Talk:Anarchism/Archive 67

Last year, I wrote the following on the lede:

This is a high-traffic article on a relatively controversial topic; from my recollection—when this article used to be on my watchlist—passersby always take aim at their favorite part of the lede, but it still retains some elements from its last formal (GA) review in 2010. If going line-by-line to establish a consensus on what should be added/removed, it becomes easier to point back to this discussion (and our supporting sources) as rationalization for why the lede is the way that it is.

In the months since, the pattern of passersby editing the lede to add/remove a preferred word has persisted. Wouldn't it make sense to establish a stable version of the lede by coming to consensus on its granular detail line by line, word by word? Then any lede changes can be referred to this discussion (or a new talk page section) instead of the lede text slowly morphing back and forth between various definitions over time. czar 03:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Czar. What do you think about the current lead? I think it was mainly written by Cinadon36.--Davide King (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeap User:Davide King, I did write most of it. The article has undergone many changes since last year so lede had to reflect the main body. Another issue, was that the previous version of the lede included parts that were not mentioned in the article. Maybe we should create a new talk page, just to address lede issues. I believe the current version of lede is far from perfect but it is better than the previous version. Any feedback welcomed. Cinadon36 16:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine too and most of the changes have been from uninvolved users who do not know that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article; and that the lead needs to reflect the main body and vice versa. What do you think it could be better worded or improved?--Davide King (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2020 (UT)

I have been hanging around this article for a while, not doing substantial edits, but copy editing and stabilizing when needed. Since you asked what could be improved, however ... Calling anarchism "a form of socialism" in the lead does not fit with the rest of the article, and it is not a part of the stable lead that you are discussing. It was added two days ago. I would need more specifics to evaluate the claims that the IP is putting forward below, but I agree with them that it should be removed from the lead.--MattMauler (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I was going to remove the recently-added preamble before "Anarchism advocates..." but I see that there is an active edit war going on, so I will leave it with what I said above. Anarchism should be placed on the left end of the political spectrum and often manifests itself in forms of anti-statist socialism, but (Cinadon, Davide King) which experts are you referring to who would go as far as to call anarchism a "form of anti-authorian socialism?" I think that is too strongly worded.--MattMauler (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

MattMauler, yes it might be too strong to brand Anarchism as a form of socialism. We need to discuss this matter. The argument that anarchism is a form of socialism is strong though, since classical era anarchism, which is the most notable form of anarchism, was a worker's movement demanding stateless socialism. As for your question, I had in mind Kinna's 2019 book on Anarchism where she talks of anarchism as it was a socialist movement/ideology. Kinna's book was the last book to read on anarchism. Anyway, the important question, is whether the main body address anarchism as a form of socialism. In my opinion, the sentence "As an anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian form of socialism, anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies or other forms of free associations." should be rewordedCinadon36 18:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought that the main body did reflect that, i.e. a worker's movement demanding stateless socialism. Do you disagree with form of socialism (you write Anarchism should be placed on the left end of the political spectrum and often manifests itself in forms of anti-statist socialism) or just with the anti-authoritarian bit? I didn't think it was controversial; wasn't that one of the main reasons behind the split from the Marxists and then the Second International? I think it was literally called or referred to as the anti-authoritarian IWA, wasn't it?--Davide King (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

For my part, I disagree with "form of socialism," not with "anti-authoritarian." The latter describes all anarchists. I think "form of socialism" necessarily excludes a lot of the (admittedly weaker) contemporary strains of anarchism, but (perhaps more importantly) also leaves out classical elements such as individualists like Stirner and anarcho-pacifists who refuse to take an economic stance.--MattMauler (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the former also describes pretty much all anarchists, even if they may not use the term itself or argue that it isn't; for anarchism is fundamentally a labour/socialist movement; and a market doesn't necessarily imply capitalism either. I think the main issue in anarchism has been between communism (socialised both production and distribution) and socialism (only production is socialised); and the means to reach the same ends (revolution or evolution; end of wage labour or free competition, etc.). Within anarchism, Stirner has especially influenced communists and syndicalists, including egoists who are basically communists; and is generally regarded as an anti-capitalist.--Davide King (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Cinadon36, could you please post the last stable version of the lede and then we can open it up for line-by-line discussion where needed? Not sure if the more recent edits have since been reviewed. czar 00:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Please, feel free to correct me, but think the current one is, well, the one. Besides the correction of a few typos and wording that didn't really change the meaning, I think this was the one that reflected Cinadon36's edits and addition to the main body.--Davide King (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the lede signifantly but I do not believe that current lede is "unstable". Apart from this "socialist" thing, which is controversial, there was no other objection to the lede. When I did re-write the lede, I didnt include any word attaching anarchism to socialism.. I think the specific sentence mentioning socialism (As an anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian form of socialism, anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies or other forms of free associations was inserted recently by another user. Anyway, the previous version of the lede, had much more significant problem, have a look here.Previous Version. It does not summarizes the main body. Cinadon36 16:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I did this edit and you thanked me for it, so I thought that was fine and in line with the main body; indeed, I thought that was itself a summary of the Thought section.--Davide King (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Dont get me wrong, I think it is a correct statement but I get that some will object to it. O also agree that it can be deduced from the main body. Nevertheless, if there r objections, we had to remove it and discuss it further at Talk. As I see it, it is not crucial to try to categorize Anarchism. I know it is tempting, especially among those having an aristotelian approach to reality, but since we are lacking crystal clear strong consensus from RS, lets not jump into this field. Cheers, Cinadon36 06:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, if they oppose that statement merely because they think it's wrong is one thing (I don't think it's a sufficient reason to remove it); if there isn't a consensus from reliable sources is another (in this case, it should be removed). It's not a big deal to me, I simply beiieved that anarchism as workers movement and its struggles with Marxism and other state socialists may be lead worthy, so saying that it's libertarian form of socialism may be the shortest summary.

I'm fine with having that deduced from the main body anyway. For why anarchism is generally considered a form of socialism or anti-captalism is because, as far as I know, anarchists use a broader/different definition from the Marxian one, but it's also stricter from the general one as it doesn't include statist types. If anarcho-capitalism is considered anarchist or within the anarchist movement, it's because it's a form of socialism/anti-capitalism, notwithstanding the name. However, the issue is that it doesn't result in the former as anarchy but rather in modern-day capitalism, just without any regulation or public state somehow. The issue is that anarcho-captalists support certain capitalist social hierarchies and relations that most anarchists and the anarchist movement have rejected. Even those anarchists who supported wage labour, they still wanted the workplace relations to be that of co-equals/owners. Anarcho-capitalists seem to believe that the current workplace social relations are perfectly voluntary; for them, the issue is all those regulations and state monopoly. Most anarchists who supported free competition and markets also did so because they believed or thought that would result in a much more equal and free society, that it would yield similar results to those supported by communists, just by different means.

So while both anarchism and anarcho-capitalism may reach similar conclusions, they do so by vastly different analysis and anarcho-capitalism seems to be only merely inspired by individualist anarchism and more influenced by the Austrian School; it seems to be a movement of its own, outside the anarchist one. While a few anarcho-capitalists who identify as such may actually be considered mutualists and hence anarchists, anarchism and anarcho-captalism seem to be two different yet related in some ways movements, just like communism and anarchism/socialism. As for other anarchist schools of thought, I don't see how they aren't socialist or anti-capitalist in the anarchist definition or even in a broder socialist one; however, they certainly seem to be incompatible with capitalism and state socialism. So again, if opposition to that wording is based on that, I don't think it's a good one. Please, feel free to correct if I'm wrong or disagree.--Davide King (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I am certainly not basing my objection only on my own analysis. I have never seen anarchism described as a type or form of socialism, and that definition would obviously exclude strains of anarchism that are not socialist but are still anarchist, which I have already mentioned. As far as I can tell, we are still investigating whether or not there is a consensus in secondary sources. I very much doubt that there is, and that is what I am basing my objection on.--MattMauler (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

As for other anarchist schools of thought, I don't see how they aren't socialist or anti-capitalist. Firstly, anti-capitalist is not the same thing as socialist. Secondly, which anarchist schools of thought are you referring to? Yes, Dorothy Day was anarchist and socialist. Tolstoy, however, was anarchist and not socialist. Yes, Stirner influenced communist thought, but he himself was not socialist. He and Thoreau, for instance, advocated for the primacy of individual will and did not comment systematically on economic implications. This is without even getting into primitivists who advocate re-wilding to a kind of tribal state, which does not comfortably fit in with socialism either. If you want to insist on somehow categorizing these strains as socialist, that would have to be very carefully based on reliable secondary sources, sources which I don't think exist. Remember, most importantly, that our back-and-forth here (including this comment and your comment speculating that anarcho-capitalism is a form of socialism (?)) is irrelevant. We have to base what goes in the article on secondary sources.--MattMauler (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that definition would exclude them. Economic theories within anarchism include collectivism, communism, mutualism and syndicalism, among others; and as far as I know they're broadly considered socialist economic theories. Either way, I don't see how that isn't compatible with the definition as outlined by Guerin 1970 that we use in Thoughts, i.e. that anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Anarchism is only one of the streams of socialist thought, that stream whose main components are concern for liberty and haste to abolish the State. Cinadon36 wrote I think it is a correct statement and that it can be deduced from the main body, so we'd need to change the latter if we remove that from the lead. As for primitivism, isn't that basically primitive communism, i.e. a return to that? Maybe anti-capitalist is better? To clarify, while Day was an anarchist and socialist, Tolstoy wasn't an anarchist in the sense that he defined as such anyway, but he's considered one; just like Godwin and Stirner, among others. It's up to reliable sources tell us what's the consensus on whether they can be consider socialists or not; and I wouldn't exclude a priori that reliablle sources may considered them socialists even if they didn't comment systematically on economic implications. The main point is that the anarchist movement is generally considered socialist, even if some strains or individuals may not be considered necessarily socialist.--Davide King (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The Guerin quote is in a footnote, and in the article itself, the claim is significantly weakened: Anarchism is usually placed on the far-left of the political spectrum. Much of its economics and legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian interpretations of radical left-wing and socialist politics .... I agree entirely with what's in the article with "usually" and "much of its economics," etc.; these make it clear that not all forms of anarchism fit in with this description. You make a good point, however, in introducing Guerin. I had not seen his quote in the footnote until now, and the fact that the source count is now up to two (counting Kinna 2019) is something.
I would still prefer that the same kind of "usually"s or other such qualifiers be there, rather than stating that anarchism is a form of socialism: Tolstoy is classified as an anarchist in expert sources (Christoyannopoulos in Christian Anarchism, Marshall in Demanding the Impossible). To respond to your positing that the other thinkers might be considered socialist in RS even though they didn't comment on economics ... It's certainly possible, and if we can locate those sources, great, but I am not ready to change my mind based on that assumption yet. Additionally, a similar discussion has come up before on this talk page in August 2019, and at that point Cinadon expressed very similar views to the ones that I am now sticking to (see the end of the section here: Talk:Anarchism/Archive_66#Lede_revisited). They were concerned then, as I am now, that certain strains of anarchism are excluded if socialism is made an essential part of the definition. They are entitled to change their mind, of course, and I am aware that new sources have come to light.
I think we should move ahead: We can take the current "stable lead," without the "form of socialism" line, and begin the word-by-word consensus building that was proposed (by Czar) at the beginning of this section. If/when we start that process, other frequent editors should be pinged to make sure we actually have a strong consensus. I am happy to have my mind changed, or to defer to the broader consensus on the lead even if my disagreements remain (re: "form of socialism"). It's just hard to tell at this point with only three of us weighing in.--MattMauler (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

MattMauler, thanks for your thoroughly response! Honestly, I think the lead is fine, even without that. I added it because I thought it was relevant enough for the lead and supported in the main body. If a reference to socialism is to be added to the lead, I would be fine with usually or something similar as caveat, but it's not a big deal. I'm fine with just having that reflected in the main body.--Davide King (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It's kind of dry to start with etymology and history, which don't give a sense of what the article's really about. Wouldn't it be better to start with the Thought section, incorporating any necessary aspects of overview, definition, and terminology? Then can go into History, etc., which can include any necessary details on etymology and origins. The current opening section gives too much privilege to those details when really the reader needs to know about what the practice of anarchism entails. If in agreement, I would do the same with the lede: explain the breadth of thought in the first lede paragraph and leave the history secondary. czar 06:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeap, agree. We shouldnt be wasting reading time before we get to the core of anarchism. Cinadon36 07:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead paragraph seems like an overall good introduction, but the tone feels a bit informal and, more importantly, it cites no references. It would be good to have some citations from some reputable source such as a book on the history of anarchism or political philosophy. Kilgore T (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it could benefit from references, but see MOS:LEADCITE. Since it summarizes the body, often leads contain fewer or even no references. Are there specific claims in the lead that you think are more likely to be challenged or that would need citation?
Additionally, I can see some places in the lead that are perhaps a bit vague ... what wording in the lead do you see as too informal?--MattMauler (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with MattMauler, esp on refs. Also, Kilgore T you can change the wording of the lede if you wish. See WP:BRD.Cinadon36 07:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm planning to add a few group refs for the commonly challenged parts when I finish my read and get back to the lede. czar 12:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we are not very far from promoting this article to FA status. But regardless the distance, I am positive if we work collectively we can improve this article. Should we try? If there is a will, we can create a new talk subpage to discuss the compliance of the article with the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I know some of you might find lede far from perfect, but I believe that all lede issues should be addressed last, since main body of the article might change.Cinadon36 13:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Since the article has been basically rewritten, what do you think about sending it through GA again first? As for FAC prep itself, I think the talk page would be sufficient, no? If not, can spin out a peer review page but better to have more eyes than fewer. I need to give it a full read but I might not have time in the next week. Nudge me if I don't? After reading through, I'll have a better sense of what needs more weight in the lede as well. In the meantime, have you verified that each sentence is supported by its cited source? We'll need to do that eventually and might as well start now if it needs to be divvied up. czar 03:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent idea Czar, I am about to send it for GAN right now. Meanwhile, we have ~3 months to double check the various aspects of the article.Cinadon36 16:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Czar and Cinadon36:I have delisted from GA nomination as the article is already listed as GA. If the interest is to get this to FA, then given comments above I would suggest peer review. The other option is {{tlx|GAR}} (good article reassessment) but from my overview (albeit very quick), I don't think there are any glaring problems that hinder current GA status. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn, why? Do we really need to go through the process of delisting the article just to get a GA review? As discussed above, the article has been completely rewritten since its last review. czar 12:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Czar: Have a look at what good article reassessment outlines; all that will be assessed for is whether the GA status remains current. It won't help a great deal in terms of preparing for FA status. I removed the GA nomination because something which already has GA status cannot be nominated. It would first need to have the GA status removed via GAR for a GA nomination to then be applied....which takes you back to square one and why I would recommend peer review at this point...but you can of course request GAR (just not GA nomination at this point). Regards--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of the delisting process but see no benefit from going through it for its own sake. The point is to get a real, external review, which won't come from the moribund peer review process. We shouldn't have to prove that the completely rewritten article is not a GA just to get an independent review. But this isn't worth the argument, especially given the subject matter.

Cinadon, let me know if you need a hand with the re-sectioning (per below) and once that's resolved, I'll continue with my review as before. Also can open for WP:PR when ready for feedback but historically I've witnessed little coming from that venue (and better to list once all the obvious work is resolved). czar 00:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I understand, GAR will not result in a delisting because the article is already strong; it would most likely just confirm that the article is good. If it would help, I could look over the article fully towards the end of the month or early next. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: Since you reverted some of my edits on the education section, I figured I'd reply to some of your concerns: you reverted for two reasons, that "(a) previous version focuses on Summerhill, not the ideology of the founder, b) citing theanarchistlibrary.org might be a prob due to copyvio".

Concerning (a), I briefly mention that A . S. Neill did not identify as an anarchist simply as background information, so that one doesn't walk away thinking he did. A. S. Neill's work has been identified by numerous sources to be the basis of modern libertarian education, which the existing edit doesn't mention (while mine does). All that the current version states is that he founded a school, Summerhill, "free from coercion" - this does not tell the reader much at all. Upon first reading the section, I wasn't even sure if Summerhill was at all connected to the anarchist movement. I feel that my revision better explains Summerhill and it's relation to anarchism.

Concerning (b), none of the citations to the Anarchist Library include any copyright-violating material. If, however, you'd feel more comfortable with it, the link to the Anarchist Library can be removed completely from the reference, although, again, the material does not violate copyright.

In the meantime, I'll be deleting the following portion of text, as the exact same idea is conveyed in the next couple paragraphs:

"All anarchist schools were based mostly on a moral value, namely respecting children's right to develop freely without manipulations. However, they faced the dilemma of whether they should guide youngsters towards political and class struggles. Most anarchist educators of early 20th century did not take a neutral stance; the specific question kept troubling anarchist the decades to come.[124] Some decades later, anarchist authors such Colin Ward, Hearbert Read and Paul Goodman intensified and expanded anarchist's critique to state education, even the need for schooling as a pedagogical method, suggesting a system that would focus on children's creativity rather than turning them into career-hunters.[125]"

which is analogous to the following

"Anarchist education is based largely on the idea that a child's right to develop freely, without manipulation, ought to be respected, and that rationality will lead children to morally good conclusions. However, there has been little consensus among anarchist figures as to what constitutes manipulation; Ferrer, for example, believed that moral indoctrination was necessary and explicitly taught pupils that equality, liberty, and social justice were not possible under capitalism (along with other critiques of nationalism and government).[124][126]

Late 20th century and contemporary anarchist writers (such as Colin Ward, Herbert Read and Paul Goodman) intensified and expanded the anarchist critique of state education, largely focusing on the need for a system that focuses on children's creativity rather than on their ability to attain a career or participate in consumer society.[125] Contemporary anarchists, such as Colin Ward, have further argued that state education serves to perpetuate socio-economic inequality."

DeliriousWolf (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This is an overview article so there is no need for this depth on A. S. Neill, Summerhill, or even Ferrer. Anything more than a single, short paragraph on "anarchist education" is undue weight in this article. (Beyond that, I'd add that "anarchist education" is a misnomer. There are anarchists critiques and treatises on education, but there is no program of "anarchist education" or even "anarchist schools" besides Ferrer. But that's a different discussion for a different talk page.) czar 22:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi DeliriousWolf and thanks for bringing this to the Talk. Most of your edit was in a positive direction imo, but let's focus on the reverts. You have added a new paragraph at section "Anarchism and education", which makes it longer. This gives undue weight to the thoughts of anarchists/m on education. Even as it is, there is already a problem, the creation of a new paragraph commenting a historical event, seems a little redundant. I have also note that the sources you used were not secondary RS. It was a tertiary for Andrew Vincent and another book from anarchist activists (that makes it more like a primary source). The same goes of infed.org. We need sources from academics that are focused on Anarchism and hence have a balanced weight on the significance of each fact/event/issue. Also regarding this revert, I removed the sentence "The Summerhill School, founded by A. S. Neill in 1921, has been cited repeatedly as an example of anarchist education in practice" because it doesnt convey to the reader any significant message, apart from naming the school and the founder. I feel the priority in this article is to illustrate anarchist though rather than mentioning names and places. I hope my partial revert wont stop you from improving this article even more. May I also ask a favor? Can you pls use {{sfn}} footnotes? You are not obliged of course, it will just save us time. Cheers Cinadon36 13:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see - thanks for the correction Cinadon36 and Czar. I haven't contributed to overview pages before and have mostly focused on obscure historical biographies and small pages (where, in general, more detail is better). I'll familiarize myself with WP:UNDUE and {{sfn}} footnotes and continue to contribute. Cheers. DeliriousWolf (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

While "sovereign citizens" are primarily tax protesters, apparently, it seems that their other tenants loosely match those of anarchism, i.e., not subject to government rule, or hierarchical authority etc. It would be interesting to have a comparison of their beliefs and differences somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Currently Geoffrey Ostergaard's entry on anarchism in the Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought is listed in both the "secondary sources" and "tertiary sources" sections of the bibliograpy. It might be appropriate to list it twice if we're citing two different editions, but I can't see why one would be treated as secondary and the other as tertiary. The second iteration also seems to misleadingly identify Ostergaard as the author of the whole dictionary. Can someone combine or clarify them as appropriate? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Consolidated czar 02:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Here, Mercy11 removed my addition to the lead of It is usually described alongside libertarian Marxism as the libertarian wing (libertarian socialism) of the socialist movement and as having a historical association with anti-capitalism and socialism to the lead. They stated that We don't include in the lead information not already thoroughly discussed in the article. The words "libertarian Marxism" aren't mentioned in the article again. This information first needs to be a substantial subject of discussion in the article before it can find its way into the lead. see WP:LEAD. I did add it about a month ago now and no one reverted it, so I assumed it was fine. My edit summary was that I think there was some agreement to add socialism to the lead, although with a qualifier such as "usually" and I followed Czar suggestive wording of having a "historical association with socialism"; I did add anti-capitalism because that too is sourced to Jun 2009, pp. 507–508 and Williams 2018, p. 4. In this discussion, Cinadon36 agreed and Czar stated Would it suffice to say that it has a "historical association with socialism" or is that not strong enough? Plenty of refs in the definition article that support that. In my choice of words, I also followed the qualifier usually that was suggested by MattMauler, so I think it was fine and it should be reinstated, perhaps discussing the exact choice of words, but the point was agreed.
— Davide King (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, thank you for pinging me about this matter. The lead is a summary of the major points presented in the article; it's an MOS standard that something not substantially discussed in the article, doesn't belong in the lead. As for prior discussions, please see wp:localconsensus, in particular, "consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Hopefully this will help. If not, you can post at any of the WP dispute resolution pages listed here. Also, please remember that, per WP:V, the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Thank you, Mercy11 (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Mercy11, thank you for your response. That is well and good, but that statement is supported in the main body (again, we may change a bit of the wording but the meaning is supported). As for local consensus, it is not my fault there were not more users to discuss it; and I am not sure there even was a "community consensus on a wider scale", so it did not override that either. Cinadon36 and Czar are two users who contributed and worked hard to get Anarchism to the good article status. In my view, there is an agreement and so far neither of them reverted my edit or took it to the talk page to disagree; so if there is any disagreement, it is about what kind of words using (Would it suffice to say that it has a "historical association with socialism" or is that not strong enough?), not the mention of anarchism's role in the anti-capitalist and socialist movement, which is supported by the main body. If you are saying this needs a request of comments or to be advertised, that is all fine and well, but this is not about a mere, controversial addition, which would require one of those, but about having the lead supporting the main body and the main body supports that addition. So we either change the main body which includes [p]lenty of refs in the definition article that support that, or we ought to conform the lead to it.
— Davide King (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• I saw this removal, went to check the article text and couldn't find the relevant section, and then was busy with something else. I don't think Mercy is rejecting to your addition, from what I've read—the argument is just that the same point needs to be made (and cited) in the article text so that the lede can paraphrase it, i.e., the lede can't make a claim that's not sourced/supported in the text. The fix here is to add the relevant citations to the main article text and then restore the lede text. The article has changed so much that I lose track of what was removed/added. If supporting citations are needed, there are plenty in Definition of anarchism to import. Also fwiw, the article became a GA long before us, though Cin did a nearly full rewrite recently if I recall correctly. And I think it is nigh time to source the lede, considering how often it is challenged. czar 20:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Czar, in that case, you are right and I hope it can be added. I simply thought it was already there. We have Marshall for the libertarian Marxism claim, we have Guérin for the socialist claim and we have Jun and Williams for the anti-capitalist claim; and as you noted, we have others as well that can be added. Thanks! Davide King (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of anarcocapitalists and there is no mention of this? The legitimacy of government in this view (with no reference to communism) has been questioned going back to Spooner, Rothbard and Nock for instance; there is a history behind this movement. TheSuperCE (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there significant portion of reliable third party Sources (ie academic books) that include ancap as a significant form of anarchism? Have in mind that many forms of anarchism are not included, since the scope of the article is not to mention each one of those types.Cinadon36 08:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Anarchocapitalism is not anarchism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.91.217.62 (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Anarcho Capitalism is not a philosophical tendency of anarchism, that's not to say anarcho-capitalism is somehow bad, but it's not in the anarchist school of thought. Or at least the historical anarchist school of though. Anyone name themselves "anarchist", but it doesn't matter unless they have a historical, practical or philosophical connection to anarchism, which anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchism lacks. Vallee01 (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

​​ Here, DMT biscuit [a]dded info from Center for Strategic and International Studies about the "potential threat" presented by anarchists. The only given source was the report, so it seems undue and presentist. It is also probably more relevant to anarchism in the United States than here, but I do not see the relevance here. Davide King (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that this (1) needs more context to be included, e.g., "could be a threat" is vague, and (2) would be a better fit for the US article, given that this is an international overview and the weight of this claim is disproportionate to the volume of the coverage. czar 21:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

DMT biscuit added here and here the following sentences in "Criticism" and "Etymology, definition and terminology":

While Herbert L. Osgood claims that anarchism is "the extreme antithesis of socialism and communism".^[1]

Frances L. Ferguson argues that anarchism defies and fails to understand the biological inclination to authority.^[2]

Are they actually relevant and due? If the criticism that anarchism defies and fails to understand the biological inclination to authority is common, I would assume there would be better source than a over century old one. For the claim that anarchism is "the extreme antithesis of socialism and communism", that would have certainly surprised classical anarchists such as Proudhon (mutualist), Bakunin (collectivist), Tucker (individualist) and Kropotkin (communist) who defined themselves as socialists. Secondly, I find it useless, especially when it is not explained at all what the author even mean by the terms communism and socialism. Is it authoritarian/compulsory communism and state socialism, respectively? It would seems to be so as the author writes that "[t]he socialist desires so to extend the sphere of the state that it shall embrace all the more important concerns of live. The communist, at least of the older school, would make the sway of authority and the routine which follows therefrom universal". So using another over century old source for such an extraordinary claim, I think it is undue and seems to be added as false balance for all the sources about anarchism and liberalism/socialism. Maybe I am missing something, but I think better secondary sources would be needed or more context provided for the quote. Davide King (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a high-level overview article, so any critiques cited should also be high-level, i.e., generalized. If we are to list specific, attributed criticisms, there should be more care in noting why this particularly criticism warrants inclusion alongside the generalized, high-level ones.

In this case the more pressing matter is why we're citing criticism from the 1880s. If these claims don't have secondary source coverage in the last 130 years, they don't belong in an overview article. czar 20:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Czar, that was what I thought too and why I asked if there were secondary and tertiary sources that included such criticism. Like Lenin's criticism which has been removed, I think the same applies here. We would need secondary or tertiary sources that picks up Ferguson's criticism or were the same, essential criticism is mentioned in articles and books summarising criticism of anarchism. I assume that criticism has been made by many others too, but we need more or better sources to establish weight. Davide King (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Czar and Davide King. I would argue that they're relevant. I wonder if you're trying to rationalise them in a manner unfitting for the article. I agree that Osgood's claim is nonsensical but it's still a unique perspective from a notable scholar. I would also argue that the relevant context is provided in the preceding comment Brian Morriss argues that it is "conceptually and historically misleading" to "create a dichotomy between socialism and anarchism". This establishes why it's included. I.E. they are creating the dichotomy discussed and disagree with Morriss' statement.

The second quotation, Ferguson's, I will concede that if it is to stay, which I think it is worthy of, should be better worded. For example, anarchism defies and fails to understand the [supposed/claimed] biological inclination to authority While a more recent source corroborating the claims would be helpful, i think it's and Osgood's age is actually beneficial as it shows historical context. Perhaps, if they're to stay, that should be mentioned.

Ultimately if you two still remain unconvinced, then I'm more than happy for youse to remove it.DMT biscuit (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

DMT biscuit, thanks for your response. However, I am not sure what you mean by stating they are creating the dichotomy discussed and disagree with Morriss' statement. 'They' who? It is Osgood and he is not disagreeing with Morriss' statemente because he was dead before Morriss was even born. Or perhaps you meant that Morriss was responding to that? Either way, I moved each sentence chronologically, so Osgood starts the paragraph. As for the criticism, I do not think the old age is especially an issue, but more that Ferguson's criticism should be mentioned in secondary and tertiary sources to establish weight and whether it is due or not. I did add In an 1886 article for the North American Review to Ferguson's criticism. I thought that this criticism would be common and there would be no issue finding it in secondary and tertiary sources, maybe not citing Ferguson and his exact word but essentially making the same criticism nonetheless. We need to find those sources to verify its notability, even perhaps if there has been any further response or criticism to it. Davide King (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I can't find any secondary sources that reference Ferguson or Osgood's claims. Shall this be grounds for removal.DMT biscuit (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• fwiw, I would remove all attributed definitions from that section in favor of secondary sources and communally defined definitions, since again this is an overview article and we should be leaning on scholars for weighing definitional arguments, not making those comparisons ourselves. Might just be a matter of how it's currently written though, e.g., Marshall should be generalized and paraphrased rather than an attributed full quote. czar 06:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  Czar, how would you summarise and paraphrase those quotes? Davide King (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd be rewriting the section so it'd be a significant undertaking, perhaps for the future? If you're asking about stylistically how I would do it, I'd look to reliable, secondary sources that make characterizations/generalizations that we can cite wholesale/definitively without need of in-line attribution. czar 21:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The CHAZ image in my opinion should not have been removed, it is the most influential anarchist communities, and also the most recent. It also is a fine image. Thoughts? Vallee01 (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(Diff) I think it's a stretch to say CHAZ is an influential anarchist community, nevertheless the most. In any event, I think that's more of a discussion for that article's page. For this article, we should be only emphasizing images that reinforce the text. Decorative asides can be entertaining but unhelpful. czar 22:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Czar, I suggest you can remove such images and only adding images that are not decorative. I would not do that myself because I am not sure which ones to remove, etc.; and I feel like you can better analyse through sources which ones are undue and which ones are not. Davide King (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Speaking from personal experience my involvement in anarchist organizations like food not bombs everybody is talking about CHAZ. I understand no original research is or should be allowed but there are other sources for this information. I think a section specifically about CHAZ (I love this acronym) would be beneficial and include the image as well. Vallee01 (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand that enthusiasm but our job is to present the sources, not to find the truth. I worked on the early CHAZ article and haven't seen reliable, secondary sources that discuss CHAZ's impact on the American or international anarchist community. If they exist, I'd love to read and use them. But I'd likely start with anarchism in the United States before bringing it to this overview article. The point here is less to find one supporting source and use that to justify an image, but to summarize what reliable sources are saying and only then consider what illustrations would best illustrate the text content. czar 18:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I’d like to remove Marx and Marxism from the “Criticism” section but didn’t want to unilaterally do it. Reasons: The given citation doesn’t support Marx’s (or Marxists’) inclusion and Marx himself was an anarchist.

We’ve got an image of Marx at the top, with the caption reading “Karl Marx (top) called anarchism ‘schoolboy asininity’...” and at the end the body of the same section, we’ve got “Anarchism is also seen by Marxists as unrealistic and overly idealistic. Karl Marx described it as ‘schoolboy asininity’.”

The only citation given to support the inclusion of Marx and Marxists is Brinn (2020, p. 206). In the Brinn article, he does say “Anarchism has a long-held reputation as utopian, idealistic and paradigmatically non-realist. It is accused of naïve idealism (Turcato, 2015: 1), moralistic theoretical purism and even ‘schoolboy asininity’ (Marx, 2000: 607)” (actually on p. 207 of the Brinn, but if we eliminate the Marx reference, we don’t need to fix the incorrectly cited page number). “Marx, 2000” is the Oxford “Karl Marx: Selected Writings,” and p. 607 is a transcription of marginal notes Marx wrote in his copy of Bakunin’s “Statism and Anarchy.” The “schoolboy asininity” is written (by Marx) in response to a passage of Bakunin’s, which itself was a criticism of Marx, not in response to anarchism itself. So it would be correct that Marx thought that Bakunin’s criticism of Marx was “schoolboy asininity,” but not that Marx thought that anarchism was. So we’re attributing to Marx what Brinn incorrectly attributed to Marx.

The reason I even investigated this is because Marx’s version of communism is itself a version of anarchism, and so it was odd to see Marx described as a critic of anarchism. I can provide additional material for this claim about Marx being an anarchist, although I’m not advocating that we make that claim in this Wiki article.

Thoughts? Thanksforhelping (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I saw no objections to this, so I went ahead and made the change. Thanksforhelping (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This section is noticeably lacking in any visual aid and is as a result quite dense and wordy. As so I propose, just like the previous sections, an image of one of the subjects discussed included to aid the readability and understanding. I would personally say that Bertrand Russell is the best fit as the average reader is most likely to be aware of him. Other inclusions are open for discussion.DMT biscuit (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Illustrations shouldn't be decorative. It's perfectly fine for sections to not have illustrations. I am not seeing the reader value in having two photos with this caption: Karl Marx (left), called anarchism "schoolboy asininity" while Bertrand Russell (right), argued that anarchism was unable to provide all the services that government does This is sufficiently explained in the article text itself. czar 21:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Czar: It identifies two prominent philosophers views on the text in an easily accessible manner. In the same way the images of Zeno, Lawrence Jarach and John Zerzan do. DMT biscuit (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Those should be removed as well if they constitute undue weight in their sections. czar 01:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Czar, regarding Criticism, I wonder if we could turn it into an Analysis section per Wikipedia:Criticism. Davide King (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Catching up on pings. My recommendation would be less focus on individual X saying Y and more on general responses to the themes of anarchism. That way, major contentions can be threaded into the discussion of the philosophy rather than relegated to a Criticism or Analysis section. But that's a different discussion than how to use images in the current section. czar 09:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The paragraph under Criticism that begins "Philosophy lecturer Andrew G. Fiala also believed that humans could not self-govern..." is misleading and misrepresents Fiala. The cited source is a list Fiala's responses to several "standard objections". I think that paragraph should be removed, or at least edited to make it clear that Fiala is defending anarchism against those objections, not posing the objections himself. --Cristoper (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

While it is not a list, your point is valid- it is not Fiala's opinion. We should re-phrase. Cinadon36 15:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

I caught a grammatical error that was hidden in an unending list of commas. ″As anarchism is a philosophy that embodies many diverse attitudes, tendencies, schools of thought, disagreement over questions of values, ideology and tactics is common.″ If I read the statement correctly, it should be ″As anarchism is a philosophy that embodies many diverse attitudes, tendencies, and schools of thought, disagreement over questions of values, ideology and tactics is common.″ TavianCLirette (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the correction TavianCLirette! I also took the opportunity to remove a serial comma from the unending list, so that the usage was consistent through the sentence. Wham2001 (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Have further edited it to a semicolon (i.e. ...schools of thought; disagreement over....). Opposed to overuse of semicolons but with two lists in the same sentence it is usually best practice to make the distinction clear John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 15:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Change sceptical to skeptical in the opening sentence. 2604:3D08:6B82:5000:87E:DD88:804F:54CC (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Per WP:ENGVAR, The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of English over any other, and when an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, we should maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Upon a flagging up by User:Headbomb/unreliable bot and an inspection of its publication, I think a consensus on this citations usage should be called into question. It's published by the Mieses institute which has seen stark criticism for its material. There's also a tangential link to the Cato Institute for which there is, per WP:RSPSOURCES, "no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed." How do we feel about this citation's inclusion? DMT Biscuit (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree, not a reliable sourse, well spotted.Cinadon36 16:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It's possible to make a case that it's just being used for opinion/criticism and should simply be attributed as such, but it's also true that for how it's currently used in the article, there should be better sources available that cover the same material, that "The most common critique of anarchism is that humans cannot self-govern and so a state is necessary for human survival." If you can find a comparable source replacement, go for it! czar 19:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should just add a "better source needed" {{bcn}}. I feel thought that is not a strong statement so I do not feel the urgency to remove the ref, tbh, although I recognize it does not meet WP guidelines. Cinadon36 21:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Anarchy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36, Czar, et al., as I wrote here, a Criticism section is not a good thing for a good article-status page. As I wrote there, "criticism is better discussed in the body and a Reception section which summarizes both positive and negative views, respecting due weight, is to be preferred." Davide King (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Davide King:, interesting point but should we discuss this at a separate section at Talk Page? Cinadon36 06:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Based on prior talk page discussions, I think it'd be uncontroversial to convert the "Criticism" section to "Analysis"—it's just a matter or someone putting in the work. However, I'd wager that it'd be even better to drop the section altogether and instead weave the same points/rebuttals to anarchism within the article itself. For example, when discussing anarchist terrorism also include the popular response and critiques in the same section rather than relegating that to an unrelated paragraph at the end of the article. czar 11:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Czar:, that would be very tricky though and hard to accomplish in a neutral manner. If we are talking about various aspects of anarchism, adding criticism at the end of every section, it would be like cancelling various Anarchist arguments. Most importantly, I haven't noticed a book discussing various issues of anarchism, adding criticism at the end of each chapter. What I have noticed, is criticism at the end of article of Anarchism at SEP. So, walking in a road not already walked by RS, feels a little strange- and dangerous.Cinadon36 20:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36, another solution would be a conversion to "Analysis", as suggested by Czar, or "Reception", which would include both positive, mixed, and negative views, according to secondary sources and weight. Davide King (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I think whatever the solution we end up with ( I am fine with both suggestions) it has to "structurally" be based on at least one high quality RS. It really helps us not slipping into OR territories.Cinadon36 06:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course. I think you and Czar could work together to find those high-quality sources and summarize them, because summary is not my strength yet, while I could help in copy-editing and structuring the phrasing, which hopefully is something I am good about. Davide King (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36, Czar, it is hard for me to find such sources, especially because, if most of content is not going to be move in the body, an Analysis/Reception section should also include actual reception, how anarchism is seen, perhaps including some common misconceptions about it that secondary sources and anarchist scholars highlight, rather than just criticism and some response to it. Peterson 1987 is the type of sources we need but with better publishers. There is Anarchism: An Outline and a Criticism but it is very old and it would be better to see which sources use it, if there is any more modern secondary source that cites it to summarise it (it is cited only twice; and "Anarchism: Arguments for and Against", which has the same problems that we would need to find secondary sources if they pick it up and what they say; the latter is cited 48 times. There is also Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism (mainly p. 161 could contain something useful but I can not access the page). Maybe for the time being we could rename it to Analysis, so as to remove the tag, since it does include some counter-criticism too, and work from there. Davide King (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of how you folks resolve it, I'm glad the criticism section is being changed. I came to the talk page to say it seemed odd to me that each individual criticism was rebutted in the section. That seems like OR unless the rebuttal is specifically targeting that critic in the original text. It's seems unusual for criticism sections to have rebuttals at all, surely it is up to the reader to compare and contrast the weight of each argument? I am not sure I agree with Davide King that changing the name would be the best approach, as it seems standard for articles on major ideologies to have a criticism section (see marxism etc). "Reception" sounds odd, anarchism isn't a summer blockbuster. Mirkyton (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Mirkyton, thanks for your comment, I appreciate it. "... surely it is up to the reader to compare and contrast the weight of each argument ..." Which is why it is good to have some counter-criticism, if it is due; currently, the section mostly use secondary sources, i.e. instead of citing the author who mentioned the criticism in the first place (they are a primary source for interpretation/what they said), it uses secondary sources that paraphrase for us what the criticism was, what the author said, etc. "... as it seems standard for articles on major ideologies to have a criticism section." That is actually not a good thing because "[an] article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject. Please integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material." A good article would integrate any criticism or analysis in the body. Another possibility is what we do for Liberalism (Criticism and support, which could just be changed to Reception). Speaking of which... "'Reception' sounds odd, anarchism isn't a summer blockbuster." This may be true but it is a good summary of what we do for Liberalism (we include both criticism and support, hence Reception is fine, and books or movies do not have a monopoly for it); for anarchism, we should do the same. We either move any criticism in the body, or we create a more neutral section not limited to criticism, which is why such sections are to be avoided (no matter that other articles do that), to include both support (it may not have been as popular like Communism or other forms of socialism in the 20th century but it had its share of support in Spain, Ukraine, and other places; there are, or there have been, several anarchist communities, which we may mention to summarize their positive, negative, shortcomings, etc.; it is also supported by several academics or scholars; surely this could be mentioned), criticism (I think the section address the main criticism, like that a government is necessary, that there is always going to be authority, etc.), misconceptions (anarchism as only chaos or terrorism), and any other due scholarly analysis, not any random pundit or author, as it may be done for other similar articles. Davide King (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

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

The word “skeptical” in the first paragraph is misspelled. 47.185.111.227 (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: sceptical is correct in British English, which per the template above is the spelling convention preferred in this article. I learned something new today, as prior to investigating this edit I had no idea about that. Regardless, cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

The page states:

     "As a historically left-wing movement, placed on the farthest left of the political spectrum, it is usually described alongside libertarian Marxism as the libertarian wing (libertarian socialism) of the socialist movement, and has a strong historical association with anti-capitalism and socialism."

This statement is in direct contradiction to anarchy as defined in the first sentence, the abolition of the state. Socialism REQUIRES government, as well as coercive methods of enforcement, ergo anarchism amd socialism are not simmilar by any means, nor does anarchy exist on a "side of the spectrum." It is free from the suggested spectrum, and anarchy and socialism are enemies on all grounds. Please correct this so people actually understand anarchy instead of associating it with evil. 2603:7081:7144:2340:81AB:3E81:F038:7F94 (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Any addition/change to the article should be based on reliable secondary sources. Currently, the statement you are challenging is supported by such sources. Socialism has so far in history required a state (i.e., coercion of some kind), but plenty of theories imagine a different possibility.--MattMauler (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I think both sentenses are well sourced and uncontroversial. I understand that some husty readers, esp those who wont read the article, might jump into wrong conclusions, but it is not our fault.Cinadon36 15:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Anarchism is one of the types of socialism. BeŻet (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a minor grammar mistake: "One of the earliest criticism[s]" in the subsection "Analysis" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Striderjo (talk • contribs) 07:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Also, please remember to sign your comments by typing four tildes at the end: ~~~~. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Tokisaki Kurumi About our edits: The second paragraph of this article currently states "the history of anarchism dates back to prehistory, when humans lived in anarchic societies . . ."

The sentence as currently written implies that it is universally or generally agreed that anarchism (the political philosophy as opposed to the colloquial definition of "anarchy") dates back to prehistory, which contradicts the article it links to, history of anarchism, which states:

"The history of anarchism is as ambiguous as anarchism itself. Scholars find it hard to define or agree on what anarchism means, which makes outlining its history difficult. There is a range of views on anarchism and its history. Some feel anarchism is a distinct, well-defined 19th and 20th century movement while others identify anarchist traits long before first civilisations existed."

The implication that the anarchist movement is agreed to originate in prehistory is unsourced and contradicts the history of anarchism article, which does have sources for the academic disagreement in its first section. This article's second paragraph pushes a single point of view about the definition of anarchism and therefore, I think it should be changed. PBZE (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Good step bringing this discussion to the Talk page. The view that anarchism existed during prehistory, is held by a number of scholars. It seems unsourced in the intro, because at intro, we do not use refs. We just summarize the main body of the article. Cinadon36 06:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36 As I have stated, the view is held by a number of scholars but disagreed by others. Therefore it should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. PBZE (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The sentence of the current version does not claim that anarchism pre-existed "Humans lived in societies without formal hierarchies long before the establishment of formal states, realms, or empires. With the rise of organised hierarchical bodies, scepticism toward authority also rose". This is undisputed. Cinadon36 06:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The article got changed. I'm referring to this version. PBZE (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, ok, there have been so many changes I have got confused. Anyway, comparing that version with current version, the narrative stays more or less the same. Cinadon36 07:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the meaning is slightly different. That version states that the lack of formal hierarchy in prehistory is part of the history of anarchism, which relies on a broad definition of anarchism that is disputed. The current version simply describes the historical lack of hierarchy without stating whether or not this is a part of the history of anarchism, leaving the disputed question up to interpretation. PBZE (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@PBZE: I could make a compromise about the statement since your opinions seem to be strong, but I do think that the history of anarchism article is worth mentioning in the lede.--ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 09:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but I honestly do not know where to put it without implying that the history started at a certain point, therefore setting a stance on something that is not agreed upon. PBZE (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

How about something like: "Although the early history of anarchism is disputed, humans lived in societies without formal hierarchies..." Ornilnas (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO, that is vague and implies that the truthfulness of the events that make up anarchist history are themselves disputed, rather than the scope of anarchist history. Partially taking from the "history of anarchism" article, maybe it should be "Although the definition of anarchism is disputed and hence its history", "Although the history of anarchism is ambiguous", "Although the scope of anarchist history is disputed", "Although it is disputed what anarchism means and hence its history", or something along those lines. PBZE (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

How about linking "without formal hierarchies" to history of anarchism as it is one of the article's key topic?--ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 11:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That's also a little awkward because "without formal hierarchies" is a very specific part of the history of anarchism, not a phrase that encompasses the whole. It intuitively only refers to the state of society before formal hierarchies began, not the entirety of the history of anarchism, which is primarily *after* society became hierarchical. If we need to link "history of anarchism" in the lede then that would be one of the better options though.

We could also link the sentence "a self-conscious political movement emerged questioning all forms of authority" since that is more unambiguous. But it also may subtly push POV by implying that that is the entirety of anarchist history, not anything before, which is disputed. So it is not ideal either.

I've looked at some other articles about political ideologies. I've noticed that the articles about communism and socialism describe their histories in the lede without explicitly linking to their respective history articles. It's possible that linking the lede of this article to its respective history article is unnecessary, since we also have a "history" section which does. PBZE (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

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

• Specific text to be added or removed: Communalism instead of communalism
• Reason for the change: The capitalisation is needed to distinguish Communalism, the formalism put forward by Murray Bookchin, from general communalism, which encourages distinction among human beings based on their community, e.g. the Hindu-Muslim divide in India.
• References supporting change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism_(South_Asia)

Wandsword (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• •  Not done — reliable sources do not capitalize the word. Context is sufficient to distinguish the two. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

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

I'm requesting access to edit this semi-protected page. My university assigned me this page as a wikiproject to edit. I have the following contributions to make, as I do not see them written in the article:

- Definition Anarchist theory is based on a commitment to materialism, a rationalist approach to understanding societal change, and a focus on the potential of working class and countercultural elements as the catalysts to change, while rejecting the use of existing political parties and processes. A common misconception about anarchism is that it promotes the dissolution of the state without offering up a viable alternative form of governance. Instead, anarchism emphasizes the possibility of self governance through decentralised authority and voluntary associations made up of cooperating individuals.

-Analysis Rebuttals of critiques Anarchists claim that due to the voluntary nature of organisational structures that would arise under an abolished state, the anarchist vision is ultimately pluralist and does not contradictorily contain an authoritarian nature.

However, anarchist theorists such as Bakunin and Godwin have described human nature as not inherently good, but influenced by circumstances, and argued that under improved circumstances emphasizing individual autonomy, cooperation would be achievable. Instead, human nature is conceptualized as serving a rational self interest and driven towards participation in a social contract. It is the nature of the social contract anarchism intends to redesign, with an understanding that unfettered access to the power and privilege of authority can encourage corruption.

Far from being solely idealist, anarchist praxis offers material proposals for change, particularly in response to the perceived failings of existing institutions to ensure social welfare. Typical examples of anarchist praxis include self-managing workers, cooperatives; encouraging media access; free schools; open education and deschooling; neighborhood government, noninstitutional psychotherapy; non-hiearchical family and personal relationships; and elimination of arbitrary distinctions based on sex, race, age, linguistic usage, and so forth.

- Anarchism and the State Not all anarchists dismissed the functions of government entirely. Albert Jay Nock made a point to differentiate between a state that upholds special interests in protecting property, wealth,and economic power, and the use of government to provide strictly negative intervention in preventing the deterioration of rights to life and liberty in a Lockean sense.

-Classical Anarcho-syndicalists follow in the tradition of Bakunin’s collectivism, and believe that the worker is the unit through which society is meaningfully constructed.

Anarcho-communists often critique anarcho-syndicalism as outdated and narrow in its scope of revolutionary goals, given its sole imperative to organize through labor and economic relationships.

Labor syndicates are expected to reject bureaucratic and centralized forms of organization and attempt to achieve work reforms in practical short-term application.

-Post-war era Classical anarchism fell from prominence in the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War and continued to weaken through World War II.

In comparison with classical anarchism, which had been led by self-educated agrarian and industrial workers, the revival of interest in anarchism consisted of university students and professors with considerable social and cultural influence. Similarly anarchist theory transitioned from materialist perspectives advocating the sciences to post-modern and post-materialist thinking that questioned epistemological reliance on technology and science.

Recent trends in anarchism outside of Europe have drawn on post-colonial and syndicalist thought alongside concepts of indigenous identity.

- Modern Era Violence primarily took the form of acts of decentralised terrorism, assasinations, bombings, rural insurrections and occasionally full-fledged insurrections of varying scale.

Sources: 1.^[1] CLARK, JOHN P. “WHAT IS ANARCHISM?” Nomos 19 (1978): 3–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24219036. 2. ^[2]LEVY, CARL. “Social Histories of Anarchism.” Journal for the Study of Radicalism 4, no. 2 (2010): 1–44.http://www.jstor.org/stable/41887657. 3. ^[3]Raekstad, Paul. “UNDERSTANDING ANARCHISM: SOME BASICS.” Science & Society 80, no. 3 (2016): 407–14. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26141887.

Kelsey.Roman (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Kelsey.Roman

@Kelsey.Roman, thank-you for your work to improve Wikipedia. I have briefly reviewed your request and have a few comments in response which I think need to be dealt with before it can be actioned – I haven't checked it against the verifiability policy or neutral point of view policy, which it also needs to comply with.

• You should indicate which of your sources support which paragraph; e.g. by adding <ref name="Clark1978"/> at the end of paragraphs supported by your first reference etc.
• You should indicate specifically for each of your proposed additions where in the article you think the content should be added.
• [ Most serious ] Your sentence starting "Typical examples of anarchist praxis..." is a close paraphrase of page 17 of Clark (1978). Please read this essay and make sure that none of the content you are proposing to add is closely paraphrased from a source.

I will mark the request as  Not done: – please fix the things above and make a fresh request. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

From the talk page, it seems that it was renamed in order to avoid a criticism section. Proposals were made to integrate the contents of the criticism section into the rest of the article, but this was never done. Which means that the section is essentially just a de facto "criticism" section, with the same potential POV issues of one, except now it's dishonest about what it is. It also implies that the entirety of analysis of anarchism is negative. I think to make the title and layout of the article less obfuscated, it should be changed back. PBZE (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO, It was renamed in order to push the content towards analysis instead of criticism. I do not see the npov implications you are highlighting, the narrative of the article wont alter because of the section titles. Also. I would suggest, if we are for integration of anarchy into sections, as it should be done (per WP:Criticism), we also examine what other changes should we implement so to make Anarchism comply with FA criteria. maybe by asking for a peer review? Cinadon36 07:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't change the narrative much, but IMO it does a little. Calling it "analysis" implies that when anarchism is analyzed, that analysis is entirely negative. It pushes POV by framing criticism of anarchism as simply "analysis" and nothing more, implying that the negative criticism is just neutral analysis. Calling it "criticism" makes it clear that the section is only about criticism, and that there is not a universal rejection of anarchism that is otherwise implied. If we're not renaming or removing it, then a POV hatnote or some other note should be added to encourage the addition of non-negative analysis. Although to be honest, I just read WP:CRITICISMSECTION and it explicitly states that articles about points of view, including political ideologies like this one, are exceptions and should usually include a "criticism" section, so I have kind of changed my mind on the issue altogether. PBZE (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, you made your point pretty clear, I kinda agree with your argumentation, lets see how other users feel/argue. Cinadon36 07:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36 I came across this page a while back and after having read the "Analysis" section, the subtitle seems like an attempt to obscure criticism as a diluted analysis. IMO this seems to be violating WP:NPOV via WP:WEASEL wording, as analysis may imply neutrality and/or dilute the purpose of the stated research (evaluating anarchism is criticism). This is inconsistent with other articles that include research and analysis of said political, philosophical, etc. ideologies, that are directly evaluations of said ideals which are labeled as criticism. May someone help me decipher which source the following statement is attributed towards? "The most common critique of anarchism is that humans cannot self-govern and so a state is necessary for human survival." I also agree with PBZE that not all criticism is negative, and regardless of whether or not it changes the overall "narrative" it still does not justify the label IMO. ChaoticTexan (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, @ChaoticTexan I get your reasoning, but the major problem is that we do not have a superstrong RS that analyzes or offers a valid critique to anarchism, that could help us built the section. So problems like the one you point at, are inevitable. Also have in mind this guideline WP:CRITS Cinadon36 20:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinadon36 May I ask if the current sourced statements in the analysis section are considered non-reliable sources, or is the issue the lack of independent secondary sources needed to analyze the current critical content? I agree that the section should abide by the requirements stated in WP:CRITS, although is it not possible to rename the section and add a template such as Template: Missing Information or Template: Expand Section? It seems like the issue is that part of the criteria isn't met "In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material." Once this criteria is met, both requirements would be fulfilled for the change to occur, would they not? If I have time, I will try to search for RS needed ChaoticTexan (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that WP:CRITS says at the top that it is an essay and not a policy or guideline. In the above it has been called a "guideline", and may have been treated as a policy or guideline a few times. FrankSier (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Then in that case I will rename the Analysis section to Criticism to maintain consistency with other articles on Wikipedia that cover a range of topics from socioeconomic ideologies, to other philosophical ones. ChaoticTexan (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

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

 Not done

Hello all and thank you for the feedback. I believe I have corrected my additions for verifiability and neutrality. I have also tried not to closely paraphrase. I am adding specific references. I have listed suggested placements in italics. Please let me know if anything else is needed and thank you again.

- Definition Anarchist theory is based on a commitment to materialism, a rationalist approach to understanding societal change, and a focus on the potential of working class and countercultural elements as the catalysts to change, while refusing the use of existing political parties and processes. A common misconception about anarchism is that it promotes the dissolution of the state without offering up a viable alternative form of governance. Instead, anarchism emphasizes the possibility of self governance through decentralised authority and voluntary associations made up of cooperating individuals. ^[4] (placed before the final sentence in the Definition section)

-Analysis Rebuttals of critiques The third argument is that anarchism is self-contradictory. While it advocates for no-one to archiei, if accepted by the many, then anarchism would turn into the ruling political theory. In opposition to this, anarchists claim that due to the voluntary nature of organisational structures that would arise under an abolished state, the anarchist vision is ultimately pluralist and does not contradictorily contain an authoritarian nature. ^[4] However, in lieu of this claim Fiala points out the self-contradiction that anarchism calls for collective action whilst endorsing the autonomy of the individual, hence no collective action can be taken. Lastly, Fiala mentions a critique towards philosophical anarchism of being ineffective (all talk and thoughts) and in the meantime capitalism and bourgeois class remains strong. Despite critiques of being primariliy philosophical and therefore ineffective, anarchist theory does offer material proposals for implementing change. Referred to as praxis, material actions occur in response to the perceived failings of existing institutions to ensure social welfare. Anarchist praxis includes non hierarchical pro-workers’ organisations, promoting access to media and alternative education options, self-run communities, advocating for unstructured interpersonal relationships, and doing away with power differentials considered implicit in identities such as race, gender, or orientation. According to anarchists,praxis directly challenges the widely held notion that anarchism is overwhelmingly idealistic. ^[5] (to augment and follow paragraph 2 of analysis: The third argument is that anarchism is self-contradictory. While it advocates for no-one to archiei, if accepted by the many, then anarchism would turn into the ruling political theory. In this line of criticism also comes the self-contradiction that anarchism calls for collective action whilst endorsing the autonomy of the individual, hence no collective action can be taken. Lastly, Fiala mentions a critique towards philosophical anarchism of being ineffective (all talk and thoughts) and in the meantime capitalism and bourgeois class remains strong.)

Anarchist perception of human nature, rejection of the state, and commitment to social revolution has been criticised by academics as naive, overly simplistic, and unrealistic, respectively.[188] However, anarchist theorists such as Bakunin and Godwin have described human nature as not inherently good, but influenced by circumstances, and argued that under improved circumstances emphasizing individual autonomy, cooperation would be achievable. Instead, human nature is conceptualized as serving a rational self interest and driven towards participation in a social contract. It is the nature of the social contract anarchism intends to redesign, with an understanding that unfettered access to the power and privilege of authority can encourage corruption. ^[5] In response,classical anarchism has been criticised for relying too heavily on the belief that the abolition of the state will neccesarily lead to human cooperation prospering.[142] (to augment the end of paragraph 4 in Analysis section: Anarchist perception of human nature, rejection of the state, and commitment to social revolution has been criticised by academics as naive, overly simplistic, and unrealistic, respectively.[188] Classical anarchism has been criticised for relying too heavily on the belief that the abolition of the state will lead to human cooperation prospering.[142])

- Anarchism and the State Albert Jay Nock made a point to differentiate between a state that upholds special interests in protecting property, wealth,and economic power, and the use of government to provide strictly negative intervention in preventing the deterioration of rights to life and liberty as originally described by Locke. ^[5] (to be placed before the final sentence in paragraph 2 of Anarchism and the State)

-Classical Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism that follows in the tradition of Bakunin’s collectivism, and believe that the worker is the unit through which society is meaningfully constructed. ^[5] Anarcho-syndicalists view labour syndicates as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society democratically self-managed by workers. Labour syndicates are expected to reject bureaucratic and centralised forms of organisation and attempt to achieve work reforms in practical short-term application. ^[5] The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are direct action, workers' solidarity and workers' self-management. Anarcho-communists often critique anarcho-syndicalism as outdated and narrow in its scope of revolutionary goals, given its sole imperative to organize labourers against economic pressures.^[5] (to augment original text ending paragraph 3 in Classical section: Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism that views labour syndicates as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society democratically self-managed by workers. The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are direct action, workers' solidarity and workers' self-management.)

-Post-war era Classical anarchism fell from prominence in the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War and continued to fade through World War II.^[6] ( to replace the first sentence of the first paragraph in the post-war era section: At the end of World War II, the anarchist movement was severely weakened)

In comparison with classical anarchism, which had been led by self-educated agrarian and industrial workers, the revival of interest in anarchism consisted of university students and professors with broader social and cultural influence. Similarly anarchist theory transitioned from materialist perspectives advocating the sciences to post-modern and post-materialist thinking that questioned epistemological reliance on technology and science. ^[7] ( to be placed after the second sentence of the first paragraph in the post-war era section: The 1960s witnessed a revival of anarchism, likely caused by a perceived failure of Marxism–Leninism and tensions built by the Cold War)

Recent trends in anarchism outside of Europe have drawn on post-colonial and syndicalist thought alongside concepts of indigenous identity.^[6] (to be placed before the final sentence of the last paragraph of the post-war era section:Anarchist ideas have been influential in the development of the Zapatistas in Mexico and the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, more commonly known as Rojava, a de facto autonomous region in northern Syria.[68])

- Modern Era Violence primarily took the form of acts of decentralised terrorism, assasinations, bombings, rural insurrections and occasionally full-fledged insurrections of varying scale.^[6] (to be placed after the sixth sentence of the 3rd paragraph in the modern era section: During this time, a minority of anarchists adopted tactics of revolutionary political violence. This strategy became known as propaganda of the deed.[51])

Kelsey.Roman (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 08:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I will only say that it is partially false that there were pre-state societies that did not have hierarchies, as bookchin points out, there were human societies where there had been no state (political hierarchy) or a society divided into classes (economic hierarchy) but there were also hierarchies such as patriarchy, gerontocracy, among others. In feudalism, political power was also sufficiently distributed among the feudal lords in a proto-state way, but there was no state in itself, but there was an authority. This misunderstanding and ruling on what hierarchy is has led anti-coercive movements to fail to combat it, such as Spanish anarcho-syndicalism, where the figure of the proletariat or producer was considered central, emanating other violence. But in addition, there are still pre-colonization cultures that follow patriarchal structures. And so with numerous examples of trying to find a political subject. Anarchism must create completely new postulations, which date the creation of the new society (libertarian communalism or municipalism) with a libertarian communist organization, this position is not comparable to that of libertarian Marxism or councilism where it is not intended to establish institutions with anarchist and communist lógics (It is contradictory, since it sounds like a utopia, a conciliation with collectivism that even dates back to Kropotkin). さよさま (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The current definition of anarchism provided in the lede is only one definition of anarchism and one that is far too narrow. Even a note provided in the article itself says that "Scholars highlight that this definition has the same shortcomings as the definition based on anti-authoritarianism (a posteriori conclusion), anti-statism (anarchism is much more than that), and etymology (negation of rulers)." Because of all the shortcomings of all the major definitions, I would suggest featuring them all in the lede from etymology, to anti-authoritarianism and anti-statism, to the more narrow definition currently provided. While most WP articles do not provide multiple definitions for one topic, some do as a result of many competing definitions existing, such as atheism and multiculturalism. This would most certainly be the case for anarchism and the lede should reflect this. I propose adding the following sentence to the first paragraph:

"Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement with varying definitions. In the etymological sense, anarchism means "without a ruler". Anarchism has also been defined as opposition to authoritarianism and/or opposition to the state. In a more detailed sense, Anarchism encompasses a wide range of political philosophies and movements that are skeptical of all justifications for authority and seek to abolish the institutions they claim maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including, though not necessarily limited to, the state and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies, decentralisation, or other forms of free associations.^{[1][2][nb 1]}"

Afterwards, the sentence "As a historically left-wing movement, placed on the farthest left of the political spectrum, it is usually described alongside communalism and libertarian Marxism as the libertarian wing (libertarian socialism) of the socialist movement." will be featured alongside the definition before cutting to the next paragraph.

The first paragraph would look like this:

"Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement with varying definitions. In the etymological sense, anarchism means "without a ruler". Anarchism has also been defined as opposition to authoritarianism and/or opposition to the state. In a more detailed sense, Anarchism encompasses a wide range of political philosophies and movements that are skeptical of all justifications for authority and seek to abolish the institutions they claim maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including, though not necessarily limited to, the state and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies, decentralisation, or other forms of free associations.^{[1][2][nb 2]} As a historically left-wing movement, placed on the farthest left of the political spectrum, it is usually described alongside communalism and libertarian Marxism as the libertarian wing (libertarian socialism) of the socialist movement."

This intro paragraph would be about as long as the one that currently exists. Since this is a major change, I've decided to take this to the talk page first before potentially adding this to the article. Thoughts? X-Editor (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for working on this and good call on bringing it here for discussion because the lede has been quite stable, having previously been discussed to death. I didn't initially like this idea of frontloading so much emphasis on definition into the lede, which should be a simple overview of the topic, but I can see where it might be useful. A few comments: (1) This says that there are varying definitions but doesn't explain that variance, just that there are a wide range of philosophies/movements in the tradition. Why not skip the "varying definitions" and just say that? This would also remove the repetition of "philosophy and movement" twice. (2) What exactly is this edit adding, then? It reshuffles the same content already in the first few sentences. It seems like the main point of this edit is to change the opening sentence to say that anarchism is a broad range of philosophies rather than a singular one. I don't know whether that distinction matters to the general reader and per the sources, it isn't quite true. There is a common, basic definition (as presently defined) and there is also a wide band of tolerance within that tradition for variance/disagreement. We could say the same for Christianity and its denominations, which have commonalities despite whether all denominations fully adhere. (3) I'd personally remove this undiscussed lede edit re: the difficulty of definition and I wouldn't include the etymology in the lede, which reads as overkill when we already have a solid definition. It would be helpful to unpack more of what was "too narrow" or inadequate about the existing definition. Curious what others think. czar 07:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Czar: Thanks for your feedback. What I'm trying to add with this edit is that some anarchists define themselves only in the sense that they are opposed to the state and/or authoritarianism without any of the hierarchy reasoning. The current definition is far too specific and as such, it doesn't apply to all Anarchists. As I pointed out above, the sources have trouble coming up with a single definition for anarchism and the sources seem to view all definitions as inadequate in their own way. As such, we should present all of the definitions separately to make it clear that Anarchism consists of a broad range of philosophies and movements. I'm fine with not including etymology in the lede, as that is far too basic. I don't agree with the comparison to Christianity, because in the case of that religion, all of the denominations share the same principle of following the teachings of Jesus. The same cannot be said for Anarchism. Based on your feedback, I've updated my proposed paragraph. Thoughts? X-Editor (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

"Anarchism consists of a broad range of political philosophies and movements. This includes opposition to authoritarianism, opposition to the state, skepticism of authority, and the abolition of institutions that anarchists claim maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including, though not necessarily limited to, the state and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies, decentralisation, or other forms of free associations.^{[1][2][nb 3]} As a historically left-wing movement, placed on the farthest left of the political spectrum, it is usually described alongside communalism and libertarian Marxism as the libertarian wing (libertarian socialism) of the socialist movement."

X-Editor (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is my advice: 1)Keep the lede small and readable without too much details. 2)Lede should summarize main body of the article. 3)Do not add refs to the lede. 4)I feel it is a good proposal, but wait to see if dear Czar has any more comments. (lastly, X-Editor, if you are to post a text below of your signature, it will be difficult for readers to understand that you have said it. I tried to fix it, hope you dont mind.Cinadon36 06:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the editor has since retired, which is a shame. Unless anyone else feels strongly about this, is the discussion moot?

My quick take is that the "broad range"—as I mentioned above—is not necessarily true. If anything I've seen definitions of anarchism hold those core tenets to be true but to varying degree, rather than being fundamentally pluralistic. I'd want to make the source material easy to verify too by pulling quotes. I'm not necessarily opposed to citations in the lede as long as they're provided throughout. Generally lede paragraphs aren't sourced on Wikipedia, yes, but it is also common to add sources to sections of ledes that are likely to be challenged, as is often the case with more controversial articles such as this one here. Adding citations would also reinforce that the lede had been thought through and reduce some of the idle propensity to tinker with it. czar 16:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I get your reasoning on refs at lede, @Czar, but from my understanding and experience at WP, I feel when we use refs at lede, we skew from summarizing the main body of the article. We should be very careful not to allow this to happen the few times we do use refs at lede. Indeed it is a shame the user retired due to stress. WP can be very stressful sometimes and we should find ways to minimize it. Have a look at a relevant suggestion of mine, here. Cinadon36 06:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m back, but I don’t have strong feelings regarding this definition change. X-Editor (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The introduction makes a series of assertions beginning with “Humans lived in societies without formal hierarchies long before the establishment of formal states, realms, or empires.” that lack citations 72.94.84.154 (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The lede only needs citations when its information is likely to be challenged. Otherwise it should reflect claims that are sourced later in the article. czar 21:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe "formal" would be a bit subjective when we're talking about a time period before writing existed, but I'm immediately skeptical that certain individuals or even families weren't more influential or powerful than others in any given society at any given time. If one asserts otherwise I would expect to find a source for the claim. Matthewpoer (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Scholars do not solely rely on written evidence, there other ways of deducing what was going on. I think that the sentence is sourced adequately. More sources can be found at History of anarchism#Prehistoric and ancient era, a section that discusses the same issue to a further extend.Cinadon36 06:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-09-30/Recent research § "Templates and Trust-o-meters: Towards a widely deployable indicator of trust in Wikipedia":

czar 20:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Well done everybody! Cinadon36 21:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

There are some books out there that are pretty interesting and I think they can be used to improve the article and lift it to a Feature Article status.

• Anarchism: An Art of Living Without Law (2023) Routledge, by Loizidou Elena
• The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism by Todd May
• Changing anarchism Anarchist theory and practice in a global age Editors Jonathan Purkis and James Bowen
• The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought, Edited ByGary Chartier, Chad Van Schoelandt
• Anarchism. Key Concepts in Political Theory. Wiley. Honeywell, C. (2021). ISBN 978-1-5095-2390-0.

So many books, so little time! Cinadon36 10:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)