User talk:SwitChar/Anarchlist

Restructre of list of anarchists

This is my restructure of the List of anarchists. I'm trying to make it more like the very awesome list of atheists.

I'm going through the list of anarchists at the moment, and adding those who it seems appropriate to add. I just finished with A; next time I'll add all those under B. ~Switch ^t 16:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally finished Z and Q section.--Cast (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finished I section.--Cast (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List from list of anarchists article.

B

Hinke Bergegren
Louise Berger
Camillo Berneri
Daniel Berrigan
Philip Berrigan
Luigi Bertoni
Jens Bjørneboe
Joe Black (writer) : Essayist for anarchist websites and publications. Having trouble confirming notability. Maybe someone else can help. If not, remove. --Cast (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we worried about notability for the purposes of link entries? I thought as long as we could verify the fact that someone was an anarchist in a reliable source, they merit inclusion (space permitting). Ref for Black: <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.spunk.org/texts/groups/wsm/sp001105.txt |title=Revolution |last=Black |first=Joe |work=[[Workers Solidarity]] |publisher=[[Spunk Library]] |accessdate=2008-11-07 |title=ANARCHISTS SAY that capitalism can not be reformed away. We say it must be overthrown through a revolution.}}</ref> the skomorokh 18:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - An early problem with the other list was red links proliferated because users added non-notable anarchists. Being non-notable, it was nearly impossible to find citations to prove they were anarchists, and in some cases, impossible to even identify if the individual even existed. One of the stipulations for this list included in the lead is that the included individuals are notable -- which will most likely mean they already have their own article. You'll notice that the vast majority of links on the list are not red links. Simply being an anarchist doesn't make one notable -- but it does make you awesome.--Cast (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hah! Yeah, I understand and agree with the rationale for removing unref'd redlinks, but the argument there is WP:V, not WP:N. Black probably shouldn't have an article, but it doesn't follow that he shouldn't have an entry here. There's no risk for Wikipedia to get egg on its face by including him, unlike some of the non-entities added to the previous list. I'm not really pushed either way, and we've already trimmed the talkpage list almost down to notables only, so if you want to remove Black (or move him to WP:ATFP), that's cool with me. the skomorokh 03:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Etienne de la Boetie
Jules Bonnot
Leonard Borgzinner
Randolph Bourne
Gustave Bouvet
Georges Brassens
Gaetano Bresci
Tor Åge Bringsværd
Maurice Brinton
Benoît Broutchoux
L. Susan Brown
Slim Brundage
Jan Bucquoy
Chaz Bufe

C

D

Alexandra David-Néel
Richard JF Day
Joseph Déjacque
Gilles Deleuze
Stza
Diogenes of Sinope (no mention in article)
Sam Dolgoff
Eric Drooker
Stephen Dunifer
Clément Duval

E

F

G

H

J

K

L

M

N

O

Maria Occhipinti – could not verify
Michel Onfray

P

R

S

T

V

Georges Valois
Auguste Vaillant
Raoul Vaneigem
Bartolomeo Vanzetti (of Sacco and Vanzetti)
Gee Vaucher
Boris Vian
Jean Vigo
Paul Virilio
Aivar Voitka
Ülo Voitka
Georg von Rauch

W

New sections

I've just created a new section and subsection:

Former self-identified anarchists: Self explanatory; for anarchists who at some point came to reject anarchist philosophy. I know of a few right now, so I doubt this section will ever grow large.

Combatants: for anarchists who are known for militant acts, including fighters in revolutions, or propaganda by the deed types, either as assassins or other forms of criminals (such as robbers, like the Guillotine Society or Marius Jacob).

Are there any suggestions for these sections, or opposition to their creation? I feel Combatants isn't the best name, but I can't think of a better one at the moment.--Cast 06:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of anarchists

I can't wait until you make the List of anarchists page. Right now, It redirects to Anarchism. This looks like a good list from what I see on here so far. Good luck and hope to see the article up soon! --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien

"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood to mean abolition of control, not whiskered men with bombs) – or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy." - J. R. R. Tolkien, The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, no. 52, to Christopher Tolkien on 29 November 1943. скоморохъ 08:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

I started up a subsection for him, Religion, because we're adding people according to what they are primarily notable for. But Zhuangzi should then also be placed under that, as he is known in Taoism. And yet, he is a Taoist philosopher. Should we migrate Jesus and future religious figures to what they were professionally known for? In this case, Jesus was a teacher/philosopher.--Cast (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acker, Long and Ward

So after searching through pages of Google results, I was unable to get authoritative citations on Kathy Acker, Dana Ward and Roderick T. Long as anarchists, though all investigate anarchism in their work. Shall we remove them until someone can find a cite? That way we can work on adding images to the list, safe in the knowledge that it is perfectly cited and inching inexorably toward the article namespace. Skomorokh 05:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tragically, do it. We can add them back up as citations are found.--Cast (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This result (no verification via Google) is repeated for dozens of the above listed names; on what basis should they be struck from the working list? Skomorokh 02:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't try to just run by Google. The internet is not the final word on who is and who is not an anarchist, though it is usually pretty authoritative (ha ha, such a clever pun-ster am I!) I have been striking a number which I couldn't find on the internet, but only if I had a fairly good sense before hand that they weren't anarchists. I just let a quick net browse act as the final word, just in case I might be wrong. Sometimes I am, but in a few cases I know a figure might very likely be acknowledged as an anarchist in a book or documentary somewhere. In that case, I just leave up the name for future reference. Just play it by ear, and if all else fails, don't be afraid to delete the name. This exact same list has been mirrored on a few other anarchist-wikis dotting the internet, so we can always refer to them. Further, someone had to add a figure's name to the list to begin with, suggesting that somewhere, someone, had some sense that a given person was a notable anarchist. In the future, with a list with greater maintenance about it, a monitor can quickly follow up an uncited addition and request verification. We don't have to fully confirm each name of the old list before we go live with the new one.--Cast (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Bleed as a possible source

The Daily Bleed has an anarchist encyclopedia here which includes much of our remaining rogues gallery. I suppose it does not meet the reliable source guidelines (at least not for living people), but is it good enough for inclusion here? My intuition is that the Daily Bleed is unlikely to be mistaken, and given that we're already using it as a source for the Portal:Anarchism anniversaries, it might not be such a breach of the spirit of the project to use it here. Skomorokh 04:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using it to search for direct sources. Sometimes it includes information on essays and books written, which I then narrow my search with. Using the Daily Bleed for anniversaries is not a big deal, because the primary sources for any anniversaries would ideally be in a linked article already. The anniversary list is more of a reflection of wikipedia. The Daily Bleed is just handy as a pre-organized set of notes which I've been copying whole so as to save time. Later I will want to go back over them and edit up the text to just the bare information, relying on links to carry the reader to article text that will give actual context. Using it as a direct source for this list is different. It would perhaps be reliable the vast majority of the time, but I've seen a few situations where it is iffy. For example, its listing of Zapata is unreasonable, as Zapata is known to have been influenced by, but never self-identified as, anarchist. Listings like that are understandable, but not reliable. Where would we draw the line?--Cast (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. On that note, I've had the original list of anarchists restored to a subpage here, User:SwitChar/Anarchlist/Original, which has a few links in it that are absent from the list at the top of this page. Skomorokh 09:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to reconsider our approach

I think that, given the level of activity on this page over the last six months, it is unlikely we will have it finished in the next six if we continue in the same manner. Our current approach as I see it is combing through the old list for individuals whose anarchism can be referenced; individuals aere struck from the list either when added or when found to be of another political persuasion. Our current userspace version, aside from its alphabetical bias and obvious incompleteness, is in a far better state—referencing, formatting, organisation—than the majority of lists on Wikipedia. I propose we consider some of the following options:

Move the list to the mainspace, advertise it prominently in Anarchism, {{Anarchism}} and P:AN, and let it grow organically from passing contributors.
Be less stringent in working through the old list:
1. If someone can't be linked with anarchism by a cursory (e.g. 5mins) search for online sources, they should be struck or removed from our list of potentials above.
2. Narrow down the list of potentials to those who already have Wikipedia articles.
3. Similar to the above: abandon our current list of potentials in favour of Category:Anarchists, thus ensuring we focus on notable figures, whose article might contain the references we need.
4. Announce that we will narrow down the list to those we think are anarchists. After a week, any individual a Wikipedia editor does not vouch for gets struck.
Try to marshall extra effort through appealing for editors at WP:ARS, WP:ATF, WP:HD, WP:DRV etc.

[insert your own suggestions here] There is no need for haste, of course, but I do think our current approach is unsustainable and would support an initially conservative combination of some of the above. Thoughts? the skomorokh 13:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm as concerned with this situation as you are, and I also agree that moving this article to it's name space will allow us to rely on an organic growth. I suggest quickly use each of the suggestions you have to move this project ahead rapidly. I recommend first appealing to extra editors immediately, and witnessing their level of involvement over the course of following days. Parallel to this, I will be formatting each name of the list to act as a link. All names to articles should be added to the list ASAP. Following this, we will be left with a large number of names with no articles – implying obscurity – and a few live links to articles which do not provide verification that the subject is an anarchist. At which point, we should implement your second suggestion, that we use very quick, cursory searches for some verification of who the individual is. Simultaneously we must widely ask editors to note if they are aware of any figures we cannot find, and to honestly assert if these figures were anarchists or non-anarchists, and if they were at all notable. --Cast (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the response; I'll put the plan into action in the next few days if I get the chance. the skomorokh 01:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, appeals have been made; let's see if anyone bites. the skomorokh 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are objections, I will now remove all redlinks from out list of potentials above, unless I recognise them as notable. the skomorokh 15:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now hold on, you've only made the appeals a few hours ago. Lets see if anyone else recognizes some of these names. They will be deleted eventually if they are not recognized, so they're as good as gone. Let them be for a few days, measure the degree of participation by other editors, then delete them. For now, let's concentrate on the blue links.--Cast (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean I was going to proceed immediately. No harm in waiting a few days. the skomorokh 17:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks and articles which do not mention anarchism removed. the skomorokh 18:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further extreme measures

Seeing as Switch is amenable, and the editors here aren't active, I think moving this to the mainspace is it's best chance of development. Cast recently added Thoreau and Tucker, which gave me the idea of identifying the most notable omissions from the list and prioritising finding references and descriptions for them. 14:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I second this notion. Zazaban (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, I've only objected to taking the list live out of respect to what I interpreted as SwitChar's preferences. Now that he has stated that he supports taking it live, so do I. I haven't the time at the moment, but if someone else takes it live, I'll help follow through with redirecting all necessary links. Lets hope this new and improved list has a bright future ahead of it in the public eye.--Cast (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time to move?

This article seems fairly well-sourced and of a good size, I'd say it's time to move it into the main space. Zazaban (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After your trigger happy move of Anarchist Terminology, I suppose you would, but I highly recommend that you ask Switchair for permission first. He stated to me in an early correspondence that he wished to completely finish the above list before going live with it, and I would defer to him out of courtesy. --Cast (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's still far from complete, I wouldn't have any objection to moving the list to mainspace at this point. I'm on an unwanted wikibreak at the moment, so feel free to move projects I'm involved in along without me until I can return to more regular editing. Cheers, anarchy and peas. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 23:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Ginsberg

The Alan Ginsberg entry is currently backed up with a very questionable citation. The source is a poem in which the narrative agent self identifies as an anarchist, among other titles, such as "hipster totally apolitical Reichian", at age 19. Now, can one be, for the sake of this list, both an anarchist, and apolitical? Further into the poem, the narrative identifies as "a registered democrat" at age 26. If Ginsberg was an anarchist, surely there must be a better citation than this. --Cast (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]