Template talk:Anarchism sidebar

I think the template needs a makeover. Look at the Communism and Maoism templates. Aren't they stylish? Aren't they sexy? We need to have a template like that. Sorry I can't really elaborate, I'm about to go out the door. Zazaban (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did a makeover of Communism template, and I think that current Anarchism template is fine as it is. What's wrong with it in your opinion? -- Vision Thing -- 20:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The main difference seems to be that this template lacks background colour - we could make the text white on a black background if that sexified matters adequately. Skomorokh ^incite 21:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

That sounds good, perhaps with circle-A bullets. It's just that the current template seems a bit.. generic. Zazaban (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Minimalism doesn't turn you on? OK, I kinda think white on black, with cirle-A bullets would nice. Unless someone else has a better idea. Murderbike (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I personally like the anarchism template as-is. Minimalistic seems to work for it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Circla-A bullets will not work on this template. Look at the lay-out, most of the links are positioned next to one another, rather than above and below one another.

And, personally, I like that aspect of this template as it is.

As for the colour scheme, I would definitely like to see a change. Currently, it's just black text against white background. I'd like to see the whole template black with white text.

Perhaps while we're at it, we could replace the black Circle-A no white background with a white Circle-A on black background.

That would be a cool template.

allixpeeke (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I went ahead and made a model template here.

The Circle-A still needs to be rendered white, and I don't know how to get the show/hide toggle to change colours. But outside of that, I'm generally pleased with it. (If you think you can change the toggle colour, go ahead.) What do you all think of it (notwithstanding the need to render a white Circle-A)?

allixpeeke (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

That looks stunning Alex, hopefully Cast might be able to help with the formatting. I think some photoshopping is necessary to invert the Circle-A. скоморохъ ^ѧ 09:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks fine to me, white on black is so fine for my eyes! Murderbike (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I can assist with formatting, bit it seems Alex has that in hand. However, I cannot immediately assist with the creation of a white circle-a, as that would require .svg skills. Being unrelated to photoshop, I lack the necessary experience. Perhaps SwitChar would be able to assist in the matter. I know he has submitted several anarchist related .svg images.

I would also suggest that perhaps the whole template need not be black. Perhaps just the banners, such as in the libertarian template. This is because formatting all of the text white prevents previously opened links from registering a different color to denote this.--Cast (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cast,

I thought about that. I don't know if there's a way on wikipedia to set previously-visited links a different colour from not-yet-visited links, but if there is a way, I would suggest we set the previously-visited links colour to a shade of gray (preferably light gray, but not so light that it can't be distingued from the unclicked white links).

When I was formatting the page, I didn't think it looked very good with just having the banner sections black. Something about that seemed...bothersome to me, for some reason. But perhaps it was just me. Feel free to play around with my design and see for yourself what you think.

Technically, one would not need to create an .svg for the white Circle-A, since this white Circle-A would only be used on the template, and would not be used to replace the black Circle-A in all the locations it would appear. Thus, we'd only need one size for the white Circle-A, which a .jpg or .gif could easily handle. (Of course, having an .svg couldn't hurt, and I, like you, do not have .svg-making capabilities.)

Murderbike and скоморохъ,

Glad you like it! :)

Sincerely,

allixpeeke (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I designed a white Circle-A. Check it out.

Yours,

allixpeeke (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

So will these changes also be carried over to the horizontal navigation bar? Should we remove the circled-flag in it? I don't think it would be appropriate to swap it's colors, creating a circled white flag.--Cast (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I quite like Allix's latest version. Anyone opposed to implementing it? Skomorokh 20:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The current version of the circle-A symbol seems too neat and orderly to represent anarchism. Several people have commented on this at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Anarchy-symbol.svg . One active anarchist I spoke with 20 years ago in Exarchia, Athens was very emphatic that the "A" must cross the boundaries of the circle to represent anarchy breaking the bounds of order represented by the circle. I have created a new graphic http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AnarchySymbolInk.svg which I think gives a better representation of the idea of anarchy.Enon (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The symmetry and cleanliness of the existing image seems to me to represent the older, Proudhonian conception of "anarchy is order", in contrast to the punk-influenced aesthetic you promulgate. No offence, but it strikes me as a little Hot Topic to represent the concept in an encyclopaedia, though I'm open to hearing other interpretations. Skomorokh 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see your point, and the old graphic does have a certain class. I was trying for something more dynamic with a hint of enso, rather than mall-punk T-shirts(!). I looked at AnarchySymbolInk.svg in context, and it did seem a little thin, so I tweaked a few things. Here's the new version in context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Anarchism_sidebar&oldid=419031383 Enon (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm gonna post this at Portal:Anarchism as it seems more appropriate, but it doesn't seem like people pay much attention to it. But, if anyone's interested, Anarchism in India is up for deletion here, and for some pretty shoddy reasons, though the article does need some help. Murderbike (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Anyone think it would too much to add Anarchist Exclusion Act to the History section? Murderbike (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

At some point we're going to have to address overpopulation, but the Anarchist Exclusion Act is a paradigm for the kind of articles that should comprise that section. Skomorokh ^incite 08:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

This template includes the category Category:Anarchism, which means that every article gets added to Category:Anarchism. That works fine for a tagging system, but not as well for wikipedia's "category" system– it ends up leaving the Category:Anarchism very difficult to read and absorb. I'm been creating subcategories for articles and that structure can be built out more, but we ultimately need to remove Category:Anarchism from the template to clean up the category. Thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, and done. I'd gone through the Category:Anarchism in its entirety about a month ago, redirecting articles into subcategories. However, someone came alone and undid all of that work, perhaps well intentioned, but ignorant of the purpose of subcategories. I'm going to go through the category again. In the meantime, the template is now under the anarchism task force category.--Cast (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Considering that we have the much more thorough {{Anarchism}} template now, has anyone given any thought to deprecating this template, and fully converting to the other one? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you mean by "much more thorough"; the templates share 99% of the same content. There's a discussion on the talkpage as to which articles that template is appropriate for. I propose keeping this more prominent template on articles directly related to anarchism, where aesthetic considerations allow. Skomorokh ^incite 05:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Skomorokh. I did not create the horizontal template as a universal Anarchism navigational template. Anarchism mirrors the vertical template, and is essentially secondary to it. Further, the horizontal template carries a disadvantage which the vertical template does not suffer. The horizontal template cannot be placed in specific sections of an article, where it may be most appropriate. It will always be placed at the bottom of an article, irrespective of its relationship to the article subject. The vertical template may be arranged at the top of an article, or in a subsection according to necessity. An example is in the Emma Goldman article, in which the vertical template is appropriately placed in the Philosophy subsection. This would be impossible with the horizontal template.

I could propose other advantages the vertical template holds, but I cannot be pressed for this at the moment as I am busy. However, I think it safe to assume that these will present themselves in time. Each of these templates has a time and place for which it is most appropriate, and we should make proper use of each accordingly. --Cast (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Have a look at the article Infoanarchism. Where does it mention opposition to hierarchy and authority?

This is just a stupid made up term. Just because you oppose copyright, doesn't mean you also oppose all government, capitalism etc. It just means you oppose copyright.

This isn't a school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.193.188 (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think they mean anarchists who oppose copyright, as implied by the name. The anti-copyright movement has it's own article. Zazaban (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

We have a policy on not making no true scotsman judgements on particular tendencies based on our individual interpretations of what "true" anarchism is. I'm restoring the link. скоморохъ ^ѧ 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like this, such as {{Social democracy sidebar}}, {{Christian Democracy sidebar}} etc. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I kinda liked the old version but I guess black is our color, eh? :) Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Most people seemed to be in favour of it (see first section above). The forces of light still have {{Anarchism}}. Skomorokh 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry my edit summary got cut off, but I have restored this article. It explicitly relates to anarchism, as a linguistic and conceptual fundament of "anarchy". Please discuss here before removing. We can't simply go removing articles because they also concern ideologies we don't like. Skomorokh 12:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't say they "also" concern other ideologies, it's that it doesn't concern anarchism at all:

* the article is a stub or dictionary definition

* it's an idea from a non-anarchist who claimed it as inspired by the writings of a dead anarchist

* the article doesn't say that it is (or how it could be) a "linguistic and conceptual fundament" of anarchy - it's a later development or offshoot

* It's not a common term amongst anarchists (I've never seen the term used outside of this template)

* It currently appears as the first term in "Theory" - this is really undue weight for a stub on a hardly-notable, hardly anarchist term

It can't be fundamental to anarchy if it first appeared 60-70 years later and hasn't been used in anarchist theory or practice since. As with all articles I know little about, I'm willing to be proved wrong but even without the apparent link to 3rd positionism I don't see a reason to keep it in the template.Chaikney (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

As no responses, have removed it. Chaikney (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The move has broken all the links to the archives, can anyone fix that? Zazaban (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

All fixed. With the move of the main title, the move function didn't also move the various archive pages, so I used the move function to move them all over. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Would anyone object if I submitted Template:Anarchism footer for renaming to Template:Anarchism at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals? Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problems here. Anarchism should become plain "Anarchism", and we should probably move away from using the sidebar template altogether. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Really? I personally prefer the sidebar to the footer. Zazaban (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Really. Sidebars tend to clutter up article bodies (especially when multiple sidebars exist in an article), which could be put to better use displaying images and such. The trend seems to be that such link boxes are going to the bottom of pages, which honestly is where they should be, along with the "see also" links and such. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've always found them an easy, immediately accessible resource for detail on the subject. I find it makes articles look complete. Zazaban (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I've listed the template for renaming. I'd say it's easier to create clutter, squeeze text, etc with sidebars rather than navboxes, but well-designed and thoughtfully-placed sidebars are fine. Nearly all of those I've seen relating to political ideologies seem to work. Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This could have done with a lot longer discussion period than a day, as it affects hundreds (thousands?) of pages. We may have to go around correcting editors who type {{Anarchism}} expecting a sidebar to appear for months to come. the skomorokh 12:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm satisfied with it, but recall I'm also of the opinion that the sidebar template needs to eventually go away. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

That would be a question for sidebar templates generally...a political template would be a poor choice of test case as it could end up a fractious debate. the skomorokh 19:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

• My apologies if putting the template forward for renaming was too fast. I'm about to update the links to it, which should flag the change to anyone who used the previous name on a page they're (still) watching. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's a big issue, central to syndicalism, communism and social anarchism generally. We should add it, probably under Theory / Practice. Any objections? Chaikney (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am Skomorokh and I approve this message. We could also use an article on class struggle anarchism. 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's done (the template not the article :) Chaikney (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, I'm not sure how important this is. I noticed that this template does not look good in the Cologne Blue skin using my Internet Explorer browser. Some of the titles conflict with the [Show] links. This template looks good in all skins using Firefox. If you use Internet Explorer, you can see what I mean by clicking on this link. If it's important to look good across all nine skins, then editors may want to consider improving this template so that it looks good in the Cologne Blue skin.

One way to do this would be to increase the width of the template. The template used is the {{Ideology}} template. I've copied that template to my #7a sandbox and copied this template, Anarchism sidebar, to my #7 sandbox, so that I could see what width of the Ideology template was needed to make it look good in the Cologne Blue skin. Looks like "width:24em;" would do the duty. I have made no "live" changes yet, because I really have no idea how important it is for this template to look good in the Cologne Blue skin.

How important could it be?  —  Paine's Climax  10:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It could be quite important!Harrypotter (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think we need to keep this list small and limited to the people who contributed most to anarchism. I have removed the follwing;

Noam Chomsky: an anarchist, but he doesn't consider himself an anarchist thinker but more of a "fellow traveller" to anarchism. He hasn't contributed much to anarchist theory.

Howard Zinn: like Chomsky, he isn't influencal in terms of anarchist thought.

Nestor Makhno: Ditto, mostly just an anarchist commander.

24.180.173.157 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I tend to agree with you in the cases of Howard Zinn and Chomsky. Under the same criteria i dont think Lysander Spooner deserves to be in this list as he didnt make too much of a contribution to anarchist theory or activism or movements and also he is barely known outside the US. Also it happens that American individualist anarchism is already covered with the inclusion of Benjamin Tucker, a far more influential thinker even in European individualism and of course Henry David Thoreau who kind of started anarcho-pacifism and green anarchism. The case of Nestor Makhno is that he is a very important person for anarchist history as he lead one of the biggest anarchist led revolts in history and very likely the most well known anarchist in the Russian Revolution. So i will proceed to add Makhno again.--Eduen (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

i reverted to a previous version as the additions on people were bordering on the bizzare. it even had an addition which is in the process of being deleted.--Eduen (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

on the additions on people proposed by |Jfeen what i can say is that most of them are recent and with only regional or local relevance, in the end relevance in the USA mostly as it is clear they have not been translated to other languages. Now of course even though some of those people are contemporary to John Zerzan, the relevance of this later person is wider and in the case of Zerzan we have the most representative theorist on the recent but with important precedents school of thought which is of course anarcho-primitivism which is already present globally. So just as you want someone like Uri Gordon for example included, there are influential authors in Spain for example with longer and more extensive body of works published such as [Amoros] or Agustín García Calvo. There are also historical regionally important people such as Manuel González Prada, Ricardo Flores Magón and theres even some people with importance in wider debates such as Volin or Rudolf Rocker who are not included and who might actually deserve to be included instead of the people you want included.--Eduen (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

This whole thing about removing people because they have not contributed to "anarchist thought" is meaningless unless you care to define exactly what is "anarchist thought". Anarchism has never been about pure philosophy, much of it is about action and linkage with other movements. One can argue that Bakunin, having published only a few pamphlets, has contributed nothing to this abstract "anarchist thought", but the fact that he has been in the first international and actually involved in the organising makes him a prominant anarchist. To clarify my position: Anarchism is not a religion and anarchists are not theologians. Beta M (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I tend to agree here. Either the scope of the list needs to be more clearly delineated, or we need to accept more inclusion. I would prefer to narrow the scope to something which clearly indicated that this was about anarchist thinkers. That might necessitate having another section which covers other people. aprock (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can someone add anarcho-queer to the schools of thought? (Lenerd (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC))Reply

Under persons in the infobox, I was surprised to not see Bob Black. What gives? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

maybe you could try to support your suggestion by provinding some arguments for it first. As I see it, post left anarchy (a mostly USA tendency) is already represented in the anarchism sidebar by John Zerzan. There are also other recent influential authors such as Alfredo M. Bonanno and older personalities such as Rudolf Rocker and Ricardo Flores Magon who might also deserve inclusion.--Eduen (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Having editors make the judgement of which person best represents a particular strain is original research. It's clear that the people list criterion needs to be revamped with a clear criteria for inclusion. Picking and choosing who to include based on personal preference isn't the proper way to handle this. aprock (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

As I see the list as it stands right now I think it is OK. I think I only have doubts about the inclusion of Alexander Berkman and Colin Ward since they didn´t create a particular school of thought and of course about Murray Rothbard since I alongside most anarchists don´t think anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism but a form of neoliberalism and/or liberalism. If you have any doubts about the other people you could tell us. For example there was a push for including Lysander Spooner and I argued againts that since US individualist anarchism was already represented with Josiah Warren, Henry David Thoreau and Benjamin Tucker. I also argued againts the inclusion of Noam Chomsky since he didn´t really pioneer a school even if he is a very famous contemporary person. I do support the inclusion of those 3 names because Warren´s work preceeds Proudhon, Thoreau represents both pionering green anarchism and non-violent/anarcho-pacifism as well as being a huge influential personality outside anarchism and Tucker can be seen the main representative of US individualist anarchism. Emile Armand is in the list as the main representative of the long tradition of european individualist anarchism. I included Rudolf Rocker as the main representative of anarcho-syndicalism since he was the main personality in the establishment of the IWA. Makhno and Durruti as leaders and/or most visible personalities of the two most important anarchist uprisings/revolutions (Makhno also for platformism). Volin as the main theorist of synthesis anarchism. Alfredo M. Bonanno for contemporary insurrectionary anarchism, John Zerzan for anarcho-primitivism, Johann Most for propaganda by the deed proto insurrectionarism, Murray Bookchin for green anarchism, Leo Tolstoy for christian anarchism and for being the main representative of anarcho-pacifism and Emma Goldman for anarcha-feminism. And now besides these names the rest are just the classics of anarchism Godwin, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta and Stirner.--Eduen (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Again, this isn't about a particular person, but rather what the criteria for inclusion is. Without a clear criteria, there will be endless lobbying for inclusion or exclusion. aprock (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I added Epistemological anarchism to 'schools of thought' and Paul Feyerabend to people, and it was reverted by Skomorokh, he sent me a message saying this:

"Greetings, PoS. I am afraid I have had to revert your edits associating Paul Feyerabend and his ideas with the political philosophy of anarchism. Feyerabend was not an anarchist, and his philosophy of science did not advance anarchist political philosophy (he advocated democratic control of science). He used "anarchism" as part of the name of his epistemology as an intentionally provocative analogy, not meant to be taken at face value. Best, Skomorokh 16:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)"Reply

The statement that feyerabend used the term anarchism as simple shock or provocation doesn't stand, he used it because he believed in pluralistic methodologies as opposed to tyrannical ideologies, which could only be expressed by the word 'anarchism'.

"Science is an essentially anarchic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives." - Paul Feyerabend

He wrote extensively on sciences role in the totalitarian society, and how anarchism in science would solve that problem. That he advocated democracy within the sciences is not a testament against his philosophical anarchism, Murray Bookchin advocated democracy, as do syndicalists- whether some anarchists disagree with that approach or not does not make it any less relevant to the topic of anarchism.

Feyerabend also advocated decentralization, deindustrialization, and a critique of the spread of western civilization akin to other anarchist writers like Bookchin, zerzan, and Jacques Ellul. He may have claimed that he was not an anarchist is 'public life', but that was because he felt that much of anarchism was becoming to puritanical(which was his only recorded detraction of anarchism at all); a criticism not unheard of among anarchist circles themselves. He was against tyranny through and through, and focused much of his anarchist thought on the sciences where no one had applied it before, and where it was much needed. He was also a self-proclaimed dadaist, which was one of the biggest anarchist art-movements in history.

Feyerabend's epistemological anarchism may have gone unnoticed by the larger anarchist circles, but that is because most are purely concerned with the abstract field of politics or economics, where as he applied anarchism to cultural and epistemological domains (and how this in turn effected political/public domains). There are other schools of thought in anarchism that do not go into politics, like zen anarchism. That his brand is different does not make it any less relevant to the subject.

(update)

and even if we dont add feyerabend to the people section of the sidebar, i still think it is very important that epistemological anarchism is. Many anarchists like like Terence Mckenna and Robert Anton Wilson (and myself) subscribe to epistemological anarchism and find it to be a very fitting application of anarchism to epistemology.

ProductofSociety (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is an application of anarchistic notions to epistemology, sure; it is not, however, anarchism, in this sense that our article and this template mean – an anti-state political philosophy, and so it cannot possibly be a school of thought within that political philosophy. Feyerabend was not an anarchist, Feyerabend rejected anarchism as is plain from the very preface of Against Method ("The following essay is written in the conviction that anarchism, while perhaps not the most attractive political philosophy, is certainly excellent medicine for epistemology, and for the philosophy of science."). Feyerabend took care to make clear that he was not espousing political anarchism. If you want a further exploration of the subject, see Farrell's Feyerabend and scientific values, p.56. Skomorokh 17:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have never heard of Free Territory being called "Free Territory of Ukraine" anywhere but in this template. I am planning on changing the link unless somebody can provide sourced and rational reason for me not to do that. Beta M (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

With the rise in visibility for anarchism/anarchists in contemporary political discourse, it seems to me that there should be a page or subcategory of "anarchists defendants" chronicling the history of north american anarchists brought to court by the state or other parties. Does anyone have experience with wikipedia that could help? There are both contemporary and historical articles elsewhere on wikipedia that detail these specific cases, and it seems notable and relevant to compile summaries of each onto one page, and link to it in the "anarchism" category portal. (Ahwoooga (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC))Reply

I think this simply doesn´t belong here. It has almost nothing to do with the discussing about the wikipedia anarchism sidebar.--Eduen (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It would be a link within the "issues" tab. (Ahwoooga (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC))Reply