Talk:John Zerzan/Archive 1

so-called reporter

The so-called reporter in Seattle is writing UTTER BS! Anyone who knows anything about the N30 protest knows that the police started pepper-spraying pacifist protestors who were blocking the limosines from reaching the meeting AND LATER the property damage began. Also... there was no use of razorblades to injure police cavalry or any other persons.

I read some of the "Black Bloc" WERE police, and not attending on their off-time. And that is why the police didn't suppress the Black Bloc, lest they damage one of their own, but rather were more interested in the mainstream protestor. Also I think lumping the vast majority of protestors with the horse stabers, etc., if such there be, is clouding, rather than clarifying the situation, by making yet another invalid overgeneralization. You're a reporter, please provide references for your statements, and fix the article. 64.165.202.210 19:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The police were caught off-guard. They were clearing traffic (by using pepper spray on non-violent protestors) and or the delegates in limosines. And they couldn't get to the quickly moving Black Bloc that was intentionally avoiding the riot police. There was no "horse-stabbing" involved and no cops disguised as black bloc at this particular protest.

Doesn't Zerzan consider himself an anarchist? That word should be used here, if so.

To answer that I would have to READ his writings, and I might become infected. 64.165.202.210 19:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also his works should be listed, and for the layman, some idea of what is meant by 'symbolic thought', i.e. numbers, functions, etc., ought to be outlined.

Language is symbolic thought; funny, he writes articles... (Or maybe I don't know what he means.) 64.165.202.210 19:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So go ahead and put in those things. Be aggressive in editing. -- Zoe

what is date of NYT interview that is mentioned? Not as helpful as it could be without this.64.165.202.210 19:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

Encyclopedic biographies of authors are not to contain extensive criticism of the subject, and looking around Wikipedia I fail to at least see this being done to other authors, which could perhaps justify it in a sense, even though it would still be inappropriate. Therefore, I have removed the highly irrelevant and frivolous sections of criticism as it is quite obvious that the page has been targeted for attack by anti-primitivism, who apparently seem to believe that Zerzan's arguments are, supposedly, obviously absurd yet still feel the need to muddy up the article with personal grievances against his writing style and citing quotes from his critics from within the rather marginal anarchist milieu. However, since these individuals will no doubt have a fit if the entire criticism section is blanked I have attempted to at least improve the quality of the writing in the section and reduce it the criticisms which could potentially undermine Zerzan's conclusions. -anonymous

I agree completely with your revisions. You conveyed the criticisms in a more concise manner appropriate to a biographic entry. The detail which you removed belongs in its own entry, if anywhere.LC | Talk 22:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The following sentence: "However, Zerzan’s critique of technology might be said to attack the technological institution as a whole and the implications it has on society rather than the individual use of a given technology" is patent nonsense; these "instituitions" are themselves composed of the millions of individuals engaging in them. How else could these things even exsist? Furthermore, whoever believes that mass communication technologies is neccessary for social change must be quite unfamiliar with the life of Mahatma Gandhi. --Jleon 14:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi is not an authority over, example of, or end-all to the innate human ability to do whatever it wants. Nobody is. So, Gandhi is irrelevant to Zerzan (and to me, and I don't know why you brought it up.) However, I think you're right, speaking of attacking 'institutions' as opposed to the inst. devices is not only absurd, it's also not really what Zerzan is driving at. What Zerzan is pointing out is the irrationalism behind agriculture and all of its offspring (order, time, art, number, language, cultures, and finally industrialisation and technology; not to mention mental illness, 'spiritual' emptiness, pestilence, plague, disease and famine, poverty and neglect, gender inequality, dental carries, numbed senses, loss of psychic ability, domestication of self and of others, power and its abuses, irreversible destruction of natural resources, overpopulation, impending apocalyptic doom, etc.) I will eventually try to rewrite the offending paragraph to more directly state what Zerzan is indicting, but I might not be able to think of something clever today. But I agree, to say that he attacks 'institutions' isn't exactly correct; I think Zerzan sees institutions for what they are, as mere indicators of social trends and causes and not the trends or causes themselves. GabrielAPetrie 14:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

--You said it best: "ability to do what it wants", and in the case of John Zerzan the ability of humans to display baffling amounts of cognitive dissonance and still be admired by some other human beings. That being said, the "Criticism" section should be reserved for criticism, and the rest of the article should explain his beliefs. What's so complicated about that? --Jleon 14:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The offending paragraph under "Criticism" describes a range of speculations as to why Zerzan might not be able to live the life he describes as optimal (the seeming contradiction and therefore the critical point.) I simply provided another possible, speculative statement to the same effect. Really, though, if "Criticism" is going to be of any use to the article, it should contain well thought-out and constructive criticism (not just "criticism" but criticism itself, the actual thing.) There is, by your same token, no use for a section titled "Criticism" that contains, in a nutshell, a handful of directly insulting words and phrases but no intelligent, actual criticism. If your criticism can "handle it", it should be able to reside side-by-side with a few interspersed speculations and even rebuttles, and still come across as effective and -- by the presence of the rebuttles themselves -- proven. GabrielAPetrie 14:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I think User:Moorlock's recent addition to the criticisms section presents a good challenge, especially the last paragraph about the dubious claims of the special abilities of certain primitive tribes. I think it will be very challenging to try and prove that any of his claims (which he evidently sources from field anthropologists) are valid. eyenot@hotmail.com 13:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Few things to point out: 1. "Use of technology and language to condemn the same" - technology (development) is cancer to the world. as an example, cancer can be fought (treated) either from inside or outside or even both. so fighting technology, using the very same is reasonable.

Criticisms (II)

"Relentless name-dropping" and "Some of his claims are dubious at best" are incredibly frivolous criticisms. I'm deleting them. "Some of his claims" is sloppy and not encyclopedic at all.

Also, the criticisms section is not written in an encyclopedic writing style. -NietzscheFan 03:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think by calling those criticisms "incredibly frivolous" you must mean "not ones I agree with." For me, I find the relentless name-dropping one of the most annoying and off-putting things about Zerzan's writing, and one which distracts from his message. This isn't a frivolous thing at all.

And it only takes one claim like "the !Kung can communicate telepathically" to make a reader wonder whether Zerzan has sufficient information filters to distinguish shit from shinola, and to make the rest of Zerzan's claims seem suspect.

As for the non-encyclopedic writing style of those sections, I hope they may benefit from your improvements in this regard. -Moorlock 16:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

And yet the two sections are contradictory. You criticize Zerzan for quoting too much, and then turn around and criticize him for not quoting authorities enough! In any event, "name dropping" is misused in this case, as he isn't proclaiming any kind of personal relationship with these people ("I was at dinner the other night with Noam Chomsky—great guy, by the way—and he told me..."), he's just quoting them in an attempt to give context. --Bk0 17:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

-His quoting them is a means of suggesting that these people would somehow agree with portions of his hypothesis. Its an obvious sign that he's well aware that virtually everyone connected to mainstream science, economics, and philosophy beleieves his ideas are absolutely ludicrous. --Jleon 17:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

That comment is ludicrous. How would quoting Adorno, say, be "an obvious sign that he's well aware that virtually everyone connected to mainstream science, economics, and philosophy believes his ideas are absolutely ludicrous."? Adorno loathed much of what civilization is in general, and capitalism in particular, even for some of the same reasons. Zerzan isn't twisting anyone's words; he's using them in context to make minor points for a larger thesis. That's why he quotes them, not because he thinks they disagree with his ideas. That makes no sense. The people he quotes may disagree with some of his conclusions, but that's a completey different matter.--Foamy Latte 04:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"71.34.83.215" is quite the Zerzan fan. (S)he has spent a great deal of time excising those parts of the descriptions of "Criticisms" that are too, uh, critical. I hope someone will take the time to deneuter those sections at some point.

--Well seeing as Zerzan is quite the fan of technology, its very possible that he's lurking around here himself. --Jleon 19:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

the article seems still quite biased. What is the "excessive quotation" section doing here? Wikipedia isn't a literary criticism blog, after all. Criticism has to be notable (i.e. it has to be attributed to some notable critic), anything else is essay-writing. dab (ᛏ) 11:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The frivolous criticisms have returned and I have returned to delete them. NietzscheFan

I have removed the passages taken from the Class Against Class website article titled "John Zerzan and the Primitivist Confusion" (www.geocities.com/cordobaf/index/html.) These violated Wikipedia rules for biographies. The website article is partisan (Marxist), obscure, not attributable to an author (merely 'Alain C.' and 'Marielle' isn't good enough) and derogatory. ( "It is worse than that. He [Zerzan] deliberately manipulates some information. In a word, he lies, that is to say he wants to deceive others." "As in "Future Primitive", he practices the terrorism of evidence.") --Foamy Latte 06:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have restored these passages. They are not meant to be biographical but examples of the sort of criticism that Zerzan's work attracts. The website may be partisan and obscure, but I don't see how this disqualifies - an author as on-the-fringe as Zerzan is unlikely to attract critics from a mainstream that is happy to ignore him. The quote that is given as "derogatory" is just a strongly-worded criticism, which also shouldn't disqualify a source from being quoted in a section devoted to criticism. --Moorlock 16:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Even though the passages may not be biographical, they are being used in a biographical entry in Wikipedia. The website source was written anonymously, is obscure (more obscure than Zerzan), partisan and derogatory. You may think it is merely strongly-worded (that's what they all say, unless you happen to be the recipient of the derogation) but they also contain accusations, which could potentially be libelous. I've therefore removed them, along with the passages from the dark age blog, for the same reasons. And for the record, Zerzan has been interviewed in the NY Times, Newsweek, The Guardian, Washington Post, The Oregonian, Seattle Post-Intelligentser, plus various mainstream Spanish newspapers and on the news program 60 minutes II. His most widely read essay, Future Primitive, has also been reprinted in "Limited Wants, Unlimited Means" (Island Press 1997) by John Gowdy, a professor at Rensselaer Polytechnical Insitute. Zerzan is not unknown in academic circles and, though not a household name, is hardly on the "fringe", nor does the mainstream "ignore" him, much as Zerzan might sometimes want them to. During the Unabomber trial, Zerzan had to literally leave town to escape the media onslaught. If there is a dearth of critical reviews of his work by mainstream scholars or by other notable writers, it's not for lack of awareness of his ideas. --Foamy Latte 21:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia."

Critics of the removal of several extremely frivolous and irrelevant criticisms have accused me of vandalism. Clearly, the vandal is the one who is continually restoring "wholly irrelevant content". Those cricisms are of Zerzans' writing style, not of his ideas. These cricisms are not relevant or encyclopedic. I hope I do not have to stoop to the level of spending more time explaining to some wikipedians that these cricisms are irrelevant, frivolous, and not encyclopedic. It is very easy to attack Zerzan's politcal ideas, which are, in my opinion, baseless. I encourage wikipedians who do not agree with Zerzan do criticize his political beliefs, as it doesn't take much time or effort. NietzscheFan 04:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I really do hope that this can be resolved without an admin. NietzscheFan 04:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not continue wiping out entire sections of this article. Criticisms of Zerzan's writing and argumentative style are as relevant to an entry on Zerzan as are those of his ideas - he is, after all, best known as an author. If you have suggestions for improvement of these sections, please express them here or attempt to make them yourself, but this wholesale deletion in the service of your own personal view of what the focus of this article should be is not in the spirit of a collaborationist project like Wikipedia. -Moorlock 05:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to stress that I am not deleting these criticisms because they are "not ones I agree with" or because they are "too, uh, critical." Regardless of whether or not I agree with Zerzan (I don't), I do not agree with defaming him with with insipid criticisms when there are clearly others that could be launched against him. I'm sure Moorelock and Jleon can think of some pertinent ones. If not, see http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA3.html#seca39 for some ideas. Also, I'm asking Jleon to stop assuming that my intentions in removing the frivolous criticisms reflect the fact that I am "quite the Zerzan fan," (which I am not;btw "71.34.83.215" is me, i forgot to log in) because you are assuming bad faith (this goes against Wikipedia's policy and does not make it easier to reach a compromise). As for improvements to the criticisms: I think they need to be replaced by relevant ones. NietzscheFan 06:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You've got a very rigid and odd definition of "relevant" which seems to make you want to slash out large sections of the article that you dislike or don't agree with, although their objective relevance is hard to question. The section of the article is labeled "Criticisms" and the subsections you remove each deal with substantive criticisms of Zerzan's ideas, his argumentative style, and his writing technique. The one you most recently deleted dealt with Zerzan's use of of scholastic, abstract English - which might not be much worth mentioning in an article about most writers, but since Zerzan makes a point of arguing that the more abstract language is the more harmful it becomes - and as a thinker Zerzan stands out in part because of his unflinchingly radical critique of symbolic language - this is a point that could not be more relevant to a criticism of Zerzan's thought and writing. Again: please stop your wholesale deletions from this article. It really does amount to vandalism. -Moorlock 16:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

"I think User:Moorlock's recent addition to the criticisms section presents a good challenge, especially the last paragraph about the dubious claims of the special abilities of certain primitive tribes." Moorlock, this is not a place to put original material[1] Please remove the all original criticism, as it doesn't belong here, and replace it with relevant criticisms (of Zerzan's ideas) that have been attributed to some critic or other person who criticized Zerzan's ideas. (The reason you problably won't find someone who has made these criticisms is because they are frivolous and irrelevant). Now, I'll ask you and Jleon again, to stop assuming bad faith and accusing me of removing these criticisms because they are "too, uh, critical" or because I "don't agree with" them. In hopes of not spurring an edit war, I'll wait a few days to a week to let you come to your senses. If you haven't by then, then I don't think there is much I can do to resolve this dispute becuase of how incredibly persistent you are on including original content that is not relevant (in violation of wikipedia law).[2] - NietzscheFan

I have added some quotes and links from reviewers of Zerzan's works to supplement some of the criticisms sections so that they are not mistaken for criticisms that are entirely original to this wikipedia article. I encourage other editors of this page, including NietzscheFan, to also add improvements to these and other sections when they have time. -Moorlock 18:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Was "Dubious claims" or was it not an original criticism by you, Moorlock? 66.27.212.17 00:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

For the dubious claims sections there are various sources to choose from, particularly those in the field of anthropology who think that Zerzan has grossly oversimplified the record on the "noble savage" side of things. The absurd claims about telepathy and Jupiter's moons is a concise and self-explanatory way of demonstrating Zerzan's use of assertions that are hard to take seriously, but this section could be expanded with more complex and diversely-sourced criticisms if someone would like to take that on. Personally, I think we only need one or two of the most severe examples of this (as is given here) and don't need to reference any particular critic (Zerzan's assertions speak for themselves, and stand or fall on their own strength, not the strength of the critic). -Moorlock 01:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Responding to recent edits by 69.218.136.85

69.218.136.85 adds an editorial comment to the example of Zerzan's archaic use of the word "obtain" to mean "prevail":

This may not be the best example since many can easily understand the idea of obtaining victory over an opponent. Still, maybe you get the point.,

Zerzan's use of "obtain" in this way isn't used in the sense of "obtaining victory" but in phrases like the following (all three examples from "The Failure of Symbolic Thought"):

The need for symbols — and violence - did not always obtain, however.

Heinz Werner (1940, 1963) argued that originally a single sense obtained, before divisions in society ruptured sensory unity.

Either the non-symbolizing health that once obtained, in all its dimensions, or, madness and death.

This archaic use of the word "obtain" is almost never heard in ordinary English conversation.

Perhaps you yourself rarely hear it, but it is not considered by modern reference works to be archaic; therefore, a different example should be used. The M-W Unabridged Dictionary lists several archaic meanings for obtain, and the meaning Zerzan employs is not one of them. Here is what it says: 3 : to have a firm footing : become recognized or established : be prevalent or general <the custom obtains of going to the seashore in summer> <a greater degree of free expression than usually obtains in film production — Roger Manvell>. --hitssquad 11:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

69.218.136.85 also deletes a couple of paragraphs that discuss one critic of Zerzan's discussion of his habit of dropping his index cards into his essays, replacing those paragraphs with the following editorial remark (meant to be a satire on the original criticism):

Of course... The reader is given no context that might explain who this "one reviewer" is, what is the nature of his expertise, or why his observation is relevant to the particular discussion.

But the reader (and this wisecracking wikipedia editor) can, of course, follow the link in the footnote at the end of the deleted paragraphs to find out who the "one reviewer" is and read the entire review from which the excerpt is taken. The "nature of his expertise" is not particularly relevant, since the criticism stands or falls on its own merits, and his observation is relevant because it is a criticism of Zerzan's works in a section of a wikipedia article devoted to criticisms of Zerzan's works.

For these reasons, I have reverted these edits. -Moorlock 17:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

But... positive suggestions

My own feeling is that this article clearly needs more details on Zerzan's actual work and arguments, as well as any (academic or activist) debates his is involved in. For instance, I'm not really qualified to edit on Zerzan's claims about primitive societies and how these have been received by other anthropologists (I understand they're very controversial, and Bookchin has summarised some of the critiques - it would be nice to have a good NPOV presentation of both claims and counter-claims for us non-anthropologists).

Also things like, what symbolic thought is and why Zerzan is against it, how he defines alienation, and a list of the topics he treats as extensions of civilisation/alienation (e.g. time, number, etc). And some discussion of his appropriation of Adorno would be nice.

Weasel words

Hey all, as per WP:AWW the criticism section is really, really bad. I don't like the {{weasel}} template much, because it isn't necessarily that the weasel words are making the section non-neutral, it simply is making the section sound bad. "Some critics", "others" who? Or are these the complaints of a few wikipedians, masking their criticims in weasel words? Without real critics names, this section is less than encyclopedic. Travb (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I found this site from the Ward Churchill site, and noticed that the criticism section is full of weasel words. This is were my interest begins and ends in this article. I don't care about you two's little war on the talk page. I accidently stumbled upon this article again tonight, and I was perturbed that you two used my comments as a soap box for your on POVs, then one user deleted another user's comments altogether.

The section should use verifiable sources and quote critics who actually state what is the criticism section, or those sections which do not have verifiable sources should eventually be removed to the talk page until those comments are substantiated. That goes not only for the whole of this article, (I am not singling out the criticism section) but every article on wikipedia. Everytime we edit a page the writing right under the edit box says: "all encyclopedic content must be based on verifiable sources".

Thanks for your time. Travb (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't give a jack shit about John Zerzan nor about you two's pet POVs. Sorry for the language: but I want to make myself 100% clear. Please don't use my comments as another excuse to launch into your own rantings and ideologies (I am talking to both of you), again, I don't care.

HELLO PEOPLE YOU DID NOT READ A WORD I SAID. QUIT USING MY SECTION AS A POV WAR. "We are not POV warring here" That is really, really, really funny. Travb (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies Travb. I've moved our posts out of your section --Foamy Latte 01:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Foamy. Sorry to offend you both. Maybe I should have simply waited a few weeks before doing anything.Travb (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

As per {{unsourced}} and {{WP:AWW}} I temporarily (?) removed this section:

===Choosing not to live a primitive life himself=== {{weasel}} Others have criticized the fact that Zerzan chooses not to live in a primitive society himself, and instead resides in the West Eugene neighborhood of [[Eugene, Oregon]]. Among the speculations for the reason of this, it is said by some that industrialized, agricultural civilization has desecrated the wilderness to such an extent that no suitable wilderness areas can be found to reside in, and that what little remains has become valuable habitat for endangered species. <!-- This paragraph could be replaced by a direct quote or cite of the appropriate criticism followed, with any luck, by a quote from Z. responding to the specific critique. -->

I am REALLY impressed how much better this article is now. Great job all. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

POV Wars

I haven't written any of the criticism section. I don't know who said those things. However, since this guy is so insane; how could someone have not said these things. If a lunatic like this guyu becomes famous, it's a good bet the the obvious criticisms like these will be said by someone notable. It would be good if we had names, but the criticisms in this case are obvious enough that there is a 99% chace that someone has said them. The section shouldn't be deleted simply because we don't have names. An article on a lunatic wouldn't be encyclopedic without a criticism section. We should improve it, not delete it. Tobyk777 01:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And yet you can't produce any notable names. Notice no anthropologists have disputed the main thrust of Zerzan's position. Your argument starts with its own conclusion i.e. Zerzan is insane. The criticisms are only obvious to those who already form this conclusion. There is no sense that the critics are even interested in attempting to understand Zerzan's theses. It's defending civilization, with all its horrors, that is truly demented. --Foamy Latte 03:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from deleting other peoples comments [3].

I rarely see comments phrased so offensively on wikipedia. I also rarely see someone make a complaint then say that they "don't give jack shit" once a discussion is launched. We are not POV warring here, I was stating that there is a high likelyhood that someone has said the criticisms. Also, I don't need to advocate that Zerzan is insane; I know that at least 99% of the world agrees with me. I don't need to preach to the converted. Tobyk777 05:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And yet here you are, POV warring, advocating Zerzan is insane and preaching to the converted. You have no idea of what 99% of the rest of the world thinks...you just made that up. I've barely tolerated your ignorant comments the first and second time. We know your point of view; we get it; you hate the man; now give it a rest. --Foamy Latte 21:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with sources

Hello everyone. I'm Steve Caruso, and I'm acting as Foamy Latte's Advocate.

I've recently gone over all of the sources in the John Zerzan article, formatted them and I have noticed that several of them are not appropriate under Wikipedia's External Links and Reliable Sources Guidelines. Additionally I've noticed that several sections of the article do not appear to be appropriate under Wikipedia's Original Research Policy.

For the moment, I am going to remove the links and quotes that are not appropriate under the External Links Guidelines. If there are any problems, please bring them up for discussion here. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 20:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is going to be a section on John Zerzan's ideas and theories (as opposed to a flat biographical article about Zerzan the human person), then that section can (and should) include the critical reception of those ideas.

An external link that references a fact (say, the distance from the Earth to the Moon) ought to meet certain criteria - it ought to be from a high-quality site that can be trusted and so forth. The reader who follows a footnote to the site is asked to believe that that site is a reliable source of information about something external to the site's text.

For an example of criticism, however, this requirement doesn't seem necessary. The requirement should be simply that the site referenced actually itself contains an example of criticism from someone who has made a legitimate attempt to wrestle with Zerzan's ideas: that is to say that an example of such criticism should stand or fall on its own merits as an example, without reference to what sort of site it was found on.

For example, if I say "aliens from outer space blew up the World Trade Center" and follow that with a reference to some Geocities page that makes this claim, this is improper. But if I say "websites exist that make the claim that aliens from outer space blew up the World Trade Center" then such a link is appropriate.

Examples of critical analysis of Zerzan's work are difficult to find in the mainstream press, in books, and in academia because Zerzan is a fairly fringe thinker, who tends to be taken seriously mostly by people who, if they publish at all, publish for the underground press, radical journals, or on blogs/websites. To omit references to this body of criticism from this page because of the sort of websites on which they appear will degrade the value of this article. --Moorlock 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you feel that the requirement "doesn't seem necessary" however it -is- necessary under Wikipedia guidelines. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth." With the nature of Blogs as a means of self-publication, anyone regardless of their proficiency with the subject matter or credencials may say whatever they wish. The blog site has no method to actually verify if they address Zerzan accurately (and even their authors publish under pseudonyms so we cannot verify their credencials or work outside the page). Although I would personally like to see some criticism in the article (as I'm not a fan of Zerzan myself by any means :-) ), criticism must be in line with policy, which is what Foamy Latte conveyed to me as what he saw inappropriate and wanted help expressing. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 02:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is that if the statement being sourced is "some critics of Zerzan say such-and-such" and the page being referenced as a source for this claim is one on which a critic is saying such-and-such, that is the very definition of verifiability. The credentials of the site, the pseudonomous nature of the page's author, and so forth is not at issue because evidence of the authors' "proficiency with the subject matter" is self-contained in the page itself and does not need back-up from some second-hand estimation of authenticity such as a site's mainstreamness. --Moorlock 03:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Verifiability Policy is what defines "verifiability" on Wikipedia, and a blog is not really a verifiable source to use in an article. For example, as outlined:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so." -- WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper)

The Dark Ages Blog doesn't seem to meet these criteria; however, I encourage you to carefully look over WP:V and WP:RS and find material that is appropriate to post as criticism. Peace! אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 13:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If people want to include criticisms of Zerzan then I think there are plenty of external sources - albeit most of the debate is obviously within the anarchist movement. With the movement being arranged horizontally, there isn't really a criterion for authoritativeness of these sources, which mostly take the form of opinion-pieces and rants. But I'd say Pendleton Vandiver and Murray Bookchin are quite well-known as critics and worth including; Vandiver would be a non-NOR-violating source for the referencing criticism in my opinion.

I feel the archiving of texts in non-personal anarchist text collections (things like Insurgent Desire, Spunk and IOAA) constitutes verification that a critic has actually said what they are reputed to have said within the movement and that someone posting a link is not just posting original research offsite and then linking. In Bookchin's case we are also dealing with a published academic whose online papers are mostly also available offline. Admittedly Vandiver is a more peripheral figure (probably a pseudonym) but his criticisms have had some influence and been re-published in several of the aforementioned collections.

There's also some mainstream media coverage which could be cited for critical stuff, such as interviews in places like the Guardian and Time. If critics of Zerzan feel unfairly treated by the current article then summarising the criticisms made in such sources would seem to be a non-POV way of handling this.

On the other hand I don't see what "Zerzan is wacko" or "Zerzan is mad" is adding to the discussion. Or for that matter what "99% of people think" - clearly a POV issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.8.139 (talk • contribs)

Temporarily Removed Criticism Section

I've removed the following bit for POV issues. Describing things in terms of what he is "fond of" or "enjoys" seems condescending and unenclyopedic at best. The reference "the literate minority of humanity" and descriptions of his text as "inherently alienating and oppressive" seems very POV as well. The last paragraph is (IMHO) absolutely fine but can't stand on its own so I've removed it here as well. --mako ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Zerzan is fond of academic-styled language, full of abstractions, such as: “The constant urge or quest for the transcendent testifies that the hegemony of absence is a cultural constant.” He also enjoys archaicisms, for instance using the verb “obtain” in its less common sense of “to prevail” instead of its non-academic general usage of “to gain possession of.”

Writing like this is accessible mainly to a well-educated and literate minority of humanity. It seems hypocritical in the context of Zerzan’s argument that the more abstract the language, the more inherently alienating and oppressive it becomes. Thus, Zerzan could be considered engaging in (if not fostering) alienation, not only by writing itself but by doing so in a considerably abstruse manner.

In a similar vein, Pendleton Vandiver criticizes Zerzan for his reliance on western academic writing conventions and sources, such as his frequent and extensive use of footnote references.

I've edited the paragraphs above myself an re-added them to the article. --mako ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section mentions Murray Bookchin's criticism of Zerzan (which should be included in the article), but then goes on to mention criticism of Bookchin by Bob Black and others, which does not belong in Zerzan's article unless it is shown clearly that Black and others explicitly defend Zerzan against Bookchin's arguments (I don't know whether they do). 217.233.152.182 (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Zerzan insane and evil, wtf?

well foamy, i guess i'm one of the 1% of the people who disagree with you. in fact, he's one of the only anarcho-primitivists that i agree with almost 100%.

This statement

Zerzan has also on occasion quoted others to claim that, for example, “the Bushmen… can see four moons of Jupiter with the unaided eye” and that there exists “telepathic communication among the !Kung in Africa”. Such claims undermine Zerzan's general credibility.

How does this undermine Zerzan's general credibility? Whiskey Rebellion 18:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no proof for those claims. Many people think we should try to believe things when we have some reason to suppose them true.

There are no proofs for those claims? The reference is made by a wikipedian on a quote that John Zerzan made of another author. What do we know about the original reference and what does it say about John Zerzan's credebility? The fact is that you don't know if there are proofs or not, and we don't know what the original quoting by John Zerzan is.Maziotis (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Does John Zerzan really uphold "embodiment"?

Someone made that connection in the article, but I have my doubts. It seems to me that the only vague connection of the two arises from a suppose atheist belief and as a basis of a view of nature. From what I know from John Zerzan, he does not believe in organized religion, but he is not an atheist neither. I think he might think atheism as a form a rationalization of reality, just like science.

Anyway, I am very interest in the subject and I have some questions. I would like to hear some concrete references regarding the link of the two.Maziotis 04:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

He is probaly a Transtheist rather than an atheist or a theist.--Fang 23 (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

various edits explained

Personal allegations removed from "political development" section in line with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy

Replaced word "condemned" with "criticised" re Unabomber - "condemned" is too strong a term for what he says here.

Citation tag added to "political development" section which is currently uncited.

"Schiz-fluxers" doesn't exist as an article, nor can I see a good reason to add it as a category of people; I linked this quote instead to Deleuze and Guattari who coined "schiz" and linked it to "flux", and whose followers are presumably the target here.

Added some material on controversies about anthropology. (The Kaczynski article criticising Zerzan is in the new issue of AJODA and will probably be online in future).

I had a look through the "criticisms" section and I think the citations tag should be removed; all major criticisms are now cited to at least one source. Although the sources cited here would probably not meet some criteria in most articles (e.g. there's only one source cited, it's difficult to verify prominence of critics), I feel we shouldn't be too strict about this here because of the way the post-left anarchist field is itself constructed and because the article deals with a "minority" figure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.19.3.186 (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Actually a slight qualification: the objection to Zerzan's controversial claims is not referenced. I'm not sure how important this criticism is - firstly because Zerzan is presumably citing these claims to reputable anthropologists (so the issue is really whether Lee or Turnbull or whoever was justified in making them), secondly because their absurdity is in the eye of the beholder (the Jupiter thing for people with exceptional eyesight in an area with low "light pollution" is not unthinkable, and "telepathy" probably refers to empathetic or intuitive communication without language, rather than actual "mindreading"). At the moment this subsection breaches WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR because it's not clear who made the criticism or why. One option would be to cross-reference to articles detailing evidence for the falsity of these claims or to sources challenging the claims in general, though this would probably still be against WP:NOR.

-82.19.3.186 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninist-Maoist?

Is there any proof that Zerzan used to be a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, as stated in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.43.186.49 (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

If no one provides a source, it should be removed in the future.Maziotis 11:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In the May 5 2009 broadcast of his Anarchy Radio show [4] Zerzan mentions (towards the end of the program) his "rigid Marxist-Leninism" during the 1960's. He says that he and his comrades tried to ignore it but the fact was they were orthodox leftists. It is well known that Zerzan abandoned leftism in the 70's and began to criticise it for complicity in the project of industrial civilization. He does not mention Maoism, though. Spitescent (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms (III?)

Just to note that I am deleting the following unsourced criticisms:

Furthermore, some state that he often fails to give a proper context to the many quotations in his work which may lead to a misleading conclusion on the part of the reader in regards to the feelings of the writer quoted. For example:

In 1976, von Glasersfeld wondered "whether, at some future time, it will still seem so obvious that language has enhanced the survival of life on this planet."

The reader is given no background that might explain who von Glasersfeld is, what is the nature of his expertise, or why his observation is relevant to the particular discussion. Moreover, this is not an isolated example. His article on "Time and its Discontents" contains around 250 references to poets, writers, philosophers, scientists, ancient proverbs, and mythological figures, and it would take a considerable degree of time and effort on the part of the reader to verify these quotes in order to confirm their validity and relevance to Zerzan's arguments.

Appropriate to a book review, not an encyclopedia article, and if we can't cite the book review making these critiques, we shouldn't be originating them. Ethan Mitchell 02:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Importance

Though I think this is a fairly frivolous thing to debate, I kinda think that Zerzan deserves at least Mid importance, being that he's one of the most, if not the most, prominent advocate of a strand of anarchism. Pretty much anyone that talks about anarcho-primitivism talks about either Zerzan or Jensen. Anybody disagree? Murderbike (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I rated him as Mid for Anarchism, going on the basis that Emma Goldman was rated High. Probably among the top five most influential contemporary anarchist theorists. As for Oregon and Biography, I'm not qualified to say. Skomorokh ^incite 21:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

geez, I was reading too quickly and must've just looked at the importance for the other projects. Sorry 'bout the mixup! Murderbike (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Photograph

I'm glad that someone submitted a photograph, but I noticed that there's a much clearer one over on Zerzan's Infoshop OpenWiki page: http://www.infoshop.org/wiki/index.php/John_Zerzan Do you think we could use that instead? Or at least add it? No offense to the photographer! It's just that Zerzan is a bit far away in the image currently used.Enslin (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think that photo is much better. What is the copyright status? Maziotis (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember that photo featured on Zerzan's Wikipedia article a couple years ago. Probably deleted for copyright violation/ambiguity. - N1h1l (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lifestyle

Is there any information as to whether Zerzan actually adheres to his philosophy in any way? Does he, for example, live in a house, eat farmed food, use electricity, mains water, computers or telecommunications, any form of mechanized travel, or modern medical care? If he does, has he made any effort to justify this? -- Quintasp (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very good point indeed, and not at all a shallow, flippant, critique -- many people point to the fact that the 'neo primitivists' are very much in thrall to technology, and seem to live much of their lives mediated by.....technology ! The very monster they are attacking ! How does that work exactly ? It seems similar to a lot of 'anti modernity' Buddhist monks, who profess to live as hermits, meditating in caves and forests....but then seem to have a facebook profile, mobile phones and email accounts. Is there a but of self delusion going on here, and projection? Anyone feel up to the task of adding that critique to the Zerzan page ( backed up by sources/quotes etc )? Zerzan seems to be very 'techno savvy' and hip to how technology can be used to spread his anti technology raison d'etre. Something is ammiss here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutherfordlad (talk • contribs) 07:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John Zerzan/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*Should open with a section on his early life and education before launching into his work (current section is very short and in the wrong place) Needs citations for dubious comments Image is a candidate for deletion Far too many red links Finally, expand on the lead section a little to summarize the content of the article into 3 or so paragraphs

Last edited at 07:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)