Talk:Black bloc

Carlo Giuliani

Carlo Giuliani was wearing a white T-shirt, not black. Someone dressed his body in black after he was shot.

Who ever got the idea that a black bloc was a militia? A militia is an armed organization that usually operates along national lines; when black blocs use weapons at all, they tend to have only ad-hoc arms, such as sticks and stones and bottles; besides black blocs are not organized and they reject nationalism. So how could they be militias?

Also, what the heck is a union flying squad? And I have never heard of Situationists or Pagans engaging in black bloc activity. While individual Situationists or Pagans may take part in the occasional black bloc, Pagans tend to organize in Pagan clusters, which play music, sing, and conduct rituals and magic in demonstration settings, and Situationists are artists; they practice guerrilla communication, not rioting.

A union flying squad is an autonomous group of workers who engage in various actions, sometimes with the official support of unions, to further the workplace struggle. The rest of your paragraph reads to me like stereotypes and generalizations. Any given bloc will be made up of any number of different people with different thoughts, beliefs, lifestyles, etc. Bk0 04:50, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Extremely slanted article.

I don't doubt the information presented in the article, but this is one of the most slanted articles I've read in wikipedia. All the way through, it's slanted in a way to put "black bloc" demonstrators in a positive light.

It read more like a slanted newspaper article trying to be neutral than an encyclopedia article.

Take for example the section about a "documentary" which apparantly slanted things in a way to try to proove that the police cooperated with fascist groups.

I'm sure this is a great discussion topic, but this article reads more like an attempt to defend the "black bloc" demonstrators than just a simple explanation about what a black bloc is.

Agreed. This article is a mess. It should be a to the point explanation of what exactly a "black bloc" is. 80.203.115.12 13:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not only is this a slanted article, it's complete BS. Black Bloc is not a movement? Sounds like someone has just redefined the word "movement" to me. For f**k's sake someone re-write this.203.134.135.55 09:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a movement. If that's difficult to understand that's your problem, but not a problem with the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.194.241 (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a heavy biased article; every time the police outnumber the protesters it is "brutal repression", whilst every time the Black Bloc do the same, it is a "totally outnumbered"-type of outpouring. One can only be thankful that "Yeah dude, they crushed the pigs" wasn't added to the lines, but a pleasant tally of the cost of their systematic destruction of buildings is there instead. Wee Jimmy (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

massiveego's edits

I propose reverting. I don't like his "street fighting" crap and saying that anarchists train to use baseball bats and rocks. Total nonsense. Most anarchists hate the "anarchist cookbook," even the black bloc types. Black blocs aren't about street fighting and rioting. --Tothebarricades.tk 19:22, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I commented it out. Maybe there are some useful parts in it... G-u-a-k-@ 22:20, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Black Bloc is about fighting for your rights. You obviously were not there, never was among the hundreds of Anarchists fighting it out in N30 against WTO and cannot speak for all Anarchists, just your version of Anarchy. Some Anarchist appreciate the Anarchist Cookbook for what it is, a starting point on how to fight back the cooperations. Yes they do train with rocks, yes they use slingshots, and yes they use bats. Crude but effective. You need to look at the photographs from N30 more carefully before you jump to conclusions.Masssiveego

There's something really clever and witty in the cooperations/corporations typo that you made, and I'm wondering what it is. grendel|khan 03:02, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

If you use the cookbook you're more likely to blow yourself up than "fight back against the cooperations." I've never heard of people "training" to use rocks. It's more just picking one up and throwing it at a cop if the need arises. --Tothebarricades 19:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

"Violence by Black Bloc activists" section questioned on NPOV

I take issue with the "Violence by Black Bloc activists" section of the article because it appears to be written with the intention of being disparaging. However, the Washington Post and several other sources do cite the same incident. Additionally, I was at Malcolm X Park on J20 and have my own photos of the Protest Warriors dressed in full black bloc holding their banner.

I also question whether this is the most appropriate place for this section in the first place. I've been contemplating the possibility of creating an article for J20, entitled 2005 counter-inaugural protest or something like that as part of Wikiproject Anti-War. If I do create the article, I think that would be a more appropriate place for this bit than the Black bloc article.

Schuminweb 22:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The incident occurred as stated. The Washington Post article left some things out that led up to the violence, but I can get you multiple sources given time. I could also get you the testimony of Kobrin himself, but that would probably violate the no original research policy. If it would be more appropriate to put in another article, then I'm amenable to that. Rogue 9 19:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't dispute the factuality. As I mentioned, I have read pieces from both sides, and they tell the same basic story.

Looking at the Black Bloc article as a whole, the section doesn't fit because it's a substantial section on a specific event, while the remainder of the article speaks in more general terms.

As I mentioned earlier, I consider it worthwhile to start an article about J20, but I've got a few things ahead of it on my priority list. That would be the place for this bit, as I can imagine it being a sub-section of a larger section on the DAWN rally and march. For an article about the entire day, that would fit quite well, and I'd love any help I can get on the day. (Not going any further on that tangent, since I'm starting to drift off topic.)

Still, that's my thought on it.

Schuminweb 21:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The article for J20 is now in place, but it's really stubby. January 20, 2005 counter-inaugural protest Schuminweb 22:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I could get some people I know who were there to work on it, but the problem is that they might not be able to maintain neutrality; most of them were on the receiving end of the assault. I'll do what I can with it. As for the section here, do you think we should take it out entirely, or modify it to make it more general? I had a plan of expanding it to include more instances, but that was the only one that I had a ready description of at hand. Rogue 9 01:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and completely moved it, since at least in my opinion, regarding specific events, it should go more in the context of the black bloc's activity at the event, rather than with the concept of Black Bloc. As for J20 (though this is getting outside the scope of this talk page), go ahead and get people to work on the section. Don't worry about NPOV so much. Do your best to stay neutral, but remember that there are a bazillion wikipedians out there who are also concerned about keeping it neutral, and one way or another, we'll get it right. And I think that anything further on this ought to go to the talk page for J20. Schuminweb 02:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

As you say. See you over there. Rogue 9 02:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

red army fraction

the black block has nothing to do with de red army fraction. the autonomen always were in opossition to the raf

If you think you own this article . . .

. . . you would be wrong. Wikipedia is a collaborative process, and has many editors. There are no "Senior Editors" that get to decide what does or doesn't belong in this article. We have Wikipedia rules -- they act as the guide for how an article is edited. That's it. Morton devonshire 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

LGagnon put it best on Talk:WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity when they said, "You'd lend more credibility to your argument if you cited the sources yourself." I'd like to politely request that you provide sources for your claim. Also, please refrain from making personal attacks in the future. Thanks. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are six, if you want 20 more, let me know.

• http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=2999665&date=19991205&query=WTO+vandalism

• http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=2999667&date=19991205&query=WTO+jewelry+vandalism

• http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=2999670&date=19991205&query=WTO+windows

• http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=2999670&date=19991205&query=WTO+windows

• http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=2998997&date=19991203&query=WTO+windows

"When the window-smashers started to trash a Sixth Avenue Starbucks, an angry crowd forced the vandals back onto the streets. A gray-haired, bantam-weight woman in a yellow parka put herself between the Christmas Blend and the thugs and chewed them out."

• http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=2998734&date=19991201&query=WTO+windows

Cheers Morton devonshire 01:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The Ultimate Violation of WP Policy on OR

Citing your own web site as authority for a proposition in an article which you assert is true is the ultimate violation of Wikipedia's rule on original research. Please remove the material immediately. Morton devonshire 23:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

looking for an article to link to

I tried searching for an wiki article on "body hammer" tactics and/or the "Toute Blanche"(sp?) with out any luck. can some one drop me a line on my talk with a link? Thanks. Mike McGregor (Can) 18:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Making the Article Less POV

Please keep in mind when editing this article that Wikipedia has strict rules against using the encyclopedia to advocate political positions – Wikipedia does not take sides. Right now, the article reads like a manifesto for Anarchist activities. Morton devonshire 17:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Before you knee-jerk revert, please discuss on the talk page. Thanks. Morton devonshire 23:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I like Shuminweb's version. It is better than both, do you agree? The Ungovernable Force 06:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Schuminweb - that's much better. --BobFromBrockley 16:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Direct action

I think the words "direct action" are too techno-babbly. Almost nobody outside of the anarchy movement knows what they mean -- I know what it means, but only because I was at WTO '99 in Seattle, and saw it, but I think that's a unique experience not shared by many. Please try to find simpler English terms to describe what that is. Morton devonshire 01:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's use is quite prevalent in activist movements in general, not just the anarchist one. The best term for direct action is direct action. We are not Simple English Wikipedia here and we are not afraid to use technical terms, especially when there is an entire article on the term's meaning and history. The Ungovernable Force 04:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I know you don't want me editing this article, but can you put that aside for a moment and just consider what I'm saying. Morton devonshire 08:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I did, which is why I tried to explain why it's important. If your idea is to replace it with property destruction like you have in the past, then I will say right now definitely not. That is not accurate and is highly biased, as property destruction is only one type of action black blocks engage in, and most of them probably don't. If you have another idea, can you present it? I could understand your concern if there wasn't an article on direct action, but there is (and it's pretty extensive). It is a common term in activism and this is an article about activism. The Ungovernable Force 08:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case I agree with The Ungovernable. Direct action is a widely used term, and it links to a wikipedia article about it for those that don't know what it means. --BobFromBrockley 12:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, you convinced me. Morton devonshire 23:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The original Black Bloc activists were the "Schlaflosen" and the "Terrorgruppe Schöne Scheisse" in Zürich and they were for play and nonviolent action. Any other groups are Nazi provocateurs.

Keep it Fluffy !

Method of discrediting legitimate protest

Sure most will say, yeah, Alex Jones, but he claims (and provides some convincing evidence mostly TV reports) that the Black Bloc is often used (or agents are dressed as Black Bloc) by the US government in order to ensure news reports of protest can report violence, thus vilifying the protesters and their message. Sounds like a cheap, easy way to do it...

Police State 2: Total Enslavement

—Preceding unsigned comment added by JaseFace (talk • contribs)

Consider the source, Alex Jones. Conspiracy theorist and bullshit artist. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about most of the time he opens his mouth and he obviously doesn't know anything about the subject of black blocs. I've organized several black blocs and participated in others. There were no agents in the black bloc other than the occasional undercover officer. The black bloc is a tactic used by anarchists to further our agenda. We are not easily manipulated, certainly not by alleged government agents in our blocs. Chuck0 15:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're a government agent Chuck ;). I mean, how can I trust you, or anybody? They're all out to get us. I swear I'm not paranoid. (Looks over shoulder to make sure no one is watching). Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

People have spread rumors that I'm either a police agent or government agent. That shows how dysfunctional the American left is, that people would make shit like this up simply because somebody disagrees with them. Chuck0 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Chuck0 be nice. And what does people spreading rumors about you have to do with the American left? I cannot believe people are still anarchists, i thought that went out with puberty. Frithjh 06:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Chuck0, nice site. first off, i hate alex jones as well, but "consider the source" is an ad-hominem argument. I've seen a few youtube videos of undercovers (disguised black bloc guys) getting exposed, so the issue at least merits a blurb. The rest is irrelevant to wikipedia (the american left is out to get you, lol). --anon

70.112.219.243 states that:

In a documentary by the German WDR clear images were shown of members of a black bloc cooperating with police at the 2001 G8 meeting in Genoa, Italy. Police watching from a distance of 100 meters took no action against rioting and the plunder of shops and a bank. There is also video imagery of Black bloc members speaking with policemen. The documentary states that it is very likely that many of these Black bloc demonstrators were actually fascists and neo-nazis that came to Genoa to discredit the anti-globalisation movement. Anarchists did organize black blocs for the Genoa protests, a fact that gets lost in the focus on the fake black blocs. Police have often infiltrated black blocs, and thus given fodder to the black blocs critics like Alex Callinicos who argue that "those who bring violence into the movement bring the State in with them".

I'd like more sources for the Genoa (and other) fake-bloc accusations. As it is, 70.112.219.243 has not provided any sources. Jacob Haller 23:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

affinity group ? i think not

Hey, guys... I'm pretty sure that the black block is a tactic and not an affinity group. I mean, it doesn't really fit the definition for affinity groups, now does it ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.106.43.93 (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Never really noticed that. It could be seen as a temporary affinity group though. It's a group of activists united around a certain issue that engages in direct action. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with the idea of a temporary affinity group. I was in a black bloc on J27 just last week, and we hit a number of definitions in affinity group head on. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... infoshop.org says "The black bloc is a TACTIC, not a group or organization. Just like there cannot by the "Civil Disobedience Group," neither can the black bloc be an organization." It also says that "A black bloc is a collection of anarchists and anarchist affinity groups that organize together for a particular protest action." The site is down right now, but you can find those quotes in the google cash. I think that it's much more accurate than simply calling the black block a temporary affinity group. Please reconsider.86.106.43.93 14:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a tactic, and not an affinity group. It's like dressing up as royalty and mocking the rich at a protest. Tactic not group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.194.241 (talk • contribs)

Neutrality

'The uniform-like costumes, complete lack of hygiene, and sense of "radicalism" typically appeal to young people with feelings of guilt or insecurity about their well-protected and materially affluent lives. Not having to actually risk any threat to life or limb from genuine state oppression, these so-called activists have ample opportunity to engage in generally safe and not truly threatening activity to give them a sense that they are taking action against the authority of the state.'

Oh come on. --195.195.239.151 10:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Group, Tactic, or Formation?

The article describes black blocs in several different ways:

1. In the intro as "an affinity group..."
2. As an action: "the tradition of black blocking..."
3. As a group: "typical actions of a black bloc..."

Outside the article there's the expression "bloc up!" which suggests that the tighter formation is the bloc and the looser one, not the bloc. A bloc can be hundreds or thousands strong; an affinity group is much smaller. The ACME Collective's post-Seattle statement described the bloc there as "a cluster of affinity groups." (A cluster was two or more affinity groups with the same mission. At N30, one or more clusters held each slice; at A16, if the sources are complete descriptive, and if I have read them right, several clusters/slices formed into superclusters.) Jacob Haller 03:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that what you point out drives home a good point - a black bloc is whatever it needs to be based on circumstances. Sometimes it's like an affinity group, sometimes not... SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I clarified the article. I suppose citations would be helpful as well. Jacob Haller 00:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. We need a lot of citations for this article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Related to this discussion you should consider having a look at the images at de:Autonome Nationalisten (or even reading, if you know how to read german). --Erzbischof (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocking/blocing

"Blocking" has been turned to "blocing" in the article. Is that vandalism, or correct? BobFromBrockley 11:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would consider it a good faith edit, though it looks really weird. I would be inclined to go back to "blocking", since "bloc" and "block" mean the same thing in this case, and there's a possibility that people would read it as "blossing" with a soft-C sound rather than the hard-C sound. Plus for "picnic" we say "picnicking", so we have a case for reversion on readability grounds, but it's not vandalism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

= I've added a youtube link and changed the title of a section to give this article objectivity. If you delete these edits you're in violation of Wikipedia, whether you're a member or not.

Second black bloc photo

Generally speaking, I agree with the removal of Image:M17 shield bloc.jpg from the article. Yeah, it was the black bloc for M17, but the bloc was far more colorful than most black blocs are. I was one of only a few who were actually wearing black on that day, and due to the holiday (St. Patrick's Day), my bandanna was green.

Where I'm intending to go with this, though, is that while I agree with the removal, I do like the idea of two black bloc photos right there. So I've swapped in one from S24, where the black bloc was much blacker, though I will miss the photo of the shields. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Indymedia photos

• I posted a gallery of indymedia photos which are slightly different to the wikimedia link.
• I started the article with "highly controversial" to make it slightly more NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.196.91.249 (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Black Bloc Nazi's

Someone erroneously removed the reference to Nazi's. It was a single edit, so probably someone not familiar with wikipedia. I have also added a photo.Harrypotter (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Again another removal with no discussion.

two references were put in as regards the Canberra Nazi Black Bloc, the first showing them as a Black Bloc and the other indicating their Nazi roots

For some reason the picture of the German Nazi Black bloc and comments on the far right use of the colour black were removed with no explanation.

I would urge people to look at how the article can be improved rather than just removing material which they have not looked at in detail. ThanksHarrypotter (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted the addition of 'Nazis' to the article, and I object to the wording 'erroneously'. I try to be humble, but I don't consider myself unfamiliar with wikipedia. The edits by User:Harrypotter was several problems:

• • References; the link [1] mentions 'black bloc' in one line and shows a photo with nine guys. To from that come to the conclusion that "black blocs that have formed in the past have been made up largely of anarchists, autonomists or Nazis" is clearly original synthesis.
  • The website is also not an independent third-party source.
  • Whether 'National Anarchists', National Bolsheviks, Third Wayist, etc. are to be labelled as 'Nazis' is debatable. National Socialism is an broad concept, but these groups are certainly not the more orthodox ones.
  • The Indymedia link doesn't mention anything on black blocs.
  • The photo proves nothing at all.
  • In the end, there is an overall problem of lack of references with coherent global definition of the term 'Black Bloc'. But lack of references and weak definition doesn't mean that anything goes.

--Soman (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Several points:

the "erroneously" comment referred to a previous removal See edit history.

I agree with adding the context box, and indeed see the problem about references derives from the way the page had previously been written. I feel the best solution is a substantial rewrite.

I have provided another source, Der Speigel, which gets around the problems you mention.

I find your removal of the photo somewhat odd, but I will wait for you to come back on this before restoring it. I suggest you look at [National Autonomists] and take a more considered view.Harrypotter (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The key question here is, what is the definition of 'black bloc'? Is it any group of demonstrants dressed in black? I don't buy the logic of since far-rightist copy certain superficial features of autonome discourse and behaviour that their rallies can be classified as 'black bloc'. As per Der Spiegel article, do note the passage 'Das war das erste Mal...'. Der Spiegel choses a sensationalistic approach, an approach not necessarily replicated at wikipedia. --Soman (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Fascism steals from the proletariat its secret: organization" Amadeo Bordiga. The problem is the tendency amongst some anarchists and autonomists to fetishise a particular tactic has created the social space in which Neo-Nazis can reorganise their street violence. Unfortunately the article is so much slanted towards anarchist ideology that it should probably be rewritten, taken on board the context question. The Black Bloc originated amongst autonomen squatters who could go out on the streets where nearly everyone already knew each other in local actions. However when it got taken up by anarchists as a whole, the tactic started to be fetishised creating a confusion that the black bloc represented a political position. The subsequent issues of infiltration by police and finally the development of Nazi Black blocs were all issues which could be, and were predicted several years ago. I think we would do well on concentrating on how to re-write the whole article.Harrypotter (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't answer my question, namely what is the defining characterist of 'black bloc. Your logic of including 'Nazis' are different parts of the article would be analogous to introducing the Nazi Swastika flag at red flag on the grounds that the Nazi flag was red. When we talk about Black Bloc, Red Flag, etc., we don't just talk about intersection between a colour and a feature. I think that even though far-right groups may copy superficial features of leftist organizing, that doesn't shift the 'ownership' of the issue as such. --Soman (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you make some very good points. Those that want to distinguish between National-Anarchists and Neo-Nazis usually end up citing , the Ernst Jünger, the "Prussian Anarch", a trajectory that soon takes us back Max Stirner and the ego and his own. The problem is that "anarchists" no longer "own" anarchism, as Nazi's embrace the Leaderless resistance of Tom Metzger's White Aryan Resistance and organise street theatre, like the Bay Area National Anarchists.

As for the political connotations of Black, I would in fact relate this as much to the Lützow Free Corps, who were also known as also Schwarze Schar (Black Troop), and commemorated in 37th SS Volunteer Cavalry Division Lützow. However, if we set aside the concept of ownership, and regard the development of a tactic which has been appropriated by different people in pursuit of their varying purposes, that might help us reach consensus as to how to produce asuitable page for the Black Bloc.Harrypotter (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected for two weeks

Black bloc is protected for two weeks while everyone works their differences out. Hopefully we'll get everything all taken care of before that so I can lift the protection sooner. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend the removal of the Neo-Nazis reference... in all the literature I have read surrounding the use of the Black bloc tactic none of it has specifically related its use to neo-nazism as such. It would be important to note that it is exactly that - a tactic - and as such cannot necessarily be defined by the ideological position of those that utilise it in the way that it has been described at the start of the article (although it is obviously a protest tactic with its own heavy ideological connotations). I can point you to 'The Art of Protest' 2005 by T.V. Reed and 'Creating a better world' 2004 edited by Rupert Taylor that have relatively salient descriptions of black blocs, first in terms of the Black Bloc in Seattle 1999 N30, and in the second case in terms of the G8 protests in Genoa in 2001. Nowhere, apart from here, have I read anything that relates black blocs in any way to neo-nazism, and it seems to me that the criteria used to include them could equally be applied to other equally unrelated groups such as the All-Blacks (my countries national rugby team). For that matter, having the opening sentence of the article describe black blocs in terms of the people that populate them seems to be a stupid way to do it anyway, since, and I think this need to be emphasised - the black bloc is not an organisation in any traditional sense but rather a *tactic*, and so whether it is being deployed by neo-nazis or anti-racism activists is totally irrelevant. 118.90.121.117 (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I absolutely shouldn't be in the lede. I have read large numbers of media reports, academic articles and material from the anti-capitalist movement, and nowhere have I read that neo-Nazi presence is anything but an occassional, marginal and highly contested feature of the movement. There have been some instances of neo-Nazi infiltration of the Black Blocs - but not many. It would make as much sense to write "and Zionists" to refer to the occassional presence of pro-Israel Anti-German activists! BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could agree with you, but the facts run counter to what you say:

talk uses references from 2004 and 2005, before neo-Nazis took up the Black Bloc. In fact I agree with them more than BobFromBrockley, who seems to suggest that the Black Bloc is some sort of movement, when it is a tactic. I feel that any revisionist attempt to gloss over the fact that Neo-nazis are using the Black bloc as a methods of recreating a street presence represents a particular point of view a which should not be reflected in the article. What I hope would lead to some sort of consensus is

• Origins of Black Bloc amongst German Autonomen and squatters
• Development of tactic on international demnstrations (particularly Seattle and Genoa) with critical and attributed comments about infiltration by police
• More recent use of the tactic by Neo-Nazis

I would also suggest that any comments about the political connotations about the colour black are completely removed fro this page. I hope people find this suggestion useful.Harrypotter (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it strikes me that if neo-nazi use of the the black bloc is a notable issue that is one thing that obviously need to be mentioned and discussed - however, the way that this particular information is framed in the introduction to the article is misleading in that it makes it seem that there is a neo-nazi element common to all black blocs or that the black bloc tactic is specifically and uniformly a tactic of neo-nazi groups - which it is not. I would say that this particular information is deserving of its own section further down perhaps but is not something that should be included in the opening sentence of the article as a defining aspect of the black bloc tactic. Incidentally I made the original comment up there, it led me to create an account. Barnabas Brown (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Barney, good to see you have opened an account! Yes, I think you have made a good point. I amended the previous version of the article which highlighted the political orientation of the participants. I hope the proposal above helps get around that problem.Harrypotter (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Reworking as promised

I have done the reworking as promised. I have developed the page on Brokdorf, which really should have a lot more info, and started the page on the page on the Free Republic of Wendland, which it is scandal did not exist before. I have moved the Neo-Nazis, next to the WOMBLES, which shouldn't present any problems. I have looked for a reference to the way the Black bloc used ropes and banners to hold themslvees together in a bloc (I don't want to get drawn into OR here) but have been unable to turn anything up. Perhaps someone else can sort this outHarrypotter (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to cull off the introduction that was there? I thought it explained it quite eloquently. The introduction now seems sparse and I feel it could give a more accurate outline of the concept. Barnabas Brown (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction is too short now. The old intro was good because it gave a good description of things before going into detail. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well if you need to have the political affiliations at the beginning it needs to include the neo-nazis. As for the refrenece to Seattle, the Black Bloc gained significant attention back in the 1980s in Germany, and there is a problem treating that as being of minor significant. I hope more work can be done of Brokdorf and Wendland. (all the memories are coming back now). I have also put anti-nuclear in the list at the beginning. What do you think?Harrypotter (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why political affiliations (neo-nazi or not) need to be mentioned in the introduction?

As I said above, the Black Bloc is a tactic for protest and direct action. This can be Neo-Nazis or this can be anti-fascist, but the political affiliation of the group using the tactic is irrelevant (as far as the introduction is concerned) as it is a tactic and thus does not necessarily have any political affiliations. I'm all for there being references to Neo-nazi movements use of the tactic, but I still do not believe they should be in the introduction as they are not a defining aspect of the black bloc. To put it as pithily as I can: A black bloc is not defined by its members, a black bloc defines its members. To give it an analogy - the article for a military squad does not say anything like "Military squads are often formed by neo-conservative foreign policy hawks, the dim-witted, and gun fetishists" because, while true(although not an exhaustive list), this is not a defining aspect of a military squad.

Also - If the Black Bloc first emerged in Germany, by all means include that in the introduction, because that is significant. I feel the reference to Seattle is important as it is one of the most prominent examples of a Black Bloc tactic being used, particularly for people outside of Europe. It is also important for the historical and global significance of Seattle as the first widely documented emergence of Global Activist Networks and social movements against neo-liberal economic policy and for the fact it lead to much academic discussion of Global Civil Society and its impact on the study of international relations (This is how I have come across the Black Bloc, from my isolated backwards homeland of New Zealand). For people outside of Germany this event will be far more easily recognised than the original German context of the black bloc (which is not to say that this should not be mentioned in the introduction) and give a better understanding of the impact of a Black Bloc on a protest, especially since the presence of the Black Bloc is what the Seattle PD used to justify the extreme violence towards protesters that occurred that day.

The introduction seems quite arbitrary in the fact that it mentions it is a tactic, does not mention what the tactic involves, and inexplicably goes into detail about what the protesters wear?! I think the introduction should be a brief summary of what it is, how it works, and where it came from, all of which will be expanded upon later in the article. Barnabas Brown (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the politicla references at the beginning as you suggested. What the protestors wear is important (I have put links to the Boston Tea Party and Rebecca Riots for comparison, as the wearing of black gave the participants more anonimity as the tactic evolved from simply turning up at demonstrations with motorcycle helmets, boots and masks. Seattle is alos refrerenced at the very beginning.Harrypotter (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of references to other advocates

The mention of the Wild Greens, WOMBLES, and Neo-nazis as advocates of the black bloc shows the lack of knowledge of most of the people editing this article on blocs and the movements that use them. Firstly, the WOMBLES have never advocated or participated in any black bloc. They have given statements defending the black bloc, but only in the sense of defending different groups in the anti-capitalist movement and their rightful place in it. They've stated they believe black blocs are a legitimate manifestation in the broader anti-capitalist movement, but never once have they themselves participated in them or made a call for one. Therefore, it is inappropriate to say that they are advocates of the black bloc, this implies it's something they do. As for the Wild Greens, I searched around the net and couldn't find any evidence that they advocated or participated in black blocs openly (Openly is a weird term in this context given that the point is to be anonymous, so why would they say this?). I've only found a couple other websites without evidence that state that "Wild Greens" are involved with black blocs. Simply a statement on a website not linked to anything more credible is not enough evidence that this is the case. And lastly, among apparent heated debate before on this article, the inclusion of the nazi reference. There is a question of significance and prescence here. History is selective necessarily and so every wikipedia article is also selective, you can't have all information on a subject here, it's meant to be a summary that can be long or short, but you don't include things that are pretty irrelevant and small. For instance, recently on a college's wikipedia article where a riot took place, there was a whole new section talking about the riot on the article's page. Anyone who knew about the history of the college would have known that there have been quite a number of riots (Which were not mentioned at all) and the recent one certainly wasn't the first time such behavior happened. This indicates, as was later found out, that the people adding this whole new section to the article didn't know anything about the college and had simply saw a news report and assumed this was the first time this happened. Similarly, one who is not knowledgable about the black bloc and the movements that participate in them sees an article about "nazis" forming a very small "black bloc" and assume that this is some significant regular thing. Anyone with even limited knowledge of this tactic over the years will tell you that this nazi bloc thing only happened once with a VERY small group of people and they didn't even do anything illegal from what I can tell, defeating the purpose of the tactic. This doesn't count any anything remotely significant. This small instance was an example of nazis trying to usurp the tactics and symbols of anti-fascists in order to try to misrepresent them for their own advantage. This happens often and Europeans will tell you that while in the U.S. many activists wear kaffiyehs to express soldairty with the Palestinians, some nazis in Europe have taken to wearing kaffiyehs as an explicitly anti-semitic gesture in order to try to pollute and confuse the symbols and gestures of anti-fascists who have a much more significant prescence in Europe. Nazis have no history of using this tactic and this isolated instance is no evidence of their pominence using it.

Also, it was mentioned several times in other comments on this talk page that that the black bloc is simply a tactic alone, and independent from any movements or politics. As anyone who knows anything about black blocs will tell you, this is definitively not true and black bloc participants since the 70's have been exclusively anarchist, anti-capitalist, anti-fascist, or similar stripe. In the 70's, it was started by the autonomists who were not explicitly anarchists but quite similar and they certainly were anti-captalist. At bare minimum, the black bloc tactic is impossible to divorce from anti-capitalism and anti-fascism, unless you're someone who knows nothing about these movements and, for example, does believe that a few nazis wearing kaffeyahs is somehow significant enough to make it an anti-semitic symbol. Everyone else here in reality disagrees with you and putting such things out there on wikipedia (The number one "go to" source for all knowledge) is presently misinformation to the public and not educating people about what these things are, as should be the goal of every article regardless of its subject.

Also, on a smaller note, I'm going to change at least one of the photos on here. One, because all the photos on here are from the U.S., not representing that this is a world-wide phenomenon. Two, all the pictures here are rather docile and peaceful, which doesn't show the character that most black blocs take on or at least attempt to take on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.86.131 (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the reference to Nazis. the above editor claims that "black bloc tactic is impossible to divorce from anti-capitalism and anti-fascism" - even if we take that bald assetion, anti-capitalism and anti-fascism are not identical - fascists indeed see themelves as anti-capitalist - the national anarchists that use black bloc are just one example of this. Paki.tv (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd that someone who is only aware of the Nazi's adopting the Black Bloc once berates other editors for not knowing about the topic, when they are aware of other occasions when the far right have adopted the tactic. However I am sure that with a small effort to familiarise themselves with the topic at greater depth and better understanding how wikipedia works will help the contributor make more positive contributions to this page and others.Harrypotter (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see more evidence that this is a regular thing or even something that's happened multiple times. Again, my main point is that it's an irrelevant minority so small and with so little attention that it doesn't warrant mentioning. History is selective and so are encyclopedia article, to mention these nazis is to give the impression that they're more significant than they actually are. Would you put on the Hedonism wikipedia page that at some point in history a few nazis embraced hedonism (Whatever that would mean)? Would you edit the the pages on Bookfairs, bicycle shops, or a myriad of other activities to include that nazis have participated in them or advocated them? No, I don't think so, because it would be irrelevant and mentioning it would give it more significance than it had. The reason it's been said that people here don't have an understanding of black blocs or the movements that use them is because it's been implied that the sources for knowledge that nazis use black blocs is the internet, which tends to often distort what reality is and to an outsider make certain element seem like they're more significant than they are in real life. For example, for years now the Anarchism wikipedia page has been having a conflict over whether "anarcho-capitalism" should be protrayed in the article and legitimately part of and involved in the anarchist movement. As many people have stated on the discussion page, to unrealistically portray this extremely small group of people whom no one in the anarchist movement associates with as some significant faction is ridiculous. The only place these people really exist is the internet. There's a number of "anarcho" capitalist websites talking about this idea, yet in real life they do not exist anywhere, have any connection to the anarchist movement, have never been at any anarchist events, never been outspoken really or spoke on their ideas at anarchist bookfairs, and the first time a group of them ever showed themselves at a protest was as a very small group at the RNC this year in the peace march, then posting something about it online. They were totally unconnected to the close to a thousand anarchists that came there to participate in protests and black blocs. This nazi issue, however, is a much more pronounced and ridiculous one, because while in the anarchism context anarcho-capitalism is worth at least addressing in some way, the practice of nazis forming black blocs is so insignificant to the overall trend that it isn't worth mentioning. This is not at all to say that people are trying to censor the page or keep the nazi reference off it because it's embarassing or something, it's because it has no significance that warrants a place here, the same way it has no significance to talk about the meticulous eating habits of a given historical figure on wikipedia (Unless it were really a characteristic they were known by). There was already a conflict on here regarding including the autonomists as a significant source for the original tactic. This has shown to be very significant, as thousands of authonomists participated in this activity and pioneered it. What is very irrelelvant is a few nazis doing it once (Until I see this really evidenced as a trend) doesn't mean anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.211.25.73 (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is more to do with National Anarchism than Anarcho-Capitalism. Paki.tv (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see less evidence of violent neo-nazis taking to the streets, but no doubt we have different political perspectives on this. A agree with Paki.tv , I am not quite sure about the relevance of bringing the debate about anarcho-capitalism into the discussion. As mentioned before it is not merely a single incidence, and I am sure we could make the passage about the neo-nazi usage much more substantial by listing a series of references from Genoa on covering not merely Germany but also Australia. And no doubt the Bay Area National Anarchists are waiting for their opportunity to make their mark. By the way what is RNC? thanksHarrypotter (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with the above assertion that black blocs are impossible to divorce from their particular politics of origin (IE. Anti-capitalist and or anti-fascist) based upon what I know of them. I will have to try and find the place where I got it, but I have definitely seen something somewhere that the black bloc is not any specific enduring group with any specific enduring purpose and that formation of a black bloc is a tactic for direct action that is able to be taken up by anyone, and not tied down to any one cause and therefore to any one politics. I would say that that is part of the main idea of a black bloc, derived from the anonymity of its members. The hell if I'm bothering with this anymore though. Barnabas Brown (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing Nazi usage. Please see WP:UNDUE

Using the term "black bloc" to talk about Nazi/Fascist protests is giving undue weight to a very fringe viewpoint. The fact that you have found a single reliable source is irrelevant, considering that there are hundreds of reliable sources that use it in a different sense. This is by no means significant, and I don't even think it warrants being in the article, much less having an image of neo-Nazi's included. I am removing it until you can demonstrate a few reliable sources, rather than one from a single nation. Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that section always struck me as misleading.Grim²³★ 02:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)