Talk:Murray Bookchin

Splitting the Article into Murray Bookchin (Person), Communalism (Bookchin), and Municipalism

I propose that the section on Communalism and Municipalism be turned into two separate articles, each one being extended so as to not be a stub. My reasoning for such actions is that communalism and municipalism are ideologies, and variations have been made off of both of them. For instance, US Green Party communalism, however similar, is still different from Bookchin's original view. The Green Party has emphasized less autonomy and believes in federation, rather than confederation (Some Green politicians do support one or both of these things, but most do not). In addition, by precedent ideologies have separate pages from their creators, even ones inherently tied to their creator. For example, the mage for Marxism-Leninism is separate from both the pages of Marx and Lenin. Astraeus Antimatter (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

These articles had previously been separate but were merged in for lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources specific to the concept. They were all covered in reference to Bookchin and not in enough depth that we could support separate articles without delving into heavy primary source paraphrase and original research. What reliable sources would be used to provide a foundation for those split articles? czar 05:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not find it surprising that it has little coverage outside of Bookchin, as the word Communalism has multiple meanings across time (such as Communalism (South Asia)), yet in my limited research, I have found multiple sources that, while they are about Bookchin, focus mainly on his ideology (such as [1] and several interviews with Bookchin, present on both media outlets and YouTube). I struggle to find many sources which are completely independent of the topic, but many focus on a broad range of ideologies, and are thus not entirely about communalism. With further research, I am sure that more would come up. Also, Communalism is a general political concept, so any source which isn't directly quoting Bookchin will be original research/interpretations in some form or another. It has never been attempted (besides arguments that it was practiced in some form in tribes, but evidence on this is shaky and contradicts other, more reputable sources), but has many followers. While it may be bending the rules, due to the importance of the topic, and the fact that ideologies that haven't been attempted usually have little research into them, this would still be permitted under the Ignore all rules clause.

P.S; Being the official ideology of the fourth most popular party in the United States, and its principles all being followed (though not to Bookchin's original vision) in the MAREZ, I believe that it is entitled to its own page, independent of a biography. Astraeus Antimatter (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I struggle to find many sources which are completely independent of the topic

This is the gist of why it's currently structured the way it is. If reliable, secondary sources discuss the application of Bookchin's ideas in contemporary Green Parties, then it would make sense to cover in this article either in context of his philosophy or his legacy, but we wouldn't necessarily split to a separate article unless we have an overabundance of that independent, secondary source content to justify a split. I'd recommend adding what needs to be added here and once it becomes disproportionate to the article, it would warrant splitting out. But if the only sources are primary sources, we wouldn't want to put much weight on that either here or in a dedicated article. czar 04:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and while I acknowledge that secondary sources are limited, but my argument is not a split based on the overabundance of sources, but the fact that the topics are very different, and the concept of Communalism, as little covered as it is, is not limited to Bookchin. In fact, all sources which relate to Democratic Confederalism, Neozapatismo, MAREZ, and the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria could be used as sources. Adding these here would be pointless, as they first off are not related to Bookchin , which this page is about, and second they are their own ideologies, not united under the distinction of Bookchinist, but under the distinction of Communalist, which I think should be stressed by the splitting of the articles. Only looking at the Bookchinist model provides little sources, but Communalism as a whole is a much larger ideological group, similar to how Marxism is only a subset of Communism, even though Marx is credited with formalizing the definition of modern Communism. Astraeus Antimatter (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

When the secondary sources are limited, we seek to cover the topic summary style within other articles. Insofar as Bookchin's introduction of these concepts has had an afterlife in other social movements, that is something we should cover within his biography. If there isn't enough sourcing to support a full article on the topic without delving into original research, covering within an existing topic is the best route. czar 23:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry for my crude phrasing, but you are beating around the bush here. My argument was that Communalism has taken root in places completely outside of general Bookchinism, and while there are very few sources on Bookchinist Communalism, there are many sources on its variations, that being Green Communalism (as in the Green Party of the United States of America), and Democratic Confederalism. Both articles in fact have links to the article for Communalism, which just redirects to this article. Bookchin is to Communalism as Marx is to modern Communism; An important figure, and the founder of the ideology, but dead, and having their ideas shifted and warped to the point where Marxism is only a subset of Communism, and Boonchinism is only a subset of Communalism. So yes, there are not enough sources on Bookchinist Communalism, but an article on the topic would be populated by sources which have nothing to do with Bookchin, and thus don't deserve to be extensions of this article. Astraeus Antimatter (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

there are many sources on its variations ... an article on the topic would be populated by sources which have nothing to do with Bookchin

Great—please share those sources for discussion. I haven't seen them. czar 04:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)