Talk:Anarchist symbolism

Self-published sources

Sources like Green Is the New Red, Left Bank Books, spunk.org, and cia.media.pl are all self-published, and should be replaced with better sources or removed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello the anarchist library is a reliable source towards anarchism and is an non-profit organization run by anarchists you apear to fail to understand this. Please revert as you are currently edit warring, moreover do not touch the page as there is currently a resolution onto. The anarchist library is a reliable source towards anarchism, it is biased but as an example the united states government website on the flag of the US is reliable. You appear to be unwilling to understand reliable sources. Vallee01 (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Anarchist Library (theanarchistlibrary.org) is not the topic of discussion here. It isn't even cited in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes it does the anarchist FAQ is run by the anarchist library. Vallee01 (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

When did I remove any citations to The Anarchist FAQ? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The nature of anarchist ideology means almost all material on it is self-published. It is very difficult to cite a source on the topic while following this fairly arbitrary rule (in this case). I suggest this is an incidence where WP:IAR would be useful, as the sources cited have no reason to be false and are are written by anarchists about their own symbols. Gexuma (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

In that case there's very little we can say about anarchism while keeping a neutral point of view. How do we know that these self-published sources are representative of anarchism in general? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

there is no one view point anarchists believe in you cant represent them in general, the best you can do is show the variety of beliefs. 2600:6C5E:147F:97B5:8953:B13B:F66D:9479 (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 November 2020

The removal of the Unicode of the circle (A) means that people previewing the page will not see what the circle A represents. Not only that but it needs to be a visualization directly in the text. This gives a more in-dpeth explanation to anarchist symbolism:

From: Anarchists have employed certain symbols for their cause, including most prominently the circle-A and the black flag.

To: Anarchists have employed certain symbols for their cause, including most prominently the circle-A (Ⓐ) and the black flag (⚑/🏴). Black is most commonly associated with anarchism, and black is numerous anarchist organizations names, such as the anarchist black cross, black international, and anarchist tactics such as the black bloc. The punk movement has had a large effect onto the symbolism of contemporary anarchism. Vallee01 (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as presented here. The Unicode symbols clutter the text without adding any information beyond the existing illustrations. They may also pose difficulty for screen-reader users. Anarchism.net appears to be a self-published source. The second reference looks OK. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  Those who preview the article will not show what this means, not only that those only reading the text will not know what "circle a" means, a circle a could mean a lowercase a in a circle, or it could represent a side ways A, Wikipedia needs to be clear. Here is text the symbols of anarchism displayed extremely clearly in text. Anarchism.net is a reliable source for what anarchists believe, it is biased but being used in this context Anarchism.net is a reliable source. This shows the symbols of anarchism in text, it gives extreme information to the reader and has been present since 2008 there is no good argument for it's removal. Vallee01 (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  We generally don't expect people to know what's in an article until they read it, nor should we. The article can be perfectly clear without the use of Unicode characters which, once again, make the article less clear for some readers. No doubt anarchism.net is reliable for what some anarchists believe, but it's a WP:PRIMARY source for that and doesn't speak for anarchists in general. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  A vast proportion of readers do not scroll past the first paragraph. It is clear the Unicode symbols show clearly the symbols of anarchism immediately to the reader in text, and about a article on the symbolism of anarchism this is extremely important. Vallee01 (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  Unicode characters are not readable for many screen-reader users and should not be used. See MOS:NOSYMBOLS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  That's not a valid argument, it's a article about anarchist symbols, it needs to be included. Vallee01 (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalist flag / Rothbard book

I don't see a reason for excluding Rothbard's book as a source. His description of anarcho-capitalists using the black and gold flag is all that is relevant. Whether or not Rothhbard advocates a particular position is not relevant because the reference is not being used to support or oppose any particular position he might have. The reference is for the narrow context of anarcho-capitalists using the black and gold flag. As such, in this narrow context, the source seems fine to me. AJPEG (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

So-called anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists. The term was invented by Rothbard to promote his free-market beliefs. Unless the source used is reputable for facts in this particular subject area, the material is unduly weighted. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It isn't wikipedia's job to take sides. The controversy can be - and is, ad nauseam - noted on the relevant pages. Personal bias and beliefs should not be part of the consideration. On the subject of the symbolism of, and mid 20th century formation of anarcho-capitalism, in what way has Rothbard been shown to not be reputable? AJPEG (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The topic is anarchist symbolism. Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. For it to be duly weighted here, we would need an independent source comparing the two. If Rothbard has been shown to not be reputable, it's only because other academics ignored him like any other fringe theorist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"The topic is anarchist symbolism. Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism." I fully understand that traditional anarchists dislike any claim that anarcho-capitalists belong in the anarchist camp, but statements like that make me question your neutrality. You should not be taking sides in that dispute. We do not need sources comparing the types of anarchism in this article - it is only about anarchist symbolism. The only question is whether anarcho-capitalists are anarchists and anarcho-capitalists do claim to be anarchists by virtue of seeking to abolish government. Advocating a political system which abolishes government is one common definition of anarchism. That makes anarcho-capitalists anarchists, even if traditional anarchists don't like it. It isn't wikipedia's job to take sides in that dispute. And Rothbard's questionable reputation has mostly to do with his historical revisionism and some of his criticisms of mainstream economics, not the subject of anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard is a widely recognized expert on the subject of anarcho-capitalism, given that he was a central figure in its formation. Disallowing Murray Rothbard as a source on the subject of anarcho-capitalism would be like disallowing Karl Marx as a source on the subject of Marxism. AJPEG (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think a bisected flag section should be included if you think anarcho-capitalism should be added so should all the others, and it should be clear that its disputed whether or not anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. 2600:6C5E:147F:97B5:8953:B13B:F66D:9479 (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It's quite settled: Anarcho-capitalism#Anarchism. czar 17:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Origin of "No gods, no masters"

I went down a bit of a rabbit hole trying to track down the source(s) of the saying. I was not able to verify the assertions made by Guérin, but during my search I stumbled upon a 2022 french article on the origin of the phrase that calls into question both the link between the supposed German proverb and Dom Juan, and the link between Dom Juan and Blanqui's newspaper. Maybe it would be worth revising the section with information from the article, since the 2022 article looks more thoroughly researched than Guérin's foreword. Here's a link. Note that the DOI given on the page is unregistered and does not point to the page.

[1]https://journals.openedition.org/histoirepolitique/2452?lang=en Safar98 (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)