Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Stub expansion project: almost at our first goal!

(2025/2025)
0 left

We are fast approaching the first major milestone of our stub expansion project, which is to bring the number of stubs down to 20% of our articles. Only ~50 ~30 ~20 ~10 more stubs need expanding, and we'll finally reach that goal! I've been going over some our stubs to try help with this effort, recently what I thought would be a small project to expand our stub on Carlo Cafiero ballooned beyond my expectations due to how interesting I found the subject :P. In order to help focus our efforts, I thought I'd list some biographical stubs that I think are of the highest importance for expansion:

Feel free to adopt any of these for expansion, and to strike or remove them from the list when they have been expanded. I'm sure with a good bit of effort, we could hit this milestone before the end of the year. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Also now might be a good time for us to go through out stub list and nominate for deletion any that we think don't meet general notability guidelines and/or won't ever be expanded beyond a stub. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Or merge, as a preferable alternative to deletion!
For some helpful links to find a stub, see the WP 1.0 list and the Anarchism stubs category. I've added a lot of Anarchism book stubs over the years that I'd like to revisit eventually after current projects.
@Grnrchst, when you expand a stub, would you want to post them here for encouragement? czar 17:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I also suspect there are many "start"-class articles that have yet to be categorized as stubs. czar 01:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
More than likely, aye. We'll just have to properly categorise these as we come across them. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't need encouragement, but I'm happy to post my progress here. The other day I expanded the article on Virginie Barbet, who was a collaborator of Bakunin. It's always interesting to read about the early history of anarchist women. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I meant for others. :) I've destubbed Ramsey Kanaan. czar 00:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I expanded Renée Lamberet a bit from the French, and added Eugène Dieudonné to take her place, since it seems we have a few other members of the Bonnot Gang in this list. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Eugene.Dieudonne
It turns out Eugène Dieudonné acted (as himself) in retellings of his penal colony experiences, which was a fun thing to learn. I think we can all spot the theatre kid hiding inside this moustache. -- asilvering (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Working on Saul Yanovsky, so many quality sources exist and finally added photo of his gravestone that I visited several years ago! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 04:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Commenting so the archive bot doesn't grab this again. Since my last update I have expanded the stubs on Mikhail Sazhin, Lev Mechnikov, José María Leyva, Christiaan Cornelissen, Gustave Lefrançais and José Pellicer Gandía. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Nicely done, all! Special thanks to @Grnrchst, who put in many of the article expansions. Are you going to continue destubbing after the drive?
Shall we set the next milestone to 85% unstubbed? 90%? Something else? And would anyone be into a cleanup drive for May?
czar 15:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Woooo! We did iiiiit! :D I think I'll do some more de-stubbing just to get us safely over the line, so we're not at risk of dropping back down due to new articles or the like. Let's revisit in a couple months for setting a new milestone? Think it would be nice to see a completed milestone on our page for a bit. :) As for cleanup drive, yes, let's do it! --Grnrchst (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


Template:Anarchism US

Do we need this new side nav? I think we already have an overproliferation/overuse of side navigation templates as is. czar 23:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping template creator @Grettoonist czar 23:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Czar, I would like to justify the existence of the sidebar navigation for American anarchism I recently created on the basis of significance of the topic and that it conforms to the standards of Wikipedia:SIDEBAR.
I recognise that the issue of over-proliferation of navigation templates is a contentious topic and there can be differing interpretations over the necessary amount for the sake of concise navigation and what subjects may be considered too niche. Yet on an individual basis, I would argue that there is enough specific information and articles on American anarchism: its own article is one of the most comprehensive articles within anarchism by region (not to mention an entire similarly comprehensive article dedicated to U.S. individualist anarchism), and the amount of articles on American anarchist figures, organisations, history and media are close to that of American liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism and socialism, hence why I intended to model a new template based on their organisation of topics. Though not reaching the same height of influence as the previously mentioned American movements, American anarchism is not a particularly obscure or overly narrow subject compared to fascism, individualism or environmentalism in the U.S. While still interconnected with American libertarianism and socialism, it encompasses many broad topics into one coherent subject which warrants the opportunity for easy navigation into other related articles.
However, to address the concerns of @asilvering, I will concede that during the creation of the template in my sandbox, I was contemplating the necessity of citing such broad schools of thought, and should it be considered appropriate to reduce or remove the section, I would support that. Personally, given how templates like American liberalism and modern liberalism have less schools, only focusing on those most integral and specific to their subjects, I believe that the schools of thought section should include only the most notable schools, mainly individualism, but also black, green, without adjectives, etc. which I would argue have had a significant influence in American anarchism.
I am open to any feedback or counter-arguments, but I currently maintain the existence of the navigation template is reasonable due to fitting the criteria that Wikipedia lays out in Wikipedia:SIDEBAR, including the relevance of the articles, the significance of the subject in question (of which the significance of American anarchism is undeniable given its own history, impact on American history, and the contributions of American figures) and compilation of articles into a coherent subject. Currently, it obviously isn't yet featured in any article as I am aware of, but the resolution of this discussion should hopefully determine that.
Yours sincerely, @Grettoonist (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@Grettoonist, regarding the schools, it might make sense to only link the schools that have individual "in the United States" sections? I haven't checked in on them so I'm not sure if that's workable. -- asilvering (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @User:asilvering, thanks for the response. The only anarchist school of thought with an individual "in the United States" sections is individualist anarchism. Therefore, the most appropriate course of action on that issue would be to remove the schools section altogether and have that U.S. individualist anarchism article in the related topics section. With that, I will wait for @Czar to respond to the discussion and until then, and refrain from moving forth on potentially adding the sidebar to articles related to American anarchism. When a consensus is found, that should decide the outcome.
Yours sincerely, @Grettoonist (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
My case is that there just isn't much that users need to navigate between and that it proposes that a set of articles is "a series on Anarchism in the United States" when we have no such article series. The "Principles" makes that grouping look more universal than it is. Principles (intentionally) aren't mentioned in {{Anarchism sidebar}} either, where they would fit better than the US-specific sidebar. The "History", "People", "Organizations", and "Works" sections also are implying a canon where there isn't any. When the selection is arbitrary, a similar issue from which the main navbox and sidebar suffer, it leads to circular editing where editors add and remove entries because it meets their personal fancy rather than represents some representative selection from the category. Ultimately there is no need for readers to browse between the entries here and if they had such a need, we have existing navboxes that already curate between connected topics. czar 13:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Czar, I would dispute the extent to which American anarchism can be considered disconnected and disjointed. Although the principles within the movement aren't universally practiced or grouped together, that is the case with the other theories of anarchism within the anarchism sidebar, as well as those of other U.S. political movements like socialism, conservatism or libertarianism. For U.S. anarchism, the individualist-collectivist divide on social organisation and decision-making reveal fundamental differences within anarchist perspectives, and this is true across other regions and the general anarchist movement, where the underlying core principle is rejection of unjustifiable hierarchy and the abolition of the state. If the principles section of the sidebar were to be renamed to "theory and practice", I would consider that to be a redundant difference, but would be fine for that to resolve any potential confusion on whether they are all grouped together. That being said, if people aren't generally confused as to the contradicting principles of general anarchism, recognising them to have been conceived from different perspectives all sharing a broad label and philosophy, I don't personally see the problem with the principles section.
On the idea of a lack of canon, I acknowledge American anarchism to not be as interconnected compared to other U.S. political movements due to the nature of decentralisation and the developments of that particular movement. However, given the history of American anarchism, I'd consider it overly simplistic to say that there isn't some extent of tradition and common ground they share, which are on the level of related U.S. political movements. There are key figures of American anarchism, some of which have been particularly noteworthy within anarchist theory and practice, including Noam Chomsky, Dorothy Day, Emma Goldman, etc. There is a history of the movement, to the point that the central article on American anarchism is primarily made up of a history and timeline of the movement and how it has developed through ideology and the corresponding events of U.S. history, all of which informed the making of the history section. Though without a canonical text of the movement, several writings have influenced and justified and explained how the movement has and should develop, and all those that could be found to have come from an influential figure or were highly prominent were those included in the works section. I understand that it can be fallacious to do something just because something else is doing it and is accepted. However, this is the model of which U.S. political movements sidebars organise their topics, and it's a sound system to use, as these are reasonable categorisations of a broad topic. What does this movement believe, who is in it, what their history is, are all questions people would ask, and having individual sections showcasing who they are is the point of sidebars as informative.
The U.S. anarchism sidebar's purpose would be not to challenge already existing sidebars for relevance and which would be more appropriate for use, but rather to compliment the others by offering insight into a more specific subject. As an example, if one were to understand more about the basics of American liberalism and know where to navigate, the liberalism sidebar on its own would be helpful to an extent, but the sidebar specifically for that subject would be better. And this isn't an invitation for niche, overly narrow subjects to get their own sidebars (and quality control holding the legitimacy of a sidebar to account like here is healthy to prevent unnecessary additions to Wikipedia), and anarchism can be connected to both socialism and libertarianism. But beyond the obvious differences they hold, anarchism in the U.S. has a particular history, prominent figures and organisations, notable texts (all of which were selected from prominent articles and other sidebars, compiling them into a comprehensive navigation source) and is related to other subjects that may have their own sidebars.
Yours sincerely, @Grettoonist (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I think the points about what constitutes canon are exactly what I'm trying to sidestep—it's a form of original research for us to be weighing in on that as editors.
My point is more that readers of Most–Grottkau debate and Dorothy Day (to pick two links from the sidebar) aren't looking for info on the McKinley assassination or the Ferrer Center, even if those are relatively larger moments in US anarchist history. Sidebar navs are meant to navigate between highly related articles, which these are not. (The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines.) I can't see an instance in which we'd want to include either this sidebar or the general anarchism one in those linked articles. czar 02:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Czar, I should note that the extent of what I believed constituted the content of American anarchism wasn't rather down to any sources compiling them together as canon, but rather the surface level of what articles were linked to the central topic for the U.S. conservatism, liberalism and socialism templates and what their standards for relevant and noteworthy articles should be featured and where. The general structure of schools of thought (formerly), principles, history, etc. were collectively inspired by those templates and the general one for anarchism.
I should also acknowledge that given the decentralised nature of American anarchism as a historical movement, the extent to which events and subjects will be connected will be by default weaker than the other U.S. political movement templates. However, I would still argue that most of the articles directly or indirectly relates to another across the sections. For example, Dorothy Day's article relates to key principles (particularly found in the beliefs section) like social justice, decentralisation (in opposition to Social Security), class conflict, individualism, mentions historical events like the Haymarket affair and Sacco and Vanzetti, as well as Emma Goldman and the socialist movement. In addition, the Battle of Seattle was directly about anti-globalisation, direct action and environmentalism, while the McKinley assassination is related to the Haymarket affair, a notable event in U.S. anarchist history partly inspiring the assassination, and Goldman, whom Czolgosz was reportedly inspired by. (Note: I understand most of the connecting articles are principles, though I assume that's to be expected.) Whatever specific criteria for how the guideline for articles collected in a sidebar template being fairly tightly related, I would argue that most of the articles are safely connected to one another under the broad aspects of U.S. anarchism. I'm not saying anyone has to necessarily go through all articles in the sidebar and cross-reference them with the rest, but the standards the template follows seems to be sound and consistent with other related templates in my opinion.
That being said, I do concede that because they aren't strongly connected as they could be, I would be okay with either removing certain articles that are less tightly related or substantial, or even the transformation of the template from sidebar to footer, as the project page for sidebars did mention this as an appropriate alternative in case the articles aren't as tightly related: "Navigation templates located in the top-right corner of articles (sometimes called a "sidebar" or "part of a series" template) should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers. The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines. If the articles are not tightly related, a footer template or navbox, located at the bottom of the article, may be more appropriate." I am open to any feedback related to how it should be judged what counts as tightly related articles and if the template falters, or the adequacy of these propositions.
(Note: Apologies for a late reply.)
Yours sincerely, @Grettoonist (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
My point is more that readers of Most–Grottkau debate and Dorothy Day (to pick two links from the sidebar) aren't looking for info on the McKinley assassination or the Ferrer Center I'm actually not so sure about this and I think this might be a delusion we enter into once we start editing the encyclopedia and our reading behaviour changes. I can say that I now basically never use templates for navigation, with the exception of Authority Control, a thing I assume both most readers and most editors of wikipedia completely ignore. However, I remember that I used to use them all the time while browsing out of interest. In fact, I remember reading the anarchism one in particular, and thinking "wow, these are in much better shape than I recall" - this was actually part of what motivated me to join wikipedia as an editor! I've also had friends who don't edit wikipedia but know that I do ask me specific questions about various sidebars/nav templates, so I'm sure I'm not just an odd one out here. (At least, not among people who read encyclopedias for fun.)
On the canon issue, I agree that we want to be skeptical there. We don't want to make something "a thing" when it isn't one, since Wikipedia's prominence almost guarantees that it will become "a thing" if we do. We should try to source lists of, say, related people, to non-wikipedia reference works wherever we can. -- asilvering (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering: But did they contribute to the article? Readers looking to browse between connected topics in anarchism have the the navbox already.
I use templates to navigate all the time, but the sidebar is geared towards random browsing within a category, not towards focused browsing between highly related topics (for instance, Template:American Revolution sidebar and Template:History of the United States sidebar).
My main contention is that the articles being tagged with this new US Anarchism template are not major articles like American Revolution—they're much smaller in scale and impact and now each of them has a blaring sidebar in their top right. czar 16:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I think there's a reasonable case for it, but the broad stuff like "schools of thought" that aren't actually about anarchism in the USA specifically should probably go. Those articles definitely are in enough navigational templates already. -- asilvering (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
The "principles" section too strikes me as something that isn't specific to the US. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Also why is The Ego and Its Own in the works section? It was written by a German who never set foot in the United States. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Grnrchst, apologies for I didn't notice new messages on this section, so I would like to explain the legitimacy of the principles section, as well as including The Ego and Its Own in the works section. First regarding the principles, my two main arguments for retaining the section is that these principles are common with American anarchism, as are the same with other U.S. political movement templates like that of liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism. And that some of these principles directly spawned out of American anarchist theory and praxis. The history of U.S. anarchism shows the influence that direct action, specifically propaganda of the deed has had from within the growing labour movement, directly tied to anarchist communism. The 1999 Seattle WTO protests were caused by the anti-globalization movement that U.S. anarchists often subscribe to, or at least a current of alter-globalization critiquing the capitalist system. The notion of freethought was a significant development in how U.S. anarchism viewed religion and authority, and Freethinker settlements were prominent throughout Texas and Wisconsin. Libertarian socialism informed the beliefs and advocacy of the Libertarian Book Club and League, and there are many more examples. The vast majority of these principles are not unique only to American anarchism, and I can understand disputing the principles section in the sidebar, but obviously not all anarchist movements follow the same patterns, theories and tactics as the rest, so American anarchism have been dominated by these ideas when one looks at the movement's history.
Not to mention how some of these principles did largely or entirely originate from the American anarchist movement. The concept of propaganda of the deed was coined by Johann Most and inspired the attempted assassination of Henry Clay Frick by Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman, the Lexington Avenue explosion, and the Galleanisti attacks like the Preparedness Day Bombing, 1919 bombings and Wall Street bombing, once again interconnected with American anarchist history. Mutualism and mutual aid was first implemented in practice by Josiah Warren, such as the Cincinnati Time Store, one of the earliest attempts at anarchist economics based on Warren's system of labor notes, and would go on to inspire other individualist anarchists in the U.S. like Lysander Spooner and Stephen Pearl Andrews. Murray Bookchin is responsible for communalism and libertarian municipalism. To conclude, I would argue that the principles section of the sidebar reflects the ways in which the movement's history has been influenced by these ideas, and what have certainly turned out very different if such ideas like propaganda of the deed weren't theorised or gained popularity within the U.S., or simply contributed to wider anarchist theory worldwide.
As for The Ego and Its Own, I am aware that Max Stirner is German, and as such that is why I did not include Stirner in the people section, as unlike other anarchists like Goldman who, though not being born or died there, spent much of her life in the U.S., and you are correct in that Stirner never visited the U.S., so it wouldn't make sense for himself to be included. However, The Ego and Its Own had a significant impact on individualist anarchism in the United States, one of the main branches of the movement. Stirner's theory of egoism inspired Benjamin Tucker, one of the most influential anarchists in American history, who spread the ideas in The Ego and Its Own in his periodical Liberty, and it also influenced the theories of Enrico Arrigoni. I also include Stirner's work as significant to the American movement due to Tucker's conflict and split over its ideas with other egoists like James L. Walker and John Beverly Robinson, as well as the support for natural rights from Spooner, a notable example of internal division. Furthermore, it inspired other works of U.S. anarchism like The Abolition of Work by Bob Black, who aimed to synthesise the egoism Stirner proposed in the work with an egalitarian anarchist communism. I do recognise that The Ego and Its Own is not itself American, but the impact it had on American anarchism is strong and undeniable, and that at the end of the day is the subject at question.
Hopefully, this explanation answered your concerns, and if you have any other criticisms or questions about the sidebar, you're perfectly welcome to send them to this talk page or my own, and I will try and get back to you as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely, @Grettoonist (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Small correction: the term "propaganda of the deed" was not coined by Johann Most, it was coined by Carlo Pisacane and it was advocated by Italian anarchists like Cafiero and Malatesta long before Most ever set foot in the US. As for the argument for including Stirner's book, I think this could just as well be made for almost every other major anarchist work that has been translated into English, so I'm not sure why Ego is singled out.
Anyway, I probably shouldn't have involved myself in this discussion, as I'm really not that interested in USian anarchism for the most part. Do what thou will. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Grnrchst, thanks for the correction, I meant that to say that Most expanded on the concept instead of coining it. I still maintain that The Ego and Its Own can be considered a work significant to American anarchism over other non-American anarchist works and how they influenced the U.S. movement. Other works like The Conquest of Bread and Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution certainly would've had some sort of impact, the former of which influencing the Occupy movement. But I would argue that unlike that work, The Ego and Its Own stands out in its impact on the U.S. individualist anarchist movement, creating divisions and influencing theorists and publications. That is a subjective decision however and if someone else were to come and argue that it shouldn't be counted, I wouldn't have much of an issue with that being changed.
That being said, I appreciate the concerns and questions you raised about the template, I myself have been interested in American anarchism and am willing to have the template scrutinised, for I maintain that it is a worthy addition as a sidebar for other articles to encourage engagement on the wider topic.
Thanks, @Grettoonist (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Still seems tangential to me. Personally, if I'm looking at a sidebar about Anarchism in the United States, in the United States is an important part of the descriptor. If you have to explain for paragraphs and paragraphs why a German text should be included, but Russian texts shouldn't, its inclusion is just going to look arbitrary. Do you think Stirner hasn't also been highly influential in other countries too? I really think you should keep inclusion to stuff that is specific to anarchism in the United States. No broadly-applicable principles that could be used anywhere, no stuff from people that never set foot in North America, keep it specific. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Take the socialism US sidebar as an example. Do you see any broadly-applicable principles in there? Do you see any works of Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels? In my mind, this is what a sidebar about a regional anarchist movement should look like; it should be specific to the region, stuff I wouldn't find in any other sidebar. The more scope that different sidebars duplicate, the less reason we have to use them. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I still think the principles section should be removed, by the way. It strikes me as, at best, a duplication of scope from the main Anarchism sidebar; and at worst, a US-centric claiming of these ideas as uniquely American or a product of American thinking. Out of the list, I think there's only a few that are wholly products of American thinking, and two of those are just redirects to the article on Murray Bookchin. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

On navboxes/sidebars

Following on from the above discussion on the US anarchism sidebar, I've been thinking a lot about what asilvering said about navigation boxes. I'll confess that I have also become more agnostic towards them, the longer I've spent editing Wikipedia. In particular, I've found that they are magnets for scope creep, as some users indiscriminately throw everything but the kitchen sink into them. But I also agree completely that they are incredibly useful for making intra-subject navigation more accessible for readers. I've also (anecdotally) noticed that newer users tend to gravitate towards them.

I think there must be a middle ground somewhere between accessibility and scope creep, so I was hoping we could have a wider discussion about the templates covered by our project. How do you think these could be improved? --Grnrchst (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, this reminds me that I messed around a bit with the main anarchism sidebar a ways back and never got around to pushing the change back out. I don't even know if I finished what I'd been planning to try. That version is here.
That's a good point about newer users. I wonder if that actually contributes to longstanding editors' ambivalence towards the nav templates in general. -- asilvering (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering: I'd give that another look before pushing the change, as I've noticed this version redlinks to deleted articles, links to redirects like "left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks" and uses deprecated terms like "Free Territory".
In any case, the above discussion has gotten me thinking about maybe creating some more templates in the future. I recently created for a sidebar for the Makhnovshchina, which probably needs a companion navbox. I was thinking it may be a good idea to create one about the CNT-FAI as well. Or maybe if the "Anarchism in the US" sidebar finds a stable niche, we could create similar ones for other regional movements as well? Just some thoughts. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it's something like two years old at this point. I think I'll just G7 it since I can't recall what my motivations were or if I'd finished making the changes.
Re "anarchism in..." sidebars, imo a navbox is better, since I expect a lot of relevant articles would be in many different groupings. It's easy to stack a bunch of navboxes at the bottom of an article without making things unwieldy, but a sidebar takes up a lot of space. I think they're best used for cases like your Makhnovshchina, where they're a closely related set of articles that would otherwise be pretty obscure, aside from a few more prominent articles (eg Nestor Makhno). -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I unfortunately see very little value from side navs. They take up prime real estate and, as stated above, have endless scope creep because they define a group or canon that has no basis in sourcing. We already have navboxes (at the bottom of the page) for specific/defined article groupings and that, alongside regular blue links in each article, covers basic navigational needs. Politics articles on Wikipedia are really the only topics that tolerate these side navs and I would be in favor of deprecating all of them. czar 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red's Central and Eastern Europe edit-a-thon

Hey everyone. This month, Women in Red is doing a geofocused edit-a-thon about women from Central and Eastern Europe. We have no shortage of women from this region in our redlist, so if you fancy creating some articles for this event, consider some of these ones:

Belarus
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czechia
Germany
Greece
Poland
Russia
Serbia
Switzerland
Ukraine

I'd be happy to take a look at the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian entries, and maybe a couple of the Bulgarian ones. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Wikociewie: I notice you've been creating a lot of articles about Polish anarchists lately, excellent work on that by the way! Would you be interested in helping create articles about any of the above-listed Polish women? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@Grnrchst:. Thank you for the feedback! Yes, I think I could have a go at a couple of these.Wikociewie (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to anyone reading this that if you're translating from another language wikipedia, you need to attribute the translation in an edit summary. If you're using the translation widget (WP:CXT), it will do this for you. Otherwise, see WP:HOWTRANS for a statement you can copy.
Also a sad reminder that you should always, always check for copyvio first. Copyvio is often accidentally laundered by translation, and it's a real bummer to figure this out when you do a source check after having already translated the article. I've been burned by this twice because I didn't learn my lesson the first time; I just had to CSD a huge article that was recently translated by an en-wiki editor since the original fr-wiki editor added copyvio years and years ago and it was never caught. You can use earwig to catch the obvious stuff - just make sure to set the language correctly (it defaults to English). -- asilvering (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Roll call?

Hi everyone. It feels like this noticeboard has never been as active as it has been these past few months, with collective drives to cleanup articles, expand stub and create new articles, as well as discussions on other parts of the project. But it's also worth noting that, while discussion is active, it's limited to only a few of us. This is in contrast to the dozens of people in our participants list and who have identified themselves as members with userboxes. I was wondering if, in light of more recent collective action, it would be useful for us to do a roll call of participants. Maybe either a mass ping of listed participants or dedicated talk page messages asking if they would be interested in more closely collaborative participation? --Grnrchst (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favor of sending a one-time message to editors on that participants list and to those who have received a welcome/invite message about this noticeboard. They might not know about recent activity and would want to join in. My suggestion would be that we deprecate the "Participants" list afterwards, as it quickly goes out of date and doesn't necessarily indicate activity. (There used to be a bot that would create an active participant list but it's dead.) Instead, we can create an opt-in mailing list for those who want updates about coordinated efforts, like edit drives or newsletters related to the project. I'll create Wikipedia:WikiProject Anarchism/Subscribe if that sounds good. czar 13:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
@czar, do you know anything about why it's dead? I guess what I'm wondering here is whether it's something broken that will take a lot of work to fix, or whether it needs someone to adopt it and perform some comparatively minor fixes. Sorry if I've asked before. I have a feeling I did but can't remember the answer. -- asilvering (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering, the bot's maintainer, @Harej, hasn't answered questions about it in a while. My understanding is that there was some funding for the Wikipedia:WikiProject X initiative and eventually it was mothballed. It's a shame because this bot was one of the more generally useful features and ultimately had little to do with the WikiProject X features. In any event, maintaining a mailing list is, to my eyes, even more generally useful than a participant list. czar 03:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I've sent out a talk page message to users in the members list/category that haven't been recent participants either in the subject area or in the project. For people that have been active in the subject area, but not on the noticeboard or the project's collective efforts, I've sent a more personalised message. Also, I left off regular participants on the message board, for obvious reasons. In the category, I ended up doing some cleanup, as almost half of the users were inactive, some for over a decade, some had even been blocked.
Am hoping the messages stimulate some additional activity, but at the very least, it's nice to be able to inform people about what we've been doing. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! It's a nice message. Inactive (unblocked) users might still be worth contacting even if they don't participate often, as sometimes they come back. czar 21:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I could conduct an interview. I probably need till June or July, but here is a template with some questions to get started.
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anarchism/signpost_2024
Coordinate some basic information into this, and then I will come up with some more targeted questions. When we have some content then I will bring this into Signpost's editorial process. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll see if I can get around to answering some of these soon. I've got a busy week ahead. Thanks for doing this Lane! --Grnrchst (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

My citogenesis report

So after probably too long of this sitting in my drafts, I finally managed to put together a report on the "Free Territory" citogenesis incident and The Commoner agreed to publish it. A lot of this is old news on here, but if you're interested in reading: "We Carry a Free Territory in Our Hearts" --Grnrchst (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Very, very interesting summary. I noted the problems with the Makhno movement's flag before, but I didn't realize that even the term free territory itself was anachronistic. Nice work, Grnrchst! ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 13:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Great story! Very readable. czar 14:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I actually already knew about the most widely-known flag being technically incorrect and the name "Free Territory" originating from Wikipedia, but I didn't realize that it was that transient as a political area. Iostn (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes same lostn! I assumed the zone Makhno's forces controlled lasted for longer. Nice one Grnrchst, I stumbled across the article on patreon and was like hang on a minute this must be you know who! I wasn't sure if you wanted it linked to your wiki identity or not (even if it would be fairly easy to connect) but since you've let the cat out of the bag already that's ok :) Mujinga (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh! Which patreon was it? The Commoner's or a different one? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah the commoner! Which I must've randomly joined by searching for anarchism or somesuch. I just joined patreon to follow a podcast about the neolithic age which i really like and hadn't realised went paywalled a year ago. Mujinga (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Developing Countries WikiContest

Hi everyone. Next week marks the beginning of the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest, which is dedicated to improving articles about the Global South. Articles focused on Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe account for roughly one quarter of our project. If you fancy taking on some articles for improvement during this event, feel free to spool through our categories covering Africa, Asia and South America, as well as relevant parts of Europe and North America. We also have some vital articles from these regions that still need improving, so if you fancy taking those on, they are:

I don't know how much I'll be able to participate, as I'm feeling quite burned out at the moment, but I think this would be an excellent opportunity for us to expand our geographical focus. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Fictional anarchists

The List of fictional anarchists doesn't currently meet the list notability criteria, namely that there isn't sourcing that covers this group as a list. It's more of a collection of original research and primary sources that would be sufficiently handled as a category (if there are enough notable fictional anarchists). Wanted to see if anyone else had sources or thoughts before sending it to AfD or merger. czar 16:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think categories are probably the way to go in general, but I think there probably is coverage of individual parts of that list - eg there's a whole special issue on anarchists and comics here. -- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I could see a potential article about anarchism in fiction based on sources like that but not a list of fictional anarchists. czar 14:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
We already have Anarchism and the arts, which is a bit broader in scope. gobonobo + c 01:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Too broad, I think, and properly it should be about the interaction between arts and anarchism (ie, Anarchism AND arts), not simply characters who are anarchists, or storylines that are about anarchism (ie, Anarchism IN arts). -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to !vote keep if that list were nominated for deletion. Per WP:CLN, per academic sources that consider the evolving representation of anarchists across works of fiction (and list them [1], [2], [3]), or per WP:IAR. Aside from a strict reading of NLIST, is there a reason this should be deleted? We have plenty of crufty listicles on wiki that ought to be memory holed, but this list doesn't strike me as egregious. gobonobo + c 01:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not that it's the most egregious but it's been tagged for cleanup and sourced to primary or unreliable sources so we should figure out its prognosis. I think the sources you cite make a case for an article on how anarchism appears in fiction but not necessarily fictional anarchist characters as a group or class, unless you're seeing something I'm not. czar 14:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I see that you tagged it for cleanup. And there are primary sources in the article that could be addressed/replaced, but the majority of the references are reliable, citing books for the most part. As to NLIST criteria and the characterization of my sources, I beg to differ. The first source,
  • Shpayer-Makov, Haia (September 1996). "A traitor to his class: the anarchist in British fiction". Journal of European Studies. 26 (3): 299–325. doi:10.1177/004724419602600303.
is explicitly about anarchists in British fiction, not anarchy in fiction. The paper goes on for 26 pages about the anarchist character in British fiction, exploring specific instances, and treating them as a class. The second, Against Anarchy, also explores anarchist characters as a class in several places, discussing, for example, their association with a set of clichés, preconceptions, and stereotypes in early modernist fiction. gobonobo + c 15:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Having looked into this some more and taken some more time reading the individual list entries, I think I would also be inclined to vote keep in an AfD. At the same time, I don't think this is a particularly useful list article, nor do I think it could become a particularly useful article. Part of the trouble is that there are some works that are entirely about a group of anarchists, so you end up with effectively no reason to exclude any character from The Anarchist Cookbook (film), which starts to become a bit ridiculous. I also see that the characters in each medium really are dealt with in very different ways, so I'm unconvinced that a hypothetical FL-level version of this list would hold together. More reasonable, I think, would be List of anarchists in television, List of anarchists in comics, etc. (Or just Anarchists in television, Anarchists in comics.)
Which is to say, I think we can reasonably remove the notability tag and leave "making this into a better article" as a building-the-encyclopedia project, not an urgent maintenance task. -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Anarcho-monarchism

This new article needs some attention, if someone has time to review the sources for reliability and depth (describing this concept in more than passing mentions). czar 11:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Czar: After looking at the sources, I've started a deletion discussion. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Recent death: James C. Scott

I missed it in WP:ITN but James C. Scott died a week ago czar 03:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Seeing Like a State could really use some work... -- asilvering (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Grass Roots Books

Requesting assistance finding reliable sources and determining notability for Grass Roots Books, a radical UK bookshop. Discussion here: Talk:Grass Roots Books#Source verification czar 13:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Zapatistas within scope?

I was thinking about @Grnrchst's comment from a few months ago—The Zapatistas aren't anarchists and it's frankly offensive to continue claiming them as such. —and was wondering: Should our project still continue the Zapatista articles in scope or remove the {{WikiProject Anarchism}} banner from them?

They've been historically "claimed" by anarchists in some way, but it hasn't fully borne out in the sourcing. I think of the autonomist movement as being in similar associative circumstances. czar 17:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think they're relevant to the scope of the WikiProject, I just don't think we should be labelling them as "anarchists" in Wikivoice. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Batman: Anarky

Batman: Anarky has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:AND

I've been thinking for a while about our series of "Anarchism and..." articles and how we could rework them. I was motivated to raise a discussion about this after @Czar unilaterally merged the article on propaganda of the deed, a very well-defined topic, into the article on anarchism and violence, which always seemed synthetic in scope (it shoves together unrelated text about propaganda of the deed, anarcho-pacifism and random anarchist views on violence, with no clear structure). Per WP:AND, we are supposed to be exercising caution when using "and" titles, yet we have several:

This makes anarchism rather unique in terms of "and" articles, as most ideologies have few if any. Fascism only has one (Fascism and ideology), socialism only has one (Socialism and LGBT rights), communism only has one (Communism and LGBT rights), Marxism only has two (Marxism and religion; Marxism and Keynesian economics), etc.

Looking at our "anarchism and..." articles, they all seem very randomly cobbled together, with no rhyme or reason to their structure. Their scope is almost inherently broken from the outset, as the "and" opens the door for literally any passing anarchist views on a subject to be inserted in, rather than focusing on sources specifically about anarchism's connection to a certain subject. It could even be argued that it messes with neutrality.

So I wanted to bring up a discussion about these articles. What can we do about them? Are there possible improvements that could be made to them? Should we retitle them to something more well-defined? Or should some of them be deleted or merged/redirected to other articles? From my view, the only one of these I know I'd vote keep on is "anarchism and education", as I know of several sources specifically about it (although it might be better titled "Anarchist education" or something). --Grnrchst (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gobonobo and Asilvering: Pinging you two, as I notice you have discussed the "anarchism and the arts" article above. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I think most of these would survive a deletion discussion because they're topics that are frequently discussed in relation with anarchism. I see them as summary style splits from the anarchism and former issues in anarchism overview topics. Though they might need some work to get in line with how summary style should work, it doesn't warrant deletion. This said, some of these can definitely be further paraphrased and/or merged since they were written and are mostly unchanged from a bygone era of Wikipedia. Personally, I always figured we'd get to these after repairing the main ideology and country articles. Happy to discuss any of these in isolation, which I believe would be most productive. czar 13:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm with czar here. It's a bit funny to me that these stand out as "suspect" topics on wikipedia, since these are, well, exactly the kind of topics you'd expect to see in an actual print encyclopedia! Of course, actual print encyclopedias tend to be written by expert contributors under the aegis of an editorial board, so there's that. I hear you, Grnrchst, about opens the door for literally any passing anarchist views on a subject to be inserted in - but I don't think this is much different from how every article used to have "in pop culture" shoved into the bottom. That is to say, I think that kind of cruft is just an artifact of how wikipedia is a work in progress, and the cure is simply to write a better article. Easier said than done but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
imo, Anarchism and religion is particularly underdeveloped. We might want to break it into that and an Anarchism and atheism article (maybe renaming the first Religious anarchism or something, which I see we currently have as a redirect). At least for me, working with various Paris Commune articles, I've really noticed the lack of context on why these anarchists were so fervently anti-religious. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
These are all good points, I'll put a pin in this for now. Thanks for the responses :) --Grnrchst (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup drive

edit this section

Here is the full list of anarchism articles in need of cleanup. Below is a subset for focus during the cleanup drive. Strike out completed items with {{s}} and we'll add more sections as we go.

finished

Biographies of living persons (10)

These articles have any cleanup tag but are high priority because we hold biographies on living people to a higher standard

Unsourced passages need footnotes {{citation needed}} (69)

Search for the passages tagged with {{citation needed}} and either (a) add a source and remove the tag, or (b) remove the passage and the tag if it cannot be verified

Factual verification needed (12)

Search for the passages tagged with {{verify source}} or {{vn}}, which indicate that another editor has requested that our article content is verifiable in the citation. If verified, say so in your edit summary and remove the tag. If not verified, either bring the discrepancy to the talk page or resolve the discrepancy yourself by rephrasing or removing content.

Cites unreliable sources (26)

Search for the passages tagged with {{Better source}}, {{Obsolete source}}, {{Primary sources}}, {{Unreliable sources}}, {{Verify credibility}}, {{Third-party}}, {{Third-party-inline}}, or {{Circular reference}}. This could be, for instance, a primary source affiliated with an anarchist movement or a reference without editorial distance from the subject. Either (a) replace with a reliable, secondary, independent source and remove the tag, or (b) remove the passage and the tag if no reliable reference exists.
Shortcut

Our cleanup backlog has grown since the last drive, so thought we could kickoff another push for the month of May. There are currently 228 articles tagged in total with 386 tagged issues. Can we get it down to zero?

For a place to start, I thought biographies of living people (BLPs) and articles in need of citations would be good. To cross off finished items from the list, there is a link above to edit the section (so as not to bother watchers of this page). Open to any other ideas here as well to make it interesting. Perhaps we should set up a mailing list for editors who have participated in the project previously?

If this is your first time participating in a cleanup drive on Wikipedia, (1) you're invited to be bold and try your best to resolve cleanup issues, and (2) if you have any questions or need a hand, please respond below and someone will help! czar 14:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Oof, there is a lot of work to do on some of these articles. Some should be simple enough to fix but damn, others have much deeper problems that I'm not sure simply addressing the CN tags will solve. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Addressing the {{citation needed}} tags is enough to remove it from this list but if an article needs more support, feel free to bring it to discussion so others can chip in too. czar 03:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, we can't fix everything all at once. It's a work in progress. As much as I'd like to fix everything everywhere, as long as we don't have falsehoods or policy violations hanging around... it's ok that some things are a bit crap. -- asilvering (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Czar: Hey, we seem to have gone way over the limit of templates on one page, which I think has come down to both the cleanup drive transclusion and the recent literature transclusion having introduced a lot more than the page can handle. I manually archived a section and removed a bunch of templates from another, but this problem still persists. I think we may need to consider that striking every resolved entry, rather than simply removing it from the list, is causing problems of its own. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok no, after doing a bunch of archivals and changes, then just fiddling around with removing random hings, I identified the newly-added "Recent stubs" template as the source of the problem. I have temporarily removed it, just so the entire page doesn't break. We need to figure out what went wrong with it before we add it back in. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a backlog drive for sourcing unsourced statements starting tomorrow, which can be a good reason for finishing our above {{citation needed}} list. :)
Also nice work on sourcing List of self-managed social centers, @Graveyardpansy! czar 11:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Ooh we're close to finishing this one off! Don't know how much time I can spend on this area this month, as my attentions are focused on the Women in Green edit-a-thon, but I hope we'll be able to address these last few before the end of the unsourced statements drive. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your citations on Ungdomshuset, @Replayful! czar 12:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
No problem, I just thought I could help since I know Danish and could get Danish sources. There's still room for improvement in the article :) //Replayful (talk | contribs) 14:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Just finished the last few articles needing citations and/or footnotes. I'll let the cleanup listing reset this week and add some new targets. I think this week will be a big drop in cleanup issue count and we're already halfway (54%) to goal. czar 00:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We're two thirds (67%) of our way to goal! New cleanup tags added for your consideration above: Factual verification needed and Unreliable source cited. Take a peek and if you struggle with any article, bring it here for discussion as you're likely not alone. czar 04:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This has unfortunately resulted in quite a few articles being stubbified, which has reversed some of the progress we made with the stub expansion drive. So if anyone has the time and energy to expand some of these stubs, that'd be appreciated. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

We're 85% to goal! Very close to a historical low number of cleanup tasks (56 remain and low is 53, from the 2019 drive). I'll pick up some expansions again once we're down to zero. The way I see it, those articles were stubs but just weren't classified correctly, beneath the cleanup tags and unverified material. czar 12:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Down to just a handful now! czar 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Seeing those articles as already stubs is a good way of looking at it. Amazing to see the cleanup backlog down so low! There's only a dozen or so left, which has put it down to a fraction of a percentage point! Excellent work on getting through this, to you and everyone else involved. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Challenges

There are a few cleanups that look particularly challenging and I thought I'd list them here for consideration separate from the list above, in case someone is interested in a meatier project. czar 16:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

resolved

Asterisks for discussions that still have further possible follow-up/expansion despite the cleanup being addressed

100%

(386/386)

🎊🎊 100%! We're officially at zero cleanup items—the first time in three cleanup drives since 2017, with over 2200 issues addressed. Since 2017, our scope has tripled to nearly 3000 articles on the strength of new translations, new articles, and revisiting and retagging decades-old articles up to today's standards. Some of these final cleanup items were pretty dense challenges looming for over seven years. Congrats to all contributors and looking forward to the next community drive. czar 17:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Viscaaaa! Amazing work everyone. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Huzzah! Congrats to everyone who's been banging away at this for months and months. I hope I am finally forgiven for adding all those anarchist biographies a few years back, haha. -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Timelines on country articles

Do we need Timeline sections on the "anarchism in X country" articles? Since they were added to a few lately (for example) I figured we should discuss before continuing. I'm of two minds: Since they should be sourced to remain in the article, I think they're largely duplicative of what is already in the article. I can see the argument that it's a useful navigational aid, but I'd sooner see that as a sidebar in the related section than rehashing all of the events in the article. I think they make the most sense when the dates can otherwise span multiple articles, like Timeline of the Spanish Civil War or Chronology of the Paris Commune. Courtesy ping @AnarchistHistory czar 22:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

First I'd like to say that I am not a big fan of the timelines, even the ones I've made. If there is a better alternative I am in favour of it.
However, my issue is that there is a lot of information about anarchism across Wikipedia that cannot be easily accessed from a central place. So I think if the timelines were to be deleted and those bits of information were slowly added that could be good. AnarchistHistory (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
@AnarchistHistory: In terms of a centralised place for links to other articles, we have the Outline of anarchism, the anarchism sidebar, anarchism bottombar and the Anarchism Portal. Are these along the lines of what you're looking for? Would you be interested in expanding and maintaining any of these? --Grnrchst (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Those are very interesting - I wasn't aware of how good Outline of anarchism in particular is. Since you are both more experienced editors of Wikipedia I will defer to your judgement. I will probably do some work on Outline of anarchism soon. AnarchistHistory (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
If your aim is to improve navigability, which I think is a very important and valuable task to take on, then the outline and our various sidebars and bottombars are the way to go. I look forward to seeing the improvements you have in store for it! --Grnrchst (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
By the way, I'd recommend reading the Manual of Style on Lists as well. It may prove helpful for developing the outline. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Believe it or not, the anarchism portal has 2k views/month. That's not huge compared to many articles, but it's miles and miles ahead of the views by page watchers (which is... 9. not a typo). -- asilvering (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I had no idea the portal was that popular! Maybe we should do a wee drive to improve it then, because from the looks of it, it's definitely in need of some TLC. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Now that AH has explained their reasoning for including them is for navigability, I'm definitely questioning their inclusion more. So many of them seem to just be repeating information that's already in the article, which makes me question why they're needed at all (wouldn't this just make timelines a "see again" section?). Sometimes they introduce new information, but then I'm left wondering why that info hasn't been incorporated into the prose rather than shoved into an undetailed list. Also citations are completely absent from many entries in many of the lists, which carries its own set of problems.
We definitely could be taking more steps to improve navigability and simplify our presentation of information, but I don't think timelines in pre-existing regional history articles are the way to go about it. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Do you think we might do well to break out the timeline from Outline of anarchism into a separate Timeline of anarchist history? -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I think if the timeline grows long enough it'd be worth doing a content fork, ditto for the other sections in the outline. We'll see how AH's work on it goes :) --Grnrchst (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm done with the timeline, but that's only because I'm not including events that I don't think are significant enough to warrant inclusion. If we were to include every time a major book was published or an anarchists was assassinated or executed... I'd be happy to do that but I feel like it could clutter that Outline of anarchism too much. AnarchistHistory (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
That's good to hear you're being selective! Don't worry about adding things you think aren't vital to know about, we don't want this to be an indiscriminate collection of information, just the most important events. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, ideally (imo) a timeline should only contain items that are parts of a larger narrative. That is, it should be reasonably apparent to a reader that the items link to each other in some way, which is a higher bar than simply assembling items that are about similar things or could be categorized in similar ways. They don't need to be so directly linked that each entry follows directly to the next (ie, "this happened, and so this happened"), but you'd want them to be related enough that you could write a narrative paragraph (or paragraphs) that included all of them without having to reach too far. -- asilvering (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've removed them. Feel free to restore the text from the article history as non-list prose where there are reliable secondary sources.
I think the best example of a timeline article on Wikipedia is likely Timeline of the far future. If there is a useful way to display the timeline events, perhaps in a multicolumn format (I'm thinking of a bibliography article on I can't remember), it could be worth splitting the timeline from the outline. For now, the outline article is likely sufficient. czar 22:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent literature (2024 Q1/Q2)

For not-as-recent lit, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Anarchism/Recent literature

New thread for 2024 and anything we've previously missed. Feel free to add! czar 03:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Books

  • Johnson, Steven (May 14, 2024). The Infernal Machine: A True Story of Dynamite, Terror, and the Rise of the Modern Detective. New York: Crown. ISBN 978-0-593-44395-8.

Articles

Book/film reviews

Journals

Special issues

czar 03:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Anarky

I have nominated Anarky for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The Murder of Björn Söderberg contains no interlanguage links to the Swedish language https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rn_S%C3%B6derberg

I tried to do this but get error messages and I'm afraid my knowledge of the more technical aspects of Wikipedia is pretty limited AnarchistHistory (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@AnarchistHistory: This comes down to Wikidata categorisation. en-wiki's "Murder of Björn Söderberg" is categorised as an event, while the other wiki's "Björn Söderberg" articles are categorised separately as biographies, so they each have different separate wikidata entries. It does seem a little silly on the encyclopedia's end not to have these linked, but wikidata can be fickle about these things sometimes. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
This is strange. It should be possible to add it to the redirect - I recall a relatively recent discussion about that. -- asilvering (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I sorted that out from the other direction (Swedish to English). Edit here. This could be fixed in the English-to-Swedish direction by creating a redirect page on sv-wiki called "Murder of Björn Söderberg" (but in Swedish) and doing the same type of edit, but since my Swedish knowledge is barely more than zero I'll leave that for someone else. -- asilvering (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
wikidata:Wikidata:Sitelinks to redirects is the Wikidata guidance on when and how to add an enwiki redirect as a sitelink on a Wikidata entry. What asilvering did and suggests sounds right but I've also seen Wikidata entries (perhaps mistakenly) just link the event as a sitelink under the biography's Wikidata entry. czar 12:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd say linking the event is a mistake these days, since it throws a bit of a wrench into the metadata. Wikidata metadata gets picked up everywhere, so we should be avoiding cludgy fixes where we can. This ability to add redirects to wikidata items is pretty new, so I'm sure there are loads and loads of articles out there still dependent on the cludgy version. -- asilvering (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting it asilvering! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Women in Green's 7th edit-a-thon

Hey all. Next month, October 2024, Women in Green is hosting the second edition of our Around the World in 31 Days edit-a-thon. The aim is to write and review good articles about women from at least 31 different countries. In case anyone else here is interested, I thought I'd repost another list of anarchist women from around the world, this time based on the highest number of interwiki links:

If you fancy improving one of these articles, or even some others, I hope you take the opportunity to do so. You'll be able to find me coordinating the edit-a-thon and can ask any questions you have over at the event talk page. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Spanish anarchists

This category might need some TLC but I wanted to ask around. Some thoughts:

  1. Remove Spanish anarcho-syndicalists and put everything in Spanish anarchists?
  2. Rename Anarchists from Catalonia to Catalan anarchists?
  3. Remove anarchists from the CNT members category, leaving the CNT members category for people not identified as anarchists who were in the CNT? Similar to how the FAUD in German anarchists and USI in Italian anarchists works.
  4. Potentially add a new category for Basque anarchists?

Link: Category:Spanish anarchists AnarchistHistory (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  1. This category definitely seems redundant. With the exception of Farga i Pellicer and Saperas Mirò, all the entries were members of the CNT. Feel free to submit it as a category for discussion.
  2. See Category:Politicians from Catalonia; the "from Catalonia" thing is standardised as Catalonia is not (yet) a sovereign state.
  3. I would oppose this, the CNT was an enormous organisation (and is still pretty big!) and its membership is independently notable as a category.
  4. I'd go further and say we should have categories for each of the autonomous communities of Spain, following the lead of the Spanish Wikipedia's categories. This would help with the overlap between the Spanish anarchists and CNT members categories, as we could better sort between anarchists of different regions.
--Grnrchst (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
For #3, this strikes me as more likely to be a problem with the Germany/FAUD and Italian/USI categories than with Spanish/CNT. -- asilvering (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
@AnarchistHistory: Hey I see you've created the category for Basque anarchists, would you be interested in making categories for the other nationalities of Spain as well? --Grnrchst (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
My only issue is that nationalities outside of Catalan and Basque are generally not mentioned in the specific biographies of Spanish anarchists. AnarchistHistory (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
@AnarchistHistory: I'd be interested to know what sources you're looking at, as it's quite common to find references for other nationalities. E.g. Joaquín Ascaso as Aragonese;[4] José Pellicer Gandía as Valencian;[5] Francisco Jordán as Andalusian;[6] and Secundino Delgado as Canarian.[7] I understand that the Catalans and Basques are the best known nationalities outside of Spain, but I don't think it's the case that other nationalities aren't mentioned. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
This might just be my own ignorance of Spain's nationalities then. I can begin work :)
Following up on Category: Spanish anarcho-syndicalists, I have no idea how to submit it as a category of discussion. AnarchistHistory (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@AnarchistHistory: I've opened a merge discussion. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Stub expansion project update

Following the changes during the cleanup drive, we are almost back to our goal of <20% of articles being stubs. I thought I'd take the moment to draw attention to some of our most popular stubs, which receive many daily average pageviews (DAPV) and as such would benefit the most from expansion:

If you fancy taking any of these on for improvement, please do. Even a little bit of tlc can go a long way. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Recategorized some miscategorized stubs and we're back at goal :) czar 14:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Small anarchist movements in Asian countries

As it currently stands, the List of anarchist movements by region links to about 90 articles covering anarchist movements by various regions. In the course of my research about anarchism I have found information on Asian anarchist movements in many places that exist outside of the listed places that are too small (in my opinion) to warrant their own article but in my opinion should still should have some kind of mention. This is already done in the Anarchism in Africa, which covers smaller anarchist movements that only have a couple of sources (Angola, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique and so on).

The main country I have in mind for the moment is Lebanon. Which there is evidence for a limited anarchist movement in.

So I can see 4 possibilities

  1. Create an article titled "Anarchism in Asia" - which I have experimented with in draftspace
  2. Overhaul List of anarchist movements by region to include specific information about anarchist movements in each country
  3. Do both of the above
  4. Do not do any of the above

What are peoples thoughts? AnarchistHistory (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess my question would be is whether there is enough information out there about these smaller movements to justify such a macro-article. The Anarchism in Africa article manages to put together at least a single decent-sized paragraph for each of its regions listed; is there enough out there for minor Asian movements to have multiple sections with at least one paragraph of information?
Also, while there have been books and articles written about anarchism from a pan-African perspective, I don't think I've come across many written from a pan-Asian perspective. Usually works on Asian anarchisms are more focused on specific regions (south Asia, east Asia, etc.) rather than the Asian continent as a whole. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Hellos AnarchistHistory :) Grnrchst raises a good point about pan-African anarchism vs pan-Asian activism, but I would still say it's better to make an overview Anarchism in Asia then spin-off individual countries, than to start with regions. There would seem to be enough to make an article sized contribution, since just off the top of my head I can think about movements in South Korea and Indonesia. I took a peek at your draft AnarchistHistory, since anyone can view it. I see parallels with some of my Squatting in X drafts such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Squatting/Draft/Squatting_in_Asia, but I'm not sure if it makes sense to go live with a header for each country. Perhaps it's better to start like that then pull the countries together for which info exists into broader areas, which I have started to do topdown at Squatting, with the vague objective to then get to continental pages Squatting in North America feeding on to individual countries, of which quite a lot now exist (ever wondered about Squatting in Vanuatu? well, luckily wikipedia has an article on that). It's an interesting question how to expand articles, I don't think there's any one "right" way here. Certainly in terms of countering systemic bias any work on anarchisms in Asia is to be appreciated. Mujinga (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
@Grnrchst then I can see the perspective against an "Anarchism in Asia" article, but what about reworking "List of anarchist movements by region" to include summaries of anarchist movements? AnarchistHistory (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
If it's including summaries, would it still be a list and not a prose article? --Grnrchst (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Housing and Tenant Rights is live!

Hello! I've set up a new WikiProject, Housing and Tenant Rights :)

I'm adding a message here since it could be of interest to your group.

If you are please feel free to add your name to the page, we already have a couple who have joined. The main focus will be covering tenant strikes, tenants unions, tenants rights, and more. Documenting the history of land ownership and tenant advocacy. Thanks! - LoomCreek (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anarchism/Archive_8&oldid=1266123533"