Talk:History of anarchism/Archive 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

We have two sections on the origins of anarchism
'Pre-anarchism' and 'precursors to anarchism', ought to be merged. Zazaban (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, yes, they should. That is a chore.  Skomorokh   23:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, and done. Wasn't actually very difficult, most of the stuff from each section did not overlap with the other, thank god. One wonders how in the world that even happened in the first place. Zazaban (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, that's a great start to reform. These major-topic anarchism article have shit merged into them from everywhere.  Skomorokh   23:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Expansion is needed, especially in the 19th century section. I'm pretty sure the main anarchism article has more information on that period than here, which is a problem. I think the 19th and 20th century sections could be subdivided down into periods. Off hand, I can suggest, maybe, 1793(or 1800 if we keep the 18th century section)-1840, 1840-1872, 1872-1895, 1895-1921, 1921-1945, 1945-1978, and 1978-present. But we can't do that until we add a lot more information. Perhaps the early history could also be subdivided into ancient, middle ages, and early modern, but again, it's too soon for that. Zazaban (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My eventual goal is to have this article detailed enough to have articles split off from here, like 'Anarchism in the 19th' century, etc. Zazaban (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How about this: Under 19th century, 1800-1840, 1840-1860, 1860-1880, 1880-1900, and under 20th century, 1900-1920, 1920-1940, 1940-1960 (not sure about this one, nothing happened during this time), 1960-1980, and 1980-2000. Zazaban (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the significance of the divisions? I'd be more inclined use fewer top-level sections (as now) and have subsections within them more topically-orientated. It also might be worth considering moving the "Historical examples of societies successfully organized according to anarchist principles" and "Examples of organizations with anarchist qualities" sections elsewhere (or doing away with them entirely on WP:NOR grounds), so as to keep this as a chronological history.  Skomorokh   19:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kill those sections, they already have their own article over at List of anarchist communities, there's no reason to have them here too. Zazaban (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Anarchism in the 19th century.
This section is just terrible. There is a series of crappy, two sentence paragraphs that need to be expanded. The bit on Stirner is alarmingly brief, for example. I'm going out for dinner, but I'll work on it when I come back. Zazaban (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Anarchism in the 20th century isn't much better, in fact it may be worse. More a third of the whole thing is just on the spanish civil war, more than the entire last sixty years of the century is given. Zazaban (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cut out the oversized section on the civil war. It's not important enough to be given that huge a section in a general history, especially when all of individualist anarchism is given a sentence. My god, individualist anarchism has one measly sentence, and it only mentions Stirner, I will work on that. Wow. Zazaban (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The section certainly needs expansion, particularly in dealing with late 19th century activities and related violence in Europe including the deaths of several state monarchs and leaders. I have a couple of sources  around here somewhere..............71.219.130.34 (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Reference named "almeralia.com": From Anarcho-naturism: "Los anarco-individualistas, G.I.A...Una escisión de la FAI producida en el IX Congreso (Carrara, 1965) se pr odujo cuando un sector de anarquistas de tendencia humanista rechazan la interpretación que ellos juzgan disciplinaria del pacto asociativo clásico, y crean los GIA (Gruppi di Iniziativa Anarchica) . Esta pequeña federación de grupos, hoy nutrida sobre todo de veteranos anarco-individualistas de orientación pacifista, naturista, etcétera defiende la autonomía personal y rechaza a rajatabla toda forma de intervención en los procesos del sistema, como sería por ejemplo el sindicalismo. Su portavoz es L'Internazionale con sede en Ancona. La escisión de los GIA prefiguraba, en sentido contrario, el gran debate que pronto había de comenzar en el seno del movimiento"[http://www.almeralia.com/bicicleta/bicicleta/ciclo/01/17.htm "El movimiento libertario en Italia" by ''Bicicleta. REVISTA DE COMUNICACIONES LIBERTARIAS'' Year 1 No. Noviembre, 1 1977] From Federazione Anarchica Italiana: El movimiento libertario en Italia by Bicicleta: Revista de comunicaciones libertarias 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on History of anarchism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909192326/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-12 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-12
 * Added tag to http://www.theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/The_Anarchist_FAQ_Editorial_Collective__150_years_of_Libertarian.html%5D
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207042220/http://i-studies.com/journal/n/pdf/nsi-17.pdf to http://i-studies.com/journal/n/pdf/nsi-17.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204155505/http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/warren/1stAmAnarch.pdf to http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/warren/1stAmAnarch.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160214200513/http://www.againstallauthority.org/NativeAmericanAnarchism.html to http://www.againstallauthority.org/NativeAmericanAnarchism.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090312022528/http://www.zabalaza.net/theory/txt_anok_comm_ap.htm to http://www.zabalaza.net/theory/txt_anok_comm_ap.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150908072801/http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/illegalistsDougImrie.htm to http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/illegalistsDougImrie.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128191408/http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Giuseppe_Ciancabilla__Against_organization.html to http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Giuseppe_Ciancabilla__Against_organization.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118084649/http://www.odmp.org/officer/3972-patrolman-mathias-j.-degan to http://www.odmp.org/officer/3972-patrolman-mathias-j.-degan
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080115030929/http://www.chicagohistory.org/dramas/act2/act2.htm to http://www.chicagohistory.org/dramas/act2/act2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928002329/http://www.fondation-besnard.org/article.php3?id_article=225 to http://www.fondation-besnard.org/article.php3?id_article=225
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927085715/http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/exhibits/panam/law/images/tragedyatbuff.html to http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/exhibits/panam/law/images/tragedyatbuff.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160102181805/http://www.soliobrera.org/pdefs/cuaderno4.pdf to http://www.soliobrera.org/pdefs/cuaderno4.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225212442/http://ytak.club.fr/natytak.html to http://ytak.club.fr/natytak.html
 * Added tag to http://www.viruseditorial.net/pdf/anarquismo%20individualista.pdf
 * Added tag to http://ita.anarchopedia.org/anarco-individualismolink
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929213939/http://www.educationrevolution.org/aerogramme11.html to http://www.educationrevolution.org/aerogramme11.html
 * Added tag to http://www.br-online.de/bayern/einst-und-jetzt/die-bayerische-revolution-191819-DID1221045814026/muenchner-revolution-erste-raeterepublik-toller-landauer-muehsam-ID1221496411667.xml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101007160139/http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionJ3 to http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionJ3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060219235710/http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/BerneriCamillo.htm to http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/BerneriCamillo.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012054206/http://eljorobado.enlucha.info/bicicleta/bicicleta/ciclo/01/17.htm to http://eljorobado.enlucha.info/bicicleta/bicicleta/ciclo/01/17.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130425145254/http://www.afed.org.uk/organisation/international-iaf-ifa.html to http://afed.org.uk/organisation/international-iaf-ifa.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080317082822/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=4796 to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=4796
 * Added tag to http://www.nodo50.org/juventudeslibertarias/?e=5
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221055341/http://www.nodo50.org/juventudeslibertarias/?e=5 to http://grupobanderanegra.blogspot.com.es/2011/07/lo-que-es-y-no-es-el-19-de-julio_19.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604190343/http://www.nodo50.org/juventudesanarquistas/?e=56 to http://www.nodo50.org/juventudesanarquistas/?e=56

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of anarchism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120625232340/http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/commune.html to http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/commune.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090710222744/http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws98/ws55_louise.html to http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws98/ws55_louise.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106182530/http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libcom.html to http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libcom.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306024016/http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/texts/war/anarFranceWW2.html to http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/texts/war/anarFranceWW2.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120726135313/http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/japchap3.html to http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/japchap3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150828111008/http://www.hommodolars.org/web/spip.php?article2594 to http://www.hommodolars.org/web/spip.php?article2594
 * Added tag to http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/ifa-hist-short.html
 * Added tag to http://www.cnt-ait-fr.org/CNT-AIT/ACCUEIL.html%20Website%20of%20the%20Conf%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration%20Nationale%20du%20Travail%20-%20Association%20Internationale%20des%20Travailleurs

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Rudolf Rocker.jpg

Some issues with the article

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

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


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

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

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

Pateman, Walter, Newell
In the current version, at section "The emergence of anarcho-communism", there are three citations that need more details.
 * 92, Pateman, p. iii.
 * 93, Walter, p. vii.
 * 94 Newell, p. vi.

Can we identify the sources?

"Pateman" must be Barry Pateman. He wrote extensively on anarchism. "Walter" must be Nicholas Walter. He authored 4 books "Newell" must be Peter E. Newell

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

I removed the entire paragraph as there were some other problem concerning references as well.(diff) Anarchism in the States is also discussed in the previous section, so there was a little bit of overlap. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Use WikiBlame to see when a phrase was inserted into the article. Usually with citation text, you'd be able to see whether the editor also added a text to the bibliography, which might have disappeared when the article degraded over time. Alternatively, if the text was summarized or copied from another article, you can find the source citation that way. In the case of Pateman: is duplicated from other articles but none of them include the proper bibliography. (These low-quality, duplicated sections are a recurring problem in our high-level anarchism articles.)  czar  11:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I had already checked wikiblame and it was who added these citations. Eduen authored most of this article and I 've thanked him for doing so. But since he has not been active lately, I didn't ping him earlier on this matter. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Modern Schools
I feel that Modern schools, now discussed in "revolutionary wave" section, do not really belong there. But I cant say where they do belong. I am hesitant on creating a new section, as there are many already in the 20th century.Cinadon36 (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed that Ferrer schools need not be a large chunk of the overall "history of anarchism". Would be enough to allude to the Ferrer movement's impact in conjunction with Ferrer and the history of anarchism in Spain. It's also a good example of how ideas spread in the international anarchist movement. czar  23:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

neutrality and falsified source?
not mention Bakunin dictatorship.

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

Just propaganda.

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


 * There is no mention of Bakunin's dictatorship because this article should not present the secondary/fringe opinions of each philosopher. We strive to explain the main anarchist thoughts, that shaped or had great influence on the anarchist movement. The same goes to Kropotkin (and other 14 anarchists). There is no mention of Kropotkin's ethics, morality, the theory evolution through mutual aid, even if they had much more effect on the anarchist movement comparable with the alleged "invisible dictatorship". During WWI, the main position of anarchist was that the War was a consequence of capitalism and imperialism (if I recall correctly). If there is some space in the article, the anti-War opinions of the anarchist should be mentioned. I changed the title of this section as it was not neutral. Cinadon36 (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * its just anarchist propaganda. like Socrates as an... anarchist the same time that marshal says only libertarian. Censorship of everything. it is the anti authoritarian way i suppose Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * per article Socrates, far from being an anarchist, held some views that could be seen as anarchistic. I think that's enough. Cinadon36 (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

==
 * the source says libertarian not an anarchist, this is another falsified source. I think that it is enough propaganda and falsification of sources.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * To be clear: this is not a falsification of Marshall. The word libertarian is nearly a synonym to anarchism, and have in mind that the phrase used in the text of WP article is "could be seen as anarchistic ".Pay attention, not anarchist, but anarchistic. Having said that, I wont object if the phrase is changed to the the word "libertarian". The reason is that the root anarch- is already used in the sentence and doesn't sound pretty nice. I must notice though, that the claim that there is "propaganda" or "falsification of sources" is kind of exaggerating to the extreme and far beyond. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * the user just admitted what i previous wrote. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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


 * I admitted what??? And caps lock are not necessary. No need for yelling in here. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * not need for falsified sources as well Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Review
Per,, dropping some quick thoughts: I can swing back and get more granular once the bigger stuff is addressed. Nice job cutting out the primary/questionable sources so far czar  23:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Article could use a "Background" section to explain anarchism and set up the article for anyone who isn't navigating directly from Anarchism
 * Lede could also do a better job of first introducing the topic: worth repeating what anarchism is and the scope of its history (what time periods, areas?) as an introduction. Then the rest of the lede should be a straight summary of the rest of the article, e.g., it should touch on each of the article's sections.
 * Can install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to see and resolve the harv footnote errors
 * Any source that's not in use should be kicked to a separate "Further reading" section to distinguish between what's not in use
 * There are two citation needed tags and some paragraphs missing footnotes at their end—if that content can't be sourced, the text should be removed
 * Keep an eye on global perspective. This "history of anarchism" should also include major activity in non-Western parts of the movement. (See the anarchism by region/country part of anarchism—lots of those are in dire need of cleanup too, and the better they get, the easier it'll be to import/paraphrase their content into this article.)

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

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

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


 * Nice! I'll split out separate points to sections, so it's easier to follow. Gadgets are very helpful—I highly recommend taking a look at these: Special:Preferences. And they load with your account, so there is no technical installation on shared computers. czar  16:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Scope

 * I'm not sure whether the question of "the history of anarchism's scope" is in itself noteworthy. E.g., re: that "not-that-fringe opinion ... that anarchism history starts in the 19th century as a respond to capitalism", is that question of definition itself the subject of commentary? If so, I'd relegate it to a section on "Historiography" perhaps, but wouldn't include it as part of the article's setup.
 * As a reader, I'd want some background on what anarchism is, some quick/brief sense of the precursors or forerunners, and the development of the idea. In terms of how best to organize, Demanding the Impossible's table of contents is a good outline for this article, I think:
 * Background (what is anarchism, briefly)
 * Precursors (what preceded classical/Western anarchism, briefly, with emphasis on the rise of prehistoric anthropology and pre-anarchism libertarians)
 * Classical anarchism (the European-centric movement and its outer branches, mainly told through its key thinkers)
 * Around the world (the outer reaches of how the European-centric ideas spread—lots of global detail)
 * Post-classical (modern/contemporary anarchism)
 * Optional: Historiography section
 * The afterword of v3 in Graham's history also does a good job of showing the arc.
 * In light of the above, I've merged the current early history of anarchism to precursors to anarchism as a summary style split. I think there is more to say in that split article than warrants including in the general history of anarchism. (And just as the sources do, I think it's better to keep the history article focused on the major points of Western/global anarchism than its precursors, which sometimes have only a tenuous connection to anarchism.) So feel free to pare down those sections in this article, and eventually I'll expand the respective sections of the split precursors article.
 * czar 16:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * czar 16:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments Czar. I was baffled myself for the undue weight of the precursors of anarchism( "of" or "to"?). I will try to shorten the sections and move them into a single one. I am not very certain on "around the globe" section, as it's tricky. Anarchism currents in Latin America and Asia, are connected to Classical Anarchism. And modern currents in Mexico and Syria, are part of contemporary Anarchism. As for Post-classical, IMHO is the most interesting part, and more difficult to handle. I 'll see what I can do. Grahams book is great and I totally forgot of it while re-shaping the article. It would be great to have a Historiography part. The clock is ticking. I have listed the article for a copy-edit review and as I can estimate, the copy-edit team will be here in a couple of weeks or so. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have been thinking about your proposal Czar, on precursors of anarchism. It suggests that the individualist philosophies, groups or struggles in the ancient world, were not "real" Anarchism, which is not the case. The term anarchism may have been invented and used during the previous 200 years, but the meaning of the world is stretching back in time. This view is shared by RS (see article) and will not be presented with proper Due Weight if we proceed with "precursors of anarchism". Cinadon36 (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * By the same token, that article could be written as "history of libertarianism". My thinking is less to segregate the faux from the real philosophy, but if we're treating the scope of this article (or at least its core) as "classical anarchism" or "the anarchist movement", then "precursors to anarchism" could similarly be "precursors to classical anarchism" or "precursors to the anarchist movement", not inferring any lesser status but keeping the focus from getting unwieldy or in the weeds on particular details. czar  02:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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



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


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

Thanks for your comments. Maybe we can use dotted or dashed lines to divide the rows- and placing a note that dashed lines represented that these philosophies intermingle with each other, what do you think on that? too complicated? Cinadon36 (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Too complicated or at least not obvious enough, I think. Writing out in prose still sounds like the way to go czar  02:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah ok. @Cinadon seems to have a grasp of this topic and knows the sources well. Add it in as prose then. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at this table again, it also gives May and Call as much weight as... Bakunin and Kropotkin? That seems disproportionate. czar  03:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that 's a fallacy I do not know how to fix.Cinadon36 (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Here is my version: "The prominent Italian anarchist Camillo Berneri, who volunteered to fight against Franco, was instead killed in Spain probably either by a USSR agent or Italian secret forces as they both sent to Spain agents to commit political assassinations. Informal Communist police tried to install a Reign of Terror."

Here is Αντικαθεστωτικός version: The prominent Italian anarchist Camillo Berneri, who volunteered to fight against Franco, was instead killed in Spain probably by Italian secret forces, but some sources claimed that he is killed by gunmen associated with the Spanish Communist Party.

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


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_anarchism&type=revision&diff=885503294&oldid=885502967


 * It's leading expert uptodate opinion again
 * two anarchists historians. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Helana Graham is surely a RS but Marshall's book does not fall short. According to WorldCat "Demanding the impossible: a history of anarchism by Peter H Marshall: 40 editions published between 1991 and 2012 in English and Spanish and held by 1,789 WorldCat member libraries worldwide " First editor was en:HarperCollins. It has been cited 784 times according to google scholar. As for Paul Avrich]'s book, he is surele RS as well, it was published by [[Princeton University Press and has been cited by 179 other sources, according to google scholar.. The political beliefs of authors are irrelevant to our discussion. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This is supposed to be an overview article, so why does it need to go into the specifics of Berneri's death at all? If the circumstances of his death were important aspect of anarchist–communist relations in the Spanish Civil War, certainly we'd be able to cite a source that says so, right? czar  03:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Berneri's death was mentioned in the article before I 'had made my first edit here. As it was cited, I left it there. When reading RS (Marshall), I saw that he was mentioning Berneri as an example of USSR and orthodox communist aggresiveness against anarchist. This was one of the reasons the "anarchist" revolution lasted until 1937 (did't carry on until 1939). So if you suggest we leave Berneri's death out, and stick to the broader view, yes, I totally agree. Cinadon36 (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If the source covers it, could generalize on the relevant factors that limited the Spanish Revolution but yeah, probably don't need to go into Berneri in particular czar  06:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Berneri death has two versions. In the first version he was killed by Stalinists. In the second he was killed from Mussolini police probably to blame the Stalinists and so to enforce the conflict between them. IMHO we must not delete the facts about his death now. Also we must add what anarchists did after May of 1937 (the major split of anarchists participate in the government/army) but this is for another section to discuss, i guess.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Cant understand the reasoning of now. Why not now but later? George Orwell wrote documanted it at Homage to Catalonia. That wouldnt be RS though, but I am sure RS can be found. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless a source connects the importance of Berneri's death as an important event in the "history of anarchism", it reads like a minor point on its own. Cover the circumstances/impact of Berneri's death in his own article? czar  04:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * So? What now? This version attribute the death of Berneri only to stalinists. Is that correct when a RS from Oxford University from a lead expert in Spanish Civil war exists? Sorry i don't know well all the instructions of EN:WP, and probably some instruction will justify this. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am working on it. It will be ready by noon. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, I tried to keep it as small as possible.

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

Sources


 * Still feels a bit overweighted, no? If anything, could add what role the USSR played in anarchist defeat, but the rest of the detail should really be covered in another article if not related to the overall "history of anarchism" czar  03:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sources

What do you say?Cinadon36 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Still seems a bit in the weeds for an article dedicated to the overall "history of anarchism". How would you describe in a single sentence (overview) the USSR's role in the Spanish Civil War in relation to the anarchist Republicans? czar  13:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Anarchist historiography?
From reading the title, I immediately felt something was wrong: "The history of anarchism began with the first humans walking on earth." This is a bit bizarre, really, and is more a piece of anarchist historiography. In fact it runs quite contrary to the opening sentence of the Anarchism page: "Anarchism is an anti-authoritarian political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary, cooperative institutions and the rejection of hierarchies those societies view as unjust." The idea that these first humans worried themselves about political philosophy (which only emerged in antiquity) or hierarchy which only really gets discussed bu Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite in the (5th–6th century AD), although high priests had existed for sometime before this. This reality is reflected in the subtitle, "Forerunners of anarchism" and really anarchism originates in the European enlightenment. This retrojection onto early periods may well be a core part of Anarchist historiography, and perhaps this warrants a page in itself. However, as this is a page on the history of anarchism, perhaps it would be better to focus on making it precisely that. Leutha (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, is aware of this above but was waiting to redo the lede once the rest of the article was finished. But now might be the time :) czar  13:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well spotted . The lede needs re-writing as it must summarize the article, so, I think it is good practice to leave at the end, when article has been stable some weeks. It is on my to-do list. Of course if anyone else wants to go ahead, I wont mind at all! Cinadon36 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * I realize your concern. Is it better now? Cinadon36 (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

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


 * Thanks for your Q. You do have some valid points. Give me some time- a couple of days- and I 'll be back. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 23:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the long section headings are an issue if they adequately summarize the contents. And calling them a "mess" seems particularly overblown. It's possible that some could be rephrased, but mind that the article is not following era-based periodization, partially because it isn't like this is following the singular evolution of a solitary idea. My 2¢. (I'll leave the phrasing to Cinadon.) czar  03:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Those were my initial thoughts as well. But I have to confess that structure issues baffled me a lot when I re-restructure the article in 2018. But that is old history by now. The problem with history of anarchism is while it stretces from prehistory to current era (according to some authors) there is a certain period (mid 19th century to early 20th century) in which most "action" took place. So the result is small sections for ancient times and current era, and a huge one for late 19th century. Moreover, while it would be convenient to separate the article in commonly used eras (ie industrial era as you suggested), this is not anarcho-centric, not supported by the literature (I haven't read everything, I admit it!) and will not reflect properly the history of anarchism, its growth or its (sadly) decline. As for your questions on individual anarchism (IA) and why they are a separated section from the rest. I deliberately separate them because section 4 had too many subsections. At least now they are less. And separation could also be justified because IA was only loosely connected to worker's anarchism, both ideologically and as a movement as well. Now more specifically,
 * "The fact that the French Revolution does not get a section of its own seems a bit ridiculous" --> why is that? French Revolution had a profound influence on anarchism but no anarchists were actually involved. If we start giving a sub-section to every great event that influenced anarchism, we might end with a multi-sectioned article that is not nice.
 * "Not much has to be said here. The title is an obvious mess." Why is it a mess? The title explain the era is about to be described and separates IA as well.
 * "The section would be better titled after their works" well, you have a valid point here. I will try to fix it. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)PS- what title would you suggest? <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * On the French Revolution I stated that my thoughts were based on the sources I've read, you probably have a point though. For the Proudhon and Stirner section it's up to you—I'd suggest maybe something along the lines of the emergence or inception of anarchist theory. I have amended my review to address some other concerns as well. It's still not perfect so please ignore anything too dumb. Thanks.  Oeqtte [t] 08:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * None of your remarks were dumb or even close to it. Quite the contrary. I 'd be hesitant to use the term you are suggesting because I 'd preferred something more specific to mutualism and egoistical anarchism. This is because anarchist theory didn't developed in a linear fashion and I 'd like this zigzag pattern this has to reflect to the titles of the sections (or subsections) somehow. Of course, there is no perfect solution for the structure, and all suggestion and changes should be welcome, irrespectively if the article gets a GA status or not. Nothing is written in stone (and |external evidence). <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 09:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * If you want the section to focus only on those two works, the title may as well be "What is property? and The Ego and Its Own". I do understand the need to segment the different developments of anarchism and as you say there is no definite answer.  Oeqtte [t] 10:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I admit I have already thought of that. But as you say elsewhere, this title does not properly summarize the subsection. Also it might give a subtle clue that egoism and esp. mutualism were intellectual movements. That was far from being the case. The section is not about book reviews. I understand of course that those two books had a significant impact on the anarchist movement.<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * If you don't really think the content fits under one title then you might ask why it's grouped that way to begin with. That said the section isn't about all mutualism and egoisism, only a moment in their histories. I don't understand your concern of portaying something as too intellectual just for having a basis in written work. What do you mean by that?  Oeqtte [t] 09:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * II think it could be fit under one title, as the context is about the very first steps of anarchist movement and though. This is the reason for grouping them together. Having a title in the section could hint that it is an intellectual movement. So, what would you say if we rename the title to: "The first steps/sprouts* of anarchism: mutualism and egoistical anarchism" *This wording really need to change. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 10:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that the section is more about "Proudhon and Stirner" as originators than about the works or their associated ideologies, so that's what I'd recommend (a shorter version of the current heading) czar  04:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Please also move it to the newly renamed "Early anarchism" section.  Oeqtte [t] 06:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that "Proudhon and Stirner" are more "classical anarchism" than "early anarchism", since Proudhon is the "founder" of modern anarchism. If sources define the classical period as starting elsewhere, would be happy to move it as you said. czar  06:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Alright, I just have to wrap my head around it. Saying early anarchism isn't really the same as the development of anarchism so it falls back into the problem of explicitly calling something anarchist before the term was adopted. Much of the section is still about pre-anarchist or proto-anarchist history so I'm not sure I agree there.  Oeqtte [t] 06:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This also goes back to my point that the works (What is Property? and The Ego and Its Own) are part of the establishing of anarchism, while the influence of the men themselves may have extended elsewhere. It only makes it more confusing to have a section dedicated entirely to individualist anarchism only to put Stirner in with classical anarchism. Sort of a symptom of trying overly to group by school of thought rather than the natural flow of history.  Oeqtte [t] 07:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I double-checked my sources, Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism groups Godwin, Stirner and Proudhon as "early anarchist philosophers" while Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism groups all three as "classic anarchists" along with Bakunin, Kropotkin etc.  Oeqtte [t] 11:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Goodmorning (it is still morning here where I live), which page of Demanding the Impossible are you referring to? <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 10:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Good morning, part four of the book is titled "Classic anarchist thinkers" and lists several anarchists each in their own subsection. Some other examples include: "all the classic anarchist thinkers except Stirner" (p.39), "William Godwin" listed as a classic anarchist thinker (p.189), "classic anarchist thinkers from Godwin to Kropotkin" (p.417), "Amongst the classic thinkers, we find Godwin's rational benevolence, Stirner's conscious egoism, Bakunin's destructive energy, and Kropotkin's calm altruism" (p.624), "from Godwin onwards the classic anarchist thinkers" (p.643), "the classic anarchist thinkers, except for Stirner" (p.664). It is also worth noting that "classic anarchism" and "classical anarchism" are used interchangably and the text doesn't distinguish between early anarchism and classical anarchism.  Oeqtte [t] 10:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Good evening! So there is no categorical sentence by Marshall that affirms that classical anarchism encompass individualist trends. That is why I prefer McLaughlin than Marshall in this part. He is more strict with meanings and his methodology is more credible. Anyway, this article isn't an academic paper. Pls go ahead with the changes you wish. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 17:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * For now I am going to go ahead with the changes since the sources suggest that if there is going to be an "early anarchism" period separate from "classical anarchism" it should include Godwin, Proudhon and Stirner. Please let me know if you have any sources that go against this. I'm also still not completely satisfied with the name.  Oeqtte [t] 12:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I do. First, the history of anarchism, as already established, does not have clear periodization (hell, it doesn't have clear definition as an ideology) but that doesn't stop us from establishing what sources use most often. "Early anarchism" is going to have much more porous boundaries than something like "classic/classical anarchism". I suggest first defining the latter's boundaries to decide whether the section starts with or after Proudhon, and that will determine whether Proudhon gets pushed into the prior section. Right now, the logic seems arbitrary for adding Proudhon to "early anarchism" instead of "classical anarchism". The sections only have simpler titles—their scope should be viewed as unchanged. If you chafe at "early anarchism" I'd view it like this: Godwin is a precursor to "classical anarchism" but not a "precursor to anarchism", hence the interstitial section. Open to sources that prove or disprove this. czar  13:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Of the two sources I mentioned above the former considers the three to be a distinct group from classical anarchism, the latter considers all three to be classical (including Godwin) so neither supports separating Godwin by himself. If you look at it like that it's not really an arbitrary decision, but even if it was it means (1) the first section about explicit anarchism won't disclude the first explicit anarchist, (2) there is a bit less jumping around in the flow, and (3) there is one less section bloating the classical anarchism section. If you want it changed, I can't know what your sources or arguments are if you don't tell me. Cheers.  Oeqtte [t] 14:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The point is that they don't adequately summarize the contents. Calling them messy isn't overblown when their styles are inconsistent, unfocused and at times confusing. The example of the title in two halves presents labour movements as a mere addition to the title when really the section is about "Labour movements during the 19tg h and 20th centuries", which would not only follow the style of the following section but also make clear why the two are separate (and you could come up with a better title even still). To your other point, sure anarchism is broad but presenting a disjointed history is only more confusing to general readers. Something as diverse as the history of Hinduism still manages to maintain a better chronology than the sections I'm criticising. I realise I may not have presented my thoughts very well so thanks for responding anyway.  Oeqtte [t] 04:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't understand where "The example of the title in two halves presents" refers to... I can not also understand why you claim that we are not following proper chronology. We do. We just separated individualists from worker's movement anarchism, as they were very distinct in nature and followed different patterns of development. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm refering to the title that I specifically called a "mess", that uses a colon to join its two halves ("Late 19th century to early 20th century: classical anarchism as a worker's movement"). As for the chronology issues, I'm referring to those mentioned about the sections on Proudhon and Stirner, the various schools of thought, and colonialism. I have not been making accusations toward anyone though and I don't want it to seem that way.  Oeqtte [t] 09:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Why are they "two halves"? Late 19th and early 20th century is one entity, many authors acknowledge that. Some referred to it as the golden era of anarchism.<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 09:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And is your concern with the use of colons in headings like this in general or this specific section? The former is common, e.g., Noam Chomsky. The latter I don't see to be an issue. czar  11:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No, my concern is this specific example (for the reasons listed above) where it isn't used in a helpful way, nor is it necesarily used correctly, nor does it match the style of the rest of the article. These issues aren't present in the example you linked so what is it you disagree with?  Oeqtte [t] 00:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My example, as I said, was for general colon use in headings but that point is moot.
 * Looking at this specific heading in context, would simply "Classical anarchism" not suffice? It's not like "classical anarchism" would encompass anything other than the 19th/20th c. workers' movements, right? czar  04:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * If you want then I suggest you change it to that. Only it would then encompass individualist anarchism (which is trying to avoid), and classical anarchism refers also to the schools of thought rather than just the era (which is just something to keep in mind to avoid confusing others).  Oeqtte [t] 05:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, just wanted feedback first. My understanding is that "classical anarchism" refers to both an era and the dominant schools of thought at the time; and that much like the term "anarchism", it refers to the socialist tradition, not American individualism. But what say you, ? czar  05:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure sources agree with that—though American individualism isn't the entirety of individualist anarchism anyway so I'm a bit confused. Also you'd have to change the Anarchist schools of thought, Anarchism and Outline of anarchism pages to be consistent in that.  Oeqtte [t] 06:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's deal with the issues one by one. My understanding is that when talking about classical anarchism, we mostly talk about the workers movement anarchism, not individualism. But there is no definite line among the two of them. What is important though is to make clear that these two currents ("class-struggle anarchism" and "individualism") had different trajectories. I mean class struggle anarchism became a prominent movement during the second half of the 19th century and ended in Spain in 36. Individualists trajectory is totally different, they haven't been around the major milestones of social-anarchism. Have a look at literature, ie at McLaughlin book, (Anarchism and Authority, A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism (2007), I do not see that he considers individualists as a part of classical anarchists. Quite the contrary. And the same is apparent at Levi's The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism (2019). But if evidence is found that classical anarchism encompasses the individualism anarchism current, I wont object to merging the two section. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 07:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I am all for separating the individualist currents from the class-based currents, I'm just skeptical that "classical anarchism" is a clear enough term consistent across sources. You're right, McLaughlin does categorize the different branches of anarchism quite neatly when it comes to theory, which is fine if that's taken as academic consensus. It's more about whether individualist anarchism is considered part of the classical anarchist era given the somewhat two-sided nature of the term, but I think was just trying to clear that up earlier so I'm happy to leave it if others think it fits best. Pardon my confusion.  Oeqtte [t] 10:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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


 * Hi . That specific sentence refers to Latin America (see opening sentence of the specific paragraph) Levy (2010) writes: "Giving the Global South its due weight in the history of classical anarchism will therefore revolutionize our understanding of its geographical morphology and indeed,  deepen  our  knowledge  of  the  origins  of  key  aspects  of  the ideology itself. Thus Spain does not look so exceptional if we view the entire globe rather than only its northern half. The largest “anarchist” city in the world in 1910 was not Barcelona but Buenos Aires120; a tier of cities in the Global South possessed noticeable anarchist and syndicalist political subcultures (Canton, Havana, Lima, Montevideo, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Shanghai,  and  Tokyo);  in  the  first  three  decades  of  the  twentieth  century,  anarchist-dominated  trade  unions  in  Argentina,  Brazil,  Peru,  and  Mexico  were proportionally more dominant in their respective countries’ overall labor movements than their famous cousin, the Spanish CNT.121 More generally, one of the major differences between the socialist Second International and the global anarchist and syndicalist movements before 1914 was this: whereas the anarchist and syndicalists had a mass base in the Global South, the socialists of the Second International lacked one and indeed pointedly ignored large swathes of the informally colonized and colonial worlds."


 * Laursen (2019) does not compare anarchist vs marxist impact but it serves as a reference to the previous sentence mostly. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 10:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * As for the qualifier, yes, I agree. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 10:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I had seen that paragraph but does it make the claim true? Anarchist unions were "proportionally more dominant" than the CNT was, which is interesting but only relative (how dominant were they within the country?) Could also say that anarchists/syndicalists had a larger base in the global south than the Second International, but is that the same as saying what is being claimed? (Also who would be the authoritarian left comparison in this case?) czar  03:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that it is not comparing Latin American anarchist associations with CNT specifically but with European anarchist groups in general, which lived in the shadow of marxists or social-democrats Parties/Unions. While in Europe anarchist had little effect in political/workers struggles, in Latin America anarchists played a more prominent role. CNT was the exception. What do you think? Should we rephrase to make it more clear? <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 07:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's possible that what you're saying is true but I don't see it confirmed in the source. That sentence (with footnote 121) is itself sourced to Black Flame, 20–21, 291, and I'm not seeing the evidence that global south anarchist unions were "proportionally more dominant" than they were in Spain/elsewhere. That Levy is invoking a quantity ("proportion") or that the current article claim is of "much larger impact"—there should be some underlying numbers that prove this comparison. Otherwise all we should say, per the sources, is that many global south cities had sizable anarchist/syndicalist unions. Could also add that these unions were more prominent in their countries than the CNT was in Spain, but that's really quite an extraordinary claim and there should be more evidence for that then the single sentence on its own. To your other point, does the source make the claim, "While in Europe anarchist had little effect in political/workers struggles"? I think you would need an additional/stronger source for that. What do you think? czar  11:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Czar, the sentence "In Latin America, anarchists had a much larger impact on trade unions than marxists" would it be ok? Levy is stating that in Latin America anarchist had a mass base, whereas ..."the socialists of the Second International lacked one[mass base]". <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's still assuming a lot about impact when the source only says that more unions were anarchist-affiliated in the global south than in Europe (if that's true—it's not exactly that in Black Flame from what I recall). How about something like: "In the early 20th century, anarchist affiliations were more prominent among trade unions in the Global South than among those in Europe." (If it's also true that anarchist unions were more prominent in Brazil than they were in Spain during their zenith, this would be an exceptional claim that would require exceptional proof.) I think the point about the Second International is separate: "Anarchists had a larger foothold in the Global South than the Second International socialists during this period." czar  01:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with your suggestion. I will have another look at the literature (to-do list) to see if I can find any other authors making a similar claim- if my search turns positive, I will let you know. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 07:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

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

My suggestion, if you ld like to contribute, is to find a RS on the history of anarchism, and summarize some chapters. You can ask at your local library for sources. WP has a library as well. Also, you can ask for resources at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. In any case, thank you for your contributions and I hope we will be seeing you around! <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * These are fair reasons and to my mind nothing to start trouble over.
 * If I can pose a question to you as a newer Wikipedia editor, I have to ask, what is to be done when sources on a topic are severely lacking or spread across multiple languages? PurpleCat7 (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well @PurpleCat7, as I see it, when reliable secondary sources are lacking, then no material should be included. Lets say, the topic is our Solar System. A common mistake is for editors to visit reliable secondary sources on Mars, or Earth to describe the Solar System. Or even worse, in the section of earth, editors seeking sources of a continent, to describe geological issues of Earth. I would suggest, editors should strive to find books or review articles on Solar System and summarize them. So, to reply to your question, if sources are lacking, do not include anything. If very few sources are available, you have to practice critical thinking and take into account several factors (are the sources appropriate, is the material relevant or significant, etc). This is how I usually do my editing. Opinions vary though. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 12:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @PurpleCat7 I removed the timeline list, but if you wish, you can add a view links at "see also" section. No need for citations there. Just pick a two or three or more, and add them. Preferably, from various parts of the world. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 06:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)