Talk:Derrick Jensen/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

VIOLENCE

Is Jensen calling for civilization to be destroyed by violent means (e.g., blowing up dams)? The text of this article seems to hint at that, and yet never comes out and explicitly states it. If this is, indeed, what he is both open to and ultimately advocating, then that needs to be stated clearly in the text. Jkp1187 (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

First, I would recommend reading Endgame. Second, that depends on how you define "violence". Some people don't consider property destruction to be violent, while others do. Jensen definitely advocates getting rid of dams, and definitely getting rid of civ. Murderbike (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

POV

Someone keeps adding POV stuff to this article, adding descriptions like "all-too-real" and deleting unflattering material about this fringe figure whose principal agenda these days is promoting the detonation of dams, cell phone towers, and elected officials. If you agree with that, fine, but Wikipedia isn't the place to give makeovers to radicals so they come off like Bill Moyers. JG

-Yeah but it's too bad there is ORIGINAL "pov" stuff in the article, like how he's an "anarchist" (he does not claim this label), and that he is friends with Ward - although they are colleagues, Derrick pointed out recently he's also friends with Joan Baez - why isn't she listed there? This entry serves to paint Jensen in such a light that he is dangerous or an eco-terrorist, and that should be why there are issues with its' "neutrality". Since when does an activist who is interested in protecting Earth get slandered with Johnny-come-lately views of "radicals"? Stupid. This is why Wikipedia is a piece of crap.

nf1 why not let Derrick and other people in wikipedia write their own biographies? TL

JG is simply wrong about my positions, and certainly is in no position to state what my "principal agenda" is these days. Further, I'm not sure that the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the Nieman Foundation at Harvard would precisely agree that I am a "fringe figure," else they would not have given The Culture of Make Believe an award as one of three finalists for the Lukas Prize Project Award for Exceptional Works of Nonfiction. I'm also not sure that The Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA would agree either, else the students would not have voted me their commencement speaker last year, nor would the university have invited me. Nor the hundreds of people who routinely pack auditoriums. And so on. It's really clear that JG and perhaps others are really disturbed by what I say. That's fine. But there's no reason for them to distort my views, to disparage me or my work, and, as happened before this most recent round of edits, to put in material that is positively libelous. Having someone who clearly does not understand and who clearly does not like an author's work write the entry for that person makes no sense. It's a really bad idea. Why don't we have me write George Bush's entry? Why don't we have people who hate rap write entries for rap musicians? Why don't we have homophobes write entries for important gay rights activists? It makes no more sense to have someone like JG slant (read destroy) an entry about me than it does to have any of these other possibilities. Derrick Jensen

I've yet to read anything by you (yet) so I've had trouble figuring out what stuff is correct and what isn't. I'll try to find some editors who are more familiar with your work to watch this page as well (I have two in mind). The Ungovernable Force 05:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking a lot more about this, and I think it really goes to the heart of what wikipedia is trying to accomplish. If the purpose of these entries is to make it so people who have some axe to grind or who don't like someone else's work have an outlet to express that dislike, then that is one thing. But that frankly doesn't seem like a very useful encyclopedia. If you'd like to generate something that gives a reasonably accurate synopsis of an artist's or philosopher's work, I'd be happy to help (including choosing quotes that more accurately exemplify my work). It seems to me that one of the goals of wikipedia would be to give reasonably accurate synopses. Derrick Jensen

I think it would be great if you could contribute some additions or deletions to steer the entry in a more accurate direction. You could type "correction by subject of entry" in the "Edit summary" field (or become a registered user) so contributors know that a contribution has your full approval. If you have specific questions for me, I'd be happy to try to answer them on my talk page.
--LC | Talk 22:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is currently in a pretty poor state - much of it reads more like a eulogy than a dispassionate, objective account of Derrick Jensen's work and any existing commentary on it. I get the impression that the article is actually endorsing many of his controversial views, which is not what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Nor should it contain any material that reads like a hatchet job (if there's anything like that that I missed on a quick reading). It should simply be factual, though it can report in a factual way on what notable criticisms have been made publicly at this stage. Derrick J. has offered to help, but of course that potentially creates a conflict of interest if he actually edits the page (unless any edits are restricted to non-contentious material or to removing any defamatory etc allegations that appear from time to time). We discourage people editing their own articles, though I personally have no problem if all that is added is uncontentious factual material. However, the best way he could help - and this is what we actually encourage - would be by using this talk page to draw our attention to any significant matters of fact that are not currently covered in the article. Metamagician3000 23:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I should add that if any libellous material appears and is brought to my attention I will take a dim view of it. As an admin I can take action against anonymous users who are here only to defame people they don't like - but I'd need to see a clear-cut case, rather than getting dragged into something murky. If false and defamatory material is added at any point, DJ has every right to remove it himself, as does anybody else. Metamagician3000 23:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I've done a thorough cleanup of the article and am now much happier with it. It should now be clear what Jensen says, and that it is being reported neutrally by Wikipedia (not supported or advocated). Any factual corrections or elaborations welcomed, though I still respectfully suggest, in accordance with normal Wikipedia practice, that anything at all contentious and non-urgent be put here on the talk page if it is from DJ himself. Metamagician3000 05:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Good cleanup. It looks like there aren't any more problems with anons though, but it would be good to still keep an eye on it. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I carried on the cleanup and therefore will remove the 'wikify' tag .. i think the 'verify' tag can also go, but im happy to see what other people think first Mujinga 13:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Verify

This article needs citations. Stat. I've transwiki'd the quotes to Wikiquote, fixed the image format problem, and removed the POV tag, as I don't see anything particularly POV about the article. If anyone wants to re-add it, I suggest commenting on the talk page first. Regards, - FrancisTyers · 20:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Persistent Defamatory Vandalism

The revisions made by IPs 72.72.130.247 and 67.161.16.209 on 14 August and 17 August 2006 qualify as libel, and will continue to be removed in accordance with the Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy. If the vandalism continues, I believe there are grounds for locking this entry to registered users. As for the documented quotations within the libelous revisions (from HopeDance and CounterPunch), I will add links to the source web pages where said quotes can be found. Readers can judge them for themselves, in context. If contributors feel criticism of Jensen should be articulated somewhere within the entry, they should first discuss the issues on this discussion page (excluding defamatory accusations, per Wikipedia policy). However, since there is no published criticism of Jensen that I am aware of, I doubt that the required citations would be available. LC | Talk 03:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

End: Civ

In the section on films, it says I am working on the film End: Civ. That film is out, and I didn't work on it. I was interviewed for it, and my work informed it, but the film was by Frank Lopez. Thank you, Derrick68.116.126.71 (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Jensen, more than an anarcho-primitivist?

The fact that Jensen writes about misogyny and racism makes him more of an anarcho-primitivist author. These topics are not just related to anarcho-primitivism, they are a part of it. I suggest you read the article "Place the blame where it belongs", by collective green anarchy. http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/placeblame.htm Maziotis 19:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Should Jensen be described as an anarcho-primitivist?

Jensen says he rejects the label "primitivist" in an interview in Canadian Dimension magazine (March/April 2011, vol. 45 issue 2 http://canadiandimension.com/magazine/issue/march-april-2011. Full article can be found here: http://zoeblunt.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/uncivilized/)

"In an interview earlier this year, Jensen said he rejects the term 'primitivist' because it’s a 'racist way to describe indigenous peoples.' He prefers 'indigenist' or 'ally to the indigenous,' because 'indigenous peoples have had the only sustainable human social organizations, and … we need to recognize that we [colonizers] are all living on stolen land.'" ZoeBlunt (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Jensen also seems ambivalent about describing himself as an an anarchist. "Do I self identify as an anarchist? Sometimes. It’s a label. Like any other label, I guess I’ll use it when it feels right, and I won’t use it when it doesn’t feel right." (Interview Anarchist Fiction Writers project, reposted at Infoshop.org - Google cache here as the site seems to be down. ZoeBlunt (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Derrick has made it clear that he didn't want to be called an "anarcho-primitivist" before, but until now we haven't had a reliable source with which to make that clear on this site. Owen (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Great to hear. I'm looking for a proper citation for the anarcho-primitivist label, but I haven't found a reference that meets the source requirements. This piece looks like an academic article, but it doesn't seem to be published anywhere except a few blogs. It also gives no citations for claiming Jensen is an anarcho-primitivist. While looking for sources, I found a couple places where self-identified anarcho-primitivists argue that Jensen is not one of their number. The guidelines for biographies of living persons say: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately." Is it fair to say the "anarcho-primitivist" label is contentious? And if this label is removed, how do we describe Jensen's philosophy? ZoeBlunt (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I've found some sources (via Google Books) that refer to his work as anarcho-primitivist. So I've included these as references. These sources did not directly refer to him as an anarcho-primitivist, however. Derrick has also told me that he is writing an essay to thoroughly set the matter straight with people. Owen (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Further Reading?

This section seems irrelevant to Jensen. The readings are related to his ideas, but perhaps don't belong in an article about the person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.153.125 (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Its placement here is haphazard and should be cleaned up. As it is, it's just a loose collection of works and authors that may have thematic or political affinities to Jensen. I'm going to delete it - if somebody would like to reincorporate it in a different form (influenced, influenced by, but with adequate citation), or link to a separate article that covers both Jensen's critique and those of the other authors cited, that would be great. Sindinero (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Books Section: non-fiction, fiction and forthcoming

Hey All, was just wondering if this article's 'books' section can be better divided between non-fiction, fiction and forthcoming works. Jensen is making a departure towards writing more fiction works. Whilst these are still about the same themes as his previous works, they are stories rather than political science or geoscience texts. Given that he is also very prolific as an author, would it be an idea to include a section on forthcoming works (for instance, he has just completed a book on why he is not an anarcho-primitivist which is with his editor now, is in the process of agreeing artwork for a book of short stories, and next is intent on working on the bright green lies book). Thoughts? Thank you. Shelly Pixie (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Self-promotion?

Just a hunch. I don't have time to try to check it out but to me the whole article reads a bit like an ad. To me it's more than a bit sus for someone who identifies as an anarchist to be summarised in the lead paragraph in terms of his qualifications and employment history! To click through to his website and see very little freely available material points to a reliance on intellectal property law (a power structure backed up by the state monopoly on violence, for anyone who needs reminding of anarchist prinicples...) for the extraction of profit, again not really befitting the image that is portrayed. Like I said... just a hunch. If anyone has time, it would be worth looking into how seriously his views have been taken by other notable environmental or leftist thinkers. Yes I realise this is also an appeal to authority... I'm uncomfortable with the notability criterion too, but then again without it there would be no Wikipedia.--Russell E (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Jensen is not an anarchist. Various court cases and documentaries have pointed towards his work being of central importance to EF!, ELF and ALF. Which I realise needs to be sourced in order to be included. Given his extensive publication history, awards won, and significant secondary sources, this should be sufficient for notoriety rules in wiki. Shelly Pixie (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Derrick Jensen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Errors in etymology

The etymology of the word civilization given by Jensen is faithfully reproduced in the article, but contains some errors. First, the Latin word for city or city-state is civitas, not civitatis; the latter is the Latin genitive of civitas, meaning of the city. More importantly, civis is not derived from civitas; rather, it is the other way around. A civis is a resident, someone who has settled in some location, originally Rome. Civitas is formed from civis by adding the suffix -itas, like unitas (one-ness) is formed from unus (one). The original meaning is the civis-ship, the community of residents of an inhabited place.

While we as editors should avoid indulging in original research, we should also not reproduce statements "as is" when we know them to be erroneous just because there is a "reliable" source. It is easily verified from any standard etymological source (e.g., Harper, Douglas. "city". Online Etymology Dictionary.; see also Lewis & Short civis and civitas), that Jensen's presentation is incorrect.  --Lambiam 21:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Derrick Jensen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed external links

The external links then-present in the article are not appropriate per WP:EL. Below is the list as I suspect some may be useful in sourcing a position or three about the person.

--Izno (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, too many. Thanks for copying them here. Zezen (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

I went to clean up the excess of primary and affiliated sources in this article and found surprisingly little encyclopedic material—mostly interviews and activist journals and next to no reliable, secondary source coverage of Jensen beyond passing mentions. Anyone have additional sources? czar 11:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Derrick_Jensen/Archive_1&oldid=1136659182"