User talk:Frank kruza

Hi. Your edit here looks like inappropriate promotion to me. And I was surprised that you (earlier in your chain of edits) unceremoniously ditched a good citation and changed Hooton from an 'anarchist' to a 'philosopher'. You need to know that such things are not done on Wikipedia without either a discussion on the talk page or proper justification through a reputable third-party citation. Unless you provide good reasons and verification, I intend to revert all of your chain of edits in the near future.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. thanks for comments! As this is my first wikiedit, I was a little excited perhaps! I don't think it was inappropriate at all to state that Hooton was a philosopher. This is apparent but to state that he was an Anarchist in the formal sense might be considered so. "The fact faces us with a task of supreme importance: criticism of the forces which have failed to mobilise effective opposition to war, the failure of the anarchist, socialist, communist, pacifist internationals. It also faces us with a task which though secondary to this is of extreme vital necessity- the framing of a policy which can be effective in present conditions. Harry Hooton (The Third Path, 1939)" As Hooton doesn't really advocate Anarchy as a political idea in the traditional sense, whether using Proudhon, Bakunin or others ideas but uses the term in his own manner regarding Philosophy, Art and creativity, I am still not convinced that he should be regarded as a card carrying Anarchist. Nor does he promote confusion or disorder. As I am new to this editing business, I will endeavour to discuss before further changes and I am open to constructive criticism. I only wish to see Hooton represented in the clearest possible light. "The Anarchist is caught between the two demands: to deny himself and be a slave, or to deny others and rule. He usually becomes inconsistent and chooses the latter course, as he should. There is nothing admirable in the conduct of slaves. But there is another way out. It is to cease to think of the human being as the end or the means of human endeavour, and if one must tyrannise, tyrannise over inanimate matter.' Harry Hooton, Humanism and Art, 1944" I will try to make citations in the future. Cheers! FK 07:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable response. Yes, we need to improve the world and the quality of discourse. And not a lot about Harry Hooton can be pinned down because he wanted to be remembered as different, as elusive, maybe even enigmatic, while fronting up as plain and blunt. I spent only a little time with him before his death. (He died of bowel cancer and was then found to have lesions of earlier undiagnosed TB which had cured itself.) I never met Soldatow, the post-mortem biographer, who seems to have made a careful study of Harry's life and work.


 * The point here (at WP), however, is that personal views and original research are not permissible, however objective and true they may be. WP is essentially an encyclopedia of published lore (preferably reputably published. Check it out under verifiability. In time, you'll come to see that it has to be that way. Otherwise WP will be full of the fanciful genealogies of Asian families, the religious fantasies of the Wild West, etc, etc, and not worth consulting. Soldatow's quote was "Hooton, poet and philosopher of the twenty-first century" --not very substantive. Let us both read the online reference and any others again in an effort to straighten out and improve this article. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)