Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism/How can I help?)
Latest comment: 15 minutes ago by John Desmond in topic Simon Watson Taylor
 | Welcome to the talk space of the Anarchism WikiProject. This area serves as a noticeboard for discussions, notices, and requests pertaining to Wikipedia's coverage of anarchist philosophy, practice, culture, and history. |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3. |
| 73 edits | Red triangle (badge) |
| 58 edits | Chen Jiongming |
| 30 edits | Henri Achille Etiévant |
| 28 edits | Mohamed Saïl |
| 20 edits | Dimitar Ganchev |
| 18 edits | François Soubrié |
| 14 edits | David Chichkan |
| 14 edits | Buruh Tani |
| 10 edits | Victor Serge |
| 10 edits | San Diego free speech fight |
These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last seven days. Last updated 27 August 2025 by HotArticlesBot.
Martinet
editPierre Martinet <-> police informmant 'Jean'. :) Aristoxène (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Banner shell
editI've just seen a banner shell for John Turner (anarchist), which I think adds a lot to it. I consider that the article for Marie Louise Berneri would greatly benefit from an inclusion of a banner shell. Does permission need to be requested from the Project to insert a banner shell in the article for her before it is inserted? John Desmond (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- @John Desmond: No need to request permission, either for this or really in most cases. General guidelines are that users should be bold with their changes and bring it to discussion in the event it's reverted or contested. It's like Grace Hopper said: "If you've got a good idea, go ahead and do it. It is much easier to apologize than it is to get permission." --Grnrchst (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Grnrchst Thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate it. John Desmond (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Simon Watson Taylor
editI’ve added the article about Simon Watson Taylor as being within the scope of the project. Comments welcomed. John Desmond (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- @John Desmond: Hey thanks for mentioning this here, it's great to see more articles from you. Here's my notes:
- It's not clear where some of the information is coming from, as there's a lack of inline citations. We should always be citing our sources no later than the end of the sentence or paragraph they're verifying, otherwise it'll be unclear to the reader where the information is coming from.
- The lead seems to be going over information that isn't in the body of the article. Per the Manual of Style on lead sections, a lead should introduce the subject and provide a summary of the article's contents, not provide significant information that isn't covered elsewhere. I'd recommend moving these parts and rewriting the lead.
"A previous editor made the unsupported claim that he was educated in England, France, Switzerland, Germany and Austria."
A footnote is not the place to be highlighting grievances with previous versions of the article. If a claim is unsupported, then simply remove it, don't leave a lingering in-text complaint about how an earlier article version was wrong. I'd strongly suggest removing this footnote.- The duplicate reference to Everett 1986 is confusing. There's no need to reference both, just the version you're citing.
- I'd recommend using the shortened footnote template for your short citations, as these will then direct the reader straight to the source rather than them having to search for it in the sources list themself. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Grnrchst: Thank you very much for your prompt and extremely helpful reply to this topic. I shall endeavour to address your notes systematically and to let you know when I've done so. Thank you again. John Desmond (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Grnrchst: I should be extremely grateful for your assessment about whether I have addressed adequately your notes. John Desmond (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- @John Desmond: It's coming along nicely, good work on this. Here's a few more comments:
- It could still do with a couple more inline citations, I've tagged the places I noticed.
- My note on the lead section doesn't appear to have been addressed. The lead still needs to be rewritten per the Manual of Style.
- I assume
Levy 2015
is supposed to be "Levy 2005"? Or is it referencing another source? It's causing a no-target error. - In most cases, external links shouldn't be used in the article text (i.e. Stoke Newington 8 Defence Committee). If we are citing this link, then it should be a citation; if not, then putting it in the further reading would be a better place.
- When attributing something to a certain author in-text, it's better to introduce them with their full name. So rather than writing, for example,
"A conspicuous issue with the English surrealists was what Levy 2005 called [...]"
, we'd instead write "A conspicuous issue with the English surrealists was what Silvano Levy called [...]"}}
- Always happy to help if you need further clarification on any of this. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Grnrchst: Thank you very much for your prompt and extremely helpful response; I appreciate it. I shall endeavour to give your comments the attention that they merit. Thank you very much again. John Desmond (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Grnrchst: I've addressed your comments, in particular your comment about the lead section, which I confess I hadn't realized just how important it is - mea culpa. Otherwise I should like to draw your attention to the diplomacy that I have tried to exercise about SWT's father. If you will excuse my metaphor, I have sailed closer to it than previously. However, I want to draw a line now and I hope that, for two reasons, I haven't sailed to close to it. First it is old history. And second I consider that nothing would be gained from my being more specific. I am relaying this sentiment to you to save you the trouble of finding out for yourself. Finally, in my albeit limited experience, the article is becoming quite lengthy now - but which, of course, doesn't preclude me revisiting it to remedy any of my oversights, for which I freely apologize in advance. Thank you very much again for your continued help. John Desmond (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- @John Desmond: I emphasised what the Manual of Style had to say on the lead, because it's something that's generally looked at during article improvement processes (such as GAN and FAC). By the way, if you are interested in submitting this as a good article nomination, I think this is quite close to meeting the criteria; judging by your openness to feedback, I believe you would do well in a formal review. I also think you've done well in balancing coverage of his father, while also keeping the focus on SWT.
- I don't think you need to worry about the length. It's just short of 1,900 words in prose, so it's still well below the point before an article is considered too big. In any case, it's usually worth trimming down stuff once you think you've given a subject as comprehensive a coverage as you can. As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said, "perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove." I'm still procrastinating on giving the article I wrote on Voltairine de Cleyre a wee trim, per @Czar's suggestion (I'll get to it, I promise); and once I'm done with finding more sources on Buenaventura Durruti, that one will also be getting a big trim (it's far too long, but then I was reading a 700 page book). --Grnrchst (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Grnrchst: Thank you very much for your feedback and your suggestion. I shall certainly visit the 'Translating and editing work' section which I haven't addressed except to correct two mistakes about SWT's surname. Then I could give serious attention to your kind suggestion about submitting the article as a good article nomination. Your reference to Buenaventura Durruti rings a bell. I was extremely lucky to see an old documentary about him in which he appeared. In it a female supporter proudly told her interviewer 'He is not our leader but our guide', which I have subsequently held onto as my favourite rejection of leaderism. Good luck with your trimming of the articles. I very much hope that I will soon undertake some trimming myself! Thank you very much again. John Desmond (talk) 09:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Grnrchst: I've submitted the article as a good article nomination. I thought that you might like to know. John Desmond (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Grnrchst: Thank you very much for your feedback and your suggestion. I shall certainly visit the 'Translating and editing work' section which I haven't addressed except to correct two mistakes about SWT's surname. Then I could give serious attention to your kind suggestion about submitting the article as a good article nomination. Your reference to Buenaventura Durruti rings a bell. I was extremely lucky to see an old documentary about him in which he appeared. In it a female supporter proudly told her interviewer 'He is not our leader but our guide', which I have subsequently held onto as my favourite rejection of leaderism. Good luck with your trimming of the articles. I very much hope that I will soon undertake some trimming myself! Thank you very much again. John Desmond (talk) 09:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @John Desmond: It's coming along nicely, good work on this. Here's a few more comments: