Talk:Dyer Lum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Dyer Lum has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
November 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Dyer Lum was featured as the Anarchism portal selected article for February 2008.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Skomorokh (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Ideological identification

McElroy, "Debates of Liberty" says Lum was an anarcho-communist. The source being used in this article to say he was an individualist did not say that. It just said he was a contributor to "Liberty." That makes sense now, because the things in this article and his quotes didn't seem individualist to me. Operation Spooner 18:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was my mistake. The source said his relative worked for Gompers, an individualist anarchist, not that Lum was an individualist anarchist. Thanks for catching that. I have to question the appropriety of the "anarcho-communist" identification however — it seems to contradict his market-orientated philosophy as described in the Thought section. Can you provide the quote from McElroy? Skomorokh incite 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's one clue in his quote in this article: "The tradesman would find that production offered greater inducement than exchange..." Here's a quote from McElroy: "On the next page of Liberty, an article by Appleton entitled "The Boston Anarchists" spelled out the peaceful principles and policies of Individualist Anarchism, which stood in stark contrast to those of Communist Anarchism...In the same issue on the opposing page, The Communist Anarchist Dyer D. Lum complained that 'the ggrave situation in which the Chicago Communists' (if you will) are placed demands...more than dissertations or well-rounded and careful distinctions b 'X' [Appleton] between 'Boston Anarchists' and the 'savage Communists of Chicago." I'm reading that Tucker and Yarros were in disputes in Liberty. Tucker called the people at the Haymarket Incident fake anarchists, etc, and Lum didn't like that. Operation Spooner 18:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
"Lum was on cordial terms with Liberty...but he became severely critical of Tucker's stand on the Haymmarket Incident." That's McElroy too. Operation Spooner 19:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reread Lum's essay in Parsons. Lum doesn't call himself either individualist or communist in the work, but his proposals are characteristically individualist and/or mutualist: pt 1:

It says to the financier: -Your function in society should not lie determined by monopoly, but under equal opportunities. Your privileges are our restriction; your charters our disenfranchisement. We demand freedom to co-operate in financial as in other matters; to co-operate for mutual banking is well as for mutual insurance; and when you are shorn of privileges we may co-operate to base credit upon all wealth as well as on that you would dictate. For equal opportunities would destroy your prerogative to fashion and control a medium of exchange. Justice would reign and interest cease, because it could not [?]. It says to the landlord; Equal opportunities give you no monopoly of the soil. Again, monopoly has conferred a chartered right and men are disinherited. Destroy this chartered privilege and strong wins [?] will labor with joy and find in mutual credit new avenues to invade the province of nature. Co-operation would enlarge production. extend consumption and equalize distribution. Overproduction and underconsumption would become myths, and demand would seek supply with unfailing regularity without other guarantee than absence of restriction.

To them all it says: gentlemen, we ask no privilege, -we propose no restriction; nor, on the other hand will we permit it. We have no new shackles to propose, -we seek emancipation from shackles. We ask no legislative sanction for co-operation asks only for "A free field and no favors; neither will we permit their interference."

It asserts that in freedom of the social unit [individual?] lies the freedom of the social state [collective?]. It asserts that in freedom to the capitalization of all acquired wealth lies social advancement and the death of interest.

pt 2:

To follow a given course, to advocate certain measures, there must be sufficient inducement therein to satisfy my mind that such is for my interest to do so.

Okay, that sums up my reasons for disputing McElroy's classification. Hang on, I'll look further, and read more of Lum and commentaries on Lum. Jacob Haller 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lum on rights

Lum discusses his view of rights in Liberty, vol. 6 no. 25, or #155. Jacob Haller 20:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He discusses some of the same issues in the Alarm, Nature of Rights, April 3rd, 1886:

The struggle of the age is for freedom to the individual, freedom of contract, freedom to compete, unfettered by the incubus of legalized privilege. It is not so much an assertion of "rights," as a demand for equality of opportunities. Our battle is to strike down legalized privilege, whether of the few or the many, of the monopolist or the mob. That battle won, natural rights will take care of themselves. And only when the natural rights of the individual are thus left free to assert themselves, will there complete accord with alleged "rights of society."

Again, this looks like classic individualist anarchism. Jacob Haller 20:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Descriptions of Lum's views

Presley, in Exquisite Rebel: Voltairine de Cleyre contrasts Lum's "mutualism" with Tucker's "individualism," and later describes Lum as an "anarchist without adjectives." Jacob Haller 21:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The journal Freedom, vol. 2, no. 17, February 1888, states that:

Accordingly we find Individualist Anarchism represented in Australia by the Melbourne "Honesty", and in America by four or five papers: "Liberty" in Boston, "Lucifer" and the "Sun" in Kansas and, since its revival by Dyer Lum, the "Alarm" in Chicago.

Crass, in Voltairine de Cleyre: A Biographical Sketch describes both (Lum and de Cleyre) as "anarchists without adjectives." Jacob Haller 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we really need to debate among ourselves with a source is correct or not. It doesn't matter if it's correct. If someone says he was a communist and another source says he was an individualist, you just say "According to X, he was a communist, but according to Y he was an individualist, and according to X he was an anarchist without adjectives." Wikipedia is not about truth but whether something can be found in a source. Operation Spooner 22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
People's views change over time too. Someone can be a communist yesterday but an individulist today. Operation Spooner 23:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
So we're all agreed the lede should state simply "anarchist" and the disagreeing sources should only be mentioned in the Thought section?Skomorokh incite 23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, since it's so ambiguous. Operation Spooner 03:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 9, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Mostly very well-written, the prose was a pleasure to read. However, there are some Manual of Style issues. Block-quote formatting should not be used for quotes that are less than four lines or not multiple paragraphs. The currently inappropriate quotations need expanding or simple removal.
2. Factually accurate?: The application of inline citations is perfect, nice work. However, the article makes extensive use of a reference (number 8) to a blog. Blogs are disallowed as self-published sources. There is a note that insists it is an "article", but to be an article it must be published somewhere other than in the blog. I do not see any reference to this in the link. According to the directives of WP:SPS, this source can only be allowed if "...produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I see reference to one book he authored, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy. Unfortunately, as a product of the self-publishing and print on demand company BookSurge, this work is also considered a self-published work. The bottom line here seems to be that this source is completely inappropriate to use. It needs to be removed and replaced.
3. Broad in coverage?: Covers all the major points sufficiently for GA status.
4. Neutral point of view?: Covers all signifcant POVs with fair treatment.
5. Article stability? Not the subject of future events or edit wars.
6. Images?: Accounted for with proper license tags where present.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— VanTucky Talk 02:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!

First of all, thank you for going to the trouble of reviewing the article so thoroughly. I have a few points to make on your objections, which I include below. Skomorokh incite 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of blockquotes

There is only one block quote in the article, at the end of the Thought section, six and a half lines long in my browser. WP:MOSQUOTE states that block quotes should be used when quotes are four lines long or longer. Am I missing something here? Is it the Template:epigraphs you take issues with? They seem appropriately short pull-quotes. If you could please clarify, I'm sure we can solve this, thanks. Skomorokh incite 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is the epigraph quotes at the beginning of each section. It is my understanding of MOS that whatever the template, they qualify as block quoting. If you can show me a guideline specifically for the epigraph template that contradicts this, I'd be happy to retract the request. However, there may be a way to include short pull quotes without contradicting MOSQUOTE. Let me look around. I just remembered the definition of epigraph. Duh. Those are fine. VanTucky Talk 20:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Great, I was worried there for a second that I'm not using them appropriately; I've been sprinkling them liberally throughout the FA-aspirant William Gibson article. Skomorokh incite 11:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of self-published source

The Carson reference is central to the article, comprising most of the Thought section, and removing it would greatly reduce its quality I fear. Kevin A. Carson is the foremost current mutualist thinker, and the book you mentioned achieved unprecedented attention for a mutualist work, warranting an entire issue of critical review from the Journal of Libertarian Studies, including articles by Roderick Long, Robert P. Murphy and Walter Block,[1] and has been separately reviewed by George Reisman.[2][3]

Carson's work in the relevant field has previously been published on multiple occasions in independent, third party publications such as Libertarian Alliance,[4], [5], and the Journal of Libertarian Studies,[6] thus qualifying him under WP:SPS. Skomorokh incite 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Great work, I wasn't able to find any of that work in my search. Glad we could resolve that he's reliable for use in this article. However, the book is still a self-published source, whatever accolades it acquired. I would be careful in using it in the future. VanTucky Talk 20:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we resolved all the issues I brought up sufficiently. I'll pass the article shortly. Thanks for your thorough response! VanTucky Talk 20:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A pleasure to work with you. Skomorokh incite 11:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you've already reached agreement. If User:Libertatia has time you might want to talk with him. Jacob Haller 18:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the relevance. Please explain (not that I'm unwilling to help...) VanTucky Talk 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)