Talk:Anarchism in Venezuela
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Sources
editFrom Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism/Drafts & requests:
Ezequiel Zamora
edit@Grnrchst: Hi; many thanks for the notice. To delve further into my rationale on why Ezequiel Zamora should , I'll provide some background: the Federal War, in which Zamora was a main participant, was between Conservatives and Liberals (also known as Federalists) and started as opposition to the ruling centralism, as well as growing clashes between both group. This did not mean that Liberals sympathized with anarchism or even socialism, as Liberals mostly advocated for federalism, economic liberalism and the abolition of slavery. Furthermore, Zamora was a military leader, not an intellectual, and as such he did not have written ideals (contrary to other military leaders such as arguably Simón Bolívar).
I hope this helps to explain my concerns of anachronism, please let me know if I have been able to clarify these points correctly. I have made an additional change, hoping to address your concern of removal of referenced content; kindly let me know too what do you think about it. Best regards. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for responding. Your edits have certainly improved the existing text, mostly by attributing the inclusion of Zamora to Capelletti and Rama, as well as rearranging the text to make sure it makes a bit more sense in context. I personally would be happy to keep this section as it exists now, with a passing note of Proudhonian influence on Zamora, rather than the original which over-centered Zamora as a figure. I don't necessarily think that the Liberal fight for federalism and abolitionism is entirely out of step for an article about anarchism, so long as it didn't overshadow the rest of the section/article, and I think this works well in context. Is there anything else you think is worth changing? Thanks again. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Grnrchst: Glad to hear that! For the time being the section currently looks alright, my main concern was that Zamora was over-centered too. I'd only be worried about potential and similar undue content, but skimming through the article I haven't found any particularly worht noting. Please let me know if I can be of any help, and not limited to this article. Happy editing! --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)