Talk:Port Huron Statement

Untitled
The major problem with the article prior to the December 6, 2009 modification was that it attempted to discuss a controversial subject without recognizing that there was a controversy, much less addressing the controversy. Another problem with the prior article was that it relied upon the opinion of interested partisans to describe what the Statement said, rather than quoting the languague of the Statement itself, so that the reader could make up its own mind. Just like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," the meaning of the Port Huron Statement will vary depending upon the perception of the reader. Therefore, the only fair and academic way to discuss the Statement is to recognize the controversy, present all sides and let the reader make up its own mind.--HockeyBob (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC) User:HockeyBob

You are pretty close, Bob. It would be better to say the Statement is a quasi religious manifesto in my opinion. I have repeatedly attempted to present another side but my remarks are immediately redacted. We are dealing with a religion, really, and blasphemy would be the more appropriate term than controversy. Contrary viewpoint is controversy. Breaking taboo is blasphemy.--Vasser24 (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the most poorly written, laugably opinionated articles in Wikipedia. Why not just say the PHS contains bad words written by stinky people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.78.183 (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay seriously, the David Horowitz quote is ridiculously biased, especially when quoted as a source of truth as opposed to the (very) non-neutral observer that he is, and not followed up by an opposing opinion. This article is shitty and npov enough as it is, let's try to at least remove the blatantly biased and self-serving parts. -Schizobullet (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Schizo, the whole PHS is ridiculously biased. You don't paraphrase its absurd premises concerning democracy and the United States, couched in the double-speak of some rancid form of communism, and expect anyone who isn't a communist, a fellow-traveler, or a fool to take it seriously. You get serious. And you get some cites, please, and read the discussion below under References. Vasser24 (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Vasser24, this is not the place for your half-baked wingnut ramblings. Either contribute constructively or remove yourself from the editing (smearing in your case) process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.89.162 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Smear? Would someone please show me where I have smeared? If, by smearing, you mean to damage someone's reputation by false accusations you should pay closer attention to the race-baiting in the Port Huron Statement.--Vasser24 (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous user added this material, which I've reverted:
 * == Overview ==	+
 * The Port Huron Statement is an attempt to give direction to the New Left movement. It tried to establish what could be seen as a positive future and to determine the causes of evil.	+


 * The statement touts a sort of anarchy, called "participatory democracy," which Hayden claimed would allow society to advance beyond a point of arguing about rights and privileges and truly allow a "free" society. Much of the statement talked about how, once the goals of the movement were achieved, "spiritual health" would be restored to the participants in the movement.	+


 * == Criticisms ==
 * Many critics of the statement and of the New Left movement claimed that the statement was rambling and filled with rhetoric. They also claim that it was unclear and never really establishished true methods to foment change.

The Statement does not mention "spiritual health", "anarchy" is a highly POV characterization of "participatory democracy", and "many critics" should be named. -Willmcw 23:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Plenary Additional Substantive Contributors and Interactive, "Participatory", Essentially Consensus Political Process
The original draft of The Port Huron Statement was written largely by Tom Hayden after planning group discussions at the University of Michigan and in New York City. Individuals and groups drafted more comprehensive drafts as part of the plenary. For example, Robb Burlage, from Harvard University Graduate School (Economics) and formerly Editor of The Daily Texan at The University of Texas, and Michael Lebowitz, then from the University of Wisconsin, drafted much of the "economics section". Richard Flacks, of the University of Michigan and becoming of the University of Chicago, had a major influence on the "foreign policy" section(s). There was then serious debate and plenary "editing" and final, in effect, consensus unanimous approval of the document. This is elaborated, for example, in Todd Gitlin's: The Sixties, and Hayden himself is now (early 2006) publishing a book on The Port Huron Statement.

Has this page been vandalized? Irrelevant content, non-neutral content
The "Cultural References" section is almost entirely a non-neutral, irrelevent political rant. This does not belong, and should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.103.191.243 (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Not so, the cultural references section should be included, this agression will not stand, man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.77.10 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That cultural references section really tied the article together, man! Gyrovagus (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't think Jeffery Lebowski actually wrote the Port Huron Statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.158.109 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:F102:6C00:D832:7BD5:4DF9:D85F (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality?
This article needs some work, it seems to be written from a non-neutral point of view, not cite sources, and lack important details. For instance it says "It IS apocalyptic and revolutionary " without citing sources, as well as calling statements from the document "tropes". The article really needs to find some actual historical analysis of the document and cite it. bdodson (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We regard men as infinitely precious and possessed of unfulfilled capacities for reason, freedom, and love. [and it continues in this vein ending with. . .]

Men have unrealized potential for self-cultivation, self-direction, self-understanding, and creativity. [All men? and with the same results? This couldn't possibly be revolutionary and utopian could it fellas? Or maybe just plain silly.]

Finally, we would replace power and personal uniqueness rooted in possession, privilege, or circumstance by power and uniqueness rooted in love, reflectiveness, reason, and creativity. [How would they go about replacing bad power and uniqueness with the good power and uniqueness? The "state", I suppose. Raising consciousness, i.e., whites are racist if they don't tow the line.]

The whole preamble is charged with an overwhelming sense of despair, i.e. "we" are at the nuclear abyss, poverty, racism above all else. It is quite literally apocalyptic and messianic. ..

Our work is guided by the sense that we may be the last generation in the experiment with living.

[Life is a scientific experiment, I guess. Received wisdom and traditional values, well, sayonara baby] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasser24 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. It seems the SDS will also abolish loneliness, estrangement, isolation by "love of man overcoming idolatrous worship of things by man"[?]. Question not answered: How do you love racist, corporate white people?--Vasser24 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"rv excessively biased content"
Vasser24's contributions could not even remotely be characterized as "accurate and balanced assessment", as is claimed. They have also been reverted once before, quite appropriately. Since they are the only substantive edits since 75.179.12.68's (on 3 May 2009), I reverted to that version. Please let me know if there are any problems with this. --kine (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I for one have big problems with it. You are very selective about being balanced. Why not ask for "accurate and balanced assessment" from the fawning, absurd paras? Have you actually read the PHS? It is a radical polemic, people. Its not a scholarly dissertation. The 1st para in the "detail" uses the word "concerns" three times. It concerns this and that. You might as well say Mein Kampf "concerns" the relation of Germans to the Jews. --Vasser24 (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This page has been taken over by the Right Wing, sadly. Why is there even a "critique from the Right" before the statement itself is even analyzed? Almost all of the criticisms on the page of the PHS are opinion pieces. The PHS is a thing which stands on its own, without controversy. The arguments within the PHS of course are surely controversial, but the statement itself should be evaluated neutrally. By stating that it is a "radical polemic" and not a "scholarly discussion," you are stating an obvious conjectural opinion, which has no place in this article. By comparison, the Wikipedia article on the Communist Manifesto is balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.247.85 (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What a mess
This is one of the worst articles, relative to its significance, that I've seen on WP. Selected bits from a very long document, made to look like it's the whole thing, without any kind of analysis or criticism. It just goes to show the mess that one obsessive editor can create. KarlM (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with KarlM. Two and a half years after he said the above, this article remains a pimple of the butt of Wikipedia. I hope I can find time this summer to fix this sad excuse for an article. Ugh. Lara 00:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this the original Port Huron statement?
Or is this article about the compromised second draft? Because if it's not, then Jeffrey Lebowski needs to be credited for his assistance in helping to draft the original. This glaring omission is like not crediting Arthur Digby Sellers for his contribution to "Branded" when he wrote 156 episodes, the bulk of the series.

scholarly revision?
seems like prime material for such an activity? Riverbanditry (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)