Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 18:02, 24 August 2024 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism/Archive 7) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

26 edits Escape crops in Southeast Asia
19 edits Josiah Warren
8 edits Vermin Supreme
7 edits Paulette Brupbacher
5 edits Spanish Civil War
5 edits Noam Chomsky
4 edits 1931 Barcelona rent strike
4 edits Freetown Christiania
4 edits Martin Sostre
3 edits Anarchist symbolism

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last seven days. Last updated 9 November 2024 by HotArticlesBot.


Cleanup drive

edit this section

Here is the full list of anarchism articles in need of cleanup. Below is a subset for focus during the cleanup drive. Strike out completed items with {{s}} and we'll add more sections as we go.

finished

Biographies of living persons (10)

These articles have any cleanup tag but are high priority because we hold biographies on living people to a higher standard

Unsourced passages need footnotes {{citation needed}} (69)

Search for the passages tagged with {{citation needed}} and either (a) add a source and remove the tag, or (b) remove the passage and the tag if it cannot be verified

Factual verification needed (12)

Search for the passages tagged with {{verify source}} or {{vn}}, which indicate that another editor has requested that our article content is verifiable in the citation. If verified, say so in your edit summary and remove the tag. If not verified, either bring the discrepancy to the talk page or resolve the discrepancy yourself by rephrasing or removing content.

Cites unreliable sources (26)

Search for the passages tagged with {{Better source}}, {{Obsolete source}}, {{Primary sources}}, {{Unreliable sources}}, {{Verify credibility}}, {{Third-party}}, {{Third-party-inline}}, or {{Circular reference}}. This could be, for instance, a primary source affiliated with an anarchist movement or a reference without editorial distance from the subject. Either (a) replace with a reliable, secondary, independent source and remove the tag, or (b) remove the passage and the tag if no reliable reference exists.
Shortcut

Our cleanup backlog has grown since the last drive, so thought we could kickoff another push for the month of May. There are currently 228 articles tagged in total with 386 tagged issues. Can we get it down to zero?

For a place to start, I thought biographies of living people (BLPs) and articles in need of citations would be good. To cross off finished items from the list, there is a link above to edit the section (so as not to bother watchers of this page). Open to any other ideas here as well to make it interesting. Perhaps we should set up a mailing list for editors who have participated in the project previously?

If this is your first time participating in a cleanup drive on Wikipedia, (1) you're invited to be bold and try your best to resolve cleanup issues, and (2) if you have any questions or need a hand, please respond below and someone will help! czar 14:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, there is a lot of work to do on some of these articles. Some should be simple enough to fix but damn, others have much deeper problems that I'm not sure simply addressing the CN tags will solve. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the {{citation needed}} tags is enough to remove it from this list but if an article needs more support, feel free to bring it to discussion so others can chip in too. czar 03:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can't fix everything all at once. It's a work in progress. As much as I'd like to fix everything everywhere, as long as we don't have falsehoods or policy violations hanging around... it's ok that some things are a bit crap. -- asilvering (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Hey, we seem to have gone way over the limit of templates on one page, which I think has come down to both the cleanup drive transclusion and the recent literature transclusion having introduced a lot more than the page can handle. I manually archived a section and removed a bunch of templates from another, but this problem still persists. I think we may need to consider that striking every resolved entry, rather than simply removing it from the list, is causing problems of its own. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok no, after doing a bunch of archivals and changes, then just fiddling around with removing random hings, I identified the newly-added "Recent stubs" template as the source of the problem. I have temporarily removed it, just so the entire page doesn't break. We need to figure out what went wrong with it before we add it back in. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a backlog drive for sourcing unsourced statements starting tomorrow, which can be a good reason for finishing our above {{citation needed}} list. :)
Also nice work on sourcing List of self-managed social centers, @Graveyardpansy! czar 11:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh we're close to finishing this one off! Don't know how much time I can spend on this area this month, as my attentions are focused on the Women in Green edit-a-thon, but I hope we'll be able to address these last few before the end of the unsourced statements drive. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your citations on Ungdomshuset, @Replayful! czar 12:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I just thought I could help since I know Danish and could get Danish sources. There's still room for improvement in the article :) //Replayful (talk | contribs) 14:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished the last few articles needing citations and/or footnotes. I'll let the cleanup listing reset this week and add some new targets. I think this week will be a big drop in cleanup issue count and we're already halfway (54%) to goal. czar 00:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're two thirds (67%) of our way to goal! New cleanup tags added for your consideration above: Factual verification needed and Unreliable source cited. Take a peek and if you struggle with any article, bring it here for discussion as you're likely not alone. czar 04:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has unfortunately resulted in quite a few articles being stubbified, which has reversed some of the progress we made with the stub expansion drive. So if anyone has the time and energy to expand some of these stubs, that'd be appreciated. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're 85% to goal! Very close to a historical low number of cleanup tasks (56 remain and low is 53, from the 2019 drive). I'll pick up some expansions again once we're down to zero. The way I see it, those articles were stubs but just weren't classified correctly, beneath the cleanup tags and unverified material. czar 12:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Down to just a handful now! czar 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing those articles as already stubs is a good way of looking at it. Amazing to see the cleanup backlog down so low! There's only a dozen or so left, which has put it down to a fraction of a percentage point! Excellent work on getting through this, to you and everyone else involved. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Challenges

There are a few cleanups that look particularly challenging and I thought I'd list them here for consideration separate from the list above, in case someone is interested in a meatier project. czar 16:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

resolved

Asterisks for discussions that still have further possible follow-up/expansion despite the cleanup being addressed

100%

(386/386)

🎊🎊 100%! We're officially at zero cleanup items—the first time in three cleanup drives since 2017, with over 2200 issues addressed. Since 2017, our scope has tripled to nearly 3000 articles on the strength of new translations, new articles, and revisiting and retagging decades-old articles up to today's standards. Some of these final cleanup items were pretty dense challenges looming for over seven years. Congrats to all contributors and looking forward to the next community drive. czar 17:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viscaaaa! Amazing work everyone. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huzzah! Congrats to everyone who's been banging away at this for months and months. I hope I am finally forgiven for adding all those anarchist biographies a few years back, haha. -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent literature (2024 Q1/Q2)

For not-as-recent lit, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Anarchism/Recent literature

New thread for 2024 and anything we've previously missed. Feel free to add! czar 03:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books

  • Johnson, Steven (May 14, 2024). The Infernal Machine: A True Story of Dynamite, Terror, and the Rise of the Modern Detective. New York: Crown. ISBN 978-0-593-44395-8.

Articles

Book/film reviews

Journals

Special issues

czar 03:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent death: James C. Scott

I missed it in WP:ITN but James C. Scott died a week ago czar 03:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing Like a State could really use some work... -- asilvering (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zapatistas within scope?

I was thinking about @Grnrchst's comment from a few months ago—The Zapatistas aren't anarchists and it's frankly offensive to continue claiming them as such. —and was wondering: Should our project still continue the Zapatista articles in scope or remove the {{WikiProject Anarchism}} banner from them?

They've been historically "claimed" by anarchists in some way, but it hasn't fully borne out in the sourcing. I think of the autonomist movement as being in similar associative circumstances. czar 17:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're relevant to the scope of the WikiProject, I just don't think we should be labelling them as "anarchists" in Wikivoice. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grass Roots Books

Requesting assistance finding reliable sources and determining notability for Grass Roots Books, a radical UK bookshop. Discussion here: Talk:Grass Roots Books#Source verification czar 13:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AND

I've been thinking for a while about our series of "Anarchism and..." articles and how we could rework them. I was motivated to raise a discussion about this after @Czar unilaterally merged the article on propaganda of the deed, a very well-defined topic, into the article on anarchism and violence, which always seemed synthetic in scope (it shoves together unrelated text about propaganda of the deed, anarcho-pacifism and random anarchist views on violence, with no clear structure). Per WP:AND, we are supposed to be exercising caution when using "and" titles, yet we have several:

This makes anarchism rather unique in terms of "and" articles, as most ideologies have few if any. Fascism only has one (Fascism and ideology), socialism only has one (Socialism and LGBT rights), communism only has one (Communism and LGBT rights), Marxism only has two (Marxism and religion; Marxism and Keynesian economics), etc.

Looking at our "anarchism and..." articles, they all seem very randomly cobbled together, with no rhyme or reason to their structure. Their scope is almost inherently broken from the outset, as the "and" opens the door for literally any passing anarchist views on a subject to be inserted in, rather than focusing on sources specifically about anarchism's connection to a certain subject. It could even be argued that it messes with neutrality.

So I wanted to bring up a discussion about these articles. What can we do about them? Are there possible improvements that could be made to them? Should we retitle them to something more well-defined? Or should some of them be deleted or merged/redirected to other articles? From my view, the only one of these I know I'd vote keep on is "anarchism and education", as I know of several sources specifically about it (although it might be better titled "Anarchist education" or something). --Grnrchst (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gobonobo and Asilvering: Pinging you two, as I notice you have discussed the "anarchism and the arts" article above. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of these would survive a deletion discussion because they're topics that are frequently discussed in relation with anarchism. I see them as summary style splits from the anarchism and former issues in anarchism overview topics. Though they might need some work to get in line with how summary style should work, it doesn't warrant deletion. This said, some of these can definitely be further paraphrased and/or merged since they were written and are mostly unchanged from a bygone era of Wikipedia. Personally, I always figured we'd get to these after repairing the main ideology and country articles. Happy to discuss any of these in isolation, which I believe would be most productive. czar 13:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with czar here. It's a bit funny to me that these stand out as "suspect" topics on wikipedia, since these are, well, exactly the kind of topics you'd expect to see in an actual print encyclopedia! Of course, actual print encyclopedias tend to be written by expert contributors under the aegis of an editorial board, so there's that. I hear you, Grnrchst, about opens the door for literally any passing anarchist views on a subject to be inserted in - but I don't think this is much different from how every article used to have "in pop culture" shoved into the bottom. That is to say, I think that kind of cruft is just an artifact of how wikipedia is a work in progress, and the cure is simply to write a better article. Easier said than done but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
imo, Anarchism and religion is particularly underdeveloped. We might want to break it into that and an Anarchism and atheism article (maybe renaming the first Religious anarchism or something, which I see we currently have as a redirect). At least for me, working with various Paris Commune articles, I've really noticed the lack of context on why these anarchists were so fervently anti-religious. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all good points, I'll put a pin in this for now. Thanks for the responses :) --Grnrchst (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timelines on country articles

Do we need Timeline sections on the "anarchism in X country" articles? Since they were added to a few lately (for example) I figured we should discuss before continuing. I'm of two minds: Since they should be sourced to remain in the article, I think they're largely duplicative of what is already in the article. I can see the argument that it's a useful navigational aid, but I'd sooner see that as a sidebar in the related section than rehashing all of the events in the article. I think they make the most sense when the dates can otherwise span multiple articles, like Timeline of the Spanish Civil War or Chronology of the Paris Commune. Courtesy ping @AnarchistHistory czar 22:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First I'd like to say that I am not a big fan of the timelines, even the ones I've made. If there is a better alternative I am in favour of it.
However, my issue is that there is a lot of information about anarchism across Wikipedia that cannot be easily accessed from a central place. So I think if the timelines were to be deleted and those bits of information were slowly added that could be good. AnarchistHistory (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AnarchistHistory: In terms of a centralised place for links to other articles, we have the Outline of anarchism, the anarchism sidebar, anarchism bottombar and the Anarchism Portal. Are these along the lines of what you're looking for? Would you be interested in expanding and maintaining any of these? --Grnrchst (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are very interesting - I wasn't aware of how good Outline of anarchism in particular is. Since you are both more experienced editors of Wikipedia I will defer to your judgement. I will probably do some work on Outline of anarchism soon. AnarchistHistory (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If your aim is to improve navigability, which I think is a very important and valuable task to take on, then the outline and our various sidebars and bottombars are the way to go. I look forward to seeing the improvements you have in store for it! --Grnrchst (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'd recommend reading the Manual of Style on Lists as well. It may prove helpful for developing the outline. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, the anarchism portal has 2k views/month. That's not huge compared to many articles, but it's miles and miles ahead of the views by page watchers (which is... 9. not a typo). -- asilvering (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea the portal was that popular! Maybe we should do a wee drive to improve it then, because from the looks of it, it's definitely in need of some TLC. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that AH has explained their reasoning for including them is for navigability, I'm definitely questioning their inclusion more. So many of them seem to just be repeating information that's already in the article, which makes me question why they're needed at all (wouldn't this just make timelines a "see again" section?). Sometimes they introduce new information, but then I'm left wondering why that info hasn't been incorporated into the prose rather than shoved into an undetailed list. Also citations are completely absent from many entries in many of the lists, which carries its own set of problems.
We definitely could be taking more steps to improve navigability and simplify our presentation of information, but I don't think timelines in pre-existing regional history articles are the way to go about it. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we might do well to break out the timeline from Outline of anarchism into a separate Timeline of anarchist history? -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think if the timeline grows long enough it'd be worth doing a content fork, ditto for the other sections in the outline. We'll see how AH's work on it goes :) --Grnrchst (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with the timeline, but that's only because I'm not including events that I don't think are significant enough to warrant inclusion. If we were to include every time a major book was published or an anarchists was assassinated or executed... I'd be happy to do that but I feel like it could clutter that Outline of anarchism too much. AnarchistHistory (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to hear you're being selective! Don't worry about adding things you think aren't vital to know about, we don't want this to be an indiscriminate collection of information, just the most important events. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ideally (imo) a timeline should only contain items that are parts of a larger narrative. That is, it should be reasonably apparent to a reader that the items link to each other in some way, which is a higher bar than simply assembling items that are about similar things or could be categorized in similar ways. They don't need to be so directly linked that each entry follows directly to the next (ie, "this happened, and so this happened"), but you'd want them to be related enough that you could write a narrative paragraph (or paragraphs) that included all of them without having to reach too far. -- asilvering (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I've removed them. Feel free to restore the text from the article history as non-list prose where there are reliable secondary sources.
I think the best example of a timeline article on Wikipedia is likely Timeline of the far future. If there is a useful way to display the timeline events, perhaps in a multicolumn format (I'm thinking of a bibliography article on I can't remember), it could be worth splitting the timeline from the outline. For now, the outline article is likely sufficient. czar 22:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Batman: Anarky

Batman: Anarky has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anarchism&oldid=1242047289"