Jump to content

Talk:The May Pamphlet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleThe May Pamphlet is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 1, 2022.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 16, 2020Good article nomineeListed
December 18, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
February 18, 2022Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
[edit]

Art and Social Nature's copyright was renewed in 1973, which includes the May Pamphlet sections that were previous unpublished. Drawing the Line (1962) was not renewed (see HathiTrust in External links). I'm asking Commons whether we can host the latter's May Pamphlet if the former's is still under copyright. czar 14:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The May Pamphlet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on.

Comments

[edit]
  • surely we could get some sort of image in, even if it's just the cover of Drawing the line which is supposedly in PD? Eddie891 Talk Work 00:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I had considered the options here and decided against it. The subject is the pamphlet, not the books in which it appears, so the cover would just be decorative, not instructive. I considered using the title page of the pamphlet when first published (see full text link at the bottom of the article) but it's just three words as a title page—nothing worth illustrating. czar 04:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • that's fine
  • suggest linking anarchist on first mention, because it's a central theme of the article.
  • maybe link libertarian as well
    Is the existing parenthetical next to this term not sufficient? I thought that was the best compromise for its usage. czar 04:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah that's fine
  • "would recur throughout his later body of work" -> "recur throughout his later body of work" would here is redundant, no?
  • link social criticism
  • " Goodman's 1960 Growing Up Absurd" -> " Goodman's 1960 book Growing Up Absurd"
  • "republication in Drawing the Line" maybe a date for publication?
  • "In the 1940s, Paul Goodman began to publicly identify his political beliefs. " maybe some context (i.e. why does it matter that he's expressing his views now, who is he, what were his political beliefs?)
  • "He would subsequently become the best-known contemporary literary anarchist" -> "He became the best-known contemporary literary anarchist by date" or "he would become the best-known..." or "he subsequently became the best-known..." the two qualifiers aren't needed
    I think this answers the previous bullet, hence the "subsequently"? czar 04:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • sure
  • Yeah, the umlauts confused me... fine as is
  • "beyond which a libertarian would act in resistance" maybe I'm missing something, but perhaps add what the resistance would be to?
    Either the "coercive restrictions" of the prior sentence or the "societal norms" of the paragraph's last sentence, but the source doesn't name specifics here czar 00:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Goodman would embody this stance by living a free" as in he said he would embody the stance in the book, or in his later life, he actually did embody the stance? If it's the latter, maybe say "Goodman embodied this stance"?
  • " sanguine march of industrial progress in the coercive name of higher quality of lifestyle" that's a mouthful! Is there a way you could put it into simpler terms?
  • link direct democracy?
  • link psychoanalysis?
  • "Half of its essays were previously published in the small libertarian journals Politics, Why?, and Retort " -> "Half of its essays were previously published in the small libertarian journals Politics, Why?, or Retort" or something similar because they weren't all published in all the journals? As it reads now, I get the impression that half of the essays were published in all three journals
  • Who is "Stefan Blankertz"?
  • "The May Pamphlet was Goodman's most significant contribution to anarchist theory" maybe mention this in the lede as well
  • " individual change before millenarian" maybe it's my lack of knowledge on the topic, but I'm not familiar with what millenarian means, and I think many lay-readers won't be as well. Is there somewhere you could link?
  • Very nice article overall, largely accessible, just a few things tripped me up as a reader unfamiliar with the topic. I'll check sources later today... Eddie891 Talk Work 15:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I've addressed the above either in prose or comments. And let me know if you need any passages from the sources for verification. czar 00:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Czar, thanks for responding! I've checked a few of the sources, and am prepared to AGF on the others Eddie891 Talk Work 13:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is well written, comprehensive adequately sourced, doesn't contain copyvio, and as such, I'm happy to promote. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

[edit]

Transferring a post-it note for later expansion:

  • King Party of Eros
  • Fischer intro to PM Press New Reformation
  • Stoehr introduction to Drawing the Line

czar 02:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done czar 22:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genter

[edit]

I see you want to send this off to WP:FAC - just a quick question. What makes Genter a high quality reliable source? I am not able to find much information about this person on my own, but I'm sure you have your reasons. Urve (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Urve, he's currently a community college history professor. Genter 2002 (the doctoral dissertation) was later republished as a book: Genter, Robert (2010). Late Modernism: Art, Culture, and Politics in Cold War America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-4264-5.. The book is significantly shorter than the dissertation, as it is common to cut for length and wider distribution. Genter's doctoral May Pamphlet analysis is omitted from his book's analysis of Paul Goodman, hence citing the dissertation and not the book. Especially for the claims involved—i.e., summarized May Pamphlet content—I believe Genter is qualified as an expert source. czar 17:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfect. Being a professor and republishing the thesis later makes it usable in my opinion - just wanted clarity. Thanks. Urve (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Notes for posterity

czar 04:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_May_Pamphlet&oldid=1241959963"