Talk:Luddite/Archive 1

Plea for Historical Perspective in _this_ article
This article used to say it was about the historical perspective (and so would principally be a UK Topic). I think this is an important enough area to keep it with that tack and to discuss the other broader, softer issues elsewhere. Comments? Linuxlad 18:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Support of Luddism?
The article has a section on criticism of Luddism, but lacks anything supporting it. I think it should at least be mentioned.--RLent (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The phrase "Luddite" is pretty international, as is the concept.  The root of the concept may have originated in the UK, but so did postage stamps, and nobody suggests that the article on those should be written with sole reference to the UK. Legis 10:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, with respect I think you are disagreeing!!. The historical term is too important to be internationalised into a vague techno-ramble. Postage stamps are clearly a rather diferent sort of animal! Bob aka Linuxlad 16:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside why you are claiming that Legis disagrees with me despite indicating agreement, if the Luddite movement of the early 19th century stands isolated from everything else in history, then it is meaningless. There is a very casual usage of the word to indicate someone who doesn't buy the latest gadget, but many today have the same about the effect of technology on their workplace as did the 19th century Luddites. Someone who doesn't buy each new version of the iPod isn't really a Luddite, of course. But the word is properly used to describe someone who is resistant to technological change because of potential social or workplace changes. The existing criticism section focuses on modern use of the word, surely if there is a support section, it should also focus on modern use of the word.--RLent (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV edit
Removed some POV in the account of Thompson's view, e.g. "The best explanation..." -> "Thompson's explanation...". The plight of the worker in post-industrial England, compared to pre-industrial, needs better sourcing if it is to stay. Please discuss here if putting it back.

Er have you actually read the Thompson book? It is extremely well referenced and its point of view has stood the test of time as a _valid_ one. Moreover, it is a view by a recognised authority and so has validity in WP in its own right. You're entitled to state your own POV (though not to represent it as 'conventional') I give notice of a substantial reversion being needed.Linuxlad

Added a 'Criticism of Luddism' section to balance Thompson's view.

This is an English-origin topic - can we at least agree on 'Defence' please


 * That's fine with me. I think we should include it, however spelled, because pronouncing one scholar 'the winner' of any debate is the very soul of NPOV.  Stancollins 16:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Pitched battles
Should pitched battles be linked? I think so, since many (including me) may not know what a pithced battle is. --Spazzm 15:20, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Ridiculous. It's simply a figure of speech, and defining those is not an encyclopedia's place.
 * I think you miss the part of the point of the wikipedia if you hold this position. The genius of this service as compared to traditional encyclopediae is the instantaneous ability to gain further background information on any concept a reader might legitimately be unaware of. Of course, 'pitched battle' happens to have no page in either the Wikipedia or the Wiktionary (even though it is quite common in dictionaries), so the question may be a bit moot as of now.
 * Further, it may not be accurate as, looking it up, a 'pitched battle' is one where the forces on each side are arrayed in a predetermined pattern (like regular armies). This may or may not have been true of these battles.
 * -- stancollins 08 June, 2005


 * I am always in favour of linking phrases. If someone clicks a link then de facto they either wondered what it means, or want to know more about it.  If there is an article to it, then a link does no harm (you don't force anyone to click it!  Although I confess, I do draw the link at people who insist on turning every date and every country in their article into a link).  On the other hand, I agree that not every turn of phrase deserves a Wikipedia article to explain it, but that relates more to whether a subject deserves an article, rather than whether an article needs a link. Legis 10:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Naturalism
What's with the link to Naturalism? Is this supposed to link to Naturism? - RealGrouchy 02:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Critics of Luddism
I felt the need to bulk up this section a good bit, as the overall page was still quite favorable. Frankly, most of mainstream thought still considers the goals of Luddism to be dubious and the means with which the Luddites pursued them egregious--and not entirely without reason. One can arguably study the actual historical Luddism and still use the word 'Luddite' as an insult.

--stancollins 08 June, 2005


 * The section was removed without comment by ViolentGreen, making it atrocious from an NPOV perspective, as in this form it includes an elaborate refutation of a charge not even made in the article. I will endeavor to fix. -- Stancollins 19:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I accept the term 'conservative' as applied to critics of Luddism, though I would imagine, in this case, that 90% of all those who are familiar with Luddism would qualify as being that 'conservative.' (I would imagine basically anyone who isn't a Communist, syndecalist, anarchist, or something similar wouldn't approve of just breaking things as the way to express yourself.)  However, the 'neo' had to go. This view has most definitely been around longer than there has been such a thing as a 'neocon.'

Also, I'm curious why it must be Forster's 'view', and not 'defense.' What is a point-by-point refutation of charges made against a person or group, if not a defense? Defense is a better word, as a 'view' can be expressed casually or for no purpose. Thorough comments made for the purpose of exhoneration is a defense, and I hardly consider the word 'defense' NPOV. Stancollins 16:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not accept the term 'conservative' as applied to critics of Luddism. There is nothing liberal or conservative of opposing technologial changes that people fear will cost jobs, such sentiments can be found both from the right and the left. And there is nothing liberal or conservative about breaking things. Stricly speaking, the Luddites were conservative, in the old-fashioned sense of keeping things as they were.--RLent (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thompson (NOT Forster) wrote a very substantial book on working-class history of this period (and it wasn't his last :-) - he had a world-view, spread over several thousand pages of scholarship, not a 'point-by-point' defence statement. The use of the word conservative used in an article like this has to have its English not US meaning (unless you wish to explicitly qualify it as (US)), and is too mild for your views. Most English 'conservatives' (well, most of my generation!) would see your view of Luddism as 'terrorism' as caricature. Please offer or accept alternatives.Bob At the last we have to accept in the best WP tradition that we're both 'right' within our own spheres of reference, and need to make these areas clear)


 * No, upon further review, I think the word 'terrorism' is too hot-button, and more than necessary in describing solely economic sabotage. I got rid of that term.  With your pardon, I am about to revert, though, to 'Defence', because I don't believe the word 'defence' necessarily has a negative connotation, other than one that would derive from being charged with a crime, which they clearly were.


 * One hears phrases like 'heroic defence' etc etc, all the time. And I don't mean to characterize the entire work as a 'defence,' but just a section within it, in which it seems Thompson defends the Luddites against charges like like technophobic thuggery.


 * I hope that makes for an adequate defense of my use of the word defence. :-) Stancollins 19:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a defence! Have you actually read Making of the English Working Class!? Let's agree an arbitrator, preferably an English historian, before we drive each other potty. Bob


 * I have not, and that's precisely the point. What's presented here is clearly a defence, a point-by-point refutation of 'myth's about Luddism and the Luddites.  If that mischaracterizes the work, that needs to be explained in the text.  I strongly suspect, however, that it does not; the reviews of the work indicate that, important as it is, it is written essentially through the lens of a sympathizer.


 * However, if you wish to change it back (whether through an abritrator or not), I will not revert again. If at first you don't suceed, try, try again.  If you still fail, give up. Stancollins 17:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

A few comments by way of closeout. The point-by-point style of the Thompson section here is not of course Thompson's - what's presented in WP is an adequate 3rd party precis of material scattered over the book(s). (So it's ANOther's defence based on EPT's historical-view). If you consider it a partial statement and so to be characterised as biased advocacy then I'm sure you'll conceded that your own addition appears similarly biased to many of us, and so needs to be characterised as as 'attack' on the Luddites rather than just a critique :-).


 * I apologise. ;-).  I am used to the word 'criticism' (as distinguished from 'critique') being synonymous with 'negative view' (unless used in the literary sense, but Luddism itself is not literature), so I thought that was understood already.  I was deliberately including only the main disfavourable views to balance off an obviously favourable one. I also think I did a more than fair job of attributing these views to a certain type of critic, so I think in context the meaning was clear. --Stancollins 03:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

We will never fully appreciate the stresses and strains of life of the North Midland stockingers and other workers during the turmoil and hardship of the early 18th century, even those of us who were born near the area - but EPT did at least try to unpick the historical record and lay some of the myths. His views deserve respect, and part of that respect is to present the views as valid (I use the word carefully), and not to impute partiality to them by using the word 'defence' on first presentation. Thank you for conceding on this point. Bob Linuxlad


 * OK, I can see that. However, I think this article incomplete unless it includes at least one more direct treatment of the topic by a serious author.  --Stancollins 03:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Amplification from James Burke, a famous English writier, scientist, and actor (see 'Connections' series): Luddite incident in England reputed to have begun 11 Mar 1811. A crowd of weavers in Nottingham were protesting the widespread use of the automated weaving frame, representing not a fight agaisnt technology and industrialists, but a response to the threat to their livelihood and means of income. Unable to attend a formal training or school structure (like modern peopel are today), the protesters had no otehr trade for which they were qualified as workers. The demonstration wa broken up forcefully by dragoons resulting in injuries to crowd members; the demonstration then became a protest against the governments lack of consideration for their position. A leader soon arose who called himself 'General Ned Ludd', which was term inspiration for the term Luddites. the members took to wearing masks and smashing the weaving frames tht poased a threat to their livihood which was interpretted b y teh governemtn as a reaction to the change in technology. nwilliams111 22 Jan 2006

Amplification from N. Williams, international political and behavioural anlayst: The term Luddite is often confused with two distinctly different attitudes towards technology: first, the complete opposition to any form of technological change, and second the perception of technological change that poses either benevolent or malevolent effects on the cultural beliefs of a person, group, or nation. While many of the first type do exist (i.e. Unibomber), most are of the second type, with various examples throughout history.

- American Civil War: Southern states were exhibiting Luddite ideology by opposing automation efforts of the northern states that they viewed as threatening their way of life. at the same time they had no problem with other forms of technology that provided them with a better class of life (i.e. medicine, refrigerators, rifles, iron-clad ships, etc.). The south decided to settle the issue by force of arms; the south lost. - British coal miners who opposed the decision by the UK goedrnment to no longer use coal as a viable fuel source; faced with no other employment capabilities (many of them knew no other work than coal mining), they went on a lengthy wildcat strike, built up popular support, and eventually forced the government to delay the decision to abandon coal fuel for 20 years, and alsop negotiated a governmetn commitment to retrain every coal miner for another occupation. - American unions, faced radical changes proposed by management to combat foreign 'lean management' tactics and widespread globalization, are rather like the Luddites in that they are completely opposed to technological change that currently threatens their job status and tenure, and will use force during strikes. - Palestinian terrorist are in a similiar position of Luddite ideology; faced with the withdrawl of Israeli forces and settlements from the Gaza strip, many paramilitary/terrorist group members are now completely unskilled for any kind of work that does not involve using weapns to kill non-Palestinians. Some have responded by kidnapping (other palestinians) and demanding jobs as police officers or state militia. The chance of being hired remains slim.

- As an end note, opposition to technology perceived as maleveolent to the affected culture is one of the three basic causes of the creation of terrorist organizations or motivating persons towards joining/supporting terrorist organizations. nwilliams111 22 Jan 2006.

I find this whole debate astonishingly ill-informed. Thompson was actually an upholder of fairly traditional views on the Luddites. Granted, he does tend to write sympathetically of working class movements - something you would rather expect of a Marxist historian. The problem is that he tends to take the traditional view that their prime motivation was to attack technology. If that were so, they would surely have attacked the most innovative employers. In reality, they smashed the machines and physically assaulted simply those who had the worst local reputation as exploiters and oppressors, irrespective of the technical refinements they had installed. This is the pattern we find also with the Captain Swing rioters of c.1830. The rioters did occasionally express themselves in anonymous letters, but seldom if ever to demand the removal of machines: they mostly cursed and threatened unpopular employers and law enforcers. The general tenor of coverage in both the article and much of the discussion seems almost ahistorical. There are even people commenting here who can write about Luddism as a bad form of self-expression, as if workers in 1812 had some other way to express themselves. They had no vote and were not deported if they formed unions. Emergency laws had practically suppressed public assembly and there was heavy censorship of the press. These were hard times, with bread prices reaching record levels. The Hobsbawm tag about "collective bargaining by riot" surely makes most sense here. Deprived of other outlets to work for a fairer deal, it is not surprising that workers used force. In reality, most of the brutality and destruction of the Luddites occurred in revenge attacks, as local employers and magistrates resorted to ever more brutal measures on their own part to suppress the rebellion. I'm an English Midlander (born about a hundred yards for the scene of a Luddite outrage), and I'm proud to own my Luddite heritage, but I don't have any prejudice against technology. Luddism was a perfectly rational response to an impossible situation. Sjwells53 (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

VillageIdiot (that's me) would like to add here that the article's characterization of modern Luddites as being driven by "fear of technology" as opposed to self-preservation is indefensibly narrow in its interpretation. Luddite, in modern usage, may refer to people who either fear technology or who oppose it either in whole or in part. Not just "any new technology" and "out of fear." This is a false assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VillageIdiot (talk • contribs) 14:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Napoleonic Wars
I've added a first note on this; it's an important piece of the historical context Bob aka Linuxlad 17:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC) PS Incidentally, googling on 'luddism' and 'napoleonic' produces quite a perceptive essay by Kevin Binfield (Murray State Univ) - recommended antidote to a simple techno-luddite interpretation. :-)

Link to Prof Binfield's book-site:- 

The Real Reason Luddites Revolted
My understanding of the Luddites is that they revolted not because of new technology, but because they lost control of the technology. Remember that these were crafts people who made their living by making fabric/garments. They owned their looms and so owned the means of production. The new technology was owned by the megacorporations of the day and concentrated the ownership of the means of production into literally a few hands. Thus the "Luddites" lost control of the means of productions and so lost their means or making a living. While they could (and probably did end up) working in the factories, they still lost their independance and control. This was the real reason they took to smashing the looms of the factories - they correctly saw them as the competition that would end their businesses. I am quite sure the Luddites would have been happy to continue making fabric on the new industrial looms IF they could have ownership, or at least part-ownership, of the means of production.

So, in my view the use of the term "luddite" to brand someone who seems to be resisting advances in technology is usually far off the mark of the real meaning of the term.

T Morken, California, USA

I agree.

It had more to do with the "de-skilling" of their particular field (fabrics) in that they knew would eventually make their labor less valuable. We see the same dynamics in today's modern economies (i.e. bank tellers being replaced by ATM machines). Even if a worker's productivity is enhanced, it did not necessarily mean that their wages would increase. As productivity increases, the owners of the means of production are able to obtain higher profit margins by substituting capital for labor. In essence, the Luddites were fighting against a system of production rather than the technology itself; if the profits of the increased productivity would have been equitably distributed then this would not have occurred.

-D.S., Madrid, Spain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.145.82 (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning popular usage of luddite
I realize this isn't wiktionary, but I think that many readers want to understand how being a luddite relates to popular usage of the term (which implies that someone is not IT-savvy or opposes technological change). Perhaps just a reference to wiktionary's entry is good enough?
 * I agree. The term Luddite is often used to refer to people who are opposed to new technology, particularly industry related technology.  The term has also drifted somewhat in that the opposition can be for any number of reasons with the two most common being against alienation or unemployment and a worry of the adverse effects on nature.  (I have no sources, this is from personal experience.)  MrHen. 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The term Luddite is also commonly used toward people who do not update to new technology when the old still works for them quite well.--RLent (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In 1 above (Plea for Historical Perspective in _this_ article), I wrote 'This article used to say it was about the historical perspective.... I think this is an important enough area to keep it with that tack and to discuss the other broader, softer issues elsewhere. ' This is still my view - but if others disagree, it looks like we need to split the article. The REAL Luddites are too important historically to be swamped by modern-usage, talk about the Unabomber etc Linuxlad 09:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it's not a sensible point of view that such an article shouldn't even *mention* the broader usage of the term. It's all well and good to analyze the historical Luddite movement, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be at least a brief tack-on mentioning that the term "Luddite" is broadly used in the English language to describe any anti-machine tendencies, and if it's available, some mention of when the term began to refer to more than simply the original movement. 141.155.116.3 (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

achievements
What did the Luddites achieve by machine breaking and sending threatening letters? Did they reach theur goals? Did they get their pay rise? Why aren't any of these questions answered in this website?


 * This is actually an excellent suggestion. I may be able to collaborate with this but still have to sit down and write something about it. Cannot promise anything but as soon as I finish my paper on this will be able to spit a few words. Anyway, I do not have access to the more up-to-date academic literature on the subject, so can't tell what are actual readings and thesis on Luddism.


 * To give you a short answer on your questions: Luddites breaked particular stocking frames depending on who was the owner and depending the conditions they offered to the local workers or apprentices. That is practically a proof that their movement was highly organized. What they achieved? Actually, Luddites used machine breaking as a bargaining method which proved very useful in the some regions in which occured the Luddites disturbance. However, using machine breaking as a bargaining method was not a singular characteristic of the Luddism since machine breaking has been present in England since beggining of eigteenth century. For a more in-depth view on this issue you should check E.J. Hobsbawm and Frank Darvall (references on the actual page), both books which I intend to give me information to write and complete this section in the article. 170.252.248.203 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC) ezefis

Why?
People want to know not only what Luddites did, but why they did it and what they managed to achieve from it. This does not explain very clearly, if at all, why they did it and what they got form it. If anyone has answers please let us know. These facts are important for us in our essays we have to write. Please, someone, help us out! (Anonymous).
 * I am not an expert on this, but would suggest that this was a response to economic conditions at a time of depression due to the closure of export markets in America. This is likely to have led to men being laid off (or not given work).  I note that one of Richard Arkwright's mills suffered in a similar way during the American War of Independence.  Peterkingiron 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous comment
I removed "Today it is often used as a expression to label someone that argues against technology for example the spread of computers, mobile phones or the introduction of robots on the assembly line. (Note that this usage is historically incorrect)." That information is covered in paragraph two. JonathanPenton 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

By putting it there you broken up the section about the historical movement. BernardZ 13:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't put it there; I just removed the redundancy. I like your new structuring. JonathanPenton 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Sources"?
Without attempting to make a pun here, can someone tell me what the source is for the documents listed under the heading "sources"? These have to have come from somewhere, and we need some information as to their provenance. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the relevant sections for citations. I expect they are in one or other of the works cited already.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Peter. It also seems to me that the complete texts should be moved to Wikisource, and then quoted in the article, rather than having the full text here.  What do you think? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  05:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We really do need to determine the veracity of the "sources", and clean up (per above) Rotovia (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the content from the article, pending editing to get it correct. Rich257 (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Content
"Any person who breaks or destroys machinery in any mill used in the preparing or spinning of wool or cotton or other material for the use of the stocking or lace manufacture, on being lawfully convicted ....shall suffer death."
 * An official announcement, 12th February 1811;

"Information has just been given that you are the owner of those detestable shearing frames, and I have been asked by my men to give you a warning to pull them down. If they are not taken down by the end of next week, i shall send at least 200 men to destroy them. If you fire at my men, they have orders to murder you and burn all your houses. Go to your neighbours and inform them that the same fate awaits them if their frames are not taken down.
 * A letter sent to a Huddersfield millowner in 1812
 * Signed by the general of the army,
 * Ned Ludd"

"The disturbances in the west riding of this country caused by a set of people calling themselves Luddites had become so serious that it was no longer possible to protect people and their property, within which mills improved machinery or finishing frames had been introduced. Such was the case at William Cartwright's water mill which was defended by Mr Cartwright and a guard of soldiers. It is said ten important places where this kind of machinery had been used had been unlawfully destroyed by the Luddites"
 * An extract from the public record office, Yorkshire


 * This paper was pasted up in Nottingham on Saturday morning, 9th May 1812
 * Welcome Ned Ludd, your case is good,
 * Make perceval* your aim;
 * For by this bill, 'tis understood
 * It's death to break a frame -


 * With dexterous skill, the hosiers kill
 * For they are quite as bad;
 * And die you must, by the late bill -
 * Go on my Bonny lad.


 * You might as well be hung to death
 * As breaking a machine
 * So now my lad, your sword unsheath
 * And make it sharp and keen.


 * We are now ready your cause to join
 * Whenever you may call;
 * So make foul blood run clear and fine
 * Of tyrants great and small!

ps:Deface this who dare they shall have Tyrants fare for Ned is everywhere and can see and hear.


 * Perceval = The Prime Minister


 * "The Croppers song", from The rising of the Luddites by Frank Peel


 * "Come cropper lads of high renown
 * Who love to drink good ale thats brown
 * And strike each haughty tyrant down
 * With Hatchet, pike and gun!

Chorus:
 * Oh, the Cropper lads for me
 * Who with lusty stroke
 * The shear frames broke
 * The cropper lads for me"

Technological Progress Link moved here
Moved this link and unsigned comment (signature did not work inside comment tags) to this Talk page.


 * technological progress<!- "Technological progress" is NOT comparable to the "history of technology." In fact, by making it synonymous with the "history of technology, it associates the author of this conceptual link with a near-religious ascription to "technological progress." It may be necessary, at some point in Wikipedia, to create a separate article on the notion of "technological progress," since it is such an all-encompassing, dominant and impacting idea on global behavior and dogma. ~ ~ ~ ~ ->.

I replaced the link with a simpler phrase "new technologies and added a citation to the online Compact Oxford English Dictionary.

I think this makes the point clearer, adds a reliable citation, and avoids the more broad-brush phrase "technological progress".

If you feel this is not an improvement, by all means, change it.

One problem with my change is that it still does not address the modern slang usage of Luddite as a technically backward person.

Caltrop (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Luddism elsewhere?
This article appears to be a comprehensive overview of the Luddite movement in Great Britain, however it fails to mention that there were similar protests in other countries including France and Germany. I would also suggest including the aftermath of such movements, such as the growth of the Chartist movement in Great Britain and Republican socialism in France. Serenieee (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Looms vs. Knitting Machines
For the discussion of a segment that was edited into the main article, now removed:

[This is a correction from an uncertain contributor: Looms are used for weaving, in which two threads are interwoven. I believe that the Luddites objected to knitting machines, and knitting is different to weaving in as much as only one thread is involved] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.232.21 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Potential Bias in "In Popular Culture" Section
It seems as if someone went in and proferred their own opinion in the "In Popular Culture" section. The text has nothing to do with popular culture and possibly may be a source of original research. Perhaps it should be deleted, and a section titled "Response to Criticism" created? Of course, any such section would need verifiable sources from experts. 66.242.231.108 (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Widen the scope of this article?
I think the scope of this article should be widened by including similar movements in other countries. In Germany and Switzerland, at least, there were similar actions around the same time, and which are alternatively known as "Luddismus" in German (besides "Maschinensturm", literally, 'machine assault').

Ideally, there would be two different terms:


 * 1) A general term for 'any early anti-industrialization protest that resorted to destroying machines' – this would include the German and Swiss protest movements and the Swing Riots –;
 * 2) a specific term for the English 1811/12 protest that originated in Nottingham and is associated with Ned Ludd.

Of course, we cannot just invent such a term since that would be original research. I think the best thing to do is move the article to Luddism, reword the introduction and include sections on the other similar movements.

Incidently, on the German Wikipedia there really are two articles for these two terms, de:Maschinentstürmer for the general term and de:Luddismus for the specific term – though the latter explicitly says that in German, the word "Luddismus" may be used synonymously to "Maschinensturm".

Incidently again, the interwiki links of article Swing Riots illustrate how confused these terms currently are because it links to the German article de:Maschinenstürmer which is clearly not an article about the Swing Riots, but about the general term. -- machᵗᵃˡᵏ👍 22:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Illustration citation?
There is no evidence that the illustration to the right has any relationship to the Luddites. This engraving, as of this date being used in the Luddite article was taken from a website that does not document the source of meaning of the illustration.

I propose the current illustration be replaced with another, perhaps the stocking frame illustration because the current illustration misleads to viewer to believe a number of false concepts
 * the machines were mostly located in factories (they weren't- they were mostly in shops and homes)
 * the machines were highly mechanized (they weren't- they were human powered- not by belts driven by steam or water as depicted)
 * the machines were big

"The nature of the machinery and the structure of the trade lent itself to the practice. The frames for the most part belonged to the master hosiers, who hired them out to their workmen, charging a frame rent of from 1s. to 2s. per week. " -Historian J. L. Hammond, expert on the Luddites writing in his book "The Skilled Labourer (1919)"

Because there is strong evidence this illustration is at best misleading, I will replace the image later in the week until such time as there is authoritative citation that claims this image has anything to do with the Luddites. Certainly I will not do so if anyone wishes to delay until it is discussed further. -J JMesserly (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the engraving is of a power loom. Hammond states that in 1811 machine destruction involved frame breaking only.    Nearly all other machines smashed by the luddites (about 1000) were stocking frames, according to Hammond (Chapter 9). In 1812 the movement spread to the cotton power loom industry in Lancaster (Chapter 10), and the wool cloth shearing frames in Yorkshire.  A few factories of the power loom factories were attacked in Lancaster, and a few hundred wool frames were destroyed in Yorkshire.
 * This means the illustration is probably accurate, though only for the few events that occurred in Lancaster. It is clear that the general meaning that the reader takes from the article is not in line with what Hammond is relating.  -J JMesserly (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This page, taken from a 1844 magazine, is the original source of the illustration. It shows two things: 1) that the machine depicted is a Jacquard loom, and hence it is not related to Luddites (since Jacquard loom was introduced in 1820 in England); 2) the two 'Luddites' were artificially added. --JediDuckling (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

And now the text?
Would someone like to tell me where to start? The large chunk of text c&p'd from food riots looks like a copyvio, it is referenced better on the food riots to p 51 in a book that Amazon has s/h. But no ISBN is available. I can't check it is not copied from there. It was published in 1945, and Hobsbawns essay 1951 cautions about the interpretation given in books of this era. The assertion that the Nap wars created hard times for hand stocking makers and weavers can be disputed- volatile times may be a better description. I start with subheadings- but here ==background== contains history, ==history== contains some historical facts (dates) then ===in Retrospect=== gives historic background and starts discussing events 100 years prior to the events, and gives no review or reflection. Looking at that section- it has two references- both without ISBNs-- and a long discussion of corn.

Where to start- perhaps we should just delete the ==background== and ==in retrospect== as they add nothing to the subject and can't be verified unless we have a library on hand that hasn't disposed of the titles. A little paraphrasing of the Hobsbawm essay could then be substitued. Any ideas? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Why did the "Reform-Luddism" Wikipedia page disappear?
What happened to the "Reform-Luddism" page? It was an active Wikipedia page for several years and apparently disappeared from Wikipedia sometime during spring 2013. It seemed to represent an important viewpoint distinct from the more extreme/violent Neo-Luddite stance. 68.58.186.18 (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Dr. Frank Morris

Proposed Revision to Lead
I propose that some nuance be added to the lead of this article. Much of modern scholarship indicates that the Luddites were not anti-technology at all--instead, they engaged in machine breaking as a tactic. In times of peace with employers, they used labor saving equipment, but in times of labor unrest, because they did not have labor unions, machine breaking was tool to put pressure on employers, to shut out employees who were unwilling to dissent, and to harm lower-wage employees who might use the labor saving devices and displace other workers. Here is my proposed revision:

The Luddites were 19th-century English textile artisans who *pressured employers by breaking their machinery* from 1811 to 1817. The stocking frames, spinning frames and power looms introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace the artisans with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work. *The popular narrative of Luddites as technophobes is complicated by the fact that Luddites sometimes embraced labour-saving technologies. Modern scholars have argued that machine-breaking was a tool to express general labour unrest, and not an expression of ideological hatred towards technology.* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogkeene (talk • contribs) 05:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sympathetic to your intention- there are some problems with changing the lead. The lead must reflect what is found in the article and the article is barely started. I have skim read Kirkpatrick Sale, and he identifies two phases in the action, and is heavy on POVs but it tells me that there is a lot more to say in the article. He does go on talk about a secondary meaning - that being one opposed to technology, and this was first framed in 1956. Presumably the primary meaning was one opposed to Global Capitalism, and neo-Liberal economics. But none of this is in the article. So suggest you hold back on the lead and get the article referenced and up to speed-I will include some hidden notes with suggestions but I haven't time to do a thorough job. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone's using the page to promote personal work
We're told that the historical background of the Luddites will be explored further "in Ronnie Bray's as yet unpublished historical novel, Luddite Spring." This isn't a citation and it isn't useful information--it's clearly someone trying to generate interest in a book they want to see published; a book that, being a work of fiction, wouldn't work as an authoritative source even it were in print. Can this just be cut? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.87.91 (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted back to the pre-IP version. It may never be published and even if it is won't meet WP:RS, see the website. Thanks for spotting what I missed! Dougweller (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Crosland Moor Marsden
Crosland Moor and Marsden are two villages about 5 miles apart. Crosland Moor is in Huddersfield West Yorkshire and Marsden is just outside Huddersfield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.112.232.103 (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Good contemporary material
Good material from Lancaster Guardian — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 14:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

== If a technological innovation results in a reduction of necessary labour inputs in a given sector, then the industry-wide cost of production falls, which lowers the competitive price and increases the equilibrium supply point which, theoretically, will re ==

Right, OK, that's as clear as mud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.99.80 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Something wrong with the "Government Response" section
First sentence of the "Government Response" section is amiss. Not sure how to fix it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.176.161 (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Someone inserted brackets in the middle of the [very long] image caption. Thanks for pointing it out. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

External link is broken
The link to http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_essays_luddite.html seems to be broken I replaced it with an alternative link https://www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/reviews/pynchon-luddite.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.131.96 (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Random Self-promotional EP redirect at top
There is a redirect to a very random record (EP) by an even more random band whose notability looks very questionable (Grotus???), to say nothing of the neutraility of the article on that band. Seems very odd to have such an unimportant and self-promotional tag on an article about something so awesomely historical! I would remove but not sure if that is the right thing to do TotoroRules (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Too Little on Actual History
I am hoping to add significantly to this article. There is a significant difference between the history of the Luddites and the use of the term 'Luddite' in contemporary culture. What the word has come to mean is very different than the history itself. I think the contemporary use of 'Luddite' is vital to include, but it shouldn't overshadow the history itself, which is very thin in this article. Just some thoughts before I dive in TotoroRules (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Crosland Moor is a district of Huddersfield. Marsden is approxiamately 5 miles from Crosland Moor whereas Huddersfield is around 2 miles from Crosland Moor. So the part about the area of the murder is misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.112.232.102 (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Poor Quatity/Confusing
This article is very poorly done. The background section is completely mixed up with references to early 1700's and Napoleonic wars with no context. A better historical perspective is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyberks (talk • contribs) 15:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Omits a Key Point
The Luddites, who were primarily skilled weavers, suffered horribly as a result of the new technology. They were a prosperous bunch, able to afford homes and raise families. When the new technology replace them, they lost their incomes and then their homes, and often their families. They most often wound up joining the ranks of unskilled workers of the day, whose lives were horrible.

So the Luddite weavers had EVERY reason to fear the new technology, and were absolutely right to see it as a threat. It destroyed them. The subsequent prosperity AFTER the Industrial Revolution was good for all, but it did the broken Luddites no good. The people who use the term "Luddite" as someone who groundlessly fears technology is completely in the wrong ... something that should perhaps be included in the article.2601:CB:4001:AAC8:0:0:0:82B7 (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Charles Craig

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Luddite. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326170835/https://www.marsdenhistory.co.uk:80/people/luddites.html to http://www.marsdenhistory.co.uk/people/luddites.html#link4

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the key point?
Article has become inconsistent and muddy. Either the Luddites destroyed machines in a vain attempt to halt their use or they merely used this as means of collective bargaining. Article tells us both is true at different points. If the former is true then they deserve the tag of anti-technology. But the article also tells us that this is unwarranted. Doesn't stand scrutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OddsBodkins (talk • contribs) 20:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Historical Precedents section
Does anyone else think the tone of the "Historical Precedents" sections isn't very fitting? To me the tone just doesn't read like something out an encyclopedia.

I can edit it to make it more tone appropriate, but I'd like to know if anybody else has this opinion as well? Mt.Delta (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Background section
The first paragraph of the background section feels a bit out of place and reads almost as if it's responding to comments we haven't heard. The second paragraph is more clear and relevant. If the first paragraph's information needs to be in the article, it might be best to start with an explanation of what the context in that era *was* before addressing what it *wasn't* (the way the paragraph does now).

It also feels that the background section contains information that is less important and less relevant than subsequent sections; I wonder if it would be possible/wise to put the background section lower down, after some of the more relevant information.

Maybe other editors have some thoughts on these issues or would care to edit to rectify them? SM-Mara (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

this article reminds me too much of zeitgeist or the venus project, i guess it should be deleted now.Dotogfoaton (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luddite. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.leicesteruk.net/historydetail.php?id=13322&f=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315142837/http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/569 to http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/569

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Leader?
I don't believe the Luddites were an organised group, most were just cells trying to take down the machine industry. Also, if there was a leader why is his name not mentioned in the caption. Darn it, grammar checker said I sound angry for the third time in a row.-Thanks, a very disgruntled employeeOoh Saad (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Reputation section
I am drafting a new section to the article that will focus on the opinions of the public and historians of the Luddites throughout time. Here is my first draft.

Reputation

At the time of the Luddite activities between 1811 and 1816, the protestors were respected and admired by a number of civilians and workers; the imaginary figure of General Ludd was even considered a hero. However, throughout time biased and careless dictionary and encyclopedia entries have helped to make the word “Luddite” an insult, even changing the public’s view of the movement itself. Although not to quite as drastic an extent, historians have also changed opinions of the Luddites over the years.

Public Reputation

Parliamentary records from the mid-1950s house the first known association of the word “Luddite” with technophobia, but an unfavorable image of the Luddites was already being crafted prior. The 11th Edition Britannica from 1911, most likely to appeal to its well-off readers, frames the Luddites as antagonists to the victims of the machine-smashing. The same work also insults Ned Ludd’s intelligence and focuses on the destruction of the movement while avoiding to mention any part machine owners might have had in the rise of the Luddites. The 1938 Americana discuses the Luddites with vague language and avoids mentioning the punishment inflicted on the participants captured by the government. Over time, the Britannica changes facts, stating that citizens supported the Luddites in the 1929 edition but saying the rioters received only a small amount of approval in the edition of 1969. In 1961, the Luddites are pitied as fools by a compiler, who states that the machines were not really causing job loss. Overall, through alluding to the Luddites being technophobic by focusing on the smashing of machines, encyclopedias and dictionaries throughout the centuries paint the participants as simply rioters desiring chaos.

Views of Historians

History experts only use the term “Luddite” when referring to the participants of the riots of 1811 through 1816 in specific areas in England. Historians throughout time have argued as to whether or not the Luddites were political motivated or if their movement left lasting consequences, among other things. The actions of the Luddites were agreed to be a form of protest by early historians, with an exception being put forth by Frank Peel in 1880. Peel focused on the Luddites’ way of speaking and writing that implied a revolution. Later, F. Darvall took a more traditional stance that the Luddites acted for job-related motives without politics being involved. J. L. Hammond and Barbara Hammond, through studying documents, came to the conclusion that Luddism arose to prevent changes in laws and the workplace. The British historian E. J. Hobsbawm combined some notions of previous historians to conclude that the Luddites broke machines in a strategic manner to bargain for control in their trades. E. P. Thompson later considered that the Luddite moment might have been a combination of political and work-related issues. Thompson thought that Luddism was a symptom of the unification of workers, and the British historian was the first to frame the riots as a contributor to progress. M. I. Thomis, however, did not see the movement in such a positive light, arguing in the 1970s that Luddism was merely a small piece in the history of trade unions. In the 1990s, Kirkpatrick Sale published a study that greatly contributed to the modern view of Luddites by the public. To Sale, the Luddites were mostly upset with the inclusion of machines in the workplace, portraying them as technophobic.

Here Are my sources: Linton, David. “THE LUDDITES: How Did They Get That Bad Reputation?” Labor History, vol. 33, no. 4, Fall 1992, p. 529. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00236569200890281.

Clancy, Brett. “Rebel or Rioter? Luddites Then and Now.” Society, vol. 54, no. 5, Oct. 2017, pp. 392–398. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s12115-017-0161-6.

Donnelly, F. K. “Luddites Past and Present.” Labour / Le Travail, vol. 18, Fall 1986, pp. 217–221. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/25142685.

Deseriis, Marco. Improper Names : Collective Pseudonyms from the Luddites to Anonymous, University of Minnesota Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rcbc/detail.action?docID=4391798.

Fox, Nicols. Against the Machine : The Hidden Luddite Tradition in Literature, Art, and Individual Lives, Island Press, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rcbc/detail.action?docID=3317360.

I would love some good feedback on my planned addition. Gabriel Mont (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)