Talk:Anarchism

One of these days the controlling 'editor junto' will let this article be edited. One hopes. My theory: Anarcho-socialist sectarians (who control the article) don't want the article to reflect that most anarchists these days are anarcho-capitalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.180.250.20 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

With your multiple talk pages posts in the past months you must certainly know that if you want to edit this page you can either directly propose sentence changes or additions here or you can just make your own account (without even needing an email!). You could also just edit non-locked related to anarchism right now (like individualist anarchism, mutualism, Gift Economy, Green Anarchism, ect) to show your eagerness to contribute, which is far more productive than shouting into the void. AssanEcho (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I would be interested to see where your sources are for such a statement - has there been a census on anarchists and their standings on communism and capitalism? Or is that your own unsubstantiated opinion? Ben Carpendale (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have noticed that this article proports to be written in British English, but frequently uses American English: "emphasizes", "prioritizes", "theorize", "organize", "civilization", "defense", etc. I believe these should be changed to their British English equivalents: "emphasises", "prioritises", "theorise", "organise", "civilisation", "defence", etc. Ben Carpendale (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: according to the page's protection level, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Day Creature (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The best resources for anarchists in general are anarchistfederation (40,000+ subscribers) and (I would add) noblogs (specifically actforfree as it links to other sites better than any other subdomain). I propose maintaining the external links section and removing the note that says to avoid spam, because I haven't seen any issues (the note is from 2014 so it is outdated). Altanner1991 (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

This page isn't a resource for anarchists, it's a resource for everybody. Aggregators and blogs (which is what these two websites are) are listed under external links that should be avoided in an EL section. Given that this is a broad-concept article without any possibility for including official links, I'd rather we not include any than use the section to promote fringe websites that only represent a fraction of what the subject is about. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. Anarchism is not a "broad concept". It is a fringe ideology in politics that few people adhere to. I think that since it is so fringe, some external links of aggregator/blog sources can be used. And according to the article most anarchists tend to agree on most issues but with some divergences. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Altanner1991: Ok, so to be clear, do you think we should ignore a Wikipedia content guideline and include external links that should normally be avoided because of your own view of the subject? If we can't reach an agreement on this, I would be happy to ask for a third opinion. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Longstanding links or sections should not be removed without talk page consensus. That should be restored. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. The two links you added were not long-standing; for the longest time, this "section" consisted of a single link to an archive. None of these links met the standards outlined in the external links guidelines. It appears we are at an impasse, so do you want me to ask for a third opinion to resolve this dispute? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Those links qualify under both criteria for official links for anarchists:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.

2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Anarchism isn't an organisation or an individual person, it's an ideology, so I have no idea how it can "control" the linked content. And anarchism is historically notable for reasons that extend far beyond the random stuff aggregated by these websites. So I don't understand how these links qualify under either of these criteria, let alone both. Could you explain your reasoning? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I do not think that the history of anarchism is necessarily expected by an official link to an external website.

And yes I do think that the websites are generally represented by the anarchist community and that they do good jobs of adhering to the values of the subject/group. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

But perhaps others will comment their input. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It will certainly be helpful to get another perspective on this, so I've requested a third opinion. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Point one is exactly why I don't think there should be an external links section in the first place. And I can't understand the second point, seeing as neither of these websites is even notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles, let alone representative of anarchism as a whole. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The guidelines state "individual" or "organization", but it might be best to also include "movements". Altanner1991 (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

There are many external links that could be added to represent the anarchist community. The list should be expanded. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

No, let's not turn this article into a link farm. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Link farm guidelines state that "there is nothing wrong with adding relevant, useful links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Altanner1991 (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why I was alarmed by your suggestion of adding many more links. Also, the guidelines go on to state that "On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate" (emphasis mine). Question would be, is there one major website that clearly must be linked? I don't think any one site (or even two or three sites) can capture the breadth of this topic, and including any more would inevitably lead to link farming. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see a problem with adding the AFed link, if one had to be chosen. But I don't think that the external links section should be removed just because there is the occasional spam (of which the hidden message was dated 2014). Altanner1991 (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I am looking at Civil rights movement and the consensus on that page is to include relevant links. Altanner1991 (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

OK—I am changing my statement to no longer include the actforfree website link, because it does not comply with WP:NOBLOGS. The other longstanding link that had been included might also disqualify based on the first point of WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

So I am proposing to add only the AFed link under "External links" and to remove the hidden notes against spam. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I saw the request for a third opinion and I am here to provide my non-binding thoughts on the matter. I think that Grnrchst is right about the topic being a broad-concept article. Just for kicks I went and compared it to Socialism and that has links but they are all just links to other encyclopaedia entries. The breadth of this topic is wide both temporally and geographically so I feel that the link to what looks like just an anarchist focused news site is not particularly relevant. On the other hand the .edu site seems like it might actually be a good use of the external links section. No particular opinion on the spam tag but if it hasn't been an issue recently then removing it is fine, it can always be re-added if it becomes a problem. Moritoriko (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

FYI though—AFed is *not* necessarily news as in practice they publish every publication relevant to anarchists through theanarchistlibrary as well as periodicals on history. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

(On that note I would also recommend theanarchistlibrary as a potential external link!) Altanner1991 (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I think Grnr is right to point towards search aggregators, or RSS feeds from LinksToAvoid for AFed. That's what it is: Combing the feeds of 653 sites into one, a feed aggregator. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Grnr and Aaron. AFed and Noblogs fit ELNO and don't fit ELYES BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

But then, what policy guidelines does AFed not fit, specifically? Altanner1991 (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Disagree. AFed is neither a search aggregator nor an RSS feed. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

RSS feeds and links to search aggregator results would be absurd because RSS feeds are not properly formatted for the common user and search aggregator results are too dynamic for encyclopedic sourcing, as they change every time their links are clicked and their archival links would likely constitute as original research anyway, although these guidelines are just that: guidelines. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

search aggregator results are too dynamic for encyclopedic sourcing, as they change every time their links are clicked and their archival links would likely constitute as original research anyway

That applies to AFed. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Not at all! Altanner1991 (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The guideline was intended to apply to feed aggregators too (see Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 20#2 more (minor?) changes in WP:LINKSTOAVOID). This is because all the arguments against search engine results apply to the latest posts from a list of websites.

I've now updated the guideline to clarify this. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

It is strange that "RSS" was ever mentioned instead of "feed". Happy editing! Altanner1991 (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

This section needs serious work, as there is no clear structure to the content. There are also errors, such as in the discussion of philosophical anarchism and John Simmons. Simmons does not argue for abolishing the state - to the contrary. Rather he just argues that we have no obligation to obey the state. This 'philosophical anarchism' is very different from 'political anarchism', i.e. the wish to abolish the state. Robert Paul Wolff was also a philosophical anarchist, but the section implies otherwise. The section as it is now confuses a bunch of different philosophical concepts and the references are somewhat dubious for the claims it makes. Stjamesinfirmary (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)