Talk:anarchist

"Terrorism"

I don't believe "terrorism" is the best word to use to describe an anarchist. How about we try to replace that. —This unsigned comment was added by 69.135.210.130 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

I added a usage note and it is now gone, that note was not vandalism but the removal of it was! I will add it again and if it removed I will make a request to Connel MacKenzie to stop the vandalism of the usage note being removed. Randy6767 00:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll just remove #2. Randy6767 00:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

POV?

It seems like this entry has a pro-anarchist POV; for example, it speaks of "unjustified systems of power" rather than of "systems of power that he or she sees as unjustified".

Thoughts?

—Ruakh_TALK 03:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. —Stephen 18:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

O.K., I've edited the entry in a way that acknowledges the different ways that the word is used (since that's the point of a dictionary), but that hopefully makes clear that the different uses do not necessarily describe the same people. In so doing, I hope I've removed the pro-anarchist POV while leaving the entry in a state acceptable to anarchists. —Ruakh_TALK 21:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Cerealkiller13 21:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 21:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as an anarchist, I think very little credit is given to anarchists, why is it we are considered "nihilists" or "terrorists"? visit my site (AnarchistUnion.wetpaint.com) if you want to know what a real anarchist believes, I'm not even going to hope to change the list to something that actually acknowledges the fact that anarchists aren't terrorists or nihilists because all of you narrow minded wiktionarians are bent on labeling anarchists as violent rebellious vandals when being a true anarchist has absolutely nothing to do with being a criminal. I don't know why I even waste my time on these retarded wikimedia sites, it's no wonder wikipedia and wiktionary is being called "the ultimate in Internet B.S" I never thought something like a wiki could be so anti anarchist. Wikis are built on spontaneous order and social freedom, one would think wikimedians and anarchists might have some common ground but I guess not. Im not a terrorist, I'm not a vandal, Im not a criminal, I'm not a nihilist, but I am an anarchist and I will not be labeled to be some kinda criminal by you ignorant wiktionarians and your capitalist B. S. Cereakiller13, you are not a true anarchist, if you just stand idly by while you're labeled a terrorist and a nihilist. The list was much better before. Randy6767 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In two distinct regards, you seem not to understand how a dictionary works. Allow me to clarify (and I apologize if I'm simply misunderstanding you):

1. A dictionary describes all the major ways in which a word is used. Are you willing to claim that the term anarchist is not widely used with the various senses given in this entry?
2. A dictionary typically provides multiple senses of a term, and explains (where possible) the relationship between the senses; but a given use of the term does not typically belong to all senses. For example, gay adj. 6 reads, "Annoying, boring, negative, unappealing; disliked." When I say that I'm gay, however, I do not mean that I'm annoying, boring, negative, unappealing, or disliked; rather, I mean that I'm homosexual (gay adj. 3). Now, it bothers me that people use gay with sense #6, seeing as it's intended as an extension of sense #3, and hence intended to imply that homosexuals are annoying, boring, negative, unappealing, and disliked; but I can't blame a dictionary for including that sense, and I wouldn't go around telling other gay Wiktionarians that they're obviously not true gays.

Does that help you understand a bit better? (Again, sorry if I'm misunderstanding your objection; if that's the case, then please try to express it more clearly.)

—Ruakh_TALK 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

When you've actually read a few dictionaries & encyclopedias and created your own languages (as I have) then you can give me a lesson on the workings of a dictionary but until then I suggest you not overstep your boundaries, I find it hard to believe that you're in any position to be teaching me about the workings of a dictionary, excuse me if I'm being a bit judgmental, but frankly I find it insulting that you assumingly lexture me on the workings of a dictionary as if you were some kind of mentor to me. Then you try to cover your ass by repeatedly saying "I'm sorry if i'm misunderstanding you", while your probebly some 30 year old loser who has nothing to do but sit at a computer all day and create the illusion that you have some intellegence by involving yourself with big-boy words like "anarchist". Now, as you requested I'l make it very clear for you; I know how a dictionary works, I am well aware of the need to include the stereotypical senses of anarchist, but I do not think that their is a very good indication of the difference between high school students who use anarchism as an excuse to get bad grades in school, and be rebellious vandals, I think that it needs to be made terribly clear that their is a distinct difference between a rebellious high school vandal who calls himself an anarchist and an actual believer in the principles of anarchism. A usage note and a combination of the last two uses to describe "anarchist" simple as one who finds vandalism justified as a rebellion against corporate and governmental control and may display acts of nihilism and/or terrorism against such establishments. That's all I ask, many people don't know how a dictionary works; they read all the descriptions on a list and take it all at once, many people use wiktionary as their home dictionary and they will almost certainty get the wrong impression about anarchists from this list. I know what an anarchist is, but others don't and they will take the stereotypic senses literally. I do not want that to happen because, as I said, it 'labels me'. The list needs a change the way I see it. Randy6767 23:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the list to a state I think is fair, I have combined the two stereotypes and clarified them as being stereotypic. If anyone has a problem with my changes please let me know. Randy6767 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A few comments:

1. To be honest, I rather figured that you knew how a dictionary works; I felt the need to re-explain it, however, because your defensiveness seemed to be getting in the way of your objectivity, and I hoped that re-explaining it objectively would enable you to focus your thoughts on the task at hand, which is not <how to represent philosophical anarchists fairly>, but rather <how to explain how the term anarchist is used>. I'm sorry; it wasn't my goal for you to feel insulted (though in retrospect, I certainly can't blame you for feeling insulted by it).
2. If you think people don't know how a dictionary works — that's sad, but I don't see what we can do about it. We can't omit major senses (I'd estimate that upwards of half of all uses of the word anarchist are not in reference to true adherents of the philosophy of anarchism) just out of fear that people will confuse the various senses.
3. I think it's a bit hypocritical that you're all upset that Wiktionary includes (accurate) definitions of anarchist that don't have to do with the actual philosophy of anarchism, but that you're 100% willing to use the word nihilism, without any sort of qualifying comment, in reference to something other than the actual philosophy of nihilism. (This is understandable — when your philosophy is the one under discussion, it's difficult to be objective — but I hope you'll think about this and realize that you're not being completely reasonable here.)
4. It doesn't make sense to me to use stereotypically as a sense label (as you use it in your recent edits), since stereotypically typically marks descriptions rather than definitions. (For example, in "A foo is someone who does bar. Foos are stereotypically baz", the first sentence is a definition and the second is a stereotypical description.) From your comments on this talk-page and elsewhere, it seems that you mean to say something like "the use of anarchist in sense 3 results from a stereotype about anarchists (sense 2)", but the sense label stereotypically really does not convey that.
5. Your recent edits remove one major sense of the word anarchist, which is in reference to vandals/rebels/etc. who don't actually identify themselves as anarchists or believe in anarchism. (I guess you object to this use — understandably so — but I don't see that we can reasonably leave it out.)

—Ruakh_TALK 07:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the article back to Ruakh's version. My reasoning for this is two-fold. First, I don't think it prudent for Wiktionary to attempt to define what is a misguided stereotype, and what is genuine. We are only in a position to give all the various uses and allow people to make up their own mind. Secondly, Ruakh makes a good point in that definitions 3 & 4 are distinct and should be noted as such. If there are further disagreements on this page, we might want to consider bringing it up in the Tea Room. I will do so if there is a further edit to this page within the next few days. Cerealkiller13 07:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I made a few more edits that I thought should be explained. First of all, I merged def's one and two, and condensed them somewhat. There was a discussion in the Tea Room concerning anarchy having spurious definitions, and I was advised to try and trim anarchist down a bit. I think the original #1 and #2 went together hand in hand, and so, with creative use of and/or I've married them (and I think they're quite happy together, to tell the truth). Also, with regards to the condensing, I figured it was best to avoid specifics, as anarchy is a wide political spectrum, and I know that I'm not completely set on a socialist anarchy setup myself, and I don't believe most followers of Anarcho-capitalism are either. Also, I deleted the "by extension" sections on the last two because, to be honest, when someone calls a punk kid an anarchist, I don't think the political philosophy of anarchy as a solution to modern problems is anywhere near their train of thought. And of course, I must now admit that there has been "a further edit to this page within the next few days" and I haven't listed it on the Tea Room. *sigh* So I'm going back on my word. Please feel free to list it there if anyone takes offense to my changes. Cerealkiller13 11:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Except for the use of and/or; I really don't like and/or. I don't suppose there's another way to connect those ideas? :-P —Ruakh_TALK 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In the list's current form no one believer in the principles of anarchism could call himself an "anarchist"; as it says "a believer in anarchy" the link to "anarchy" will take one to a description of, primarily, a chaotic state of lawlessness, therefor anyone claiming to be an anarchist, by wiktionarian standards, is a believer in chaos and lawlessness, not being a believer in chaos I can no longer call myself an anarchist in the way it is described by wiktionary. The link that leads to "anarchy" should be changed back to anarchism. Anarchy is not a political philosophy if we look at Latin roots anarchy literally means without rulers, anarchism is the philosophy in which anarchists believe. At this point one of two is going to happen; I will change the word back to anarchism and it will stay that way or it will remain "anarchy" and i will no longer consider myself an anarchist if that means being a believer in chaos. Randy6767 21:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Short usage note?

How would people feel about a usage note to the effect of the following:

Self-identified anarchists in senses 1 and 2 often object to the use of this term in senses 3 and 4.

? Is that an acceptable use of a usage note? If so, would it address Randy6767's concerns? —Ruakh_TALK 09:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable solution. I'll implement it (with the new correct definition #'s, of course). Cerealkiller13 11:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to recent events, I will no longer be involving myself with politically sensitive words such as "anarchist" for the time being. I will also be taking an extended wiki break, other online affairs of mine will be disregarded by myself. I suggest the list stay in it's current form. Apologies for my recreant offensive comments, Randy6767 21:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; I'm sure we've all found ourselves wiki-arguing over things we care strongly about. —Ruakh_TALK 21:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a slight change to #3 I hope it's okay. It seems that it is an extension of the criminal stereotype of anarchists only in a more extreme sense. Randy6767 01:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Third Definition

In its strictest sense, anarchy has nothing to do with chaos or nihilism and therefore an anarchist would not, by strict definition be a promoter of those ideas. An ideal anarchist "system" (I hesitate to use that word because it implies some sort of hierarchy or state) would be peaceful autonomy and collaboration among all people, the idea being that most crime and whatnot is a result of oppression from the state. This "system" is not chaotic at all. Nihilists reject belief in anything and anarchists believe in the ideal of pure freedom and peaceful collaboration. Nihilism is a very destructive idea, better associated with chaos than anarchy is. I propose that we add something to point out the fact that chaos and nihilism are connotations of anarchy and ideas that commonly associate with anarchy, rather than a part of true anarchy. JTMontgomery (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)