of 1936–1939 stand out as a moment of great hope for anarchists in Spain and around the world, as well as great regret at what could have been..."

Kinna & Prichard 2009: "The end of the Spanish civil war is usually taken as the marker of anarchism’s death" Oh it is page 271, not 270. I 'll fix it. Cinadon36 22:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC) PS-fixed [63]Cinadon36 09:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool—let's just go with ALT4 then, if simpler. Modified as ALT5 below to match source. czar 11:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • - article was promoted to Good article status on January 8 and so is eligible. It is easily long enough, and has not previously appeared on DYK. It appears well cited, and while some sources are offline, a spot check of online ones shows that they are appropriate and have been fairly represented, with no obvious copyvios. On balance, it appears neutral and well-written, covering a broad topic in a clear manner - it is a good article and it would be great to have it appear on the front page as part of DYK. QPQ is complete. All the proposed hooks are of appropriate length. The original hook is a fair summary but I'm not sure to where it is specifically sourced, and it's not especially interesting. ALTs 1 and 2 are phrased more strongly than the corresponding sentences in the article. ALT3 and ALT4 have been discussed above and superseded. ALT5 is getting there, with the general sense of it supported by the references, but is there a source describing the period leading up to 1939 as the "classical era"? Finally, while not a requirement for approval, there are numerous interesting images in the article - might one illustrate this hook? Warofdreams talk 17:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Warofdreams and thank you for your nice words. Here Carl Levy [64] sets the boundaries of the classical era of anarchism:

"This article is part of a broader project on the social history or histories of anarchism. The standard accounts of anarchism (Nettlau, Joll, Woodcock, Marshall etc.) have been combinations of the histories of ideas and political/social movements. A larger project I am engaged in uses another methodology and is reliant upon the vast outpouring of published and unpublished academic writing on social history that has been produced since the 1960s. I will cover only several interconnected themes here: anarchism, internationalism and nationalism in Europe. This article will give a synoptic overview of the internationalism of the European anarchist and syndicalist movements during the “classical” period of anarchism (1860–1939)..."Levy, Carl (2004). "Anarchism, Internationalism and Nationalism in Europe, 1860-1939". Australian Journal of Politics and History. 50 (3). Wiley: 330–342, Abstract. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8497.2004.00337.x. ISSN 0004-9522.

As for the images... I don't know, Czar any suggestions? Cinadon36 21:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The article doesn't currently have a singularly iconic image for the classical era and I don't have in mind any specific image that captures the 1930s decline of anarchism. And, for what it's worth, I doubt that the main page really needs some kind of collage of Bakunin, Kropotkin, and a bunch of anarchist symbols. Let me ask a friend if they have any ideas. Otherwise, I think it's fine without an image. I'm going to strike the first four alt hooks per the above. czar 03:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the reference, that is exactly what I was hoping existed! I think it would be good to add a line at the top of the section on the classical period referring to this definition, making clear that the term predates the article. If that is acceptable, then I'm happy to pass this hook. Warofdreams talk 17:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I 'm glad you liked it, Warofdreams. Would this diff[65] be ok? I didn't use year "1860" since it is not a widely accepted margin as is 1939, as far as I know. Anarchism developed gradually during those early years of the "classical era". But the ending was rather sharp. Cinadon36 07:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Added a little more re: start of era czar 11:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- thank you for the quick and constructive responses, ALT5 is now ready for DYK. Nice work! Warofdreams talk 12:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote this pretty thorough article. But the article specifies that 1939 marked the end of the classical period of the history of "Western" anarchism. Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah, I've removed "Western" from the article, which is about the history of [Western] anarchism, so the scope is implied. "Western" isn't in opposition to some other divergent lineage of anarchism (e.g., "Eastern" or something else). czar 00:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Impact on trade unions

Anarchists had a much larger impact on trade unions than their authoritarian left counterparts.{{sfn|Levy|2010|p=23}}{{sfn|Laursen|2019|p=157}}

This claim doesn't appear to be reflected in the sources—might I be missing something? Also this sentence needs a qualifier, yes? Like "trade unions in the colonial world"? czar 01:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Czar:. That specific sentence refers to Latin America (see opening sentence of the specific paragraph) Levy (2010) writes:

Giving the Global South its due weight in the history of classical anarchism will therefore revolutionize our understanding of its geographical morphology and indeed, deepen our knowledge of the origins of key aspects of the ideology itself. Thus Spain does not look so exceptional if we view the entire globe rather than only its northern half. The largest “anarchist” city in the world in 1910 was not Barcelona but Buenos Aires120; a tier of cities in the Global South possessed noticeable anarchist and syndicalist political subcultures (Canton, Havana, Lima, Montevideo, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Shanghai, and Tokyo); in the first three decades of the twentieth century, anarchist-dominated trade unions in Argentina, Brazil, Peru, and Mexico were proportionally more dominant in their respective countries’ overall labor movements than their famous cousin, the Spanish CNT.121 More generally, one of the major differences between the socialist Second International and the global anarchist and syndicalist movements before 1914 was this: whereas the anarchist and syndicalists had a mass base in the Global South, the socialists of the Second International lacked one and indeed pointedly ignored large swathes of the informally colonized and colonial worlds.

Laursen (2019) does not compare anarchist vs marxist impact but it serves as a reference to the previous sentence mostly. Cinadon36 10:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
As for the qualifier, yes, I agree. Cinadon36 10:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I had seen that paragraph but does it make the claim true? Anarchist unions were "proportionally more dominant" than the CNT was, which is interesting but only relative (how dominant were they within the country?) Could also say that anarchists/syndicalists had a larger base in the global south than the Second International, but is that the same as saying what is being claimed? (Also who would be the authoritarian left comparison in this case?) czar 03:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is that it is not comparing Latin American anarchist associations with CNT specifically but with European anarchist groups in general, which lived in the shadow of marxists or social-democrats Parties/Unions. While in Europe anarchist had little effect in political/workers struggles, in Latin America anarchists played a more prominent role. CNT was the exception. What do you think? Should we rephrase to make it more clear? Cinadon36 07:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
It's possible that what you're saying is true but I don't see it confirmed in the source. That sentence (with footnote 121) is itself sourced to Black Flame, 20–21, 291, and I'm not seeing the evidence that global south anarchist unions were "proportionally more dominant" than they were in Spain/elsewhere. That Levy is invoking a quantity ("proportion") or that the current article claim is of "much larger impact"—there should be some underlying numbers that prove this comparison. Otherwise all we should say, per the sources, is that many global south cities had sizable anarchist/syndicalist unions. Could also add that these unions were more prominent in their countries than the CNT was in Spain, but that's really quite an extraordinary claim and there should be more evidence for that then the single sentence on its own. To your other point, does the source make the claim, "While in Europe anarchist had little effect in political/workers struggles"? I think you would need an additional/stronger source for that. What do you think? czar 11:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Czar, the sentence "In Latin America, anarchists had a much larger impact on trade unions than marxists" would it be ok? Levy is stating that in Latin America anarchist had a mass base, whereas ..."the socialists of the Second International lacked one[mass base]". Cinadon36 08:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
That's still assuming a lot about impact when the source only says that more unions were anarchist-affiliated in the global south than in Europe (if that's true—it's not exactly that in Black Flame from what I recall). How about something like: "In the early 20th century, anarchist affiliations were more prominent among trade unions in the Global South than among those in Europe." (If it's also true that anarchist unions were more prominent in Brazil than they were in Spain during their zenith, this would be an exceptional claim that would require exceptional proof.) I think the point about the Second International is separate: "Anarchists had a larger foothold in the Global South than the Second International socialists during this period." czar 01:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion. I will have another look at the literature (to-do list) to see if I can find any other authors making a similar claim- if my search turns positive, I will let you know. Cinadon36 07:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

Dear @PurpleCat7:, firstly, welcome to WP. I 'm writing this because I do not feel your recent edits[66] (Timeline of classical anarchist revolutions and rebellions), add value on the article. The reasons are:

  • Timeline should be based on secondary Reliable source(s). An expert who studied history of anarchism, published a paper or book and that article/book was either peer reviewed or at least widely accepted. Instead, you seem to have cherry picked moments or rebellions from various publications and you constructed a list. The ultimate result is WP:Original Research and synthesis.
  • Timelines of X, should be coherent. They should reflect a development of a phenomenon.
  • As a result of OR, the history of Anarchism is seemingly the history of classical revolutions and rebellions- which is not the case- they are a part of anarchist history- but not the whole story.
  • Some sources are not RS, like libcom.
  • Some sources are not focused on the "history of Anarchism", but over-magnify a small anarchist group of a small period in a small country.

My suggestion, if you ld like to contribute, is to find a RS on the history of anarchism, and summarize some chapters. You can ask at your local library for sources. WP has a library as well [67]. Also, you can ask for resources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. In any case, thank you for your contributions and I hope we will be seeing you around! Cinadon36 08:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

These are fair reasons and to my mind nothing to start trouble over.
If I can pose a question to you as a newer Wikipedia editor, I have to ask, what is to be done when sources on a topic are severely lacking or spread across multiple languages? PurpleCat7 (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Well @PurpleCat7, as I see it, when reliable secondary sources are lacking, then no material should be included. Lets say, the topic is our Solar System. A common mistake is for editors to visit reliable secondary sources on Mars, or Earth to describe the Solar System. Or even worse, in the section of earth, editors seeking sources of a continent, to describe geological issues of Earth. I would suggest, editors should strive to find books or review articles on Solar System and summarize them. So, to reply to your question, if sources are lacking, do not include anything. If very few sources are available, you have to practice critical thinking and take into account several factors (are the sources appropriate, is the material relevant or significant, etc). This is how I usually do my editing. Opinions vary though. Cinadon36 12:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@PurpleCat7 I removed the timeline list,[68] but if you wish, you can add a view links at "see also" section. No need for citations there. Just pick a two or three or more, and add them. Preferably, from various parts of the world. Cinadon36 06:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_anarchism/Archive_1&oldid=1205864449"