Talk:Anarchist symbolism/Archive 1

Archive 1

V for Vendetta?

I removed the blurb about the V from V for Vendetta as an Anarchist symbol. Although the comic "V For Vendetta" has a very strong anarchist current in it, I dont belive that the "V symbol" is nessisarily an anarchist symbol, or that it is used by alot of anarchists. In fact, there is/was a movement agienst the film V for Vendetta by anarchists.(Transcona Slim 01:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Black Flag the Band and (A)

I removed the blurb about the band black flag b/c they were not at all anarchist aligned. Also, the section on the Stylized circle-A needs serious cleanup, but I'm too tired right now, so I will try to get around to it later. I will probably just revert it to an earlier version, (if I can figure out how). Oct 4, 2005

Image requests

This article could do with a few more images:

1. A picture of an anarchy symbol spray painted on a wall for the anarcho-punk section.
2. That picture of the Spanish anarchist militiaman with the circled "A" symbol on his helmet. Apparently it was part of a BBC documentary.

If you can find or create any of these images, please do! Thanks. • Benc • 02:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ambiguous Text

In section Black Flag, the following text appears. "Also at about the same time, the British based journal Black Flag was started and is in existence." This does not appear to be grammatically correct, but I'm not sure as to the author's original intent. Recommend "...is still in existence today." or "...continues to exist.".

Fixed. You know, you're allowed to (and are very welcome to) make any changes you feel like to the article yourself. :-) • Benc • 06:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

purple "black cross"

so why does the black cross image contain a purple cross? ✈ James C. 01:30, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

No clue. Fixed. • Benc • 06:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I put it there as purple... i thought it was better than nothing, and then forgot to fix it myself. Thanx benc. Beta_M

Someone should get us a better image so we can thumbnail it like the rest.--Che y Marijuana 05:34, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I just thumbnailed the image so we can get the little description under it, but I don't know how to make the thumbnail smaller, if anyone can help with that it would be appreciated--Che y Marijuana 07:07, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, figured it out. I'm sure someone's gonna get really annoyed with me over how many times I have to edit to get things right :P--Che y Marijuana 07:16, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Totally wrong page for a dollar symbol

The anarchist tradition has always been anti-capitalist. Information on the symbols of free-market fundamentalism (often misleadingly called "anarcho-capitalism") belongs on a seperate page (which I do not have the time or inclination to create). AW

That's just plain not true. It disobeys the requirement that Wikipedia follow the neutral point of view. You can claim that anarchocapitalists aren't real anarchists, but there is a substantial amount of controversy about it. Certainly all the anarchocapitalists would dispute that this is correct, thus, the claim is not point of view neutral. Any claim that they aren't "real" anarchists is at best an opinion, not some sort of "objective truth".

On the objective facts level, there are certainly propertarian anarchists that date back to the early 19th century and before, so you can't even claim that this is a new strain in the anarchist movement. It would be fine to say "some anarchists deny that capitalism is compatible with anarchism, while others claim that both traditions are present in the history of the movement", but it is not okay to pretend that there is only one objective point of view here.

I would strongly demand that the page be made neutral on this point. If that doesn't happen, I'll bring this up for an appeal. --Pmetzger 16:18, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

After consideration and researching the origin of the section on the page and the origin of the symbol, I've restored (and made some minor edits to) the anarchocapitalist symbol section. If you would like to discuss ways to edit the text to indicate disputes about whether anarchocapitalism is anarchism, or to discuss linking to a page on that topic, I'm amenable to it. --Pmetzger 19:20, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On another front, it appears that the symbol in question may be of fairly recent origin. I hadn't heard of it before, so I'm researching it.--Pmetzger 18:59, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've determined the origin and linked to that on the page --Pmetzger 19:20, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Someone vandalized the page to remove the symbol again. I've reverted their edits. --Pmetzger 02:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A lot of edits happened to the text, so I've also re-NPOVed it. I am trying very hard to emphasize that many anarchists don't like anarchocapitalism, think it isn't anarchism, etc., without leaning to a point of view or being offensive to either side. If people want to edit this more, I'd strongly suggest we come to some consensus on the text here, rather than engaging in pointless editing wars. --Pmetzger 02:15, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

The person at IP address 213.100.52.73 seems to keep changing things to re-insert his point of view. This is not acceptable behavior. Anyone have any ideas on what the right thing here is? I'm happy seeing people discuss the language -- maybe it isn't as neutral as I'd like it -- but discussion, not vandalism, is the way to make forward progress.

I agree, this is totally unacceptable. If 213.100.52.73 has a problem with POV wording, they are free to change a word here and there — or better yet, add to this discussion. By and large, I feel that a compromise has been reached by those willing to talk it over here. Unilateral, repeated removal of the section is vandalism. I've left a note on User talk:213.100.52.73 asking them not to do it again. If they do, we need to report it to Vandalism in progress. Three strikes and you're out. • Benc • 02:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the interests of not biting newcomers, I've decided to give the anonymous user a second — and final — warning on their user talk page. Make that four strikes and you're out. • Benc • 09:52, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I think they've worn out their welcome at this point. Time to ask for their IP address to be banned. There are plenty of signs on Wikipedia indicating how to get help with stuff and how to learn the rudiments of interacting with others. I get the impression this person doesn't want to follow the rules. --Pmetzger 14:56, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPoV: left-anarchism vs. anarchocapitalism

There are several branches in the anarchist movement, some of which are not hostile to free markets.

Given this, I've changed the history section of the page to refer to anti-capitalist anarchism having grown out of socialism, rather than more generically calling anarchism a child of socialism. (People like Lysander Spooner and Gustave de Molinari were not socialists and predate the modern socialisms of the mid 19th century.)

I do not think this description is totally right though -- although these strains of anarchism tend to be anti-capitalist I do not know if calling them that is per se the right turn of phrase. Would "left anarchism" or "anarchosocialism" be better terms? I'm tending towards using "anarchosocialism" in that spot since it seems to most accurately reflect the aspirations of such anarchists towards a society of collective benefit, though perhaps this would offend some as well. I'm very interested in comments.

By the way, if anyone claims again "anarchocapitalism isn't anarchism", I'll just refer them to NPOV. It is fine to edit the page to reflect that some people disagree that anarchocapitalism is anarchism, but it is not okay for wikipedia itself to display an opinion. Wikipedia needs neutral. --Pmetzger 18:40, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I still think that that symbol is totally out of place with the rest, seeing as it stands in direct opposition to what the others on the page stand for. For that reason I have reluctantly moved it to the end of the article, adding a qualifying note, which you can NPOV if you want.

I'll NPOV it. --Pmetzger 04:28, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think that you need to read a bit of basic anarchist history. Figures like Spooner are marginal ones at best. Beside which, Spooner was not a proponent of markets, as you seen to suggest. He was a more of a left-individualist. The term "anarchosocialism" is redundant and would only confuse matters. I've never met or read of anyone who uses the term. Anarchism *is* a form a socialism. Socialism without government to be more precise. While not all socialists are anarchists, anarchists are by and large socialists. Even individualists call for the economy to be organised along rough socialist lines. What you call "anarcho-capitalism" has only the most tenuous of linkages with both the historical anarchist movement and tradition and any part of anarchist theory. AW

I'm fine with the changes both you and Pmetzger have made, and appreciate the work you've put in to this article. I have a question for you, though: I can see how anarcho-capitalism can be viewed as a corruption of anarchism, or even as a negation of it. But how does the anarcho-punk movement fit into this equation? Isn't anarcho-punk also kind of corrupting to the original anarchist ideals? They're selling albums (a capitalist pursuit) in the name of anarchy, right? • Benc • 00:33, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think most of the "anarchist" punks I've met don't understand anarchism though there are plenty of exceptions I'm sure. --Pmetzger 04:28, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FYI, you might believe Spooner was a left-individualist, but he was the founder of the American Letter Mail Company, which was the reason the U.S. Government implemented the private express act banning private mail delivery services. He was a pretty successful capitalist when he put his hand to it, and I'm unaware of any of his writings that advocate socialism in any way. They do advocate a stateless society, though. To you, Spooner may be a marginal figure, but he and others like de Molinari are big people to the anarchocapitalists, just anarchocapitalists are less interested in some folks the anarchosocialists prefer. That is to be expected given the distinctions between the groups. --Pmetzger 04:28, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I note that AW altered my change to the history section on the black flag to remove my change distinguishing some strains of anarchism as having arisen out of the socialist movements of the mid 19th century. I very strongly believe, given the history of 19th century anarchism, and the several strongly non-socialist threads of the anarchist movement at the time, that it is not reasonable to characterize all of anarchism as having arisen out of the socialist movements. I doubt that folks like Stirner thought of their ideas as having grown from socialism. I'd strongly suggest that we come up with a way of phrasing this in a more refined manner. Proposals are solicited. FYI, I strongly dispute the contention that "all" anarchism is socialism -- it is readily apparent that at best one may state that some anarchists believe that, but that many other people do not. The term itself only refers to the organization of society without resort to the state -- it does not make any claim whatsoever about the nature of that organization. --Pmetzger 04:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good points. I put in my attempts to NPOV that part of the article; hack away wherever it can be made more NPOV. • Benc • 06:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Libertatis Æquilibritas shouldn't be on page, part 2

Wow... ok... please check the Anarchist FAQ for why no Anarchists consider Libertarian Capitalism a part of Anarchism. To them, Capitalism is a form of hierarchy. At the most, I believe a seperate page with redirects from Anarcho-Capitalism and links from this page should be created for Libertarian Capitalism. This is not a POV issue, this is an issue of historical political ideas. What a very small political sect believes should have no bearing on where they are placed in an encyclopedia. People such as Pinochet claimed to be Capitalist, but their political ideologies involved much more than that. Thus, he wouldn't be listed as "Capitalist" in an encyclopedia. This is not a dictionary, where we ignore the historical connotations of movements and categorize them based on dictionary definitions with no basis in political reality. The same stance should be taken on Libertarian Capitalism. If you want to take an NPOV position on definitions, you have to take the collective understanding in political terminology.--Che y Marijuana 22:53, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

People are free to claim to be whatever they want to be, and if a significant group of people support that claim, into the Wikipedia it goes. However, I agree with your analysis based on the fact that it's a very small sect compared to the rest of the anarchist movements. Please note that it is still POV to assert that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism without discounting it with "most anarchists believe that".

An analogy: if a Pro-Choice group declared their name to be "Pro-Lifers Opposed to the Murder of Abortion Doctors", they would not deserve a section in our Pro-Life article. They would certainly deserve a link to a separate article, of course. Therefore, I support your suggestion to move the content of the "Libertatis Æquilibritas" section back to its own article (Libertatis Æquilibritas), leaving a one or two-sentence note here linking to that page. • Benc • 09:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But you have to remember that there are many in the anarchist movement who consider Anarcho-Syndicalism or Anarcho-Communism not to be a trully anarchist ideology (if anarchist ideology actually exists). So, therefore, if we move one of the groups out to their own article, i would suggest making this page simply a disambiguating one... "leaving a one or two-sentence note here linking to" other pages. Beta m 11:32, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think there's several key differences to take into consideration:

1. Relative size. Compared to anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism is small.
2. Length of existence. Anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism have existed since at least the 1880s, growing up side-by-side with anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism, on the other hand, was first named in the 1950s.
3. Vehemence of mainstream opposition. The average anarchist would take much more umbrage at the anarcho-capitalist ideology than anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism.

Take these for what you will, of course. I'm okay with leaving the Libertatis Æquilibritas on the article if that's what the consensus is, but my vote is to move it back to its own article. • Benc • 20:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If size is small then that is precisely the reason why not to create a page for the small group's symbol. Length of existance (in my humble oppinion) plays little role here, but once again if it does then it's my argument that if there is less history to discuss then merge the discussion into the page about something else (such as general "anarchist" symbols). I take the point about the mainstream opposition. It is true that ancaps have little to do with anarchist movement most of the time, and sometimes they (either individually or as a group) oppose it. Beta m 10:25, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering, I was the one who originally moved it here when I created this article. This was not a POV action on my part because I had no POV on this issue at that point — I knew next to nothing about anarchism but decided to research it because we needed an article about the circle-A. The move was naïve on my part; I was simply gathering sources. Now that I know a bit more, I'm suggesting we give the symbol its own article to sidestep NPOV issues. • Benc • 09:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vehemence of mainstream opposition. The average anarchist would take much more umbrage at the anarcho-capitalist ideology than anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism. Does this constitute "mainstream opposition"? As I argued recently on Talk:Anarchism, I think it is much more important how the genuine mainstream, i.e. average English speakers, uses words, rather than how most anarchists use them. Because I think most people would define any group that wants to abolish the state as anarchist, I don't see the problem keeping the libertatis on this page. We could split it up, but I don't see the point. Is the libertatis aequilibritas notable enough to have its own page? This is just a page about symbolism anyway. Who cares? What's the big deal? - Nat Krause 08:30, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The big deal -- and I think it is a big deal -- is the offense given to anarchists by the inclusion. This is parallel (but less intense) to those who wish to include fascism under conservatism or socialism. -- Jmabel 17:54, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Suppose that I were offended by the page's failure to include the libertatis, much as other people would be offended if the page excluded, say, the syndicalist flag (I'm not, but for sake of argument). Is offendedness really the appropriate standard here? Doesn't that simply create a heckler's veto? Nat Krause 07:50, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, no. The title of this article is "anarchist symbolism". Everything else here is of groups that would generally mutually recognize each other as part of the anarchist tradition. Including anarcho-capitalism is no more appropriate than discussing the Larouchies in the context of a discussion of the U.S. Democratic Party, just because Larouche now claims to be a Democrat. -- Jmabel 08:21, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, if there were a page on Democratic Party symbolism (or, more likely Democratic Party campaign buttons or something) and a group of Democratic Party regulars were bent out of shape about include a Lyndon LaRouche button, I would think that was pretty silly, too, especially if the image was captioned with a note that it's inclusion was controversial. - Nat Krause 08:31, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So are we reaching a general consensus here? Is it agreed then that this symbol should not be on the page? What are we going to do? Or are you implying that it is pointless to move it? The problem is more than that man, the Anarchist movement at its core is a worker's movement, and has been throughout its history. The biggest issues they have had to deal with are with mainstream opinion characterizing them based on linguistic definitions, chaos, rather than looking at their real historical and theoretical definitions. They have been battling this for some time now, with teenagers adopting Anarchism as a theory of Nihilism when it is not and it pisses them off. Then come these "Anarcho"-Capitalists, who go to an even worse extreme, having the balls to tell established anarchists their definition is wrong and should include Capitalists. They fight their entire political history against bosses and the Capitalist class, and suddenly Capitalists want to be called a part of their movement? It's a very bad situation. I'm personally very offended, but as I said, I don't do solo actions. So I will do nothing till there is a general consensus here.--Che y Marijuana 09:36, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

I was arguing that there is no reason to move it. However, I don't think it is very important one way or the other, so if there is a consensus among people other than me, I will not object. I'm kind of uncomfortable moving it to the anarcho-capitalism page, because that page is cluttered enough already and the libertatis is really not actually very widely known or used even among ancaps. Maybe merge with ancapistan (which I wrote in my misspent youth) as anarcho-capitalist jargon and symbolism? - Nat Krause 06:21, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, given that anarcho-capitalists have a pretty marginal relation to anarchism in the first plae, if the symbol is obscure even among ancaps, then the symbol certainly doesn't belong here. All of the other symbols shown here are longstanding and well-established anarchist symbols. -- Jmabel 07:31, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion, but the argument is reasonable enough. The libertatis is indeed obscure among ancaps. Therefore, it is unimportant what happens with the information about it. - Nat Krause 08:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you if you think Anarcho-Capitalism is not large enough to have its very own page, which is why I suggested it be a redirect to a page on Libertarian Capitalism, which is a much bigger movement that would include people such as Ayn Rand who never called herself an Anarcho-Capitalist as far as I know. Please move it, as it is offensive to Anarchists, and the differences are too great to warrant putting it on the same page. Considering Anarchism has always been a union driven worker's movement, it is very difficult to swallow. Again, I will take no action myself because I don't want POV issues because I am personally an Anarcho-Communist. My suggestion is Benc make the final move if that is the decision as it is the best way to avoid further quibbling. As for Anarcho-Syndicalism, there are very few Anarchists who don't consider Anarcho-Syndicalism or Anarcho-Communism Anarchist, though some of the thinkers took that line. Those Anarchists tend to be of the "lifestyle Anarchist" variety, less political even than the Anarcho-Punk variety and with no organizations whatsoever. They have little or no knowledge of Anarchist theories and ideas and tend to be opposed to politics in general, and assume Anarchism is Nihilism. Which we all know is not true. Other than that there have been a few select Anarchist movements historically, known as Individualists, who opposed Anarcho-Communism but not Syndicalism. They stood against Capitalism nonetheless, and considered Syndicalists comrades. The Individualist movement is there, but these days is, once again, very limited on an organizational scale.--Che y Marijuana 04:03, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Er, I think anarcho-capitalism deserves its own article, at least. The issue here is whether their symbol (Libertatis Æquilibritas) should be (1) merged into anarcho-capitalism; (2) given its own article at Libertatis Æquilibritas; or (3) left here as part of anarchist symbolism. If you think anarcho-capitalism should be merged/moved to libertarian capitalism, then you should be discussing it at Talk:anarcho-capitalism (good luck :-P). • Benc • 18:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, you're right, that's a different convo all together. My opinion is merge with anarcho-capitalism. Went on a rant, sorry :P Anyways, what do you guys think, move to anarcho-capitalism?--Che y Marijuana 01:47, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

I think move to anarcho-capitalism, no large image on this page, but a see also link on this page, possibly with a small thumbnail. Whatever we adopt, I'd then handle any other kind-of-but-not-really-anarchist symbols the same way. -- Jmabel 18:04, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution to me. • Benc • 20:15, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

my vote is for a see also link at the bottom, no thumbnail. I don't see the point if you're gonna put a thumbnail anyways, but otherwise, a good idea.--Che y Marijuana 12:57, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

After thinking about for a bit... i still say keep it where it is. On the bottom away from everything else... maybe with the line separating it from everything else and nasty warning that if you scroll down Jesus will come and eat your first born hermaphrodite child... (the thing about the Jesus is the joke by the way, i wouldn't really like to see that). Keep it! Beta m 13:15, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

good going guys! Seems we worked it out.--Che y Marijuana 13:20, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

"...can be seen as..."

"The symbol can be seen as..." etc. This either needs attribution or shoudl be dropped. As it is, it's nothing but POV or original research. -- Jmabel 21:17, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

After a 60 second Google search, I've found several sources, one of which is a 1986 poster from Australia. I've requested permission to use an image of it on this article from ipl.org. Note that Proudhon predates the symbol, so we're not going to get anything straight from the horse's mouth. • Benc • 10:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Autogestione

I beleve that in Italy, the A-circle is also taken to stand for autogestione. Any confirmation or disconformation from Italian sources? Any equivalents beyond Italy? -- Jmabel 21:35, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

What is autogestione? • Benc • 11:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Literally "self-gestation". To my knowledge the term is most common in Italian, but I've seen cognates in other languages. Basically meaning bottom-up development of organizations, collectives, etc. -- Jmabel 17:48, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

"autogestione" means self-determination basically, it refers to workers taking control of factories and running them democratically without a boss.--Che y Marijuana 03:23, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks; this makes the connection to the circle-A symbol is pretty clear. If anyone can confirm this, feel free to add the following text into the "Description" section. I'd add it myself, but I'd like factual confirmation first. Thanks, • Benc • 07:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "A" has an addition symbolic meaning in [[Italian language|Italian]]: ''autogestione'' (literally ''self-gestation''), meaning ''self-determination''. This refers to the radical action of factory workers taking control of their factories, running them democratically without a boss. Anarchist movements are often associated with [[trade unions]].

added it, thanks for that. anyone have anything on paris, may 1968? I heard they had an autogestione movement there too and I wonder what the french word was.--Che y Marijuana 04:55, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Sabcat

I added the anarcho-syndicalist cat image, and juggled the info around so that the liberatis thing is at the bottom as opposed to above the cat.

I would alos like to say that the words "many anti-capitalist anarchists" are redundant. It is enough to say "many anarchists" as saying they consider capitalism hierarchical implies by definition that they are anti-capitalist.

I will not edit this alone however. I would prefer it say "most anarchists". Because that is the statistical truth of the matter, the libertarian capitalists are a very small minority and are the only ones who consider that movement a part of anarchism.

Thoughts?--Che y Marijuana 03:10, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

I also added a link at the end providing an explanation of the majority view on "Anarcho"-Capitalism.--Che y Marijuana 03:18, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Good edits; thanks for the image and the reference. I moved the link up into the relevant section, as the "External links" section should cover anarchist symbolism as a whole, not tangential (but worthwhile) topics.

As for the "many anti-capitalist anarchists" vs. "many anarchists" issue, I think it would be best if we left this as is — better to risk redundancy than to appear POV to anarcho-capitalist readers. It's just one word. But if you'd like to emphasize the fact that anarcho-capitalists are in the (very small) minority, feel free to do so. • Benc • 06:44, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am about to move the cat once again, firstly for formatting issues, and also the fact that it is more important and prominent in my opinion than the black cross.--Che y Marijuana 04:42, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I have also changed a line in the anarcho-syndicalism section, that made it seem like syndicalism was unique in embracing socialism. I clarified that they embrace it more than most Anarchist movements, though I also said "anti-capitalist" anarchists to keep it clear till we get the issues with Libertarian Capitalism worked out. Oh, and I don't know where to put this, but I added the sabot image.--Che y Marijuana 05:35, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Black cat

Could we get some examples of groups (and publications?) named "Black Cat" for this section? Also, there are anarchist small businesses?! This is surprising (and interesting) — please support this statement with facts, and possibly add info about such businesses to the main anarchism article. Thanks, • Benc • 06:54, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anarchist small businesses is, I suspect a badly chosen term for Anarchist collectives and Anarchist-affiliated co-ops. Collectives are owned by all the workers equally, with no boss or hierarchy and direct voting on all decisions including hiring and firing. Co-ops are, on the otherhand, less Anarchist. They have workers who are simple wage workers and not part of the co-operative, meaning they don't vote. I would consider the second one a "business" in some sense, though to classify either as "small businesses" doesn't convey the nature of those projects in my opinion. I have edited it out and added "co-operatives" instead. Hope everyone agrees.--Che y Marijuana 04:40, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

No strong objection, except that the Black Cat Cafe in Austin - one of the examples I provided - is legally a privately owned business (they needed to be for their liquor license) founded by someone who happened to be an anarchist. -- Jmabel 18:33, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Added reference to Autonomist Marxist use of Black Cat symbol. FTI: the difference between a collective and a co-operative is one of legal structure (co-ops need one by law, collectives have many (or no) structures)) and adherence to the seven co-operative principles. There are plenty of co-ops that fit Che y Marijuana's definition of co-op. While there are some Worker's Co-ops that employ people who are not a member of the co-op ther are plebnty that don't, as well as other sorts of co-ops (e.g. Housing Co-operatives that don't employ anyone at all. Tallus 16:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any collectives called "black cat" which are still open? Last I knew the black cat in Austin had been hollowed out by a fire (and so isn't open anymore), and there hasn't been any effort to restore it. I also heard (sometime last year) that the original owner was trying to sell what's left of the building. millerc 01:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unicode Circle-A

The Unicode character for circled latin letter A is not visible to some browsers. In the line "The anarchy symbol that most people are familiar with is Ⓐ, which consists of the capital letter "A" surrounded by a circle.", Ⓐ is only visible as a small rectangle. The Unicode for the circle-A, & # x 2 4 B 6 ; (spaced out here for convenience) is correct, but for some computers it will not function. This may be more of a problem of Unicode, but I felt it should be brought to attention. Anonymous Non-User 08 Oct 2004, 23:20 (EDT)

Yes, it's a rather obscure character, I'm not sure it's useful to use it here. I have a pretty extensive font - no problem with, say, Chinese - and I can't see it. -- Jmabel 03:42, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I can see it, no probs. — Chameleon 8 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)

And now I'm seeing it. Weird. I'm not aware of having changed font... -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 23:56 (UTC)

Arial Unicode MS helps on MS Word. Some fonts have more characters in them than others. Also, use "Alt + is" to get the ... thing ... where the so - called "shortcut" can be entered in: the "Character Code" box.71.141.154.252 04:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have that and some other pretty massive fonts. Obviously something was glitching half a year ago when I asked this. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the "& # x 2 4 B 6 ;" while trying to clarify the lead paragraph. My browser didn't display this in a meaningful way and I don't seem to be alone. If the code works on other peoples browsers then maybe it should be restored and I hope people will consider my edit the honest mistake it is. On the other hand if it just generates the Circle-A symbol then perhaps the full image next to it makes this redundant to the reader? Seferin 22:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Monkeywrench

Thanks to whoever wrote up the info, I chased down an image of it, edited out the text and placed it up. If someone could please put in the correct image tag for it, I would appreciate that. I can't find anything better than "fair use, unsure", even though I'm absolutely sure there's no copyright. It's a political symbol of an Anarchist organization, somehow I doubt "unsure" is the correct word to use about my belief that this image is not copyrighted.--Che y Marijuana 07:24, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

anarcho-capitalist symbol articles

for sake of completion, shouldn't we add the sidebars (whether anarchist or libertarian) to these articles? i was going to go ahead with it but then realised there is probably a rift here, and i might as well check first. this coming from an individualist anarchist. Lockeownzj00 04:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added the libertarianism template. The intro needs to be expanded, so as to push the images further down.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 18:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think the 'see also' on anarcho-capitalist symbolism makes sense, if only because they have quite consciously adapted anarchist symbolism.--Pharos 06:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Except that they haven't. Not a single image listed here is an Anarchist image, their imagery is all their own. The connection is tenuous at best, so I see no reason for it. Someone looking for a page on ancaps isn't going to be looking for the page on anarchism, and vice versa.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 06:47, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

They are not using straight anarchist symbolism, but they are adapting it to their own ideology. This isn't about what someone is looking for, it's about a related topic. Clearly Image:Libertatis Aequilibritas silver.jpg is modeled on the circle-A, even if anarchists would find that adaptation repugnant.--Pharos 06:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still a tenuous link. I need a reason why the link would serve to do anything but imply a relationship that isn't there. I'm sorry if I'm being a little curt, but I just think it's an unnecessary weaving. Is there a Libertarian symbolism article perhaps? Place a link there to the ancap page.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 06:57, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think I've made the relationship clear, but putting it in context; see my recent revision.--Pharos 07:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Autogestione

Just a question on the recent translation of autogestione as "self-management": is its meaning really this narrow? Certainly its etymology is rather different. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:27, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Black flag

Isn't there a connection of the Anarchist black flag to the black jack or Jolly Roger of pirates (that is, self-organized armed ships that recognized no state,and gave no quarter). --Error 12:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that connection? It seems right, but I have not read anything that would definitely say so. --albamuth 16:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CNT-FAI

Does someone have a citation for the claim that the flag of the CNT-FAI influenced that of the Spanish Falange? Fascinating, if true, quite a case of hostile appropriation. -- Jmabel | Talk June 29, 2005 01:46 (UTC)

As the Spanish proverb says, Los extremos se tocan. (Or as Enrique Jardiel Poncela titled Los extremeños se tocan). The Mahón blue of the blueshirts comes from the overall (buzo) of the industrial worker. --Error 29 June 2005 03:04 (UTC)

Cut pending citation

According to legend, the use of the black cat as a symbol started with a strike that didn't go very well. At that time, a stray black cat walked into the striker's camp, and since it looked even worse than they did, they adopted the cat. Soon the cat started to look better and coincedentally, their luck also changed, leading to the success of the strike. From then on, they used the cat as a mascot and eventually as a symbol.

Maybe. I doubt it. Not without a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Mourning?

Recently added claim that black became associated with anarchism starting in the 1880s, as a sign of mourning for the Paris Commune: does anyone have a citation for this? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Circle-A and Proudhon

Cut:

The symbol can be seen as an embodiment of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's maxim, "anarchy is order". Proudhon, a 19th century anarchist, is known for such statements; he also famously stated that "property is theft". According to this reading of the symbol, the circle represents the O in order. However; many modern anarchists would reject this interpretation, desiring to semantically disentangle themselves from concepts like "order" entirely. Some of them would probably even argue long into the night about it.

Can be seen? Heck, it can be seen as anything but without a citation for someone significant seeing it that way, this in non-encyclopedic musing. The "response" about "many modern anarchists" is probably true, and slightly less pretentious, but equally unencyclopedic. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've heard this before. Although I'm stumped to find a citation for it now, maybe when I'm at home I'll dig through my books. I'm sure it was in Marshalls. - FrancisTyers 18:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Peter Marshall the "circled-A" represents Proudhon's maxim "Anarchy is Order." [Demanding the Impossible p. 558]

According to Peter Marshall, "[i]n 1964 a French group, Jeunesse Libertaire, gave new impetus to Proudhon's slogan 'Anarchy is Order' by creating the circled-A a symbol which quickly proliferated throughout the world." [Op. Cit., p. 445]

Found here. Anarchy is Order. 84.48.58.93 19:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "Autonomy in Organization" myself, but I'm not sure how common that particular reading of it is 24.190.65.147 12:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The symbol has a factual history that must be respected. An encyclopedia is not the place to discuss possible interpretations in accordance to our own personal principles.Maziotis 12:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Black and pink flag, Jolly roger, Eat the rich and stars added

I added these, as I have seen all in use (and use some of them myself). -- anon anarchist 19 November 2005

Cool. I do wonder about the pirate thing though. Seems like there are good and bad aspects associated with pirates (good: robbing rich, sometimes democratic Bad: killing people, maybe robbing too much). Oh well. It does look cool! I wonder if I should add Circle-E (equality) and other circled letters. I know there are a lot, E is the only one I can remember off-hand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.143.29.251 (talk • contribs) 13 Dec 2005.

I'm going to talk to some anarchist friends tomorrow and see what other circle letters they know about. Hopefully I will mention it in a day or two.

Jolly Roger

Does anyone have a citation from the anarchist press on the use of the Jolly Roger by anarchists and the motivations behind it? Or when it was first used? I wonder whether it may reflect Tariq Ali's invocation of pirates in his theory of the Temporary Autonomous Zone, or whether it predates that; also, presumably there is an element of pirates as defying law and government authority, and of this being a way to "show ones colors" as distinctly non-national. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Freemason?

I'm always suspicious of uncited additions about the Freemasons. In the case of the material recently added here, I am particularly so. A circular "O" does not derive from omega, it derives from omicron. I have, indeed, seen Christian (and possibly Masonic) use of an alpha embedded in an omega, but not in an omicron. Again, without citation I seriously doubt this claim of connection. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Lacking response, I am removing this. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken so long, but I have now supplied images and citations for thisd important piece of information about the origins of th encicled A.Harrypotter 23:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work! - Jmabel | Talk 18:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Queer anarchists?

I'm not really familiar with the "queer anarchist" movement, however, wouldn't the term "queer" itself be considered homophobic? I hesitate to edit it, in case I am wrong. (Which is quite likely to be the case.) Regards, --ScottishPinko 20:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

At least in the U.S. (and I would have thought in the the UK) the term has been quite reappropriated. See, for example, queer studies, Queer Nation. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Or LGBTQ. The Ungovernable Force 06:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Purported fascist ignorance

From the article: "It is possible, though unlikely, that they were unaware of the color's use by Anarchists, whom they disliked as much if not more than ordinary Socialists." Anything is possible, but this would seem extremely unlikely, given the syndicalist backgrounds of many early fascists. Can we delete this unfounded conjecture? Unless I hear objections I will do so, and someone is welcome to beat me to it. - Jmabel | Talk 16:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarchy Symbols Represents Asmodeus?

Someone told me that Satanists believe that the A symbol represents Asmodeus. Has anyone ever heard this before and is it accurate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.141.143.70 (talk • contribs) 2 April 2006.

Never heard it, but it wouldn't surprise me. An a with a circle seems pretty simple, I wouldn't be surprised if it was used by some other group earlier. The Ungovernable Force 06:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I've cleaned up the lead paragraph including the removal of weasel words and an attempt to improve clarity. The lead paragraph still needs a bit of work. I've only done a couple of edits so try to be patient if I've messed anything up. Seferin 22:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean the lead paragraph of the Circle-A section, where you edited. Sorry, but I think that you are headed the wrong way. In particular (1) it was appropriate to indicate that this is simply the best-known symbol today, not at other points in history (2) unless cited for, the claim that "the circle is symbolic of unity and organization"—or of anything—smacks of pure conjecture. Similarly the remark about the symbol generating a feeling of solidarity. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking again, I see that most of what I find objectionable was there before you edited. I've added {{citationneeded}}. - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A few things

Have found an example of the circle-A being used during the Spanish Civil War at http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/spancivwar/flood2/sobrera.gif - interestingly this is fairly similar to the anarcho-punk usage (as oppose to the more "neat" version used elsewhere). do we want to include this?

The statement "Contrary to some historians accounts, the IWW (like activist Joe Hill) never died and remains an active labor union today." seems a little odd as, as far as I am aware, old Joe is no longer with us. Am therefore going to remove the part in parentheses.

Also, the statement "Many Anarchists have been freemasons and rosicrucian imagery of this type was used by the Golden Dawn." require substantiation. While the cite given for Giuseppe Fanelli seems fairly in-depth I couldn't find any other on Google on him in particular or anarchism and Freemasonry in general; if anything most anarchists seem to be anti-Masonic. I don't dispute that Freemasons and others may have used the circle-A before anarchists, but evidence is needed to show a causal link. --Black Butterfly 08:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Need for both images of @

Both images are needed as the full scope of the image is not coneyed in the detail, but without the detail the use of the image does not make sense. The purpose of the entry is to make information known. Removing important material may end up with an uncluttered blank page, but that is hardly helpfulHarrypotter 12:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How about removing Image:Kunst und Natur.jpg instead, then? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The simple Circle-A is already present in the Infobox. - Jmabel | Talk 18:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is the A drawn inside the circle?

Ok I'm quite confused at this. I read a majority of the Anarchy article and the symbolism article, and not ONE person said anything about the A being inside the circle.

This article is the ONLY place I have ever seen the anarchy symbol drawn INSIDE the circle. I'm not alone in this as I just asked a bunch of people online. The REASON the A is to be drawn OUTSIDE the circle is to represent what Anarchy itself IS. Not being held by any bounds, restrictions, or laws. I KNOW Anarchy means so much more, and I never knew the rich history behind it until I read the article on wiki. In fact I see that there are citations needed for the logo itself, so there is no real backing to displaying it as such.

I'm not really artistically inclined, but could someone PLEASE replace the anarchy logo with the correct one? Or at least see if they can find the origin of the symbol as we know it today?

I'm thinking that finding information pertaining to this will be difficult simply because of the nature of anarchy itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.203.134 (talk • contribs).

The article says The circle is symbolic of unity and organization.

The circle does not represent restrictions and bounds. It represents unity. In fact, the circle itself is used as a symbol of anarchy on some occasion; in example in the logo of the Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation (Logotype, Flags. Here, the circle represents unity and organization, as in the slogan "An injury to one is an injury to us all".

The circled A you are used to is to be found here: Anarcho-punk.

Further: do you see the irony in trying to maintain one of two symbols of anarchy is the correct one? ;) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a severe misunderstanding of what Anarchism is all about -- by the same logic, it would be fine to propose a swastika as the symbol of anarchism, just because some dude feels that would be right. Unfortunately this misconception of Anarchism is pretty common -- Anarchism is not against conventions per-se, but only against those conventions that haven't been arrived at in free consensus. At any rate, I think both versions of the symbol would deserve to be presented here. In my feeling (I can't back this up with any references though), the A with the lines going outside the circle has more of an 80ies and punk ring to it. If you haven't come across the other version at all outside of this article, clearly you need to take another look at the world around you. It's all over the place, and not only in recent years. Just as a random example, take this 1976 poster for a talk on Bakunin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bakunin_and_Anarchism_poster.jpg Lodp 17:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd porpose that both (A) symbols are included in this article for the sake of completenes, because, as Jobjörn pointed out they are very much interchangable. 83.20.212.232 20:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC) I second that opinion and might add it myself.Libertycookies 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Anarchy is order...

If someones a cite for what I just edited, http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append2.html#circledA has part. The rest could be found by a quick search, that I can't be bothered doing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.217.6.6 (talk • contribs).

Autogestione, redux

This was cut by someone who called it "total bullshit". How constructive and polite.

The "A" has an additional symbolic meaning in Italian: autogestione (literally self-management), meaning self-determination. This refers to the radical action of factory workers taking control of their factories, running them democratically without a boss.

Probably the best reference I could turn up quickly was [1], but here are a few other decent online examples: [2] [3] A Google search on the word will find quite a few more (mixed in with maybe 20% off-topic links, including a much recurring "Microsoft In Autogestione" where I honestly cannot tell why they chose to use this particluar word.). Autogestione was also the name of an Italian anarchist magazine back in the early '80s (I don't know if it still survives, but I'll try to search down a copy); it used the circle-A in its logo; the symbol was not particularly widely known at that time.

The word also exists (obscurely) in English as "autogestion" and in Spanish as "autogestión". I'm sure it is used in some other languages (my Googling also turned up French, because it is also the same word), but my reading on anarchism has been mostly in English, Spanish, or Italian. It's mentioned in our (pitifully short) article on Workers' self-management. It is the title of the related French-language and Spanish-language articles on that topic. Here is (much to my amazement) a use of the word in a Library of Congress country study: [4]. And here's a quite good discussion of the topic in Spanish [5]. Again, Googling will turn up many references.

Possibly this is open to some dispute, but it is clearly not "total bullshit". Now, do you care to drop the "bullshit" attitude and discuss this? - Jmabel | Talk 04:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed, this was already discussed above. - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved from the page

I just removed this new next from the page:

It is important to note that the red and black flag is not exclusively anarchist. Other revolutionary syndicalist and revolutionary socialist movements have utilized it, including Augusto Sandino and some non-anarchist syndicalists during the Mexican Revolution as prime examples, and the Marxist-Leninist party that took Angola out of colonialism also uses a variation on a red and black flag.

Although I know that flags utilizing red and black have been used by non-anarchist groups, is there any source that the flag being discussed (the one with a diagonal division) has been used by non-anarchists in any extensive way? Any comments? Perhaps mention that other red and black flags have been used by other groups, but as far as I know, this specific flag is exclusively anarchist. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 03:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Squatters

I think the internatinal squatters symbol (http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/53/5313.html) should be included in this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatters explains how it is often used with anarchist symbols. There should at least be a refference to squatting and this symbol. OliverR 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 06:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur, please add. There is an appropriately licenced photo at Image:Graffitti con simbolo okupa malaga.jpg. Also, there are several other related symbols such as combining the anarchist "Circle A" or the squatter's symbol with gender symbols. - Jmabel | Talk 18:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There are also the images Image:CircleN.svg and Image:Okupa.svg. I don't know which is more accurate to the way it's normally drawn, but I think the latter is.

As an aside, there was an episode of The Bill on the other day about a neo-Nazi movement (obvious parallel to the NF) who used the squatter's symbol. I thought it was weird. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 06:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The latter would be the way i have seen it from grafiti in Athens and in Nørrebro, Copenhagen relating to the youth house. In Athens it was used by students against a reform of some sort. A local translated the writing to say something like, "if we don't get what we want, we make provokement." I have pictures of some symbols from Athens if neccessary.. I just don't know how to upload them or where OliverR 22:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Black flag image not displaying in the article

There's some problem with the black flag image (in my browser, at least). In the article, I don't see anything in the image, just a big white expanse. If I highlight it, it turns grey as expected. If I click it I go to the image detail page where I do see the flag. Christian Campbell 03:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and Dumbledore's Army symbol

I would like consensus to add the content of Circle DA as anarchy symbolism. The release of the next movie, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix will lead many of the general public to wonder if the Circle DA symbol was inspired by the Circle A. It was. The only Phoenix in Harry Potter is named after Guy Fawkes, an noted anarchist, and Rowling has said the world of Harry Potter is "controlled anarchy." The similarity of the Dumbledore's Army picture to the V for Vendetta anarchy symbol picture is striking, both are vandalized authoritarian posters. This seems like appropriate content.

Although Harry Potter has been phenomenally successful, we should not allow that as bias for excluding this content. See the removed Dumbledore Army content at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchist_symbolism&oldid=132434860 Libertycookies 15:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any cites - for example, a quote from Rowling or a reputable source - indicating that Dumbledore's Army was in fact intended to be anarchist-inspired? My objection has nothing to do with Potter's pop-culture status or success, and everything to do with the claim appearing to be original research.

Oh, and Guy Fawkes wasn't an anarchist. Sorry. --Black Butterfly 19:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fawkes' image is often utilized by Anarchists...some may think he was trying to secretly terrorize the heads of Parliament, but the amount of gunpowder that he hid in the basement was more than enough to kill them instantly with no fear at all. This would have created a lack of government, or state of Anarchy. From that state of Anarchy, he hoped a pro-Catholic government would emerge. Here is a poster from the Socialist Party of Scotland (now known as the Socialist Party of England and Wales, or SPEW) that illustrates the anarchistic use of Guy Fawkes image. The SSP received lot of negative press for putting up what the press described as "an anarchist poster."

Here is a quote from Rowling on Anarchy in school:

JKR: As far as the boarding school goes, I very often get asked “did I go to a boarding school?" No, I went to a comprehensive. We did have four houses – that’s as far as the similarities with Hogwarts go. What amused me in a way, though probably only me, was the idea that you would have this very traditional school in which you had almost controlled anarchy. I mean, if those students wanted to band together, they could have the staff, no problem. I’ve had that experience myself as a teacher looking out at the class and thinking “you could have me – what is holding you back”.

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0700-bloomsbury-fry.html

Does this mean that the students banding together in Harry Potter is Anarchy? If you define it as rebellion against authority, then yes, that is what they are doing, and that is what the photo of the Circle DA grafitti illustrates, although they are still acting in a "controlled" manner. At the very least the DA symbol is inspired by the Anarchy symbol. Watch the movie if you haven't read the book.

Libertycookies 23:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC) File:Fawkes vote.jpg

Guy Fawkes' image may be used by anarchists, but he himself was not one in any independently verifiable sense, in that anarchism as a political philosophy had not yet come about. Further, simply opposing a particular form of government does not make one an anarchist. However, I'd rather not spend too much time on the subject of Fawkes as that isn't the section under discussion.

Rowlings' comment on anarchy, while interesting, does not directly relate to Dumbledore's Army - further, it's unclear as to whether she's using the term in the common sense of disorder, or in the sense of political anarchism (my take would be the former but it's a matter of interpretation).

Your last paragraph illustrates my point precisely. "If you define" - in other words, what your point of view is. As there is no concrete, referenceable source for this, it does not belong in the article.

Further, I would argue that even if accurate this would not be the appropriate article for this information, in that it is not a symbol used by anarchists, but rather, an unsubstantiated claim of a reference in popular culture. As such, Anarchism and the arts might be more appropriate. Again, however, only if a concrete cite can be found. --Black Butterfly 13:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a very narrow definition of Anarchy, and most of the symbols on this entry would not fit the criteria of being used by those who subscribe to Anarchism as a philosophy. Definately there is also room for Harry Potter on the Anarchism and the arts, however since Dumbledore's Army in the book and movie Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix are acting in an 'anarchistic' manner, in the sense of 'Anarchy' that Rowling's quote describes, is it not a symbol used by anarchists?

Here is a description of Dumbledore's Army which describes the fear of the Ministry of Magic that Dumbledore was attempting to overthrow the government, the very definition of an anarchistic group. Although the DA was created to fight Voldemort, the government and school administration considered them a threat to the government and authority.

"In Harry's fifth year, Dolores Umbridge was installed at Hogwarts as the new Defence Against Dark Arts teacher and High Inquisitor by her boss Cornelius Fudge. Out of the irrational fear that Albus Dumbledore was organising an army of students to overthrow the Ministry of Magic, Umbridge taught lessons that lacked practicality, simply ordering her students to read theory. Understandably, students were outraged, in particular the fifth years, who were expected to perform practical defence magic during their O.W.L examination that year. It was Hermione Granger who came up with the idea of forming a club where students willing to learn would be taught by Harry, who's had quite a lot of experiences dealing with Dark Magic. Harry was reluctant at first, but thanks to much persuasion by Ron and Hermione, attended the first meeting in Hog's Head. Harry, along with Ron and Hermione, who had reportedly pulled along "a couple of people", were greeted by a large group of students (25 in fact) from Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff. (A detailed members list can be found below). During their first few meetings, the members sworn secrecy and signed their names on a piece of parchment, elected their leader, ( i.e. Harry), and chose a name for their club. The initials D.A. orginally stood for Defence Association, yet under Ginny suggestion, was changed to Dumbledore's Army, making fun of the Ministry's utmost fear.

http://shacel.info/da.shtml Libertycookies 19:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious - which symbols here do you feel are not used by political anarchists? Read the article - every one (with the exception of V for Vendetta, which I'm not sure should be here either) is referenced in the context of the anarchist movement. Further, being used by Harry Potter does not make it an anarchist symbol, partly because Potter is not anarchistic, but more significantly, because he does not in fact exist.

And again - while interesting, your quote does not demonstrate that Dumbledore's Army is anarchist-inspired. a quote from Rowling demonstrating this, or a reputable source showing it as an accepted interpretation, would give this at least a little credibility. At present this is entirely a product of personal interpretation, which is against Wikipedia policy (WP:NOR). --Black Butterfly 11:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no documentation that the green/black, pink/black flags have ever been used by those so-called groups, which may or may not even exist. The jolly roger flag also is only claimed to be used by an anarchistic group with no citations of actual use. These have far less credibility or familiarity than the Harry Potter usage, which is a clear use of an anarchistic symbol, albeit in fiction, by a group that threatens the established ruling government. Keep in mind that this is 'Anarchist' symbolism, not 'Anarchism' symbolism.

I suggest to add a subcategory of 'Anarchistic symbols in Literature and the Arts' for the V for Vendetta, Eat the Rich, and Dumbledore's Army entries.

Dumbledore is an Anarchist....take for an example the singing of the School song.

 "And now, before we go to bed, let us sing the school song! 
  Everyone pick their favorite tune and off we go!" -Albus Dumbledore.  

The result of everyone singing their favorite song at the same time is....Anarchy.

Libertycookies 14:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Green and black flag: Insurgent Desire, an eco-anarchist group, has one on their front page.

Pink and black: Infoshop.org, one of the most well-known anarchist websites, has a pink and black star on the banner of its anarcha-feminism section.

Jolly Roger: London Class War has one on its front page.

So in short, you're wrong. Every symbol on here is based on use by anarchists. It is in the category for anarchism. Your proposed addition is a based on an entirely subjective interpretation of a work of fiction. It does not apply. --Black Butterfly 16:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Pink and Black star you cite does not resemble the flag symbol on this entry other than in color. Would you please update the entry with the new symbol for anarcha-feminism?

London Class War does not purport to be an anarchistic organization. Is it only your subjective interpretation that they advocate Anarchism, or is there a verifiable source? Is the skull and crossbones merely used to suggest 'danger'? They seem very much in the category of Dumbledore's Army, where their actions may subvert the established government and authorities, but they don't call themselves anarchists.

My views may not align with yours, but that doesn't mean they are wrong. Yours seems to be the sole objection for adding a subcategory of "anarchistic symbols in literature and the arts" Does anyone else see harm in making this addition? Libertycookies 14:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Pink and Black is a general colour combination used for anarcha-feminism. The cite I found happened to be of a star, but it is also used as a flag. As for London Class War, check out pretty much any history of the group and you'll see they are generally considered part of the anarchist movement, although they tend to define more as a "class struggle" group. Here's a different example explicitly using the Jolly Roger in an anarchist sense: http://cw178.tripod.com/

I don't want to dwell too much on these however because to be honest they're not relevant to the inclusion or exclusion of the DA symbol.

I didn't say you were wrong because we have different views, but because the statements in your message were factually inaccurate. And given you and I are the only ones to be participating in this discussion, and that I have not stated any objection to the creation of that sub-section, your last paragraph is, again, wrong.

These are side-issues, however. If you can find a concrete, identifiable and reputable cite indicating that DA is in fact inspired by anarchism, and have some compelling reason for why in an article almost exclusively related to real-life anarchist symbols the DA symbol should be included, by all means present them. If not, it does not warrant inclusion. --Black Butterfly 16:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting points have come up here.

Libertycookies' claim that anarchists don't use anarchist symbols notwithstanding, he's been fairly reasonable. I nonetheless oppose the inclusion of the Harry Potter images because Potter (as well as the others involved) is not an anarchist. There's not even really anything vaguely anarchistic about him. You might try looking at the list of fictional anarchists where there is a notable absence of anyone from the Potter universe. Not everyone who stands in opposition to a current administration is an anarchist, as with Fawkes. Apart from a few ambiguous uses of the word "anarchy" which do not even relate directly to the DA, there is little supporting it.

On the other hand, I like the idea of a section for fictional anarchist symbols. This would include symbols used by fictional characters and groups that actually are anarchist, such as V or Anarky or Hagbard Celine. Not that it would be a large section, but it would be interesting.

Another interesting thing is the lack of star symbols in the current article - the black, red-and-black, pink-and-black and green-and-black stars are all used by anarchists. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 02:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot about this talk issue ...

RE: Harry Potter, see Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling which if read fully might lead you to believe that Rowling herself might be an anarch ist. She certainly is a change agent. I already added a new page Circle A used in the arts. Libertycookies 05:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge Circle A here?

In light of how comprehensive the discussion of Circle A is here, is there any need for a separate article? Alternatively, should the information here be moved over to Circle A and summarized here? Comments, please. Skomorokh ^incite 19:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, it would seem that the Circle A article was created to focus on fictional uses for anarchist symbolism, which means it was entirely mislabeled, since it hardly focuses on just the circle a. It also doesn't seem to have any information which Anarchist Symbolism article lacks, except for a short paragraph on fictional anarchists that don't use symbolism, which is even more out of place in that article. I agree with the idea of having a Fictional anarchist symbolism section, but I can only think of one symbol that could fit in it: V for Vendetta's "Circle-V." However, even that is already covered in the circle A section. I don't think a merge is useful. I think at this point, deletion is the more appropriate direction to move in.--Cast 19:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. Just thought of another fictional anarchist symbol. The "ironite staff" was an anarchist symbol in Philip K. Dicks "The Last of the Masters." It was a metallic walking stick/weapon, which became a symbol of The Anarchist League as they patrolled the world on foot, seeking out and destroying governments.--Cast 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

PPS. Thought of two more fictional anarchist symbols. In the Shadowrun universe, there exists two fictional anarchist organizations along side the Anarchist Black Cross. These are the Anarchist Black Crescent (a fictional anarchist heath care organization) and Anarchist Black Star (a fictional anarchist para-military organization {think anarchist ninjas,}) which use the Black Crescent and Star as their symbols, respectively. There may be little use for that article on Circle-A in the Arts, but we could still make a small section on the representation of fictional anarchist symbols using the same strict guidelines used at the List of fictional anarchists to keep out non-anarchist fiction (I'm looking at you, Dumbledore Army!).--Cast 01:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support merging relevant information from the Circle A article into this one. However, I am concerned that the "Circle A in popular culture" section of this article is unnecessarily long and filled with largely irrelevant material. The beginning (up to "This process mirrored the cooptation of punk subculture in general, which occurred at approximately the same time.") is appropriate (tho could use some rewording - I'll try and give it a look soon), as the anarcho-punk movement did contribute to the growing use and recognition of the circle A as a symbol and affected popular perception (in that it became identified with a more general rebelliousness than a specific political philosophy.) The rest of the section, however, is a handful of references in popular culture chosen seemingly at random without any reference to how or why they are significant.

In light of WP:IPC, I would propose that references which cannot be shown to have had a significant impact on perception of the Circle A be removed. --Black Butterfly 11:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and redirected Circle A here. There was no unique information to merge other than the conjecture that, rejected from this article, led to the creation of Circle A used in the arts in the first place. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 04:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Black Flag and fascism/Islam

Folks, can we discuss this here instead of reverting all the reverts? Anybody got evidence for fascists using it? I'm pretty sure I've seen Islamic militias use it, but is it relevant to an article on ANARCHIST symbolism? Murderbike 09:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Islamic militants use the Black Flag. I'm not aware of any evidence of fascists using it. But, ultimately, why mention this in an article on anarchist symbolism? particularly if one claim is simply an assertion, without backing support. BlackFlag 10:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackFlag (talk • contribs)

Who cares? The subject of the article is anarchist uses of symbolism, not any uses of the symbolism. We don't refer to old wive's tales in the black cat section, why bother with fascism/Islam in the Black Flag section? Skomorokh ^incite 09:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I reinserted it largely on the assumption that historical background information on the use of a given symbol was acceptable, given the (comparatively) lengthy section on unrelated pre-anarchist usage of the circle A.

I would propose the creation of an article on Black Flag (political symbol), due to the numerous usages of said flag. The present disambiguation page lists several, each of which consists of a stub with little information - however (aside from the fascist one - I get the feeling whoever entered it simply saw the fascist use of the colour black and assumed it had been used as a flag at some point), others do have more background - Islam, American Civil War, and Afghanistan, for example. Plus, of course, the anarchist use.

How would people feel about this? --Black Butterfly 11:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that if the non-anarchist uses of the black flag are removed, so should those for Circle-A. A Black Flag article would be a good idea. Murderbike 18:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't the references to Islam and Fascism be included in a footnote to the blackflag section? Perhaps as a footnote tag to a line mentioning that the black flag has been used by other cultures or political movements? The footnote provides appropriate links to articles regarding such subjects. There, editors can provide appropriate history for those uses of the black flag, or not, as those editors may lack the interest in creating such sections on those uses of the flag? And if they aren't going to provide information on the black flag as used by other groups, why should we? We've got other articles of interest to ourselves me might prefer to spend our time updating. No need for us to split Black Flag off just so we won't provide context for other uses of the flag anyway.--Cast 08:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A Black Flag article would make sense -- its use by supporters of Islam is irrelevant to anarchist symbolism. And just to stress, the use of the black flag by fascists has not been proved. BlackFlag 11:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Black Rose edit

I deleted the mention of the Irish folk song from the black rose section, as the song has nothing to do with Irish nationalism. http://www.irishfestivals.net/littleblackrose.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.59.162 (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Voluntaryist V

So, an anon IP fairly legitamately removed this section, being that it's been tagged as OR for awhile, and is unsourced. I'm not personally knowledgeable of an-cap symbolism and whatnot, so maybe somebody else can find a source for this before readding the info? Murderbike (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am similarly unfamiliar, but I have been monitoring the page and wondering about the threshold for inclusion. Shall we say that if no coverage in reliable sources for a symbol may be found, and it is not the symbol of an organization notable per Wikipedia standards, it does not deserve inclusion on this page? Effectively, that would mean removing the Mutualist, Agorist, Eat the Rich and GNU symbols. скоморохъ 03:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Voluntaryist V. There is a widely used Agorist Action Alliance (A3) logo, which might take the place of the other. Libertatia (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole section is basically made up and belongs only in the dreams of whoever made it up, not on wikipedia. This is not a place to showcase the doodles of anyone who self-identifies as 'anarchist'. 82.32.14.24 (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but it seems to me, that most any "symbol" is "made up". The circle-A didn't appear in nature for the exploitation of the struggling masses. Murderbike (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Gallery

The page is very cluttered with images – completely understandable given the nature of the topic. Maybe to improve the layout, a gallery should be introduced for the "other" section. Post thoughts here if you care to discuss alternatives.--Cast (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks ok at my screen res, but if we are to increase the images/text ration (i.e. by re-adding the recently removed gnu/agorist/mutualist symbols), it should be an option. The desirability of a gallery seems to depend on whether or not there are 3-5 related symbols which can be described in one or two paragraphs. At the moment the only image cluttering the Other section for me is the "Eat the Rich" symbol Which image groupings did you have in mind? скоморохъ 14:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please pardon the late response. I was referring to both the "anarcho-capitalist" section and "other symbols" section, which were cluttered prior to my creating this section. As I look at the layout now, it seems to have been improved slightly. I won't raise the issue again until I see the page becoming cluttered again.--Cast (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Star/Red Star

I was looking for information regarding the history of the star in anarchism, but couldn't find anything. Anyone have some info about it? It's the reason I came to this article.72.78.251.171 (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Anarcho-punk red circled A

I was wondering if the red circled A, used by anarcho-punk bands (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Circle-A_red.svg) should be included in the symbols. You could argue that it was just like the regular cirlce-A, but it has notable differences in look (the red color, the a being bigger then the cirling o) and it's usage is also different. It's mostly used by (anarcho)punk bands to represent their anarchist beleifs. So I thought it should be added as a symbol or at least mentioned as a variation on the circle-A symbol.

ComicKurt: That is not death wich can eternal lie and with strange aeons even death may die. 18:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

what has happenet to christian anarchy symbol

who deleted it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonfeluch (talk • contribs) 13:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I did, it's not a symbol, the author his/herself described it as being something they just made up. This article is about actually used anarchist symbols. ProbablyAmbiguous (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrash anarcho-capitalist logo

Then of course there is this logo. Pretty snazzy. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing about anarcho-capitalists is that they can be awfully keen on copyright, unlike Wikipedia. Skomorokh 18:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Rothbard wasn't all that keen on it, unless it resulted from a voluntary agreement between producer and purchaser.[6] Hmm, what about third parties such as myself, who were not privy to that transaction and therefore made no such agreement? In any event, if Wikipedia were to relocate to Sweden, then like the Pirate Bay we could probably get away with rampant copyright violations. Jimbo, are you listening? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-third parties, specifying in the voluntary agreement the rights of end-users and resellers sorts that problem. And I am totally in favour of a fuck-copyright Piratepedia. You oughta write a {{proposal}} Skomorokh 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to change Wikipedia policy through proposals is like trying to attain anarchy through democratic processes. Actually, it's worse, because even if you get a majority on your side, they can declare "no consensus." The solution is to secede and form our own piratepedia, ideally equipped with software to integrate content from the mainstream wikipedia as well. (E.g. cross-wiki searches, watchlists, and subversion branching of page histories). We could try to elect pro-piracy folks to the Wikimedia Foundation and move it to Sweden that way, but there are so many other intractable issues as well (such as deletion policy) that I think it's better to just make a clean break. http://www.spiritworldwiki.com

So anyway, suppose Bureaucrash sells its t-shirt, under an agreement stating, "The buyer and his heirs, assignees, end users, etc. cannot rip off our design and sell it themselves." However, I go on the internet, see their advertisement, and rip it off without ever signing that agreement. How would I be bound to not copy it? Does this rely on copyright being a part of the overall anarcho-capitalist legal code (much like pollution, which is also prohibited even when a contract does not exist between the polluter and the pollutee)? If you have some more insight on this, perhaps content could be added to Libertarianism and intellectual property. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Pre-anarchist usage

Not to put too fine a point on it, I think this section is shit. I mean, it's shit anyway, as a discussion of alchemical symbology; but it's especially shit as a serious exposition on the history of the Circle-A before its use by anarchists. You might just as well incorporate that bit on the Christian Alpha-Omega: it's an incidental (and accidental) use of the same or similar symbol by a totally different and much less public group at a completely different time period, and with utterly different intent. There's no connection between the two, and I move that the section Pre-anarchist usage be deleted.

Nuttyskin (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I second that motion, and have enacted it. Plrk (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian punk link

A user added the link Christian punk to the "See also" section of this article. After scrolling down somewhat, I found the link - an "Omega-A" symbol which represents the Christian concept of God and also plays off the circle-A as a punk symbol. I don't entirely think it's appropriate (and the link should at least be to that section), but I'm raising it for discussion. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 04:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A similar appearing symbol, used by a totally unrelated sect, is not really worth linking too in my book. I mean, we could link to anyone who's ever used a black cat as well. Murderbike 09:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it really totally unrelated? There have always been christian anarchists, as oxymoronic as that may be. I mean, some people even call themselves queer muslims. I was stunned by the assertion that the circle-A is actually an "A & O" symbol. It's not totally outlandish to assume a connection to Alpha et Omega as used by esoterics. Some renditions of A & Ω resemble the Ⓐ: [7][8][9]. Of course it's speculative, but I wouldn't dismiss it rightaway. Of course if such a connection exists, it cannot be related to christian punk because that is a very recent phenomenon.--87.162.35.68 (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Jolly Roger

I just noticed that this photo shows a flag with a skull and crossbones (and dollar signs) on it an anarchist rally in 1915. I wish we could see more of what was on the flag, but maybe we'll someday know what manner this symbol was used back then? Murderbike (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just found another one [here] showing what appears to be the same flag with the text "Broadway 26 26". What the heck does that mean? Murderbike (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A threat against Standard Oil? The wiki image metadata say May 1st, 1914, not 1915. That was shortly before the Lexington Avenue bombing when dynamite intended for Rockefeller/Standard Oil blew up on the activists.--87.162.35.68 (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

FAUD's Anarchy bumblebee?

I would like to consider adding the "Anarchy Bumblebee" to this article, but first its history must be confirmed. The website lists it with the caption "FAUD's Anarchy bumblebee." Looking around, I discovered the FAUD to be the Free Union of German Workers, an anarcho-syndicalist outfit founded in December 1919, by Rudolf Rocker, Arthur Lehning, & Augustin Souchy. (Daily Bleed, Blackend Flag, and the Kate Sharply Library for the sources:

1899 -- Arthur Lehning lives. German anarchist. Founder, in December 1919, with Rudolf Rocker & Augustin Souchy, of the FUAD. Establishes & becomes curator of the monumental "Bakunin Files", with the International Institute of Social History of Amsterdam, in 1971. (http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/sinners/RockerRudolf.htm)

1945 -- Germany: Julius Nolden freed from Luttringhausen prison with the arrival of the Allies today. Previously head of the FAUD, on Pentecost Sunday of 1947 he met in Darmstadt with other comrades to establish the Federation of Libertarian Socialists.

Nolden was head of the anarcho-syndicalist FAUD (Free Union of German Workers) in the Rhineland & one of 83 sent to prison for "preparing acts of high treason." Unfortunately several of the 83 were murdered in prison by their captors."[10]

(Also: [11] [12] )

So, anyone know if this Bee is really associated with the FAUD? If not, where does it come from?--Cast 23:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In eure Hand, / Arbeitsbienen, / Werkstatt und Land, / Forst und Maschinen!Lied der schwarzen Scharen, circa 1930. Anarchy in the hive ;)--87.162.35.68 (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Circle A in popular culture

I decided to be bold and remove large chunks of the Circle A in popular culture section. My rationale is as follows:

* Given that the circle A is so heavily used nowadays it seems odd to single out specific instances (Ashlee Simpson, Hot Topic)

* The section read as an anarchist perspective on what happened (e.g. describing the Sex Pistols' use as appropriation) rather than a neutral commentary.

If people want to reinsert things here please go ahead but bear the above points in mind when doing so. --Black Butterfly 08:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note from occ: The comments regarding the "circla-A" and the blah blah -- its never rendered as it is in the image, and we all know it. It's traditionally done in a faux "spraypaint" theme (or, you know, actual spraypaint) -- and the "O" is simply an intensifying circling of the "A". The chances of it standing for "order" are incredibly slim -- at least, in the broader sense that the origins of the symbol are "shrouded in mystery" (read: its just the most obvious way to spraypaint and intensify a big "A"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.75.149 (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yellow = classical liberalism?

Might not the yellow-and-black (as opposed to gold-and-black) also be considered symbolic of anarcho-classical-liberalism, due to yellow's historical association with classical liberalism? Tisane (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. There is a sentence that says capitalism and anarchism are inherently incompatible, which is liked to an ebook which says stuff like "capitalists are not opposed to rent, employment and private property, which is the same thing as exploitation, so they are not anarchists." Obviously, rent, employment and private property can easily become exploitive when they are set up and supported by the State, the author is criticizing statist conservatives who think government does not harm the lower classes in this way, it does not adress the opinions of people such as myself, who believe that an imperial country that uses companies, markets and fiat currency as a tool of the powerful are just as exploitive as pre-renaissance absolutist monarchies, I have removed the expression and simply added:

"Anarcho-communists and Anarcho capitalists both consider each others' philosophy to be incompatible with anarchism, as capitalists believe communism is state oppression, and communists believe capitalism is state oppression. As a result, both groups claim the other is not really anarchism."

Because all capitalists agree that private property and rent are not state oppression, but natural behaviors of free markets, and all communists believe that the creation of local communes, soviets (with a lowercase "S") and peasant/worker control of land/factories is a natural behavior of a pure communist society, they both deny the other as tools of Statist imperial oppression. Of course, they both agree that government is inherently oppressive. Rustyfence (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Where's Sabocat?

I liked that little guy... Seriously, though, why no black cat section anymore? 218.160.183.224 (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC) right here Anarcho-syndicalist symbolism#Black cat --Guerillero | My Talk 04:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Bisected flags and stars"

This whole section may be original research. What is the history of the diagonally bisected black+color coded flag? Can someone find some references?

The section may need to be either expanded on, or removed.

66.108.243.166 (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Moi

Certainly the black-and-red is well-known in Spain (for example, used by the CGT for the better part of a century). The rest of this though? I have no idea. - Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• 
  CGT example
• 
  And another
• 
  And this one dates from
• 
  Here is apparently at least one real-world example of purple-and-black from 2005

More on the black-and-red bisected flag here. Probably not a citable source in its own right, but full of citations one could follow up. - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Irony of Symbolism

This article should include something on the irony of symbolism in Anarchy. I mean, c'mon folks - if the idea of anarchy is no structure, a widely recognized symbol meaning "Anarchy" is the first sign of structure and governance. It's kinda funny that a group of people, brought together to be anarchists (and you just know they are going to defer to a leader in the group, because that's what people do) adopt a symbol? Seriously? That isn't anarchy - thats a Condo Association. Real anarchy doesn't use symbols, correct? 68.252.62.180 (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what anarchism is. — Life in General ^Talk/_Stalk 16:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do some research before spouting off nonsense. Like, Life In General says, you clearly are very much misinformed on this subject. The system that most Anarchists propose is VERY structured - You seem to be buying into the myth that Anarchist's advocate chaos. In fact, we'd consider Anarchism a very well organized answer to the chaos and exploitation inherent in the Capitalist system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.162.153 (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Move "Bisected flags and stars" into "Black flag"?

Seeing as these flags are all derived from the black flag, should the section on them be moved into the larger black flag section? Or should it remain independent in "Other symbols"? I would support a move to the article covering the derivations of the black flag and the the flag itself in the same section. Only a small rewrite would be necessary. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 04:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking that myself, but the counter argument to this might be that the Other symbols section is used for symbols that tend to be used by only a segment of the anarchist milieu, while the Black Flag and Circle-A are used by most everyone. I would, however, Agree with you on the move.--Cast 06:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. I think of them as all variations on the same theme. Murderbike 09:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My concern would be that the black flag section is quite large already, as is the section on the red and black flag (combining both the basic red and black and the CNT version.) While other symbols are only described in brief it is possible they will be expanded over time, which could lead to an unweildy large section.

I would suggest we create a single section entitled "Flags and stars" with sub-sections for the black and red & black versions, and another sub-section for other variants (pink and black, green and black, etc.).

I would also suggest:

* making the circle A the first section in the article, as it is the symbol most associated with anarchism

* making each "other symbols" section (black cat, jolly roger, etc.) a section in its own right rather than subsections.

--Black Butterfly 10:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The circle-a was the first section in the article for a while, but I switched it for the sake of layout. Too many images in too small an area, plus the Anarchism sidebar (which was then much larger.) That's no longer quite the same problem it once was. However, I would also say it makes sense for Black Flag to remain the first because it is the oldest symbol associated with anarchy in existence (assuming there were others far more esoteric that we've forgotten,) and because its simple to keep things in alphabetical order.--Cast 06:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If the length of the black flag section is really a worry it could be moved to its own article and summarised here, like the red flag/red star articles and communist symbolism. I don't think it's too long at all though; if anything I only think the other sections are somewhat short. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 05:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The anarchists during the Spanish civil war is the best example of anarchism in practice in history. Their flag was a bisected red-and-black flag. It is absurd not to have that flag here. --130.243.206.154 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

black and red flag

I've the black and red flag material before the other symbols as it came first and the rest are variations on it. I would also note that red is not the colour of "socialism" (anarchism is a school of socialism) as such, but the labour movement as a whole. Also, black and red flags were used in the 1870s by anarchists, so they are traditional colours and both come from the same source, the 1831 Lyons revolt. So the use of red and black by anarchists is because of their joint source in labour protests and the labour movement. I would suggest that the section gets modified to reflect the origins of anarchist use of the black and red flags in the general labour/socialist movement which it is a part of. BlackFlag —Preceding comment was added at 15:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your change, purely on the basis of image alignment. This article has had to have minutely-tweaked balancing of images and your change seriously screws up the antecedent section. The significance of the red-and-black bisected flag is not in doubt - it has an entire subsection devoted which accounts for half the bisected flag section to begin with. Wikipedia articles that are not exclusively historical follow topic-based rather than chronological sectioning. No problems with your proposed content changes. Skomorokh ^incite 15:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What about black and red being used as Fascist symbols? Such as by the National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands and the Right Sector? 82.169.103.207 (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And also the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. 82.169.103.207 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Circle-E

I'd like to propose that a section be added on the circle-E (for "Equality"). I'm not really sure as to its origin, although I would guess that it's even newer than the squatter's symbol, possibly originating within anarcho-punk culture and symbolism. It is, however, used by many anarchists today, as evidenced by these photographs:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UHFNuAfw6UY/STMUtpIjP8I/AAAAAAAAAX0/XlY2XFywRB0/s400/anarchy+-+whoever+they+vote+for+we+are+ungovernable.jpg

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0307/traitorsImage6.jpg

http://dangerousintersection.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/800px-g20_protesters_pittsburgh_pennsylvania_2009-09-24.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkkhrhTCg11qe86fxo1_400.jpg

BlackGoat138 (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Ljgua124 (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Bisected flags and stars

Since it is entirely without references why is this section still here?156.22.9.252 (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure references could be found. At any rate the section contained generally accepted fact. I'm rather disappointed that it was removed, and I feel strongly that it should be brought back. 72.67.179.128 (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's also worth noting that if you go to any of the pages for the ideologies associated with the bisected flags (Anarcho-syndicalism, Anarcho-capitalism, Green anarchism, Anarcho-primitivism, Anarcha-feminism, Queer anarchism, Anarcho-pacifism), the appropriate flag is somewhere in the article. I don't really see the point in removing information that is obviously correct. 72.67.179.128 (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Still no source. Because there is none. And there is not even proof the black and white flag has ever been used outside wikipedia after it was invented here back in 2008. There has never been a black and white bisected flag in the real world. This is a hoax. --Sargoth (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

FugeeCamp please add sources when repeating this hoax. Primary sources will do, any other than Wikipedia itself. The article I cited is written by a person who has deep insight on the anarchist movement worldwide. Cheers. --Sargoth (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge Ancap symbolism

Since we have a long standing consensus not to ghettoize any form of anarchism (anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism are both included in Anarchism for example), and as the Symbols section of Anarcho-capitalist terminology and symbolism is small enough that it wouldn't overwhelm this page, it should be merged so that we have a cohesive inclusive anarchist symbolism article. Anarcho-capitalist terminology and symbolism is largely reliant on unreliable sources, does not assert its notability, is unlikely to survive a vote for deletion. Please indicate your support or opposition to the proposed merger here. Skomorokh ^incite 21:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Murderbike (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally am okay with that, hopefully other anarchist of the culturally left-leaning don't get so upset which they have in the past as evident by the many discussions above this one. Lord Metroid 17:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Motion passed without opposition, impending merge Skomorokh ^incite 09:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the merger. Allixpeeke (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, can you feel the non-sectarian love? A simple merge like this would have spawned a divisive edit war nine months ago. If anyone has any opinions on what to do with the bereft successor article, Anarcho-capitalist terminology, a discussion is underway at the talkpage. Skomorokh ^incite 19:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is really pretty bad, merging two totally distinct political traditions and their symbols into one. Really, what does anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism have in common beyond attempts by the latter to call itself "anarchist"? As for symbols, the flag of strikes being associated with gold? What a joke! As for "non-sectarian", that would assume that anarchists and "anarcho"-capitalists aim for the same thing, which they do not. Still, I do not have time for a pointless argument so I will leave my changes to showing when and why anarchists started using it. [User:BlackFlag|BlackFlag] —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackFlag (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course if you poison the well by classing non-capitalist forms of anarchism as the "anarchism" opposed to anarcho-capitalism, the discussion is over already. Your subjective whim as to which anarchist school of thought to exclude is worth about as much as the individualist who refuses to allow anarcho-communism within the hallowed halls of anarchism due to its authoritarianism, the anti-fascist who denies nationalist anarchism or the insurrectionist who repudiates the supposedly submissive anarcho-pacifism. Anyone can indulge in these infantile definitional games (we even have an article on it); so you are right, the argument is pointless. Skomorokh ^incite 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There's room for anarcho: communism/socialism, individualism, syndicalism, parecon, primitivism, transhumanism, etc in an article on anarchism. All claim to aim for a society with no or as little as possible hierarchy. So called "Anarcho"-capitalism simply isn't anarchism because it supports hierarchy based on wealth. All references to anarcho-capitalism should be removed from articles on anarchism. I'm similarly opposed to so called nationalist "anarchism". Nationalism is based on racism and jingoism; it supports a hierarchy based on genetics and/or geography. It isn't anarchism. Delirium of disorder (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Look how grown-up and non-sectarian we are, that we can present a recent attempt by right-wing libertarians to co-opt the 'image' of a long-standing tradition that many have died for as though they were of equal importance to one another. Well done all! Cdh1984 (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable. This is bias, pure and simple. ANYONE who claims anarcho-X should be free to do so for any X, and anyone else attempting to stop them is betraying the fact that they wish to impose their will on others, thereby invalidating their own 'anarchist' position.Aquishix (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well then I guess if I identify myself as a Helicopter, I'm free to be a helicopter. Anarchism is not a synonym for "anything goes" it is a specific philosophical and historical tradition - one AnCaps and the like are not part of. If you want to be called an anarchist, you have to actually be a logical continuation of that tradition: one stemming from Proudhon, the IWA, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Maletesta etc. The socialists and communists were there at the beginning - the caps only showed up after Murray Rothbard decided to make his name by stealing the term anarchist, after he saw how successful the right had been at (his words) "Capturing the word" from "the opposition". Anarcho-Capitalism is not anarchism, it is a deliberate attempt to destroy anarchism by destroying the language by which anarchist ideas are expressed. Thangbrand (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Mask

Why is a copyrighted corporate image with absolutely no ties to political Anarchism listed here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.46.227.226 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Very good question! Stamboliyski (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it. The source doesn't mention anarchists using it as a symbol. Sargoth (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anarchist symbolism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060713032812/http://tallerediciones.com:80/cuza/masonesyobreros.htm to http://tallerediciones.com/cuza/masonesyobreros.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eskimo.com/~jonkonnu/cat&shoe.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080130063135/http://www.anarchyisorder.org:80/CD%234/TXT-versions/-%20History%20of%20Anarchist%20symbols.txt to http://www.anarchyisorder.org/CD%234/TXT-versions/-%20History%20of%20Anarchist%20symbols.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

A lot of unreferenced original research here

It looks like this article contains a lot of original research that lacks citations— just because you saw a flag like this once does not mean that the flag means what you think it means or is consistently used in the way you think it is. Most of this kind of information needs to be removed unless someone can provide citations for it. If the article contains unreferenced information that you think should be kept, act now to provide citations. Otherwise I am likely to remove the unreferenced stuff soon. KDS4444 (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Peter Marshall vs. Proudhon

I have yet to check the texts on [13] but since I suspect Marshall has the better take (as the secondary source), I wanted to note on the talk page for posterity. There also used to be a lot of unsourced text in the article, so I suggest browsing the page history, as there's plenty to restore if you can also add the sources. czar 20:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Evren

[14] @Rjensen, what page are you citing in this source? czar 02:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Affinities: A. Journal of Radical Theory, Culture, and Action, Volume 8, Number 1, Summer 2014, pp. 23-43 Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rjensen, right, I have a copy of the source, but what specific page of it are you referencing? It doesn't look like it supports the whole paragraph at first glance (and there are better sources if it's being used only to associate the black flag with anarchism but wanted to check first). czar 09:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

if you have a better source on black flag--fine to replace. Rjensen (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ya my question was whether the source applies to the rest of the paragraph but it appears not czar 23:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Anarcho communism/syndicakism

This page seems to confuse anarchism with anarcho communism/syndicalism and the symbolism thereof, nothing about the philosophical principles of anarchism even mentioned in the text.138.106.57.132 (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Black star

I found some information on the Black Star from the Polish version of this page, but I'm having trouble finding a solid set of resources as to its origins. I listed the resource from the Polish site, but if anyone has something better that would be great. I'm relatively inexperienced, so let me know if you have any pointers about how I could do a better job with edits, etc. Thanks!

Polk1986 (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Black flag meaning

Statements such as "The uniform blackness of the flag is in stark contrast to the colorful flags typical of most nation states", "the black flag symbolizes defiance and opposition to surrender", "The black flag represents the absence of a flag and thus stands in opposition to the very notion of nation states", and "the flag can be seen as a rejection of the concept of representation" (permalink) need a source and attribution. These are subjective opinions. Colors and flags can mean different things to different people. "According to anarchists" is neither a valid citation nor attribution to a specific author, both of which are required by policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vallee01: this edit re-added the above material without providing a citation or any attribution. Where do any of the sources support this material? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Evren, 2014

The black flag and the color black in general have been associated with anarchism since the 1880s. Many anarchist collectives contain the word "black" in their names. There have been a number of anarchist periodicals entitled Black Flag.

"Black Flag White Masks: Anti-Racism and Anarchist Historiography" by Süreyyya Evren doesn't say anything to support these statements. The citation to Baillargeon (2013) that I added is a much better source for the flag association. If there are no sources that mention "the color black in general", then that part should be removed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Sirus Kashefi

NoMan NoName is a pen name like George Orwell. Sirus Kashefi is a respected anarchist academic and the name is in reference to anarchism. Vallee01 (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vallee01: I couldn't find any third-party information on the author of the paper "An Analysis of Anarchist Personality". Being hosted on Academia.edu isn't enough to make it reliable. Anyone can create a profile and upload documents. On what basis is this to be seen as a reliable source? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

No it is reliable, going through the sources and being an avid reader of anarchism, he links a large amount of reliable sources. Vallee01 (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't make it a reliable source. Anyone can write a paper and fill it with links to a large amount of reliable sources. I can use the pen name "PhysicsWizardSuperHadronParticleCollider" if I want; that doesn't make me an expert in particle physics. The source/author/publisher themselves have to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The relevant standard for academic writing is having been vetted by the academic community at large. By all appearances, this is a self-published paper by an obscure individual with no scholarly qualifications whatever. What is your source for describing the author as a respected anarchist academic? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand all information is excellently sourced, the information is completely verified. He has edited and created a large amount of anarchist papers. Moreover the information is certainly a reliable source, I don't know how much you know as to Wikipedia however most of all sources do not need to come from an academic location. Places like WSJ, Britannica and other locations are all reliable. This source is reliable due to the sources provided, and the way it is formatted. Vallee01 (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

That is not how reliable sources work on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter how many papers the author has written or how excellently he sources his information. Anyone can write a paper citing Britannica; that means nothing if the author mis-interprets or misrepresents their sources. If you want to cite this author, it's on you to demonstrate their qualifications according to relevant third parties. That's a basic Wikipedia policy; see WP:V. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The paper is completely properly sourced, written and reviewed. The citations table is excellent.If the only issue you have with the paper is the person who wrote it, and don't even care or think it necessary to read the paper, instead being completely fixated on the writer, it might say something how you look at sources. When going over the paper it is cited correctly, it is reliable. However if you would like to go over it, and find some contradiction, or wrong information, go ahead. However the paper is well sourced and when you haven't even gone reading the paper you can't really state if or if not it should be used as a source. If you find anything questionable to the article it will be removed, and I will lament. However as far as I can tell it is properly cited and researched. Vallee01 (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again, your personal opinion that the paper is properly sourced, written and reviewed is not how we establish reliability. Who reviewed the paper? What are their credentials? If you want to cite this source, the burden is with you to show that the paper has been properly vetted. It's not anyone else's job to read your sources for you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• This source appears to be an unreviewed white paper, so we'd only have reason to cite it under the limited self-published expert restrictions and I think it would be a stretch to say this author is uniquely an authority on this subject. In general, there are many papers on anarchist history written in pamphlet/unreviewed form and in those cases, the best practice is to follow their footnotes to reliable, secondary source citations and cite those instead. Are there really no better sources available for this claim? czar 02:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Since there appears to be no reference at all to anarchist symbols or "cult(s) of personality" in the paper, it's not clear how either it or the "reliable sources" cited in it are meant to support the text. "The Path of Anarchism" by Erich Mühsam says "Anarchism despises any cult of personality" but doesn't say how this relates to flags or symbols. It's also a primary source and shouldn't be used to generalize about anarchism as a whole. Woodcock (2018) uses the phrase "cult of personality" twice, but this has nothing to do with anarchist symbolism. The only mention of flags is a brief note explaining which flags were used by which groups.
    Unless Vallee01 can point out something I've missed, the statement "Anarchists have historically largely denied the importance of symbols to the political movement, rejecting the idolization of symbols and the cults of personalities present among other leftists" appears to be pure original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Cults of personalities are directly related to rejection of the idolization of symbols and people this is why there is no "Buakinism" or the like. Moreover the organization the Anarchist Library is a reliable source towards what anarchists believe, this information has been present since 2010, why are you removing it? Vallee01 (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Cults of personalities are directly related to rejection of the idolization of symbols – citation, please.
        ...this is why there is no "Buakinism" or the like – do you mean Bakuninism? In fact Webster's defines this as "a doctrine of revolutinary anarchism".
        The Anarchist Library is a reliable source towards what anarchists believe – if you mean the Erich Mühsam essay, I already explained how it doesn't say anything about anarchist symbols. Any claims to that effect appear to be WP:SYNTH. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC) (edited 00:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC))

        theanarchistlibrary.org is the opposite of a reliable source because it has no editorial process. It simply hosts texts by other authors and anyone can add texts. Moreover, hosting texts without author permission is nice for archival purposes but is considered a copyright violation on Wikipedia—we remove links to such sources. czar 07:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Williams, 2017

@Vallee01: Where does the book Black flags and social movements say the anarchist black flag is "used as a rejection of national flags"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Literally the first page "Black is negation, is anger, is outrage, is mourning, is beauty, is hope, is the fostering and sheltering of new forms of life."

Section that will be added: The black of anarchism, represents numerous things, beauty, mourning and is used as a negation and rejection of political colors. Many anarchists themselves eventually want to remove the concpet of flags.

"Negation" is not the same as "rejection", and "national flags" is not equivalent to "political colors". Both these statements are from Howard J. Ehrlich and are not actually part of Williams' sociological analysis. They're just part of a pithy quotation used to set the tone. The first one is already included in the article. The fact that Ehrlich uses the word we means that he is a primary source. Both statements are subjective opinions and require attribution if they are to be included. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Recent edits

@Vallee01: this edit removed citations to Baillargeon (2018), Ehrlich (1996), Sartwell (2010), and Woodcock (2018) that were used to support the contents of the article. It also removed various formatting (publishers, dates, etc.) used to provide more complete reference information. What is the justification for these removals? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC) (edited 00:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC))

I am readding them now, it is also fine if you would like to readd them. Please do not however remove properly sourced information from 2010, this article is completely properly sourced and hasn't been reviewed over the years to be a decent article, however you seem to have a fixation on removing already sourced material. Vallee01 (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

What sourced material is that? If you mean the part about "cults of personalities" etc., there is already a discussion about that under #Sirus Kashefi above. Please reply to the comments that have already been made there. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Why on earth did you remove the Unicode symbols? Vallee01 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is neither a how-to guide for anarchists on social media nor an indiscriminate collection of information. The page already has illustrations of various symbols; the Unicode symbols interfered with readability without adding any crucial information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The Unicode symbol is objectively required, it shows clearly the A symbol in text, it shows on the first line the symbol, and upon preview it is viewed, nothing should be inferred it shows clearly on the first line. Let me just state there is no point from which you could state the removal of the Unicode symbols was justified, it will be re-added. The Unicode isn't a how to guide it is an excellent visualization. Vallee01 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Unicode characters are not readable for many screen-reader users. See MOS:NOSYMBOLS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 November 2020 Remove "self published"

There is only source which was recently added that is claimed to be "not reliable". That citation is contested and was added recently.

Remove:

Vallee01 (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: there are several self-published sources cited in the article. See #Self-published sources, above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:52, 2 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)