Talk:List of fictional anarchists

What does it mean to be a Fictional Anarchist for the purpose of this list?

I suppose this had to come up eventually, so now that Green Arrow has been added, now is as good a time as any. A few months ago the Fictional Anarchist category was nominated for deletion, as it was suggested that it relied on original research, and too often was abused by editors adding characters who were non-anarchist out of personal bias or opinion. Included at one point or another were such characters Bart Simpson, Havik, Flag-Smasher, and Captain Nemo, amongst others. At this point, I argued that these additions were not likely the result of bad faith additions, but editor misunderstanding. The confusion, as far as I can safely suppose, is two fold.

On one hand most non-anarchists, whom are the majority world wide, are under the assumption that anarchists are trouble making, chaos seeking, anti-social, corrupt, ignorant (if not stupid), individuals prone to violence. (ie Havik, Bart Simpson, Barabas the Jew, etc.) On the other hand, there are anarchists who, understandably upset by their minority status, and by being misunderstood, are somewhat prepared to grasp at straws to provide proof that their beliefs are justified. They will then occasionally make the error of "claiming" individuals as being part of their "cause." (ie Captain Nemo, Flag-Smasher, Winston Smith, etc.)

Observing this, I suggested that the category, and by extension this list, could be salvaged if editors operated under a single guideline to determine whom was fit for inclusion. The source material, either in the form of the character making a self declaration within the material, or the author stating as much, must explicitly state that the character is an anarchist. Questions of whether the source material properly characterize the character as an anarchist could be examined within a subsection of the article for the character. This is important, because occasionally authors will not have the character directly state they are anarchist, either deeming it unnecessary or inappropriate (ie V,) or sometimes anarchists themselves will deny the character, seeing it as a misrepresentation of their ideals (ie Puck). At that point, the only way to avoid bias is to strictly include any character who is identified as "anarchic" and describe the conflict at the appropriate article.

I'm glad that the category was subsequently retained.

Since then, I have been faithfully editing this list and the category section according to this standard, and have made several deletions and additions. However, I can't help but be taken aback by the latest addition. The character Green Arrow, who since it's 1970's re-characterization, has been described as a liberal progressive, is now being included in this list due to a single quote by the author originally responsible for that re-characterization. It is quite possible that the author is using this label inappropriately; however, negative, or inaccurate, portrayals of anarchists, including Yorgi, of xXx, and Puck, of The Anarchist Cookbook have already been included, by myself no less, for the same reason. The creators at some point described the characters as anarchists, and while I myself may take issue with this, I am prepared to include them on this list and let the scrutiny of this characterization take place at the appropriate articles. Therefore, I will do the same now, and take no actions to remove this character. I also encourage all future editors, for the sake of neutrality, to try to follow this guideline as well.

However, if anyone else should feel this situation deserves a different approach, I encourage them to discuss it here. Perhaps a better solution simply lies outside of my vision. --Cast 05:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

O'Neil has consistently described Green Arrow as an anarchist, both during the run and retrospectively concerning it, such as in the foreword to the trade paperback of Green Lantern/Green Arrow. If the author most influential in the character's representation consistently describes him as an anarchist, then it should be included regardless of any editors POV (that would constitute original research).

I very much support the notion of explicit citations for every character, either in source material or by the author. So far, we have one. ~Switch ^t 10:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not pretend to have followed O'Neil's career enough to know what his comments on the character are, however I do realize that since the 70's, Green Arrow has been consistently portrayed as a non-anarchist, and rather as a liberal. This is a different situation from poor portrayals of anarchists, such as Puck. Yorgi was a would be mass murderer, but he gave a monologue before the end of the movie vowing that the world must be liberated of government control. Norman Gates is violence prone and somewhat insane, but he is consistent in his disdain for government and is motivated to create an anarchist society (no matter how poorly it may be described.) In these cases, the characterization is off putting, but consistent. They are intended to be anarchists, and are described as such. Green Arrow, however, is a liberal, and not nearly as radical or "revolutionary" as O'Neil and others would care to describe him. This was even highlighted in Green Arrow, Vol.3 #51, when he was confronted by Anarky, a character very much described and portrayed as an anarchist, and their politics were juxtaposed. The character of Green Arrow was even made to admit that he was conservative by comparison. For no other character on this list is the term "anarchist," so misapplied.

However, I would not remove the character from this list.

Rather, if you have some citations and a bit of time, I suggest proceeding to the Green Arrow article and creating a subsection focusing on the politics of the character. You can give full description of the character's portrayal through the years, citing reviews by comic magazines and documentaries (I believe the Discovery Channel made a documentary on the history of US comic books in which Green Arrow and his politics featured prominently,) and can include O'Neil's personal opinion of Green Arrow as anarchist.--Cast 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

V actually did flatly say he was an anarchist (or at least Evey-as-V did). I find it a bit awkward that the character from xXx is listed here, as apparently he's chaos-promoting, and Puck from The Anarchist Cookbook is probably almost as bad. But I suppose anyone calling themselves an anarchist in fiction counts as a fictional anarchist, even if their idea of anarchism is fictional (or even if they're being used as a straw person in a movie propagandizing against anarchism). I'd like to say we should qualify this somehow, however. But I'm not sure if that would be appropriate. Owen 07:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

While "Anarchy" is tossed around a bit in V for Vendetta, no one ever identifies as an "anarchist." The word, along with "anarchism," isn't even used. However, they qualify because Alan Moore states they are. A citation may be useful.

As for Yorgi of xXx, I agree that the character's anarchist credentials are practically non-existent. Aside from a monologue near the end of the movie, and a slight reference made to wanting to destroy government mid film, I wouldn't have thought he an anarchist. In fact, I thought he was just a russian nihilist. Then I watched the Director's Commentary Track on the DVD, and heard Rob Cohen himself say Yorgi was an "anarchist", and proceeds to explain what his interpretation of anarchism is (he got several details wrong and insults it,) and later when two henchmen of Anarchy 99 are conversing, he touches on his attempts to find out what two "anarchist" henchmen would say to each other. I was disgusted, but knew he had to qualify. Puck is much the same, only he rants about "anarchy" every 5 minutes, and never gets it right. I felt even Yorgi was a step up from that foolishness. But he gets in.

Still, the point is simply that they are included, not that they qualify well. There is still room to dispute their qualifications, and room to inform the reader that they aren't good depictions of anarchists. This can be done by expanding the articles on the movies and discussing how these characters and the movies interpret anarchy, and if this is an accurate interptretation. I myself did this for the movie The Anarchists, pointing out that while anarchism wasn't really explored, the tone of the movie was sympathetic and did try to convey that the fictional anarchists there were genuine anarchists. I think that type of explanation should be carried over to other articles on fictional anarchists, since the question of how one interprets anarchy is important.--Cast 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Alan Moore has said on numerous occasions that V was an anarchist. (see this interview for example) And I wouldn't exactly describe Moore as shying away from it when V announces that she is anarchy incarnate. I suppose I found that clear enough. But as for your points more generally, I'm afraid I have to agree. Unless at some point this article gives a short description for each individual character (which might not be that bad an idea), critiques of their authenticity belong at the film pages and not here. Owen 10:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also hardly say he was "shy" about using the word "anarchist." I just know he didn't. He may have seen it as unnecessary, or blunt, but for whatever reason he held, I think it works fine. I know of no anarchist who goes about introducing themselves as an anarchist to strangers. It didn't come up in the context of the book, so he didn't force it to. And beware that any non-anarchist who reads that "anarchy incarnate" monologue Evey makes could also mistake it to mean that "in chaos there is another way." For mainstream audiences, who know nothing of a philosophical history behind anarchy, that is a likely possibility. I'm glad than that Moore has been vocal about the themes of the story. I'm sure it has clarified matters for many less astute readers. As for the list; perhaps more citations should be included to supplement the critiques included in the character/comic/novel/film articles. I'm going to add this web address you've provided as a citation for V and Evey, and I hope others will make a point of helping in giving further evidence for the other characters on this list.--Cast 17:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Anarchist (Tike Alicar)

I've been considering this character lately, and decided I ought to bring up my reasons for not including him in the list before it becomes an issue. This is a Marvel Comics superhero created during the 90s, who is presently dead. I have decided that I don't think he qualifies for listing on the basis that while his name is "anarchist," that isn't a descriptive term he uses for himself or which the creators gave him. Rather, it's simply a dynamic alias which has no greater baring on his character. Considering him an anarchist in this context would be like considering Daredevil fit for a Fictional Demon category.

My understanding is that there was another DC comics character created pre-crisis who was also called "The Anarchist," and who fought the Justice League. As an obscure, d-rate character, I don't think he has seen the light of day since the 70s. I could be wrong. I would also not nominate that character for inclusion for the same reasons as Tike Alicar.

Again, I don't expect it to come up, but I figured I'd voice this before it did. If anyone disagrees, feel free to mention it.--Cast 00:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Felney

I don't think the webcomic Felney has enough "notibility" to be included here. I should know, i write it XD Felneymike 21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who added this character, I should explain my decision to include it. Basically, I started updating this list shortly after it survived a "category for deletion" nomination. The primary reason why the nomination had been made was that random characters were being added regardless of whether they had been identified as "anarchists" or not. So to ensure rapid improvement in the quality of the category and list, and their continued survival, I began to quickly remove any character that was not identified as anarchist, and then padded – and yes, I admit my initial intentions amounted to padding – the list with any character that had. This was useful at the time if for no other reason than to allow the list and category to continue to survive the sudden depopulation I felt I'd subjected it to. I figured discussion of notability would arise eventually and these additions could be challenged in time. I suppose that time has now come. That said, I've since realized some of these more esoteric additions do serve a larger purpose. I would argue that regardless of the obscurity of the character, what is more important is the degree of completeness the list aspires to. At its best, it may provide an easily referenced source of fictional portrayals of "anarchists," positive or negative, notable or obscure, in various mediums, for any researcher.

My long term hope would be that this list will eventually include other obscure portrayals of fictional anarchists from film and literary history, such as the silent film "The Aerial Anarchists," (and I would point out that the literature section already holds several "obscure" short stories featuring fictional anarchists.) This will allow researchers or the mildly curious to learn how anarchists have been portrayed in popular culture, and how this was tied in with anti or pro-anarchist propaganda and larger political events of various time periods. However, due to the minority status of anarchists and their taboo nature, most all portrayals of anarchists will naturally be obscure. To omit "obscure" portrayals will not only require the omission of most all of these portrayals, but will also invite subjective editing back into this article, as it would demand that a standard be set for what exactly is a "notable" fictional anarchist. This will be highly problematic and only invite edit wars in the future. If we accept that century old, obscure film or literary portrayals of anarchists can be accepted, I see no reason why modern portrayals of anarchists – even from obscure webcomics – should not be included.--Cast 09:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Carnage

The character Carnage (comics) has just been added to the list, but the footnote acknowledges that source material does not explicitly refer to the character as an anarchist. Implied anarchic philosophy is not a proper source citation. The character will be removed from the list until a explicit citation can be provided.--Cast 19:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Invisibles characters

Should we simply redirecy the redlinked The Invisibles characters to List of Invisibles Characters? Skomorokh ^incite 20:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, for now. In the long term, these characters should get their own pages. The main characters are notable, while secondary characters less so are not included. This whole page needs to be revamped in several ways. Standardized citations, descriptions, and a few images, etc.--Cast (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Batman

Now if you thought Green Arrow would be controversial...

Frank Miller says Bruce Wayne, "if anything, he's a bit of an idealistic anarchist" in The Dark Knight Strikes Back.[1] As one of the most influential authors of the character in the past twenty years, he carries some clout, but his interpretation of the character is certainly unique.

Thoughts? ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 02:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as there is no competing source which says he is a non-anarchist or otherwise aligned, sure, why not? We can always account for the weakness of the claim by including the quote in the ref. скоморохъ 02:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never hated this list's policy of inclusion more than I do now. ಠ___ಠ However, perhaps there is a matter of interpretation we've not noticed until now. Consider Merlyn. As the wizard who gave a King power, you'd hardly consider him an anarchist. However, as he was portrayed by T.H. White, he is distinctly an anarchist, and so appears on this list. To note this shift from his usual portrayal, I've included a note next to him: (as portrayed by the author). How about we begin including notes next to characters interpreted as anarchists, rather than originally designed as them. "(as portrayed by ___)" or "(as interpreted by ___)" , can be an important distinction used. Also, I've begun to fill in more details for characters; about a paragraph for each, explaining a little about the character from an out-universe perspective. For example, I was able to point out that Pa'u Zotoh Zhaan was eliminated from Farscape because the actress playing her was ill. Green Arrow has a little explanation that he is typically portrayed as a liberal, but was interpreted by O'Neil as an anarchist. So to sum up, lets start including notes of who is interpreting them as anarchists if they weren't created as such, and give descriptions of how they are usually portrayed. Sound fair?--Cast (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, claims should be attributed and qualified wherever appropriate. There's no need for all-or-nothing anarchist-or-not decisions. And at 35k, there's plenty of room for fuller descriptions.скоморохъ 02:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Reworded the intro. This new issue of interpretation will primarily be needed in the Comics section, given the nature of a shared universe in western comics. Shared universes are less commonly used in literature and hardly ever in films.--Cast (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Mars Trilogy

I don't have the books any more, but there is an anarchist faction of the population in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, at least one of which is a major character. Also, pleasantly, the representation of anarchists in the novels is accurate and generally positive. Does anyone have a copy of the book so we can cite these characters? ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 23:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I imagine you may have tried google books already. There's an article on the Mars trilogy, if that may be of use.--Cast (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly didn't read your own post properly, as you already have a link up. I blame the metric system.--Cast (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Referencing primary sources

I hadn't noticed the stringent referencing requirements for inclusion in this list until I had added the 3 Durden refs. I don't have any problems with removing Durden (and the refs weren't particularly reliable), but it seems a peculiar stance to take on Wikipedia. I can understand the urge to restrict adding any anarchic character, but our policy on reliable sources insists that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis added), and our policy on primary, secondary and tertiary sources includes the following: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Original analysis of the primary sources seems to describe what we are doing to source this article. This might be something we need to think about. Skomorokh 01:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think what we're doing is "analysis" of the source material. We're practically quoting, as we are not analyzing the credibility of the descriptive term "anarchist" within the source material. That is actually exactly what I've stated in the first post to this talk page. (See above.) You'll note that we've included characters regardless of whether we think they are "good" portrayals of anarchists, because who could possibly determine what a that would look like? To give an example of why I've stuck to that strict objectivity, I have never met someone who felt that V, of the graphic novel (not the film) was a bad portrayal of an anarchist, and most anarchists I've met have been kinda proud of that book. However, I have read a review of the book by an anarchist who felt V was a bad portrayal due to the character's use of violence, as he interpreted violence as inherently hierarchical and non-anarchist. Should we remove V for the sake of this interpretation? Hardly. We may include this as part of a critical reception in the book's article, but to conclude that the character is not an anarchist is not the place of this article, nor of the users editing it. That would be original research. Alan Moore has stated that V was an anarchist. He is a primary source on this matter.

Tyler Durden is not stated anywhere in the primary source material to be an anarchist, nor is he described as one by the author. We cannot interpret Tyler as an anarchist, nor can we observe the reception of critics and construe from them that he is. However, those citations you provided may still find new life on the Fight Club (film) article under the critical reception section as a note on how Tyler was received by audiences. I've left a note on the talk page and the three citations there, as I'm not up to integrating the work into the article myself. Perhaps you'd care to try. --Cast (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care about Tyler, but using primary sources does concern me. You have a point about including "bad" portrayals of anarchists as well as good, but it's not good enough in our day and age to rely on authorial reliability (cf. hermeneutics, unreliable narrator); the meaning of a work is no longer thought of as dictated by authorial intentionality. For a straight-up moderist character like Anarky we can get away with taking primary sources at face value, but as a general rule I don't see how they are reliable sources. What Would WP:FAC Say? Skomorokh 02:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, for characters who's "anarchist credentials" are up for dispute due to the possible variables you note (unreliable narrator, etc) or due to vague statements made by authors about their intention, which may only muddle matters (O'Neil intended Green Arrow to be an "anarchist" but portrayed him as a liberal progressive) we can include them and note these disputes on the small descriptive blurb, as well as on the character article. Again, we are not here to interpret these characters as anarchists and give approval. We're here to report the facts as best we can, and if, to give an example, we must report that a character with psychotic issues of misandry (Karla, from the Anarchist Cookbook) is an anarchist, we will do so, and any issues regarding this will be briefly alluded to on the blurb, and then properly addressed for a reader's edification on the linked article.

One thing is for certain. We cannot rely on third party interpretation to dictate who is an anarchist. If everyone who saw the Fight Club film interpreted Tyler Durden as a female, child-eater, and communist, that does not make it so. Being interpreted as an anarchist so no different (though I would hope anarchists would be more socially respectable than to be interpreted as baby-eaters). --Cast (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As a baby-eating anarchist I take offence at your thoughtless remarks, sir. Seriously though, your statement "If everyone who saw the Fight Club film interpreted Tyler Durden as a female, child-eater, and communist, that does not make it so." does not support the claim "We cannot rely on third party interpretation to dictate who is an anarchist." I would much rather take the word of The London Review of Books, say, over that of Thomas Pynchon on the issue of the anarchist content of the latter's novel Against the Day. It is not a simple case of reporting whether the fictional primary source describes a character as anarchist or not; we cannot be sure that the author meant it seriously or was making a rhetorical point, or it was meant metaphorically, or tongue-in-cheek, or satirically. Take SLC Punk! for example; from a pure reading of the source material, did you think the screenwriters/directors meant the characters to be actual anarchists? I couldn't say for sure. I am arguing that when it comes to fictional works, using primary sources is necessarily interpretative and unreliable, and recourse should be taken to third party reliable sources independent of the subject, just like for every other topic in the encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 03:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I feel that you've illustrated your point much more powerfully. Yes, this question of whether the author really meant it when they stated the character was an anarchist in the book or in an interview. That's so much harder to work with. But then... what does that say about the entire project of citing source material to express the events of a plot? An example. Lucian Gregory is on this thread as an anarchist, and I don't feel we can reliably count on this as being objectively true. The author, Chesterton, makes no actual references to anarchism as a social philosophy, although the character Gregory remarks on aesthetic philosophy (what is art? Chaos, destruction! The bomber is a poet!). But ultimately, the author intended the character not to be an anarchist, but as an allegory for Lucifer (Lucian. Get it?) But still, despite the numerous pejorative insults against anarchists, and the complete absence of anarchist theory, and the fact that the book isn't even really remotely about anarchism, but is about religion, Lucian Gregory still gets to be on this list. He is stated to be a fictional anarchist, so I put him on here. So what third party source should we trust regarding this interpretation? I would love to read the source that says "no, this character wasn't actually an anarchist. Chesterton was off his rocker." I just don't know how reliable we could really consider the source that stated that, and I don't think we could use that source to override Chesterton's description. I think we would have to report them both, one as a source description, the other as a conflicting third party interpretation, and write about both interpretations for the reader.--Cast (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum:Having now followed the link you provided, I think we should be adding the anarchist in Against the Day, and the counter interpretation provided in the book review. Yet another "bad" anarchist for the list. Great.--Cast (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to take a moment to interject that when I removed the Tyler Durden entry in the last edit, I commented that third party sources are not to be used for this article. At the time I wrote that, I was typing under a restriction (you can't leave a long comment in the edit summary field.) I wrote "Sorry, I was nearly a happy camper there, but then I found out none of it was SOURCE citation. Just third party. We need to find the author saying Tyler is an anarchist, like Moore did for V." I've just added emphasis to draw attention to something I consider an unfortunate edit on my part. I should not have have written "just third party" in the way I did, as it suggests a dismissive attitude towards third party citation. I do want to include third party citations on these characters – and it's not really up to me, as it is wikipolicy that they are preferred – but I only prefer them if they are not interpretive, as that was what I was objecting to in the citations provided. Each was a reference to a sentence from movie reviews tinged with value judgments, rather than objective reports on the nature of the character. We are now having a discussion on whether or not it is possible to be objective and not interpretive for fictional works. I just want to be clear that I'm not going to object to third party sources in this article. I just don't think we can trust sources that interpret information to be reliable enough to override that which is stated (or not) in the source material. --Cast (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Joker

Okay, so in The Dark Knight, there is a single line when the Joker states that he wishes to "introduce a little anarchy" into society. Sounds like the kind of thing Nolan would have the Joker say, given that he also had Heath dress up like a hobo and smear himself with makeup. But does that make him an anarchist? No. The Joker never states that he is an anarchist. He never advocates a stateless society in a positive or negative sense. And even if he did, we'd still need a citation of him saying he's an anarchist. So do we have any word from Nolan on this? All we have is a quote from Heath saying he played the Joker as "a psychotic." No mention of the Joker as an anarchist there. So I don't think the Joker belongs on this list. When a citation is found, he can be added.--Cast (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To me, all that sounds pretty anarchic. And I think that at least "When Ledger saw Batman Begins, he realized a way to make the character work consistent with the film's tone, and Nolan agreed with his anarchic interpretation" and "In creating the "anarchical" look of the Joker, Hemming drew inspiration from such countercultural pop culture artists as Pete Doherty, Iggy Pop, and Johnny Rotten" from The Dark Knight page means that the creators had the anarchy angle in mind.89.216.110.89 (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I'm sure it's all very "anarchic", but at the very top of the article there is a series of paragraphs which should be read. They indicate that being popularly considered "anarchic" does not an anarchist make. You've got to be very specific, because the conception of anarchy and chaos are very muddled, and one does not necessarily indicate one is an anarchist. I think that it's telling that in the attempt to draw inspiration for the character, we get three figures who are not anarchists. I don't think the creator's are using the word "anarchy" the way a character like V would. Frankly, you're digging yourself a hole here.--Cast (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know what else I can say to convince you that Nolan's Joker is really an anarchist. I thought it would be obvious and that me editing Joker into the article would go without any disputes. I get the impression that most people think of him as one. Just because it hasn't been stated a million times that he is one like in V's case doesn't mean he isn't an anarchist.89.216.110.89 (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, all you need to convince me is for it to be stated once – just once – within the film, or by the creators responsible for that incarnation of the Joker, that he is an "anarchist". That would be either the writer, director, or actor. So far, you can't produce a single quote. We don't need to know that someone has an "impression" that "most" people think of him as an anarchist. That's called original research. Besides, you don't have to produce a "million" – just one. We need one of them to use the word "anarchist" in relation to the Joker. Not "anarchic". Not "anarchical". Not "psychocotic hobo clown inspired by Johnny Rotton." Anarchist. Get us that, and not only can you add him, but you'll have to beat me to the punch, because I'll want to add him. I've added a bunch of characters to this list, even if I didn't like them, so long as I found that one citation.--Cast (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Addendum – also, you've been using "throughout" in that little stub citation you've got for the Joker. As in, "the character throughout the script of the film states that his mission is anarchy." That's a blatant misrepresentation. You and I both know he only uses the word "anarchy" once. Just once. There are no consistent references to anarchy, and there are absolutely no references to anarchists, or anarchism. That citation is original research. But I can't delete it now, or I'll go over the three revert rule. Great. I'll wait until tomorrow.--Cast (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When you said "anarchist" in relation to the Joker. Not "anarchic". Not "anarchical"", aren't those basically the same thing? And a song in the movie called "Introduce A Little Anarchy" is most likely based around him for christ sakes. I still don't see what kind of evidence you're missing. 89.216.110.89 (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically they should be the same thing, but due to common misconceptions regarding anarchist philosophy, popular culture utilizes these terms in a different way than one would if one were speaking in a strictly technical sense. Strictly speaking, anarchy doesn't refer to negative variations of chaos, both being neutral terms. Anarchy also does not refer to mayhem, bedlem, madness, carnage, or insanity. Anarchism is also not to be confused with nihilism or anomie. However, anarchism and anarchists carry baggage of a hundred years of negative stereotyping in popular discourse. As such, you'll get quotes from many people referring to Osama Bin Ladin, Charles Manson, or even Johnny Rotton, as examples of anarchists. Stereotypes run the range from your mass murdering "psychotics", to your counter-culture popstars who cut themselves on stage with glass. Due to this problem, the category for fictional anarchists was nominated for deletion. It was felt that the category was choked with non-anarchists, who editors were adding to the category due to their own personal opinions regarding what an anarchist looked like. The category was kept, but it was decided that to prevent the list and category from becoming muddled, it would have to be maintained with the strict guideline that the source material, or the creators of said material, must state the character is an "anarchist." When that word is used, there is a higher likelihood that the creator is using the term in its proper sense. The issue of whether they then present a positive or negative image of an anarchist is subject to their opinion – not the opinion of the editor. So now, this list has an eclectic mix of positive and negative anarchist caricatures, but all of them have been identified by the term "anarchist" in their source material. --Cast (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Humbert

In afterword of Lolita Nabokov described him as an anarchist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.159.220 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of fictional anarchists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070305213808/http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/03/a_for_alan_pt_1_the_alan_moore.html to http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/03/a_for_alan_pt_1_the_alan_moore.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060321010339/http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/03/a_for_alan_pt_2_the_further_ad.html to http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/03/a_for_alan_pt_2_the_further_ad.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)