Talk:Egoist anarchism

Scope

The article currently reads as an elongated list of places egoism has been mentioned in the same breath as anarchism. I am struggling to see where it defines a discrete tradition (in which ideas are developed over time) or at least we seem to be lacking the secondary sources that would make such a case. Like many of articles written by a single editor during a prior era of Wikipedia, the article's sections simply pull paragraphs from articles that are tangentially related, making this into an overview article but ultimately chock full of original research if sources do not explain its subtopics to be related to "egoist anarchism".

This is, for example, the issue with the Egoist anarchism § Situationist section. What's the connection between situationism and egoist anarchism? Why does quoting a source on The Right to Be Greedy advocating for "communist egoism" have anything to do with anarchist egoism? If all we have to say is that a book mentioned workers' self-management and council communism and have no analysis to connect it to anarchist egoism, then what are we saying on the topic at all? It's not that Blumenthal said no one has taken up "the 'secret' of communist egoism" but that it's ill-defined and doesn't illuminate anything about the topic both in Blumenthal's book or to our readers in this article, Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and not an amalgam of topics mentioned once in a book somewhere.

This has been a long-standing issue with this article per the prior talk discussions on § Situationist International and § For Ourselves Council for Generalized Self-Management and § This article has serious problems in the neutral-point-of-view and accuracy departments. The solution is likely to remove the peripheral text that has little to do with egoist anarchism or to reframe the article as egoism and anarchism. czar 13:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I've cut through about half of this article now, and sure enough, this is another one where it's made up largely of bad sourcing. In many cases, the sources are either some obscure anarchist blog post/pamphlet or don't verifiably reference "egoism" at all. A lot of this seems to just be going "Oh this random person was influenced by Stirner, let's shove that in there!"

There certainly are sources out there for a better article. Google Scholar turns up 2,780 results for "egoism" in direct relation to Stirner,[1] although it only brings up 55 results for "egoist anarchism"[2] and 6 results for "anarcho-egoism".[3] Perhaps this article will need to be blown up and started over. Grnrchst (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there enough content for a dedicated article, or would it be better to merge and cover this topic within an existing article? czar 22:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the problems with this article's scope may be down to it actually dealing with two different concepts: Stirner's philosophy of Egoism; and egoism as applied to anarchism/by anarchists. The former is certainly notable by itself, the latter I'm less sure on, as I would have to look through the sources in order to make sure it wouldn't just end up being a perma-stub. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The question for me is what sources validate an "egoist anarchism" as a separate concept. If none, then Stirner's philosophy should be covered in his article and only split out in summary style when warranted by length. czar 13:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Also would stand to reason to cover "Stirner's philosophy of Egoism" within Max Stirner § Philosophy and "egoism as applied to anarchism" within Max Stirner § Influence if that article can sufficiently contain the content sourced here and if there isn't enough material to warrant a summary style split from the Stirner article. czar 16:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Name

Hello. Can you tell me more about your userame? I have been hunting this word down and cannot find it anywhere, but 1800's, and then 1600 in old books. Thanks! 79.106.203.40 (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)