The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Hi @AnarchistHistory, glad to see new faces around. I get your point. But, look how it goes. Intro should reflect Main Body of the Article. Main Body of the Article should reflect the general consensus of contemporary authoritative scholars in the field. Authority of the bootmaker isn't prominent in the current anarchist literature, as I understand. Could you provide significant evidence within Reliable Sources? That would do the trick. Hit me back if you got any questions. Cinadon3609:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AnarchistHistory Authority has several definitions. One of them (according to google oxford languages thing) is a person with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject; an expert. I believe this is the type being referred to with that, rather than the usual meaning. Does that make sense? A SocialistTrans Girl20:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority."
I think Chomsky would disagree with this. Anarchists want better government, which includes eliminating government institutions that can't be justified, or moderating government institutions that have powers they shouldn't.
I think it would be dangerous to limit Anarchist thought to Chomsky. For instance there was Deleuze's contention that government "from the left" was an impossibility. [1]Simonm223 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised to see that Murray Bookchin didn't make an appearance in the article, then realized that with some few exceptions (Colin Ward, Noam Chomsky, even Zoe Baker in the suggested reading), there aren't many contemporary thinkers elaborated. It would be great to expand this element and point to some of the journals/etc that have been key. Psychopomplemousse (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns that this article's dedicated criticism section may compromise its structural neutrality. It seems that this criticism section has three main points to make: that anarchism is unstable and violent, that it is impossible/utopian, and that human nature is inclined towards authority/hierarchy. Why this requires a dedicated criticism section with multiple meandering paragraphs, citing various political philosophers, is beyond me. In some cases, it's unclear whether the thing being criticised is actually the political philosophy of anarchism or the social structure of anarchy. In other cases, it seems to give undue weight to specific viewpoints; I already removed a couple paragraphs that I felt were obviously undue (see diff).
I worry that, so long as a dedicated criticism section exists, it will be a magnet for POV editing by people who are both in favour of and against the subject. Per the NPOV guidelines on article structure, I think we should slim down this section and find a way to integrate the relevant parts of it into other areas of the article. I think this would create a more encyclopedic structure for the article and keep the focus on the subject itself. I have tagged this section for now and would like to see what others think before making any drastic moves. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This section doesn't appear to add anything of value to the article. It could be replaced with a more neutral "response" or "influence" section, and some of the counterarguments presented could go under "schools of thought" (e.g. the bit on anarchoprimitivism). IMHO as it stands now, the section could be deleted entirely and not detract from the article. Note that I may be biased by my own lack of investment in the issue, lol. NuanceQueen (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
