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)

References

This article has no references. You can't use the text of the statement itself to talk about the statement! We need to find third-party authors writing about the Port Huron statement. Spend an afternoon with Google and the local library and get those references. Just now I found http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O119-PortHuronStatement.html which has a half-dozen articles listed which discuss the Port Huron Statement and what effects it had. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Very well, I've added the same citation demand to the paras. I take exception to. Problem is what constitutes articles are The New York Times or National Review. Hardly unbiased. Besides, who says we can't reference the Statement itself. What a strange idea! If people took the time to read it then we might get somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasser24 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

At this point it's probably vastly more useful to *find* citations than to keep flagging all the paragraphs. And no, you can't use the document itself to talk abou the influence of the document - it's like quoting "Pride and Prejudice" to talk about the Pride and Prejudice - you need discussion about the content, not the content itself. The Wikipedia standard is quotations, not opinions of some annonymous editor.

For example right now we've got

The PHS is a polemical compilation of Marxist oppressor/oppressed hypothesis-as-fact and anti-American/European premise, exploiting in particular racial and class envy. It is generously supplied with utopian assumptions concerning human nature. The document ends with a step-by-step plan on how to subvert the American university system.[

in the article, as if this is revealed truth that everyone accepts. It would be much more in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia if we could find a reference so that we could say "Professor Hurrffurrur in his 1982 commentary says that the Port Huron Statement was...", etc. - Wikpedia editors ought not to express their opinions in articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled why there's this sudden interest in citations. Among many choices why wasn't this one cause for citation: "The main concerns of the statement included racial bigotry". Could the author please cite some "expert" to explain who the racial bigot is? This is a very serious charge which needs clarification and yet none is forthcoming. Maybe the august Professor Gates of Harvard could weigh in. Or a constable's mama.

Or this "revealed truth": "The statement popularized the idea of participatory democracy". This isn't just poor writing. Its laughable. How exactly did it "popularize" the "idea" of participatory democracy rather than participatory democracy? This idiotic trope, which was spun by Hayden in the Statement as a cover for something very different, has never been asked for a citation (until I did just now).

Another puzzle. Exactly which professor am I supposed to quote? Maybe a former unrepentant SDS or Weather Underground member? There is certainly no shortage of them in academia. But what if the professor, against all odds, contradicts Professor Gates? Will Wikpedia buy him a beer? In any case, the idea of picking and choosing which editor's entries must show citation and which not is blatantly biased. If this is an example of a trend Wikpedia will eventually lose credibility.

I wrote that quote you copy and I think its fine. It is concise, well-written, and summarizes the rambling document in question far better than the inchoate innuendo already posted. - vasser24--74.96.40.139 (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My interest in the subject matter is minimal ( I was looking up something I saw on Mad Men!), so I'm ill-suited to research this article to the depth it needs. It's not a sudden interest in citations, every Wikipedia article is supposed to be backed up by citations. I just happened to be standing behind this chair when the music stopped and I noticed the complete lack of footnotes. There's a lot of strong opinions out there, and I don't understand American politics well enough to pick out the main threads from all the strident voices out there on the Web. I've stuck a couple of external links into the article but these are by people who are too involved with the subject matter. What I'd like to find is a nice neutral textbook discussion of the effects and importance of the Port Huron Statement. It would probably have to be a book written by an Australian or something - some of the stuff on the Web I've seen so far is pretty vitriolic and uses a lot of code words that I don't understand. What's a "Dixiecrat"? And why does B say that when A says X, he really means Y ? It's frustrating - coming from an engineering background, I have no skills in dealing with disputing authorities. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You must be talking about another para recently removed by someone uncomfortable with the truth about PHS. Dixiecrats were Democrats in the Southern States who would be called conservatives today. The PHS calls them "racists". They were Democrats rather than Republicans because it was the Republican Party which ended slavery under Abraham Lincoln. The Democratic Party was the party of segregation in the South from the the Civil War to 1948, according to an entry at this site. But, being what Wikpedia apparently is, I would question the entry's veracity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasser24 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

to echo the concerns of others, this entry must be (and is currently not), about the Statement itself and its historical context and impact, not a subjective critique of its contents. Bluetimestwo (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Port Huron StatementI never heard of this until watching the movie The Dude with Jeff Bridges. I have lived in Port Huron for many years and have worked for the Times Herald of Port Huron. But I never heard one word of this event that occured at Lakeport Park in 1962. But considering that this community is very right wing conservative atound the core and that the core of this community is generation after generation very poor and dispair and lost of hope. I can imagine how embrass this whole statement must be towards the namesake of the Bluewater area. But hisyoty is written by the victors and desorted one form or another. Something occured when a entire community drape a event and dust it under the rug as if it never happened.

The irony to this, Port Huron is a very large supporter of the Tea Party Movement with many events. Yet this also explain why Presidents, Senators and Congressman refusal to come to this community with a 25 percent unemployment and high drop out rate. This is a Anglo-Saxon Community and not some inner city community, with roles of ghettos.

This is also the second largest border crossing in the United States of America with 2 Bluewater Bridges and a Complex Rail Road Tunnel under the St.Clair River. Also host to the Port Huron to Mackinaw Sailing Race each summer.

I will follow up and try to investigate the Port Huron Statement much more in detail. And post any information here on this site. Jon David Wanner Port Huron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.70.155 (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2011 (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)