Talk:CrimethInc./Archive 1

Advertising?, should this entry be tagged for neutrality?

Attempts by varous partisans to remove any critical responses continue. This is strange considering the generally critical attitude of Crimethinc itself. There are no slander pieces, or even mean-spirited attacks -- but the thin-skinned attempts to reduce this entire entry into an advertorial on behalf of Crimethinc is strange, and should cease.

This reads as boilerplate PR. It is written by participants, and uncritically incorporates their own self-conception. Wikipedia is a participatory encyclopdia... not an advertising service. One would hope that its adherents are interested in more than self-promotion, and would be interested in what people think beyond themselves. This is written in good faith, after yet another restoration of critical reviews of their literature. Future attempts to remove any and all critical citations and reviews should be discussed on the talk page. I'd also like to float the idea of tagging this entry for neutrality.In the Stacks 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove any and all critical responses to Crimethinc. This is not an advertising page where CWC participants paint a self-portrait, but an encyclopedic entry. The other option would be to tag this page for neutrality violations and re-write the entire entry to include an NPOV entry. Rather than bickering over what they present themselves as (versus what they are in total), it seems easier and better to not bicker over the entry, but include links to reviews that are critical. If you'd also like to add the same links to the appropriate book entries, that would be a fine addition.In the Stacks 16:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to print out this response from In the Stacks and hang it over my computer. Hell, I think I'll share it on my blog. After a year of you deleting critical links posted to entries on the RCP, ANSWER, the ISO and similar pages, you get upset that critical links have been removed from an entry about an anarchist group? What's it going to be? You are being hypocritical in your own arguments if you deny critical links from being posted to certain entries while complaining about similar links being removed from entries like this one. Is it because somebody removed a link to a review that you wrote? How does that feel? Why should Wikipedia entries on groups like the RCP have links to your opinion on your blog while you deny links to similar pages on anarchist sites? Chuck0 22:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the Crimethinc page was pretty NPOV and well written. Even the critical links section was relevant, if a bit excessive given the size of this article. But if this article is going to keep the critical links section, similar content has to be allowed for other political groups. If you are interested in fairness, then In the Stacks has to allow critical links to be posted to entries on other leftist sites. Otherwise we'll just see these revert wars go on forever.

I should note that my position on critical links has been consistent all along. I think Wikipedia articles are improved by having robust links sections, including critical links. But this policy has to be consistent. Chuck0 22:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I will not get caught up in this former User's issues. Munson is not currently a user or editor of Wikipedia according to his user page and is functioning here as an ideological operative. It's an encyclopdedia, dude. So relax. Having critical perspectives here (and everywhere) is not up for negotiation. You think NPOV means "confirms my worldview", or it would if this is what you call NPOV. It is ironic, and unfortunate, that those who advocate for liberty find criticism such an imposition.In the Stacks 00:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Since when am I a "former user"? I have a user account and post to Wikipedia all the time. My involvement in Wikipedia may have been low over the summer, but I'll probably be more active again as an editor. My status as an editor is really none of your business nor germane to this discussion. As is usual with you, instead fo addressing issues, you engage in personal attacks.

The rest of your comments are just confusing. I know what an encylopedia is. I'm a librarian. You argue that having critical perspectives is not up for negotiation, but then you say something about NPOV. I think you are finally arguing the point I've been making for the past year, that these entries should have links in their critical links sections. The links to the reviews on your blog should stay as should the links to critical content on Infoshop. Chuck0 18:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link to Infoshop.org and the wiki entry on situationism, as the latter was already embedded in the main entry and the Infoshop link is simply advertising. I believe there is Crimethinc-reated material on Infoshop, and links directly to relevant materials should of course stay up, such as the reference link to the "10 year report".In the Stacks 15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what link you are talking about to Infoshop, but you have a history of making up excuses to remove links to Infoshop from various Wikipedia entries. This is not your encyclopedia. Those links belong on those entries and they will return. Chuck0 18:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am largely responsible for removing the critical reviews. The reason they do not belong in the external links section is because they concern secondary subjects - the individual books/zines - and not the subject itself. From Wikipedia:External links normally to be avoided - "…a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." I think the article could definitely use more secondary sources as it is predominantly reliant on primary sources at present, a NPOV concern, and as such, I have appended the critical reviews to the publications section of the article.

While the link to Situationist International is already in the article and was correctly removed from the See Also section, I think that Infoshop should be linked to from the See Also section. As an external link, it could possibly constitute advertising, but internal wikilinks are never advertising, merely relevant or irrelevant. Since Infoshop, like CrimethInc., is an anarchist publishing organisation, and has hosted material by and reported on CrimethInc. in the past, it certainly qualifies as a related article. However, I'll refrain from restoring the section out of respect for the wishes of other editors until consensus is reached. Skomorokh ^incite 16:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As the main coordinator for Infoshop and as a librarian, I don't agree that there should be a link to Infoshop under the "see also" section. We are dissimilar projects. Chuck0

Nothing personal Chuck, it's just that I'm sure you also see that listing every anarchist resource under every entry here would be counter-productive, as well as opening up wikiwars over who merits such inclusion. Analogous projects are not the same as the project itslef.In the Stacks 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I had initially thought it an uncontroversially similar article. I'm willing to drop the matter now seeing as there is some consensus and it's an unimportant facet of the article. Skomorokh ^incite 00:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand why considerations of Crimethinc are being removed. These reviews do not simply refer to the books involved, but each engage the overarching philosophy, subculture and practice that goes under the collective authorship of CWC. Removing criticism is f'n insane, frankly, for a group that holds the beliefs they claim to.In the Stacks 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read my comments above, I provided a clear rationale for removing the reviews from the external links section and suggested a compromise. As it stands, the article ridiculously includes the same resources in the References section and, inappropriately, in the External links section. To recap, this has nothing to do with criticism and everything to do with external links. The critical book reviews are included in the references appended to the Publications section. Skomorokh ^incite 00:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a rare instance where I'm in agreement with In the Stacks. The removal of the links section makes no sense, nor does the removal of the section on bands that Crimethinc promotes. If somebody want to remove a links section in toto, it's incumbent on the person proposing the move to explain why it's necessary to remvoe a long-standing section and why this entry should deviate from Wikipedia standards. I also agree with In the Stacks that Crimethinc welcomes criticism. They've always had a very open attitude towards criticism. Chuck0 00:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Removing the critical reviews of books' has nothing to do with criticism and everything to do with Wikipedia's external links policy. I have explained multiple times why those links do not belong in the External Links section. Their removal is entirely in line with Wikipedia standards, I urge you again to read the policy and the edit summaries in the history of the article.

2. CrimethInc.'s attitude towards criticism is as utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia as the Chinese govt's attitude to freedom of speech. Relevant, reliably sourced criticism should be included regardless of CrimethInc.'s feelings on the matter.

3. As I stated below, I removed the bands section because there was no rationale for its existence in the article. Do you have a reliable source that says CrimethInc. promote the bands? If so, it is uncontroversial to restore the section. !Skomorokh ^incite 00:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Is anybody prepared to respond to these arguments or is this tacit acceptance? Skomorokh ^incite 22:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I read that policy. Wikipedia is sucking more all of the time. What will probably happen is that more reasonable alternatives to Wikipedia will emerge. I really can't believe some of the stupid restrictions that the Wiki-zealots have come up with. In any case, I really see no prohibition of external links to these works of criticism. They all in their own way offer more perspective on this topic. The entry is improved by having these links. The entry is looking much better, by the way. The section on the bands should stay because Crimethinc actually publishes those bands and sells their records. Chuck0 20:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes

There is a really awesome zine by Robin Banks (get it?) that was released by crimthinc. It is a compilation of a bunch of Calvin and Hobbes cartoons that have political and social themes along with commentary on each cartoon. It is really cool. Should we mention it?

---

Does anyone else find it ironic that a decentralized anarchist organization has an "official" website? :) Tualha 14:18, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)\

XD

not centralized

its not an offical webpage, its just a webpage

or maybe, the fbi?

They have like 5 "official" websites or something

"...Inc"

I know there is some writing about the reason behind the "Inc" in the name... seemed like something ironic to me...

to clear some things up.

There IS a cell in sweden. Though they update their website infrequently, they do exist. and distribute the european version (which is slightly different than the US one) of "Days of War, Nights of Love" across their continent. http://www.demonbox.com/

the CrimethInc.com site has a list of FAQ, some unanswered questions might be addressed there -- http://www.crimethinc.com/main/faq.html

editing of criticism

I've included two links to criticism of Crimethinc from differing perspectives. As per the controversies they've courted, that seems entirely appropriate. If someone sees fit to remove ANY critical notes about this project, they should at least have the decency to explain why. This is not a free advertising service, and a diversity of perspectives seems entirely appropriate. If other critical pieces go up, there is now a "criticism" subhead.

Those articles should not have their own section, it's improper formatting. Critical articles still go in the external links section. The Ungovernable Force 02:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is is just poor BLANK trying to use CrimethInc.'s success and popularity to get his own name out there and it is pathetic. I don't feel like one attack piece and one totally half-assed review from years ago of one book really belong in the external links section. I mean, if you think that external book reviews are that important then it seems like you should list more then one or two negative ones but a variety, from a variety of sources. Anyway, BLANK, get over yourself, really.

btw: what's YOUR name?

>>It doesn't really matter what "you feel" is relevant or not. That the beauty of unlimited space. What you "feel" is that NO criticism of your pet projects shall be tolerated and you will resort to censorship to maintain a fragile facade of deft cleverness. In terms of maintaining a diversity of perspectives, I've noted that several other political pages on Wikipedia have distinct "criticism" subsections to avoid skirmishes on the main page. What is interesting here is that someone apparently believes that NO criticism whatsoever of Crimethinc shall be posted here, unless they happen to agree with it, and is policing the page through personal attacks and unwarrented deletions.

>> Wikipedia is not an advertising service. With that in mind, what is the protocol when one individual decides to use the definitions as a form of advertising? (that is, to allow no dissenting voice).

hello BLANK!? don't confuse your slander with a dissenting voice. do us all a favor and grow up a bit. you have waaay too much time n your hands.

Could someone please explain what this bickering is about? Who is BLANK anyways? The Ungovernable Force 05:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

BLANK is the guy who wrote the 'in love with itself' review, hence his constant promotion of it. even though the review has been soundly rejected in the countless public forums he has posted it in, that hasn't stopped him from his endless leeching onto crimethinc's success and notoriety. fyi. as i read in a private email "oh, BLANK, he is locally famous as this cranky maoist, just ignore him, it is what all of us have to do."

Additional criticism should be posted as the arguments around Crimethinc have been widespread within the general milieu. The attempt of an anonymous person to interject personal attacks is as weird and misguided as his(?) attempted deletion of critical reviews. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service, personal attacks are low, low, low.

citation/explanation needed

"turning one's life into a series of moments" in the Intro is a pretty vague/ridiculous point, and one that needs a citation, explaination or both.

I'm pretty sure they talk about that in Days of War, Nights of Love. It is something various CrimethInc publications have advocated though. And it means viewing and living life as a series of moments so as to focus on the here and now and not sacrifice your current happiness for a future goal. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Critiques

The critiques idea is a good one. I'm a fan and a sometime contributor to the crimethinc cause. Ironically some of the most scathing critiques come from the crimethinc "organization" itself. A bit of exploration on their website should render some great ideas for critiques. Crimethinc endlessly critiques itself... give it a shot?--24.92.121.133 23:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Feeboot

---

Is Nickelback really part of CrimethInc? That seems like vandalism to me. 140.77.241.11 15:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

anarcho-primitivism and post left anarchy in CrimethInc.

Considering the following guidelines:

• Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
• Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
• If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.

Please discuss how exactly my edit is totally unappropriate.

Crimethinc is a publication that represents a forum for "anarcho-primitivism" and "post-left" ideas, just as much as the SI ideological reference that is already there. Wikipedia encourages editors to add wikilinks to the articles that are related to the subject of the article in question. Since these references, more than ideological developments, are topics concerning the publications of this group, I would like to know exactly how my contribution does not represent a helpful improvement for the understanding of the article.

This is a political group that publishes books and pamphlets and those wikilinks point to the articles that further explore its political philosophy. I believe that magazines and distros should not have only a biographical concern in terms of references in their articles. In fact, I think you cannot separate their biography with their political beliefs. It was with this in mind that I edited the article.Maziotis 11:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I may add that both articles "Anarcho-primitivism" and "Post-left anarchy" reference Crimethinc, in the body of the article, as an association known for representing these political movements. I have not myself added these references.Maziotis 11:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your changes are inappropriate because they are simply inaccurate. Crimethinc has never been a proponent of anarcho-primitivism. If they were, this would be news to many people. Crimethinc is not a big proponent of post-leftism. I think your changes are pejorative edits designed to associate Crimethinc with political tendencies that you do not like. Wikipedia isn't a place for this kind of politics. Chuck0 01:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. It seems you know little about this group and the people who read it (me). I am an anarcho-primitivist and I enjoy reading CrimethInc. to find primary anarcho-primitivist sources. I advise you to read the Hunter Gatherer magazine (Crimethinc publication listed in the article), for example. Also, you may want to read this article itself. Both these movements are mentioned in it, as well as crimethinc. is mentioned in their respective articles, here on wikipedia. You will find it mentioned as an example of a famous organization that supports it. CrimethInc. is actually known as a supporter of these movements.

Someone has already reverted your change. It would only take you 5 minutes to check the articles "anarcho-primitivism" and "post-left anarchy" and see for yourself.Maziotis 03:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not wrong. I've read much of the stuff published by Crimethinc and I'm widely known to be a leading post-left anarchist. I also run the largest anarchist website, Infoshop.org, and I'm editing several books on anarchism. What you are confusing is some material published by a publishing project with the primary political bent of the same project. Various anarchist magazines have published articles about primitivism. That doesn't make them primitivist or a significant source that should be identified with a "see also" link. I'm also a professional librarian, so I understand the correct way to construct a "see also" reference. These kind of references are created when the target of the "see also" is of significant relevance to the original entry. In Crimethinc's case, they are not significant on either post-leftism or primitivism. As far as post-leftism goes, they aren't a sigificant source of post-left critique. They do bash the authoritarian left, but no more so than other anarchists. Chuck0 03:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, Hunter/Gatherer shouldn't be interpreted as a primitivist tract, simply a critique of modern civilization. "Create your own DIY civilization" and other texts from that paper make sarcastic pokes at contemporary anti-civ texts while simeltaneously finding solidaridy with individuals (and communities) attacking civilization and the roles therein. It safe to say that Hunter/Gatherer isn't anarcho-primitivist, and that is certainly the closest CrimethInc. has come to exploring the anti-civ critique in-depth. Moreover, I think because CrimethInc. has publicly identified with some broad terms like "anti-authoritarian" and "anarchist" and even "revolutionary", we can assume that if they wished to narrow into terms such as "post-leftist" or "anarcho-primitivist", they would have already identified themselves as such. I'm with chuck on this. henryshrapnel 7:30am PST 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not the logic of the group. They don't even want to limit themselves as being "anarchist". Just read the intro in the site. they are against any label, considering themselves the non-hierarchical result of a free individual based group. They say that fundamental point is what is more close to be considered as a fact for labelling them "anarchist". I put the link "anarcho-primitivist" and "post left anarchy" in the "see also" section because these are topics that have been widely recognized in their publications. Just read the "political philosophy" of this very article. I dind't write it.Maziotis 14:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You are definitely wrong about me. You said that I was just someone trying to hurt Crimethinc by adding pejorative terms. I don't consider "anarcho-primitivism" and "post left anarchy" pejorative terms at all. I support both. I still think you are wrong, as I find strange that apparently other people have identified Crimethinc to mentioned in the articles of these movements, out of the blue. The anarcho-primitivism interest by this group is large enough so that this group was recognized as an association that supports it, in the article about anarcho-primitivism. I have personally read many anarcho-primitivist articles in this magazine and come to the idea that the group as a whole as aligned with this philosophy at large, just as much as with post-left anarchy as well. You just have to look at the topic of the books listed and read the short political philosophy section. It is right there. "CrimethInc. is often categorized as post-leftist, although it has also largely drawn from situationism, green anarchy, and class struggle anarchism." There seems to be no doubt that "post left anarchy" and "anarcho-primitivism" are two main influences of the philosophy of its contributors. I believe this makes it relevant to point in the article. And by the way, I should point out that I was not the one who added all of these references on wikipedia. You can check the history log.

If we find consensus for this, I believe your experience as a librarian is of no matter here.Maziotis 12:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that my librarian background won't matter, as Wikipedia is allergic to contributions from people who know something about actual subjects. More and more everyday, Wikipedia is turning into a lowest common denominator compilation of high school term papers.

My claim that the addition of these two "see also" references were pejorative is based on my common experience with some anarchists who are intent or trashing excellent projects like Crimethinc with false association. It sounds like you aren't motivated to trash Crimethinc, but based on my experience with Wikipedia, I just can't trust you until you explain your reasoning.

Again, just because a general interest political magazine (or publisher) publishes articles on a topic doesn't mean that they've adopted those politics. It's usualy best to rely on direct statements from a publisher about thier political leanings. You argue that content on other entries points to Crimethinc as being this or the other thing. This is a poor way to establish the facts about subject matter. Given that with WIkipedia anybody can add something to an entry, you just can't rely on what people have added to other entries. Wikipedia encourages people to cite primary sources as much as possible. Chuck0 06:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, I understand that you are an educated person. We all got it. But wikipedia works by reaching consensus, even when it includes anarchists POV oriented people like me. You see, the rules are not just there to stop uninformed people to participate while extremely brilliant people shed some light on the world. That is helpful to stop the low quality that is sometimes expressed in high school papers, but they are also there to stop POV and original research, which is something that you, like any person, is not immune.

I never claimed that they were an "anarcho-primitivist organization". According to them, they are not even an "anarchist organization". They don't want to label themselves as anything. Yet we have a "see also" section pointing to the "situationist" article. And I think we should. What I argue is that "anarcho-primitivism" is a major topic of influence in their political perspective. Check out the "reading library". They put the hunter gather magazine in the "primary readings". I have read it and I can say it represents clear anarcho-primitivsm propaganda.

As for the links in the wikipedia articles, I don't see what some would benefit in labeling this particular organization, among so many others, as having anarcho-primivist and post-leftist leanings in their writings. I am guessing that they have read what I have read and came to the same conclusion as me. I understand that this does not prove that they do in fact are representatives of this movements. Someone could easily be adding them to the "associations" section in anarcho-primitivism so that one more organization can add to the number. But if in fact they have this meaning, for the reasons I have explained, it seems that them being mentioned shows how notable they are in this way, which is a different thing. The mentioning in this very article of both this associations seems to be yet another example of a reference. I suppose it is always possible to check the history log. If you check mine, you can see that I am an anarcho-primitivist supporter, by the way.Maziotis 14:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm a librarian with some professional training as to how "see also" references should be constructed. I'm also a prominent post-leftist. You write: "What I argue is that "anarcho-primitivism" is a major topic of influence in their political perspective." See Also reference are not used for a subject's "influences." You construct a see also reference when the connection between subjects is of some equal importance. Thus, if you add a "post-left anarchism" see also link, then Crimethinc should have some kind of importance or influence on the subject of post-leftism. The same goes for situationism (another bad see also link) or primitivism. Crimethinc is not seen as a significant source on post-leftism, situationism or primitivism. Perhaps in the case of situationism a see also reference can be justified because the group has been significantly influenced by situationism. But post-leftism? Publishing a few articles critical of the left does not make them post-left anarchists. Criticism of the left is quite common among anarchists and has been for 150 years. Post-left anarchism is something different. Chuck0 15:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Organization Infobox

In theory, this could help this entry, but it seems to be incomplete and unstyled. is there a way to make it float to the left of the anarchism list? also, why is there no margin around the infobox? I'd like to suggest that this be removed until it looks as it should. Henryshrapnel 18:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Entry isn't written by encycolpedia standards

This entry is not written in the format of an encyclopedia entry. If people want it to be taken seriously as one, it really needs to be cleaned up of it's point of view biases and propagandha-like language. Otherwise, it's just an essay, or an advertisement, or propagandha, which is neither good nor bad, but it's not an encyclopedia entry.

I believe what you are referring to concerns just one recent edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CrimethInc.&diff=133457729&oldid=132600543 Maziotis 23:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• "syrupy folds"?? That's nonsense! I'm removing it. Henryshrapnel

Bands

The relationship of the bands to CrimethInc. is not at all clear from the article, and the section is merely a list of largely unlinked names. I'm moving the section here until informative content can be gleaned from it:

• Aluminum Noise
• Blacken the Skies
• Catharsis
• Countdown to Putsch
• Face Down in Shit
• Ire
• Newborn
• Requiem
• Sandman
• The Spectacle
• Timebomb
• Ümlaut
• Zegota

Skomorokh ^incite 17:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I read somewhere that requiem and umlaut were on the slate for deletion? that is crazy. Requiem had 1.5 members of catharsis and deserves to be considered as a completely seperate project. Umlaut is obviously relevant to CrimethInc. active history and shouldn't be considered a "sideproject", in fact that would only reflect a further patronization of the dismisal of european hardcore carried out by the US -- a confrontation that Umlaut succeded in popularizing.

also, this list of musical groups is relevant to CrimethInc., and therefore this article, although there should be some sort of commentary about what this list means. i'll do some research on the comments about being a recor label that crimethinc has made in heartattack and other music zines and try to put something together for this section. Henryshrapnel 21:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be really helpful, the section is just an uninformative list at the moment and there's so much that could be in there if reliably sourced. Skomorokh ^incite 22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I prodded umlaut, although in retrospect I kind of wish I hadn't. I don't really want the articles deleted but right now they're totally unsourced. The fact that there could be a dispute over whether umlaut actually existed or if it was just Catharsis having a laugh kind of underscores this. If sources couldn't be found for Catharsis, what are the chances for these other bands?--P4k 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I missed the Catharsis Afd (do you have a link?) but I imagine if they aren't notable enough for an article, none of the CrimethInc.-related bands are. Skomorokh ^incite 01:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the Catharsis AfD. Just to avoid duplication of effort, these are the only sources I could find for Catharsis; none of them are reliable: http://www.aversionline.com/blahg/2006/09/, http://www.aversionline.com/blahg/2006/09/, http://www.asice.net/specials/163/, http://www.punkrocks.net/display_interview.php?id=65, http://kzsu.stanford.edu/~hannah/c/catharsis.html, http://www.geocities.com/xgreensmartiesx/catharsi.htm.--P4k 02:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Source

I don't know who's working on this article now, but this book may be useful to you. It's published by SUNY Press, so it's reliable, although obviously that doesn't mean what it's accurate.--P4k 17:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Very grateful for the source, thanks. This can be used as the basis for a new section on CrimethInc.'s relationship with the punk scene I think. Some quotes:

"CrimthInc., a more recently founded punk collective, is exemplary of a more contemporary and nuanced approach to Anarcho-Punk's possible forms of aesthetic resistance to commodification. Based in Atlanta, Georgia, it began as Brian D.'s personal zine, Inside Front, and began operating as a collective only in 1996. The aesthetic choices of CrimthInc. regarding music do not differ substantially from those of the Anarcho-Punk and crust bands that PE released in the mid-to-late 90s." Skomorokh ^incite 18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

GA status

The one thing I can see being brought up against GA status is the shortness of the "music" section, and the one sentence paragraph in the "Participants" section. Murderbike (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments; I've assimilated the Participants section, but I still need sources for Music. Given that its association with the punk scene is one of the most notable things about CrimethInc you'd think this wouldn't be too difficult, but I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources. Skomorokh ^incite 22:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not having really dealt with much music stuff since I first started editing, I'm definitely not an authority on this, but I THINK that standards for RS is a bit less stringent for music, and you would be able to use something along the lines of Profane Existence, or MRR as a source. It shouldn't be too hard to find interviews with Requiem or Catharsis. Murderbike (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Heck, that quote above would fill it out a little bit as well. Murderbike (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the quote, but even with copies of PR and Rolling Thunder at hand its difficult to pin any of it to Crimethinc because they are so fucking elusive with regards to claiming credit and identifying themselves. Skomorokh ^incite 23:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was kind of thinking along the lines of interviews, album reviews, write-ups and whatnot ABOUT Crimethinc related bands and stuff. I'll try to look for some later on, kinda busy in reallife today. Murderbike (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This pdf has a review of Samsara from Heartattack fwiw. You might be able to find other stuff on that site.P4k (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also the pdf on the inside front page talks about the comp that came with the final issue.P4k (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be hard to find copies of Inside Front, but that zine, arguably the beginning of CrimethInc., was one of the most outwardly anarchist punk/hardcore zines of the 90s. Also, Zegota, Catharsis, and Requiem have played major parts in furthering the CrimethInc. project. Residual narratives from their tours and even songs can be found in CrimethInc. texts here and there.Henryshrapnel (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead section is too long; for an article of this size, it should be one or two paragraphs, with the shorter end preferred.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It seems to me that there could be more that can be said about this group. Is there anything approaching membership statistics? What about the media attention the group has received? Where is the group’s membership predominately active? Do they have any relationships with other anarchist groups? Are there any criticisms of the group, either from related organizations or other opposed groups? Has the organization been the subject of any legal disputes, either its members receiving criminal citations while actively involved in the work of the group or the group as a whole in a civil dispute? And what about the statement “The one firm rule always made clear has been ‘No police informants.’, a regulation which has been ignored at least twice by the FBI;” is there any more that could be said regarding these two circumstances?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The editors might want to consider removing the white-space in the article around Image:Don't Just Vote.jpg

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I don’t the article is broad enough in coverage yet to merit GA. Specifically, it is sill lacking information on criticism, something that has been brought up twice in the talk pages. jackturner3 (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Four links to criticisms are more than most Wikipedia articles of similar length have. Chuck0 (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Jack, I think your criticisms are justified. I'll try and get a group of editors together and improve it to GA standard. Regards, скоморохъ 14:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

External links (again)

User:In the Stacks, aside from incomprehensively duplicating {{CrimethInc.}} and 3 existing references (Brandt, Ryan, Lee), restored the following external links to the article:

• An Anarchist Cookbook To Replace Bibles in Motel Rooms Kirsten Anderberg's Review of Recipes for Disaster
• Book Review: Recipes for Disaster Steve Hise's review on Portland Indymedia

The first seems to be some non-notable individual's thoughts on the userspace of Resist.ca - I don't see how this meets any of our criteria for inclusion any more than if any random person wrote a blog post on the subject.

The second is a salutary review of a CrimethInc. book that does not have anything particularly novel or interesting to say. That this was restored on a rationale of including critical views is confusing. Please offer your views on the appropriateness of these links. скоморохъ 20:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I know who Kirsten Anderberg is, she used to publish a lot of stuff on Infoshop.org. However, I don't know that resist is an appropriate link per WP:EL. I'm PRETTY sure, that Indymedia is NOT, since it's open published, and if wikis aren't appropriate, why would Indymedia be? I can't imagine that there's not some criticism of Crimethinc in some published source to be found, they're anarchy's punching bag. Murderbike (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This book has some not necessarily positive things to say. This one] criticizes the Don't Just (not) Vote campaign. Murderbike (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's surprised me too - whenever the topic comes up informally, anarchists opinions are generally scathing, but I haven't found much in the way of a substantial overview of the debate. I'm not sure whether to include the DJNV info, given that it has its own article, but the Thompson critique should be accommodated somewhere. скоморохъ 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, In the Stacks has demonstrably no interest in reading either the article or the talkpage. In the spirit of good faith I have restored the two dubious links mentioned above, pending a justification. If no justification of the inclusion of these (CrimethInc.-friendly) links is forthcoming here, I will remove them as neither I nor Murderbike, the only two editors seemingly willing to discuss the matter, favour their inclusion. скоморохъ 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Is is just me or is this slightly disingenuous? There are two published critical considerations of Crimethinc that I'm aware of. The piece by Brandt in Clamor Magazine and Ramor Ryan from New Perspectives. Both of these were put into the references without discussion... followed by the argument that they shouldn't be separately listed. Reading this entire page, it is just advertising. If that's what the anarchist minders here want, that would be a strange desire. I do not see what the concern is with refusing Crimethinc's self-styled view of itself in describing it in an objective fashion. My suggestion: place published critical reviews (pro, con, mixed) together with links to the articles where they are currently available online. The attempt to bury/remove any such links – particularly to published articles – strikes me as small-minded and a violation of NPOV rules. As this isn't a judicial process, arguing like lawyers over what the rules supposedly are is probably less fruitful than a discussion of why those attempting to remove such links think that literally any published criticism of Crimethinc shouldn't exist here. It is truly strange, and I may be missing something.In the Stacks (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I put the Brandt and Ryan pieces in as references after the GA Review suggested including more criticism. I did not initially do so because I didn't think that either Brandt or Ryan were noteworthy critics, but now I think we should re-evaluate what is noteworthy with regards anarchism and include marginal figures. The most informative source on CrimethInc. is unfortunately CrimethInc. - there is very little intellectually honest and comprehensive secondary literature. What little secondary sources I have found I have put in. The problem with "refusing Crimethinc's self-styled view of itself" is that the subsequent article would be about ten lines long. By phrasing it as "CrimethInc. claims itself to be" or "Days of War, Nights of Love includes an attitude of", we are at least being upfront with the reader.

I find your preference for removing the material and references to critical reviews from the main article and simply tacking them on at the end as bare links inexplicable. How can you say the article should not consist of CrimethInc.'s criticism of itself, and then say that we should remove any critical references from the article? Quotes with references (which, by the way, contain links to the article concerned and are in no way buried) are far more revelatory of criticims than some afterthought hyperlink. Per WP:EL: "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section".

What it it about these links that is unsuitable for inclusion in the article? скоморохъ 17:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto Skomorokh. It is always preferable to have links referenced in the text instead of as just bare links in an EL section. It's not "burying" it, it's writing an article, not a linkfarm. Murderbike (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The new form with the "reception" section looks WAY better. Well done. Murderbike (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool; I don't normally like to ghettoize criticism, but the previous version seemed forced. The current Reception section sandwiches criticism between heavy praise, and needs a little revising to seem more balanced I think. Thanks for the support, скоморохъ 23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As no justification for including the two favourable reviews of Recipes for Disaster by Indymedia and Anderberg as external links, I am removing them as proposed above. скоморохъ 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In the Stacks, you are edit warring, violating the 3RR rule, and slinging personal attacks ("partisans"). Please stop. You have very clearly not achieved consensus for doubling up these external links. Murderbike (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I've posted a request here for uninvolved editors to weigh in and resolve this dispute. скоморохъ 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from User:Igorberger, taken from User talk:Igorberger:

You do not need to repeat the same links from references in external links, that is Spam. The reason for putting the links in reference is commonsense, to support the content of the article. If the editor is unwilling to understand the editing article consensus take the issue to ANI.

— Igor Berger (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Having read the entire discussion above on references v. external links, I find the argument made by Stacks incomprehensible and contrary to not only common sense, but Wikipedia's guidelines on external links, as quoted by скоморохъ. Duplicating a reference in the external links is needless, and changing a reference to an external link is, as I said, incomprehensible. How is the article helped by that action? As Murderbike said, creating a reference is not "burying" the information, it is actually using it properly. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This feels like consensus to me. I've removed the section. Murderbike (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted IntheStacks' re-insertion of this section clearly against consensus. I don't feel comfortable doing it again though, if others could keep an eye on this it'd be much appreciated. Murderbike (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't want to remove the links as I had already done so several times, but Murderbike, RepublicanJacobite, Skomorokh, Igorberger and Maziotis seem agreed that they should not be included, while only IntheStacks seems in favour, which indicates clear consensus. скоморохъ 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty hypocritical for In The Stacks to complain about critical links being taken out when he's blocked people from adding critical links to other pages. I can't see how this entry reflects some kind of self-promotion piece for CrimethInc. I've followed the changes to the page for a long time. It has gone through some interesting turns, but it's now a rather fair article about Crimethinc. I would change a few things here and there, but this article is pretty good. Chuck0 (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review, part 2

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article has improved much since the last nomination.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Lead still seems a bit on the long side, but it's within MoS guidelines, so I'm marking it good.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Previous reviewer had broadness concerns, which I feel have been adequately addressed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article more than satisfies the good article criteria in my opinion. I'm passing it as a good article. --clpo13_(talk) 09:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

External links redux

IntheStacks has once again readded all those links against consensus, with a note to take it to the talk page before removing. This is totally absurd as consensus very clearly shows that the links are innappropriate. IntheStacks, I'm sorry that consensus is against you, but you're going to have to live with it. Please stop, now. Murderbike (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I would second the request for a peer review. Murderbike, along with a couple of other anarchist activists have attempted to use this page as an advertising block. I believe the entire text of the page is little more than the self-regard of this grouping, and that from the referenced to (unsourced) anarchist blogs to their own materials, it totally confuses what's going on inside their heads with their place in the world. I have zero interest in an edit-war, and say this in all good faith. Peer review, or some impartial review by uninvolved people would really be the best solution. I would like to see a peer review that doesn't include the anarchist information minders who have been actively recruiting their compatriots to control this page.In the Stacks (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

While I also agree that more of a peer review would do much to solve this problem, I resent your bad faith accusation that any one of us has been "recruiting" "compatriots to control this page". I'm sorry that you stand in a minority right now, but several people outside of the direct editors of this article have disagreed with you on this matter. It does you no good to sling mud around just because you've been outvoted. Murderbike (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WRT the critical external links: no doubt the question of whether the links should remain is not as simple as some editors make out. However, could I ask that the editors who believe the links should stay refrain from pointing out in every link summary and all over the talk page that the editors who oppose them are anarchists? It's at most irrelevant and at worst an ad hominem attack. Simply decide whether the links are relevant and whether they lead to media which is in accordance with policy. The politics of the people who add or remove them are not at question here. The Wednesday Island (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been offline for more than a week and I have to say that this article is greatly improved over what was a very good article. This entry should be used as a model for in depth entries on other political projects. Chuck0 (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Critical Reviews section should stay in this entry, although I'm not sure that this kind of section is standard for Wikipedia these days. I'll also point out that "critical reviews" should include some positive reviews of CrimethInc materials. People often mistakenly think that "review" is always something negative. Chuck0 (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Chuck, glad you like the article. The "critical reviews" mentioned were mostly positive - the two mostly negative reviews, Brandt and Ryan are quoted from and referenced in the article (see the Reception section). You're right that such sections are non standard - imagine if the Jesus article ended with "Critical reviews" such as "The New Testament: A Mixed Bag" or "Against Christ: Spiritual Enlightenment No Substitute For Class Struggle". These book reviews are appropriate on the book articles, where they are included as ex links (see Recipes for Disaster and Days of War, Nights of Love) as they are opinion pieces which give further illumination on the subject. Criticism has nothing to do with it - the "Rethinking CrimethInc." piece is worthy of linking to, for example, even though it is far more scathing than the others. It belongs in external links because it is an unreliable source (it is neither signed by the author nor published in a respected forum, thus failing WP:RS) and therefore inappropriate as a reference, but does provide information on the topic that could not be included in the article itself if it were of featured standard. For more info on the current standard for external links sections, check out WP:EL.

Basically, we could use all those book reviews, but like you say we could have to be comprehensive in doing so - including a representative breadth of opinion on all the major CrimethInc. publications. Personally, I don't have the energy to undertake that process, and I'm not going to do it simply to appease an editor (User:In the Stacks) who has made no attempt to positively develop the content of the article. I welcome all constructive suggestions for developing the article here or at the peer review. Skomorokh 19:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Reception among anarchists" section is getting to be too long. This section either needs to be trimmed or deleted entirely. Current Wikipedia practices are hostile towards organizational entries having sections critical of the organization being described. Chuck0 (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the Ramor Ryan quote and the part about Libcom, which is simply hearsay from a bulletin board. Chuck0 (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)