![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
In the Murray Bookchin article, in this paragraph:
"Through the fifties and sixties, Bookchin worked in a number of working class situations -- including a stint as a railroad stevedore. He began teaching in the late 60s at the Free University. a counter-cultural 60s era Manhattan based institution. This led to a tenured position at Ramapo State College in Mahwah, NJ. At the same time, he co-founded 1971 Bo the Institute for Social Ecology at Goddard College in Vermont."
The last sentence doesn't make sense.
Michelle Meaders 67.101.88.27 13:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
For some reason, Bookchin is contained the the category Former anarchists. I suspect, but cannot confirm, that this is wrong.
My understanding of the category is that it is for persons who ceased being anarchists while still living (e.g. Herbert Spender), and not including those anarchists who simply died (e.g. Lysander Spooner). After all, there are a lot of dead anarchists out there.
To my knowledge, Bookchin was still an anarchist at the time of his death, in which case I would suspect that his inclusion in that category would be simply wrong. Can anybody confirm whether or not Bookchin was still an anarchist at the time of his death?
Thanks,
Allixpeeke (
talk) 23:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I find it odd that Murray is not granted the privilege of having every criticism that was written about him (there are many… Bob Black’s Anarchy After Leftism, David Watson’s Beyond Bookchin, and numerous harsh but comprehensive reviews in anarchist periodicals by Murray’s least favorite of all, John Zerzan and others) synthesized on his bio page. Zerzan and others are given a much more critical examination on Wikipedia. Would someone like to write this? As I figure I could, but that my bias would get in the way, I would enjoy it if someone did it before me. 74.92.133.146 ( talk) 19:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
An editor recently put in a paragraph about Palestine/Israel issues labeled as "restore section accidentally deleted" and with a "minor edit" flag. Due to the political nature of the topic, and the fact that I can't find this "deletion" in recent edits, I'm a little leery of accepting it at face value. I posted this on the editor's page, and would appreciate anyone else who can actually verify the "previously deleted" nature of this section.
-- Lquilter ( talk) 12:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, LiamFitzGilbert; we had an edit conflict. I found the same thing too: here's the content. This and other material was part of a chunk of content that was not "accidentally deleted", it was deleted intentionally back in June by User:Byelf2007 with the edit description "not "thought", no citations, messy". The content in question was added by IP editor in a series of edits during June. Here's the content that was added both times.
The original add had a lot more about a documentary.
References
So my main concern here is that the misdescriptive edit summary & minor flag suggest something sneaky is going on, which, given the subject, makes me suspicious of potential bias and POV-pushing in the content. I am not personally familiar enough with Bookchin to know whether this is an accurate characterization of his views, and whether it is proportionate to the article. So someone else needs to weigh in on that. In the meantime, I'm going to post a follow-up to User:LiamFitzGilbert's page, the IP editor's page, and to User:Byelf2007's page, since they had previously been involved in the edits. Let's please talk it out here and avoid edit-warring on the Murray Bookchin page. -- Lquilter ( talk) 13:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
When that section was removed in August 2011, the following edit summary was used:
I agree with the IP who made that change. Having a full section of this article based on a single op-ed piece written by Bookchin is giving it undue weight. It is also based on a primary source, so we may be violating WP:NOR by including it (see WP:PSTS). — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
And, we have a similar paragraph on Israel being added. ( diff) Still seems like undue weight, so I've reverted ( diff), but am posting here for discussion. -- Lquilter ( talk) 23:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The anon editor who wants to include content on Israel / Palestine (see discussion above) noted in its last edit summary (putting the same content in, three times in a row) that "if position on obscure militant organization (PKK) is relevant, then surely position on Israel is too?". So I'm raising the question here: Is the content on PKK relevant, undue weight, or sufficiently important to be included in the article? -- Lquilter ( talk) 15:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
as a political thinker, surely his opinions on both are relevant? but it seems you own this article, and have blocked me from editing, so i don't know who you're supposedly having a conversation with here on this "talk" page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.188.127.29 ( talk) 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
So you're allowed to "edit war", and I'm not. Good deal. And Wikipedia wonders why there's no new editors. I've provided my reasoning. You've said a lot, but you haven't actually put forward a cogent argument as to why you disagree. So, have fun talking to yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.188.125.240 ( talk) 11:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
As the editor who added the information on the PKK, I would like to point out that it deals less with Bookchin's views on the organisation and more with his influence on their current ideological bent. The PKK is no more—I would even venture to say less—obscure than Bookchin himself, and represents perhaps the most prominent example of a group which owns and acknowledges a debt to his theories and seeks to put (its variant on) them into practice. As such, I definitely think it's important enough to include here. While the information on his views on Israel may or may not be important enough to include, it certainly has no business in the "Legacy" section. Just because material pertaining to foreign things is there doesn't mean it's a catchall section for any view he expressed on a topic related to foreign affairs. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 02:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Murray Bookchin. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
This term is solely associated with Bookchin and should be covered summary style in the parent article (where it has its own section) and only split when sources treat the idea independently from Bookchin. In other words, there needs to be significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources ( ?) directly addressing "libertarian municipalism" as a concept distinct from Bookchin. Otherwise, it's more reasonable to cover it on his own page. czar 15:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Would it make sense to add a couple sentences to "Rojava" to the section talking about the influence on the ~PKK ? I'd think it would keep that info more current... 5.56.244.141 ( talk) 20:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure that the description of Bookchin as a "libertarian socialist" in the opening paragraph gives the correct impression. In current American usage, "libertarian" tends to be applied to those who reject governmental interference in both social and economic matters (see Libertarianism), including those who report private property as sacrosanct. Many who use the label are ultra-free-marketeers, certainly not socialists.
Although Bookchin ceased to classify himself as an anarchist late in life, his philosophy for most of his life was broadly within the anarcho-syndicalist tradition of Proudhon ("property is theft") and Kropotkin, and that may be a better label for him (in so far as such an individual thinker can be subjected to a label). His greatest achievement lies in synthesising this tradition with modern ecological awareness. Rodparkes 05:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact remains that throughout much of his life he called himself an Anarchist and this is matched by the bulk of his writings. In later life he sort to distance himself from the individualist/right-wing forms of Anarchism, the "libertarian socialist" label is not backed up by evidence nor used by himself, all the above quotes define a form of anarchist thought.
Jleske (
talk) 10:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Bookchin didn't particularly support the writings of Proudhon as it wasn't compatible with his corpus. He argued in The Next Revolution and briefly in interviews with Doug Morris (you can find on youtube) that small cooperatives and small business which take the form individual private ownership would only result in some of them competing and outsizing other small business, given the grow or die mentality of capitalism. Bookchin uses the period before mass industrialisation as an example. Before this period family shops ('mom and pop stores') were around as well as independent farmers who might have also owned a store that sold their produce. However, they were gradually out-competed by rise of argri-businesses and supermarkets. As a result, Bookchin thinks that Proudhonian beliefs do not resolve some of the systemic ecological and economic crises of the capitalist hierarchical order. He uses Ben and Jerry's and the fact that it started out as family store before it became a regional and then multinational corporation. Master Smythley ( talk) 17:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Someone's been adding a small edit that the PKK is a terrorist organization. This is contentious, many countries and organisations (including the UN) do not designate the PKK as a terrorist organisation. There is a section about this on the article about the PKK. It's wildly inaccurate to state unambiguously that the PKK is a terrorist organisation in this article without that additional context. Given the escalating situation in northern Syria at the moment this appears to be a politically motivated misinformation. Antiance ( talk) 00:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I heard Bookchin saying this in the 1984 years anarchist festival in Venice:
"The working class movement in America died in the 1940's. I know it. I was there.I saw it happen."
A strong quotation from a strong individual. And the message of his death came to me from Wikipedia!
Jerker Nordlund , Sweden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.211.82 ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I recently created a draft for Daniel Chodorkoff. He co-founded the Institute for Social Ecology with Bookchin. Any assistance with sources would be appreciated! Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 05:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
In the Murray Bookchin article, in this paragraph:
"Through the fifties and sixties, Bookchin worked in a number of working class situations -- including a stint as a railroad stevedore. He began teaching in the late 60s at the Free University. a counter-cultural 60s era Manhattan based institution. This led to a tenured position at Ramapo State College in Mahwah, NJ. At the same time, he co-founded 1971 Bo the Institute for Social Ecology at Goddard College in Vermont."
The last sentence doesn't make sense.
Michelle Meaders 67.101.88.27 13:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
For some reason, Bookchin is contained the the category Former anarchists. I suspect, but cannot confirm, that this is wrong.
My understanding of the category is that it is for persons who ceased being anarchists while still living (e.g. Herbert Spender), and not including those anarchists who simply died (e.g. Lysander Spooner). After all, there are a lot of dead anarchists out there.
To my knowledge, Bookchin was still an anarchist at the time of his death, in which case I would suspect that his inclusion in that category would be simply wrong. Can anybody confirm whether or not Bookchin was still an anarchist at the time of his death?
Thanks,
Allixpeeke (
talk) 23:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I find it odd that Murray is not granted the privilege of having every criticism that was written about him (there are many… Bob Black’s Anarchy After Leftism, David Watson’s Beyond Bookchin, and numerous harsh but comprehensive reviews in anarchist periodicals by Murray’s least favorite of all, John Zerzan and others) synthesized on his bio page. Zerzan and others are given a much more critical examination on Wikipedia. Would someone like to write this? As I figure I could, but that my bias would get in the way, I would enjoy it if someone did it before me. 74.92.133.146 ( talk) 19:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
An editor recently put in a paragraph about Palestine/Israel issues labeled as "restore section accidentally deleted" and with a "minor edit" flag. Due to the political nature of the topic, and the fact that I can't find this "deletion" in recent edits, I'm a little leery of accepting it at face value. I posted this on the editor's page, and would appreciate anyone else who can actually verify the "previously deleted" nature of this section.
-- Lquilter ( talk) 12:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, LiamFitzGilbert; we had an edit conflict. I found the same thing too: here's the content. This and other material was part of a chunk of content that was not "accidentally deleted", it was deleted intentionally back in June by User:Byelf2007 with the edit description "not "thought", no citations, messy". The content in question was added by IP editor in a series of edits during June. Here's the content that was added both times.
The original add had a lot more about a documentary.
References
So my main concern here is that the misdescriptive edit summary & minor flag suggest something sneaky is going on, which, given the subject, makes me suspicious of potential bias and POV-pushing in the content. I am not personally familiar enough with Bookchin to know whether this is an accurate characterization of his views, and whether it is proportionate to the article. So someone else needs to weigh in on that. In the meantime, I'm going to post a follow-up to User:LiamFitzGilbert's page, the IP editor's page, and to User:Byelf2007's page, since they had previously been involved in the edits. Let's please talk it out here and avoid edit-warring on the Murray Bookchin page. -- Lquilter ( talk) 13:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
When that section was removed in August 2011, the following edit summary was used:
I agree with the IP who made that change. Having a full section of this article based on a single op-ed piece written by Bookchin is giving it undue weight. It is also based on a primary source, so we may be violating WP:NOR by including it (see WP:PSTS). — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
And, we have a similar paragraph on Israel being added. ( diff) Still seems like undue weight, so I've reverted ( diff), but am posting here for discussion. -- Lquilter ( talk) 23:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The anon editor who wants to include content on Israel / Palestine (see discussion above) noted in its last edit summary (putting the same content in, three times in a row) that "if position on obscure militant organization (PKK) is relevant, then surely position on Israel is too?". So I'm raising the question here: Is the content on PKK relevant, undue weight, or sufficiently important to be included in the article? -- Lquilter ( talk) 15:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
as a political thinker, surely his opinions on both are relevant? but it seems you own this article, and have blocked me from editing, so i don't know who you're supposedly having a conversation with here on this "talk" page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.188.127.29 ( talk) 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
So you're allowed to "edit war", and I'm not. Good deal. And Wikipedia wonders why there's no new editors. I've provided my reasoning. You've said a lot, but you haven't actually put forward a cogent argument as to why you disagree. So, have fun talking to yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.188.125.240 ( talk) 11:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
As the editor who added the information on the PKK, I would like to point out that it deals less with Bookchin's views on the organisation and more with his influence on their current ideological bent. The PKK is no more—I would even venture to say less—obscure than Bookchin himself, and represents perhaps the most prominent example of a group which owns and acknowledges a debt to his theories and seeks to put (its variant on) them into practice. As such, I definitely think it's important enough to include here. While the information on his views on Israel may or may not be important enough to include, it certainly has no business in the "Legacy" section. Just because material pertaining to foreign things is there doesn't mean it's a catchall section for any view he expressed on a topic related to foreign affairs. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 02:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Murray Bookchin. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
This term is solely associated with Bookchin and should be covered summary style in the parent article (where it has its own section) and only split when sources treat the idea independently from Bookchin. In other words, there needs to be significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources ( ?) directly addressing "libertarian municipalism" as a concept distinct from Bookchin. Otherwise, it's more reasonable to cover it on his own page. czar 15:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Would it make sense to add a couple sentences to "Rojava" to the section talking about the influence on the ~PKK ? I'd think it would keep that info more current... 5.56.244.141 ( talk) 20:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure that the description of Bookchin as a "libertarian socialist" in the opening paragraph gives the correct impression. In current American usage, "libertarian" tends to be applied to those who reject governmental interference in both social and economic matters (see Libertarianism), including those who report private property as sacrosanct. Many who use the label are ultra-free-marketeers, certainly not socialists.
Although Bookchin ceased to classify himself as an anarchist late in life, his philosophy for most of his life was broadly within the anarcho-syndicalist tradition of Proudhon ("property is theft") and Kropotkin, and that may be a better label for him (in so far as such an individual thinker can be subjected to a label). His greatest achievement lies in synthesising this tradition with modern ecological awareness. Rodparkes 05:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact remains that throughout much of his life he called himself an Anarchist and this is matched by the bulk of his writings. In later life he sort to distance himself from the individualist/right-wing forms of Anarchism, the "libertarian socialist" label is not backed up by evidence nor used by himself, all the above quotes define a form of anarchist thought.
Jleske (
talk) 10:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Bookchin didn't particularly support the writings of Proudhon as it wasn't compatible with his corpus. He argued in The Next Revolution and briefly in interviews with Doug Morris (you can find on youtube) that small cooperatives and small business which take the form individual private ownership would only result in some of them competing and outsizing other small business, given the grow or die mentality of capitalism. Bookchin uses the period before mass industrialisation as an example. Before this period family shops ('mom and pop stores') were around as well as independent farmers who might have also owned a store that sold their produce. However, they were gradually out-competed by rise of argri-businesses and supermarkets. As a result, Bookchin thinks that Proudhonian beliefs do not resolve some of the systemic ecological and economic crises of the capitalist hierarchical order. He uses Ben and Jerry's and the fact that it started out as family store before it became a regional and then multinational corporation. Master Smythley ( talk) 17:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Someone's been adding a small edit that the PKK is a terrorist organization. This is contentious, many countries and organisations (including the UN) do not designate the PKK as a terrorist organisation. There is a section about this on the article about the PKK. It's wildly inaccurate to state unambiguously that the PKK is a terrorist organisation in this article without that additional context. Given the escalating situation in northern Syria at the moment this appears to be a politically motivated misinformation. Antiance ( talk) 00:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I heard Bookchin saying this in the 1984 years anarchist festival in Venice:
"The working class movement in America died in the 1940's. I know it. I was there.I saw it happen."
A strong quotation from a strong individual. And the message of his death came to me from Wikipedia!
Jerker Nordlund , Sweden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.211.82 ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I recently created a draft for Daniel Chodorkoff. He co-founded the Institute for Social Ecology with Bookchin. Any assistance with sources would be appreciated! Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 05:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)