Talk:James Howard Kunstler
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
- The final paragraph before the external links is entirely accusatory. It requires balancing. 198.65.167.213
- I suppose that's fair. I added the last graf based on conversations I've had about Kunstler, and attitudes toward him, with numerous faculty members at a large, ideologically diverse urban planning department (the School of Policy, Planning, and Development at the University of Southern California). I welcome any modifications, and responses to his supporters explaining his attitudes. --Slightlyslack 20:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- It might be best to "pad" that a bit: A statement that's right on the end often carries a lot more clout than it would if it was elsewhere... Balance it with something? --Edward Wakelin 13:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I'd add that the two snippets of Kunstler text (comments on suburbia) are taken so severely out of context as to lead the viewer of this entry to believe that Kunstler is an anti-American suburb-hater. In fact, Kunstler believes in America and Americans, but is trying to show how far adrift we are from reality with respect to how we've spent our resources and continue to do so, and showcases the suburb as Exhibit A. Kunstler indeed has no use for the suburbs, but as he thoroughly explains in The Long Emergency, this is because of the incomprehensible waste and unsustainability they represent. In other words, it's the waste and unsustainability that he hates, NOT America, as the provided narrow snippets of text imply.--netkat, Oct 2005
-
-
i think an important part about understanding Kunstler is his hatred for bourgeoise america. he hated it before he started plugging peak oil and was advocating against it. i don't think it is problematic to include something along these lines. after listening to him at petrocollapse i am confident that he hates america and americans.
How about some discussion of Kunstler as a cultural or political ecologist -- clearly his works examine the cultural ecology of Western industrialism.
the man is a kook. I can't trust him, obviously he has an agenda. He has hated the current American system for so long that he is looking for any reason to talk about its doom. Does he have any experience in the field of oil and gas recovery or geology. If you want to know about peak oil I would recommend someone like Matthew Simmons or someone else remotely credible.
Well, if the definition of "kook" is a person who is speaking reality which nobody is prepared to confront, then Kunstler's your man. I don't find him a hateful person at all, but he is rightly critical of the way we've squandered opportunity and resources on a "living arrangement which has no future." A hateful person would gladly let you live that way; a loving person would warn you against it.
I have not read Kunstler's book yet. But I saw The End of Suburbia, noting his language towards the end. Personally, I get offended when people are offended at my own profanity. But as for this article, I can imagine that the substance of Kunstler's book is a lot more important than his style. I think we should focus more on getting important information in the article. We can nit-pick his language later.
Also, what agenda could Kunstler possibly have? Did you note that he tends to agree on a lot of points with Simmons? Do you have any basis for what you are saying? This kind of thing always amazes me. Someone, typically on the left side of the political fence, makes a cogent argument that doesn't line up well with traditional agenda, then the "traditionalists" accuse them of hating America, the middle class, or whatever. It's playground politics. Counter him with something better than calling him a kook. Surely, you can do better.
-tom--11/26/05
I once read an article written by Kunstler right after 9-11 where he bashes the idea of skyscrapers. -- Jakarta
______ with respect to suburbs: it's not hard to see why they are unsustainable: spread out, driving required for everything, and ultra-high maintenence. Skyscrapers are not build for good ventilation without a hugely expensive, energy-drinking HVAC system. you can't crack open a window in the Sears Tower to get fresh air. Kunstler rightly attacks the dumb moves we have made as a culture, and for this he draws fire. but I predict that his critics will cry the loudest when the consequences of a faltering oil supply begin to manifest, as they'll have denied themselves into incapacity.
This is all fine and dandy, but what do you all propose be done about the article? Isn't that what we are supposed to discuss on this discussion page?
I think that it is important that the notes about Kunstler's style be there, but they may not need to be as in-your-face as Kunstler's writings themselves are. I think that the last paragraph looks like it has become a dumping ground for miscellaneous points, and maybe they need to be expanded out a bit into a few paragraphs. That might take the "last paragraph kick" off of the commentary about his use of language.
Agreed. I'd suggest that an editor strain off the misc. points and attack verbage and confine the article to the facts. Kunstler talks about a volatile subject; I think we all agree on that. but the instant we begin to discuss the validity of his points, or to assign motivations for making them, the discussion decays into debate which isn't the focus of the wikipedia. Example: JHK in fact does not care for skyscrapers or suburbia. But rather than saying he "bashes" them or "hates" America, let's say that JHK feels that the suburbs are unsustainable, impractical. The latter being less inflammatory, more accurate with respect to what JHK has actually said and written, and perhaps gives the wiki reader motivation to investigate JHK's views for her/himself.
I'm removing the words "enormously popular" and "enormously compelling," which seem to violate NPOV, if only by virtue of overenthusiasm. Even if one were to apply the latter description to, let's say, the TV show "CSI," it would still be an opinion, not a verifiable fact. 205.188.116.72 09:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: I left in the word "compelling," but qualified that sentence (and the one about Kunstler's use of narrative) to attempt to better conform to NPOV. 205.188.116.72 09:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
