This template 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 articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
In light of our recent discussion on citogenesis and since this is a new navbox, I wanted to ask if this template's scope isn't contributing to retrospective labeling of individuals in a way that sources do not describe? Are the individuals used in this template called "anarcha-feminists" in sources? If anything, I imagine they're separately described as anarchists and feminists, and sometimes I imagine those two affiliations intersect, but as grouped in this template, it give the appearance of describing a unified tradition. czar 09:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll get back to this at some point with more sources. I obviously agree that we should be careful with citogenesis. Right now I can cite the Palgrave Handbook as a starting point, as it names a few of them in one go:
In what follows, I provide an overview of the historical events, central ideas, and praxis of anarcha-feminism as it was reflected in the activism of female anarchists in Europe and the United States. In addition to describing the sociopolitical conditions from which anarcha-feminism arose, I highlight the contributions of several noteworthy activists: Louise Michel (1830–1905), Charlotte Wilson (1854–1944), Lucía Sánchez Saornil (1895–1970), Lucy Parsons (1853–1942), Voltairine de Cleyre (1866–1912), and Emma Goldman (1869–1940). Although these women did not call themselves ‘feminists’ or ‘anarcha-feminists’—as these labels were adopted by scholars and activists in later years—their political leanings clearly blended anarchist and feminist goals. The purpose of this essay is to illustrate how their political activism and unconventional lifestyles—understood in concert as a loosely assembled network of female anarchists—constituted anarcha-feminism as a core tradition of anarchism.
If anybody comes across examples where the sources do not refer to the subjects within the tradition of anarcha-feminism, then absolutely feel free to provisionally remove them. Although, to be honest, I think some amount of leniency regarding descriptions as "anarchist" and "feminist" is fair, so long as the descriptors are used together. In other sources I have come across variations that include "libertarian feminist", "feminist anarchist", "anarchist and feminist", etc. Grnrchst (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That quote underscores what I mean in that navboxes are meant to enable easy navigation between commonly associated topics whereas this navbox is canonizing connections that are not well established. I.e., they're loosely connected, as the quote says almost verbatim. I'm not doubting that they're known as both anarchists and feminists but that "anarchist feminist" as a grouping is making retroactive continuity when they do not represent a unified tradition. For what it's worth, many of the other anarchism navboxes should also receive the same treatment. czar 05:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
