Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National anarchism (2nd nomination)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] National anarchism

Neologism, oxymoron, non-notable. Its only advocates are a few trolls who seem to spend most of their time trying to tick off the various anarchists on wikipedia. It was already nominated for deletion with a consensus to delete, but I don't know what happened there. Do not be fooled by the apparent fullness of the article - the "movement" is confined to a few individuals and websites and the existence of this page adds nothing but ammunition for the trolls. --Tothebarricades 19:06, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Note: It appears that the previous vote to delete this article (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/National_anarchism) was never properly closed. It appears to have simply fallen through the cracks and been forgotten. Perhaps this page should be merged with that one, and it be re-promulgated? - Nat Krause 10:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I did some more checking and made some sense of the situation. There was apparently an earlier version of this article created in 2004 which was deleted. Then, on April 29 of this year, a new version of the page was created. If that recreated page was more-or-less identical to the deleted one, then it should have been speedy-deleted at that time. In any event, it has now been edited to the point where it is very unlikely to be the same, so it should be treated as a different article and reconsidered for deletion. The deletion pages should not be merged. - Nat Krause 10:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't see how anyone could consider "national anarchists" anarchists, and it makes about as much sense to file this under anarchism as it does to file national socialism under socialism. I tried to place this article under the fascism template, but one of the national anarchists deleted the template.... I say, don't delete it, file it under fascism. Humanitarian

Note: this was the 10th edit by this user name. - Nat Krause 10:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Fascism isn't just a term to beat people over the head with, and not every group of racist jerks is fascist. The definition of fascism involves totalitarianism and a hand-in-glove relationship between the state and capital; the people who call themselves national anarchists don't seem to advocate either of those things. You're incorrect when you say that "one of the national anarchists deleted the template." I deleted it, and I'm not a national anarchist.--Bcrowell 03:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep This deletion attempt is a POV attempt to keep certain anarchist philosophies out of the Anarchism article. The so-called "traditional" anarchists have been trying to censor out anything that's not in keeping with their communist version of anarchism. They're now resorting to try to certify this movement as non-notable (when in fact it is notable), as a desperate attempt to keep national anarchism of the Anarchism article. Also, they have been claiming that since it's for racial seperatism it's not anarchism, which is faulty reasoning. Regardless, nowhere do I see national anarchists advocate "exterminating" the Jews, as Proudhon does, and nowhere do I see them calling Jews an "collective organic parasite" as Bakunin does, yet those individuals are presented as anarchists in the Anarchism article. This picking and choosing of who is or who isn't an "official" anarchist, and censoring or ostracizing them, is not only inconsistent with the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, it's downright Archist. RJII 17:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable. RJ has been running around creating anarchism articles for any two words he can slap together, regardless of the presence or lack of evidence to found the movement. There is no evidence at all that this phenomena exists anywhere outside of the internet, and there are only 3 identifiable individuals associated with it, all of whom reject the claims of the others and call their own version the only one. This is just a series of webpages designed to make the white supremacists look like they have ideological links to movements which they clearly do not. It is also interesting to note that though Proudhon was in fact an anti-semite, RJ have been completely unable to dig up a single primary source indicating him as such, yet another indication of his tendency to create articles and fill them out based on heresay rather than actual facts. Kev 09:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: This individual's prime focus on Wikipedia is RJII --to follow him around Wikipedia, harrass and nitpick, for personal reasons (scary huh?). Please disregard his irrelevant comments about RJII and focus on the issue at hand. RJII 16:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: Kev has been on wikipedia longer than RJII. You were the one who choose to edit war on the articles that Kev was already editing; get over yourself. millerc 19:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep although "national anarchism" seems like an oxymoron, and doesn't read like anarchism, from a google search it does appear to exist as a real, albeit small, movement. Salsb 15:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep So called Left anarchists need to look to their roots. "Bakunin started as a pan-slavist, and remained an anti-semite after he became an anarchist (calling the Jews an "organic collective parasite"). Kropotkin took a reactionary stance supporting the Czarist state in the First World War. Proudhon was a gallic nationalist and anti-semite, and indeed the Cercle Proudhon was a right wing group prominent in the development of french fascism." There are many other links between Nationalism/fascism and anarchism, not the least of which is Gabriele D'Annunzio, anarcho-fascist ideologue, and of course modern third positionism. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• • The fact that most classical anarchists were unsavory charcters, something I assure you we all realize, does not alter the fact that "national anarchism" is a non-notable neologism. --Tothebarricades 19:39, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

National anarchism is notable. RJII 19:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

DELETE This article is misplaced, I would sugget moving it but if the authors want it listed in wikipedia they should be wise enough to place it in the proper location. That is no where in the vicinity of anarchism. (unsigned comment by IP: 67.164.35.179)

Delete Non-notable (and frankly bizarre) racist ideology. Gets about 1 800 nonunique hits on google (compared to 660 000 hits for "anarchism", 43 000 for "anarcho-capitalism", and 2 million for "marxism"). An An 04:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

1800 hits sure sounds notable to me. But your wording leads one to believe that your motivations for wanting it deleted is that it's "racist." But, I could be wrong. Hopefully, it's not, because even racist ideologies should be described on Wikipedia. This is a storehouse of knowledge. RJII 04:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

1800 non-unique hits. But your wording leads me to believe you're trolling for a skirmish. Not here, dear. An An 07:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's bizarre and racist, but I'm not convinced it's non-notable. A quick survey of Google hits shows the following for some of the varieties of anarchism listed in the anarchism template:

Christian anarchism, 5700

green anarchism, 5100

anarcho-primitivism, 4100

national anarchism, 1900

IMO, all four of these are probably too inconsequential to be listed in the anarchism template, but I don't see any evidence that national anarchism is a complete fraud compared to the others. (And Christian anarchism strikes me as being every bit as much of a bizarre combo as national anarchism -- yeesh, Emma Goldman must be rolling over in her grave :-)--Bcrowell 04:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Christian Anarchism is a bit more sensible than some of the others. I've seen lots of xtian socialists around and they seem to really take the humanist aspects of Christ and ignore lots of the authoritarian aspects of God. An An 01:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete Fifelfoo 04:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

RJII has persuaded me. Delete, recreate as blank, and protect the page to prevent any content from being added. ➥the Epopt 04:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It's a real phenomenon and probably encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia. Keep the article patrolled to make sure it's NPOV and not a promo piece, that's all. Kaibabsquirrel 04:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

keep. Agree with Kaibabsquirrel. It's not an oxymoron unless you buy into the anarchist ideology that racism and nationalism will automatically dry up and blow away once state coercion is gone; national identity is not the same as the nation-state. It's unfortunate, however, that RJII has been trying to inflate these articles' appearance of significance by adding spammish links from unrelated articles like Ku Klux Klan, and has used redundant external links from the articles to do the same thing. Another issue is that people have been adding links to National anarchism in templates such as Fascism, which is clearly inappropriate, both because the national anarchists don't seem to consider themselves fascists, and because they're not important enough to be included in the template. The "what links here" for national anarchism includes tons of articles which, AFAICT, no longer actually link to it, but may have in the recent past because of templates. (E.g., I just deleted national anarchism from the fascism template, but Nazism still shows up in national anachism's "what links here" page.)--Bcrowell 15:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with Salsb. If this were a paper encyclopaedia, I wouldn't see the point of keeping it, but we are under no such constraints here. I'm not arguing that it merits a prominent mention, perhaps not any mention at all, in articles like anarchism, I just don't see any reason to delete it. - Nat Krause 07:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

delete - low hits on google, if wikipedia keeps article it will give it future notability that it ain't got yet. Its basically a one man enterprise with a couple of self-promotional websites. It should get mentioned within Neofascism OR Troy Southgate articles -max rspct 15:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• • This flies in the face of the facts. It's obviously not one guy. National anarchism is active in more than one country as well. RJII 14:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

KEEP. It can always edited to include reference to objections , cross-references to contradictory articles, and/or URLs to anti-"National-Anarchist" sites, but it should not be censored or deleted because some people disagree with the POV and don't like the label. Censorship is as foreign to my understanding and practice of anarchism as skin-color politics, by the way. Thedavid 20:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep - >1000 Google hits seems notable enough. And if it wasn't for the racist nature of the subject (which shouldn't even enter the discussion) and the objectionable use of the term anarchist (again shouldn't enter into it) this article wouldn't be up for VfD. 66.94.94.154 19:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (Opps, that's me Saswann 19:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC))

KEEP! The argument for deletion is blantly POV and sectarian in nature and smacks of censorship. (Which this move entirely hypocritical coming from so-called anarchists, but I've seen worse similar hypocrisy coming out of that movement before.) It is simply an attempt by Toothebarricades to delete an article based entirely on the fact that he does not like national anarchists calling themselves anarchists. Whether or not "national anarchists" is a valid as an exponent of anarchism (and I happen to agree that it isn't good anarchism) is entirely irrelevant to whether there should be an article on this topic here on Wikipedia. The argument that the argument is too non-notable to warrant a Wikipedia article is entirely false - the long list of links on this page, the large number of websites (both pro- and anti-NA) resulting from a Google search for "national anarchist" or "national anarchism", the obvious influence it has in the neofolk music milieu, plus the very active National Anarchist Yahoo Group are all evidence that this is a topic of interest and criticism for many people and therefore well-deserving of a Wikipedia page to introduce interested people to the topic. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on Trotskyist tendencies that are far more obscure. --Peter G Werner 18:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

DELETE. Technically, any guy with enough money to build a website could start his own "ideology" on the internet, and if his website gets enough visitors, other sites might start discussing the pros and cons of his ideas. That is not enough to represent notability. National anarchism is utterly, and I mean utterly, insignificant. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment any guy can start his own "ideology," web or not, and if enough people talk about it, it becomes notable. see Emperor Norton Saswann 00:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

KEEP! The article is being developed. I think we should not dismiss what Southgate is doing, eg: his recent organisation of a meeting between Aleksandr Dugin a delegate from the cultural wing of the BNP, and someone from teh Englis Orthodox Church. I think maybe it should be developed in parallel to arevision of the NatuionalBolshevik page - particulalrly in relation to the deletion of the reference to Karl Popper. (It is perhaps also relevant to link this with the complete take over of Japanese univeristy departments in Scientific method by popperians following the occupation of Japan after the Second World War. Harry Potter

Keep. The term has enough circulation to warrant an article. People seeking to understand its meaning should be able to find neutral information on Wikipedia. —Morning star 21:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep the article, but delete much of its present content The article Peter Lamborn Wilson identifies Gabrielle D'Annunzio as a "proto-nationalist anarchist", linking here. Whether or not Hakim Bey's interpretations of D'Annunizio are accurate, D'Annunzio as presented by Bey is indeed a kind of "proto-nationalist anarchist", adopting an intermediate position between anarchism and Italian proto-fascism. However, in Bey's account (and I must say I believe in real life as well), his views are not primarily racist. What I mean is this. The real D'Annunzio, and/or the Wilsonian D'Annunzio, may or may not have been racists, but racism was not the focus of their philosophy. They were nationalists, yes, but they did not view nationalism in such a biological sense as more explicitly racist philosophies (Nazism, white supremacy) do. And indeed, this article from its very beginning identifies "nationalist anarchism" with 'white nationalism', i.e. white supremacy. I have never ever heard of anarchist white supremacists. But some of the work of Hakim Bey, explores (without adopting) some ideas of "nationalist anarchism", without being racist (although Bey at other places certaintly seems to endorse "racialism", i.e. blacks are superior; white people are all inferior; but any white person we like isn't really a "white" person, they're actually a celt or persian, which makes them a "black" person, and hence superior... go figure...) In any case, I think the article should be maintained, but its contents modified to remove (or at least de-emphasise) the white supremacy, but discuss Wilson's interpretations of D'Annunzio. -- SamuelKatinsky

• There seems to be enough momentum to keep the article and I would agree it needs to be developed. The remarks about Peter Lambourn Wilson aka Hakim Bey are interesting. I think it might also be worth bringing in Rudolf Rocker into the discussion, particularly in relation to his Nationalism and Culture, but perhaps this should be discussed on a talk page! Harrypotter 17:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.