Talk:List of anarchist organizations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic anarchism topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
List	This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major traditions): Anarchism

Contents 1 Black bloc 2 UK/Europe relationship 3 Anarchist organization 4 Justice League & Conceivia 5 Front liberation du Quebec 6 Proposed Overhaul 7 molinari institute 8 Notability threshold?

[edit] Black bloc

Black bloc is a protest tactic (akin to sit-in) and should be removed. It is not a social network, and if it was, it couldn't be classified under "active organizations". Maybe it could be called a "temporary organization", but I think that it is easier just to start a new list for Anarchist Praxis.

[edit] UK/Europe relationship

Although United Kingdom/Great Britain is culturally a european country, it is not phisically part of European continent. To be precise it is an island west coast of it. I would say that we should keep Freedom Press in Europe for now, but move it into the separate section later on (when the list grows). If we consider cultural Europe rather than Europe as a continent, then United States of America should also be merged with Europe. q;-) Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

Arguably, Europe isn't really a continent, but the area that it is imagined to cover includes the UK. I think that the British Isles are continental islands. Tim Ivorson 10:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchist organization

That is such an oxymoron. Isn't it funny? I thought so anyway. (Yes, I understand by organization we really mean network) GWC W64 2005 EDT 22.30

Even though i am anarchist and promote networking way of organising, i do realise that there are other ways. Federation for example is used by Industrial Workers of the World and many other syndicalist organisations. Then there are: communes, tribes, collectives, etc. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

Why do people keep saying this? "Anarchist organization" IS NOT AN OXYMORON. Anarchism, broadly, means a politics which deems the State unneccessary. It has NOTHING to do with being "anti-organization." Note anarchism makes a distinction between "State" and "government." There are and have been many anarchist organizations. Anarchists depend on popular organization more than any other political theory. --Kelt65 19:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justice League & Conceivia

Justice League & Conceivia do not appear to be note-worthy. I am going to remove Justice League b/c I can find no evidence that they exist outside of their website. (this google search doesnt yield any relevant results)

Also, I am removing ABC and FNB from the North America list because they are already listed as International. - Nihila 21:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Front liberation du Quebec

Aside from being terrorists, the FLQ were not Anarchists. They were part Marxist and part ethnic nationalists. Dreaming of a classless, "workers run", French speaking nation-state.

[edit] Proposed Overhaul

I propose that we totally reformat this page to make it more useful, utilizing an organizational method similar to that of List of anarchist periodicals. This would entail listing noteworthy organizations chronologically with dates for establishment and disbandment. I also suggest that the list could be culled of some of its less known/influential organizations. Any thoughts, objections, etc? - N1h1l (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, maybe leaving the geographic sections, with a table similar to the periodicals one in each section? Murderbike (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. - N1h1l (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've made a start of it at List of anarchist organizations/temp. Feel free to pitch in. - N1h1l (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Since no one objected, I merged in my revisions. - N1h1l (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] molinari institute

i removed this entry with the explanation that it seemed to be merely the name of a personal project and essentially not an organisation. dickclarkmises somehow interpreted this as, in their own words, "i don't like it", and reverted my edit without further explanation. anyway, the entity doesn't have a wikipedia article or even its own website. it does have a webpage, but on the originator's website. as i said, it seems to be a personal project. Bob A (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a big fan of including redlinks in lists like this. But I might be convinced otherwise. Murderbike (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability threshold?

Is there a notability threshold for inclusion on this list? I propose we include (at minimum) any anarchist organization that (justifiably) has a Wikipedia article. In other words, if it satisfies WP:NOTE and can be uncontroversially or verifiably classed as anarchist, it can be added. Any objections/counterproposals? скоморохъ 19:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, it seems like adding and keeping redlinks in lists is A) fodder for the deletionists, and B) a magnet for linkfarms. Murderbike (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good minimum standard. At some point in the distant future, we may need to restrict it even further. - N1h1l (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys got me slightly backwards - I meant notability should be a sufficient condition for inclusion, not a necessary one. This list is comparatively tiny - 10kb - so I think we can afford to be inclusionist. I agree with Señor Bike that redlinks are fodder for deletionists, but past cases (such as this one) suggest that sourcing is the real issue. Redlinked orgs that can't be verified by google as anarchist, and links intended to be promotional seem like good candidates for removal; otherwise, I don't see the need to be exclusionary.скоморохъ 23:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, are talking about having redlinked articles that are backed up by cites? I could be fine with that, as it wouldn't take much to turn a redlink into a blue one as soon as there's a cite behind it. Murderbike (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A few possible cases:

1. Redlinks verified by an ex link to the org's homepage
2. Redlinks verified by a mention in the anarchist (online) press (e.g. infoshop/schnews)
3. Redlinks verified by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the org. (WP:N)

It sounds like you're talking about 3. I'd be cool with 2. скоморохъ 00:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I could go with that, though I don't know why we would limit it to online sources. Murderbike (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't, it's just a convenient test. скоморохъ 02:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of aiming for "non-trivial coverage in a reliable source". Any truly notable anarchist organization is going to garner some mention in the press or in the historical record. Let's please not start listing every high school "anarky club" that gets mentioned on Indymedia. - N1h1l (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the harm? Lists should be comprehensive, and Wiki is not paper. If a reader from West Bumfuck, Tennessee reads of the West Bumfuck Neo-Bakuninist Affinity Tribe in our list, we have done her a service without disserving anyone else, yes? скоморохъ 13:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to the Bumfuck Neo-Bakuninist Affinity Tribe having an article, but I think that this particular list will decrease in accessibility and usefulness if noteworthy organizations are buried in sea of obscure, minor groups. - N1h1l (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability is a criterion for article topics, not content. So long as reliable sources are available, I don't see any legitimate reason to leave an organization off of the list. If the list becomes very extensive, we may just need to tweak the article's organization in order to make it more useful. DickClarkMises (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)