Jump to content

Talk:History of anarchism/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

old/abandoned review by Carabinieri

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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 [1]
  • "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.[2]
  • "It" changed --->[3] 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 [4]
  • 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. [5]
  • 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. [6]
  • 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. [7]
  • anthropology of anarchists---->turned into "anthropology of anarchism".[8] 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 [9] 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 [10] 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. [11]
  • 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[12]? Taken care of. [13]
  • 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)[reply]

I'll help with the image copyright info. czar 10:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks Czar, great job![14] Cinadon36 17:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Manicatorman: Done![15] Cinadon36 04:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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.[16].

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


Manicatorman's solution[17] 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.[18] 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)[reply]

"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.[19] 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. [20]
  • 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. [21]
  • Berkmans opinion: I removed it per WP Primary. [22]
Revolutionary wave
  • Sacco -Vanzetti. Added "allegedly". [23]
  • sizable force. You are prob. right, it was a misrepresentation of Marshall. Changed [24]
  • 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. [25]
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..."[26]
  • 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)[reply]

Really?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Status query

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Aircorn: Ok by me! Cinadon36 11:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Review

[edit]

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)[reply]


  • 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)[reply]

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)\[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • On Roger Williams. Point taken, the sentence has been removed. [28] 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. [29] Cinadon36 10:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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. [32] Cinadon36 08:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That works AIRcorn (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other changes seem good. Thanks AIRcorn (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1

[edit]
  • 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.[34] Cinadon36 08:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think that is fine. AIRcorn (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. [41] 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)[reply]
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[42].
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)[reply]
  • "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.[43]Cinadon36 22:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Break 2

[edit]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

GA criteria

[edit]
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)[reply]
Okay thanks. It has been replaced now anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • I was hoping to close this soon, but there is a lot of ongoing discussion and editing.[54] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No problem, just ping me back here when you are done. AIRcorn (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_anarchism/GA1&oldid=934849995"