Talk:Lewis Mumford

Mumford's 3 epoch's of civilization

Cut the following from the article for the time being. I believe his categorization of history is important, however, I think the following snippet is pretty awkward without an adequate description of the aspects and implications of his categorization of history.

I've read Myth of the Machine (1 and 2) and didn't really see much about the below. Perhaps the following ideas were explored in another book. Someone who has read that book will come along may happen upon the below and create at least a stub concerning the below:

Mumford divides human civilization into three distinct epochs:

• Eotechnic (the middle ages)
• Paleotechnic (the time of the industrial revolution) and
• Neotechnic (later, present-day)

Yeago 06:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These are described in much detail in Technics and Civilization. I've returned this section to the article, and will expand on them at a later time.--mtz206 14:10, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I really do look forward to it.Yeago 02:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Despite this discussion from five years ago, Mumford's eo-, paleo-, and neotechnic division is still not in the article. This division is one of the best know aspects of Mumford's work. It is central to his Technics and Civilization (1934), one of his most influential works, although Mumford did not continue to use this schema in his later works. Is anyone going to put it back in? --Histotech (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've re-instated it now. DaveApter (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Important work developing idea of Regional Planning and the US Regional Planning Association?

As someone who's read several books about Mumford it's disappointing that his work developing the idea of Regional Planning, or as one of the key members of the group that led to the founding of the US Regional_Plan_Association isn't mentioned (though he later split with the group and disagreed with their published plans, his role intellectually was very important). I don't think this is adequately captured in either the 'Urban Civilisation' section or mentioning his interest in Geddes at the start. --PatSunter (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Philosopher or Historian

I dithered on this categorization a long time and errored, probably, in thinking that he could be only one and not the other. And I agree, he really is both. I've categorized him again as a philosopher of tech; but left the history category, too.

It's an excellent article that explains his concepts well. --RedJ 17 20:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Its really no problem. I should have just readded Hist/Tech instead of reverting. Doh well, thanks for returning to correct the problem. =)Yeago 21:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Mumford is often cited as something of a founding father of the discipline of Philosophy of Technology, so it's not a stretch to refer to him as a philosopher. He was certainly a student of philosophy, and his books contain numerous references to the greats (e.g., Plato, Marx). I don't have a lot of evidence to support the judgment, but I suspect that he would have not claimed to be a philosopher though. Part of the difficulty is that it is so tempting to think that, if he were writing today, he would simply be described as a "social critic," which can for better or worse cover a lot of territory. Social historian would also be a reasonably accurate label for LM. C d h (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Please stop the edit war over the Ellsworth Toohey addition and discuss the issue instead. If you have a point to make, make it here instead of trying to fit it in the edit summary. Please don't force me to protect this article. - EurekaLott 14:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

trivia

the trivia and renamed trivia section was removed because it is not pertinent to the article, it is trivia. it may be pertinent to an article about toohey, but the inverse it not the case. here it is trivia, no matter what it is called. it is also not encyclopedic. if there are reasons to include it that answer the not trivia and is encyclopedic, and is relevant to mumford, then perhaps it could be included. at this time, i and other editors have not seen that reason. --Buridan 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The inverse is the case. Rand and Mumford were contemporaries who had personal correspondence. You and one other stranger to this article have agreed, but you both display no knowledge about either of the topics in dispute. We do not remove things from articles merely because they do not appear to be in perfect form. Moreover, while there is certainly a Wiki-witchunt concerning 'trivia' in articles (largely intoxicated by the fear of slippery slopes), there is absolutely no precedent for removing a 'References in Pop culture' section--especially of someone who has such few popular references. They exist in thousands of articles. Certainly if Mumford appeared in South Park that would be Trivia, however, he was the basis for a major antagonist in a very popular book published in his own day and age. Different thing.Yeago 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no such things as 'stranger to articles' just as there are no such things as 'owners of articles' this is not encyclopedic content, if it were, I'd have no issue. References in pop culture is just your renamed trivia, nothing of substance has been added to make it any more significant. it is still trivial. it is something that at most belongs on the character's page, it does not belong here, as it does not describe Mumford, it describes a character that some people claim is based on Mumford. That is why it is trivial. It might belong in wikipedia, just not on this page. --Buridan 17:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No. An appropriate item in "trivia" would have been "Lewis Mumford owned the same fridge for 20 years"--an atomized fact which deserves no representation unless woven into the article relevantly. A biographical and contemporary reference in a major 20th century work is not trivia. It was miscategorized as trivia and was corrected. As for phrases like "[the character] doesn't describe Mumford", that is really best left up to the interested researcher/reader and not you, despite how glorious you find your opinion in deciding what is and isn't relevant. It is an interesting lead for further questions to the reader that deserves to exist in both places. Were it not a contemporary reference, or a reference made by a perfect stranger to M I would agree with you. But I do not. When this bin of "trivia" as you call it is overfull, please come back and solve an actual problem instead of foisting your ideology. It is the terrible habit of all humans to think their ideas are the One True Way which inspired WP:IAR, and I refer you to it.

Yes, there are strangers to articles: those who know nothing of the topic or its background. Except the casual know-nothinger sits and reads and seeks to not be a stranger or moves on, rather than attempting to tell those who are familiar with it what belongs and doesn't.Yeago 19:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

if you are making some claim about me knowing nothing about mumford, you might want to reconsider. as for your claims to this not being an unrelated fact, it is. It is about a character in a book that may or may not be described in the future as like mumford. that you put this trivia in here makes it more likely that the idea will be generally accepted as fact, which might not be the case. That there are several citation is good, but the thing is that it still doesn't belong on the mumford article, it belongs on the toohey article. here it is trivia about mumford, there it might not be. here is the test of triviality... is the fact incidental to his life... the answer is yes. is it a key fact one that you would find in any other encyclopedic article about mumford? no. it is incidental and describes the book, not the man, thus in this context it is trivia at best and at worse the perpetuation of a point of view. --Buridan 21:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I can agree that pushing a point of view that may be wrong is not a good thing. And I agree that I have not found a primary source for the snippet, only a consensus among more or less reputable sources. Nonetheless, as a person interested in Mumford I found this reference fascinating and believe others interested in Mumford would too. I'm open to other suggestions, be it See Also or External links. But I think its wrong to exclude what may potentially interest someone simply because its inclusion doesn't strike you as 'encyclopedic'. It was something I wish I had heard earlier, when I stumbled upon it.Yeago 22:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

your fascination does not changes it's pertinence to the greater audience. there is a should there that you accept that is 'people should be fascinated like me'... and the problem is that... perhaps they shouldn't. it isn't a bit of trivia that is neutral, it is trivia backed by an ideological position that critiques mumford. now i'm all for a good strong, well cited section of critique, and if that references your novel, that'd be cool, but... as it is, to be encyclopedic it needs to be pertinent to the nature of the subject. this bit of info is not pertinent. sure, if you read an analysis of that book, suddenly this bit of info becomes pertinent, but without that it is a bit fo informaiton that might lead people astray. that is the worst bit of trivia. ---Buridan 02:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Perhaps they shouldn't". Keyword being 'Perhaps.' These are really just subjective opinions we're talking about on this point. You think one way; I, another.

We do not deal with potential NPOV issues by removing outright removal, we qualify the text. Just because further analysis doesn't exist doesn't mean we should exclude the starting point for such a direction of the article. We certainly shouldn't word it so that people are led astray. And please do not call it 'my novel.' I have absolutely no attachments to this novel, nor have I even read it or have an opinion of Ayn Rand. I think if you actually yield some of your inner thoughts we can have a real discussion, but this whole 'trivia' argument seems only to be justification. First it was 'link cruft' then it wasn't properly cited, and now its NPOV.Yeago 04:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

yep, all good reason to remove something. when i saw it, i said... ok, what is this and why is it here... it is a link primarily between rand and mumford that promotes rand and critiques mumford in one link. in promoting rand, critiquing mumford as the only mention on the page it is npov, it is link cruft, as there is no justification of inclusion, no similar links in the section, just one link, and finally it is trivia. it should be removed because of those reasons. note i also claim it is not encyclopedic and at best it should be put elsewhere. --Buridan 10:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Right but your primary thesis--that it is there to promote rand and critique Mumford--is not correct. That is not why I added it and therefore it is not NPOV. If anything I dislike Rand and promote Mumford, but those intentions were not contained in the addition. That's precisely it, you look at it and see it somewhat against your view and so all these other justifications comes spiralling out of it.Yeago 13:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

author intent does not matter, neither does ownership. it is the audience that matters. it isn't against my view, it is that it is trivia and only the mostly loosely of related trivia. --Buridan 14:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Welp, I'm for inclusion because I think those interested in Mumford would find it interesting. I understand you have an ax to grind with Rand followers inserting her into everything, but her inclusion here is not part of that. If you have any suggestions please let me know.Yeago 15:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to leave it removed until there is a majority or consensus that wants it included based on a reason beyond 'yeago thinks its cool'. --Buridan 21:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to leave it in the article until sufficient reason is given be sides 'Buridan has an Ayn Rand shaped ax to grind'.Yeago 21:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

in the last few days, there are two people supporting deletes, the reasons are trivia, non-encyclopedic, and linkcruft. the other side is one person who cites he likes it and it is useful. is that a summary that you agree with? --Buridan 21:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope.Yeago 22:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

how then would your summarize the parties in this debate and their positions?--Buridan 22:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what angling you are attempting but please understand I also am a firm believer in "link relativity" (things must be notable and relevant in their context, not merely notable). I was interested to find out about Toohey because it came from a notable contemporary of M. I think others will be surprised to learn this piece of information. I am skeptical of debating with you because, after some research, you seem to have some reproach towards Ayn Rand-ites splicing her everywhere (your removal of her reference at Thomas Aquinas was very very called for). But you never yielded this, it had to be uncovered. People often cite 'trivia' or 'original research' or 'npov' when they really just have some secret grief.Yeago 22:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

are you arguing that my edits are not in good faith? or are you trying to say somewhat unclearly that you have no positive argument beyond, 'you like the link and find it useful'? because if you have no further argument, you should just say so. I have solid wikipedia positions, I have stated them, unless you have some rejoinder then you are just reverting because you want the article to be your way. I'd prefer to think that you are acting in good faith, and that you have solid reasons, so let's hear them. --Buridan 23:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to call mediators or something buddy. I've already explained them a million times. Your opinion is that its trivia; mine, not. I do not see that fundamental argument changing.Yeago 14:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

no, you just said why you like it and found it useful, you never said why it was not trivial to mumford's article. i agree it isn't trivial for the book article, but here it is. context is important. if you have a bunch more references in popular culture, that would help, but with only one reference, this is clearly just, as it is according to the history, renamed trivia. --Buridan 17:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Several times I did. Scan for 'contemporary'. Moreover, just because there are no other 'references' doesn't mean they won't exist later, see stub tag. If indeed you feel its 'merely a renamed trivia section' then you have the option of using the trivia section flag.Yeago 19:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem trivial to me that a well-known, famous author recorded in her journals that a key character in a novel commonly studied in US high schools and colleges is based in part on a famous person, regardless of how that character reflects on the subject. If Mumford were alive, there might be some concern about the Wikipedia biographical information policy, but he's not. And we're not talking about an external link here, we're talking about a link to another article that links to this one. The deleted material cites several references that all agree that Rand wrote this, so it's verifiable and not original research. It seems to me that this should be restored. RossPatterson 23:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

in what way is it not trivia in relation to mumford? i agree it is not trivia in relation to the book. the citations that were provided do not give page numbers and the other side of the link isn't cited either. verifiable trivia is still trivia, and not encyclopedic. --Buridan 23:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether one agrees with Rand or not, the criticism implied in her casting Mumford as a villain in The Fountainhead makes it more than just trivia. Rand's opinions are non-trivial by virtue of being hers, just as Mumford's are. The section should stay in the article. And as to the references, I found them quite easy to understand - in one case I was brought directly to a page in Google's book search with the search terms highlighted. That's a darn site better than many other citations on Wikipedia. RossPatterson 04:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

actually no, a person's opinion out of context is trivia, even rand's or mumfords when they are. the title of the section was trivia for many months, when deleted it as trivia, it was labeled trivia. i know this has references and i admit it belongs as part of the book's article, but here and in relation to mumford in general you have to admit that it is of little importance. it might be important to rand, and thus it belongs on her page, but to mumford, no, it is a trivial fact, a fact yes, but trivial. the problems with it though is that beyond trivial, it is non-neutral and we do not know whether it is really true, or whether it is an oft repeated spurious assertion.--Buridan 10:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The neutral point of view policy doesn't require that all statements in an article be neutral, but rather that the article as a whole be written neutrally. The policy is very clear: "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." This article is pretty neutral, even though its language is occasionally too enthusiastic. Yeago's addition of Rand's inspiration doesn't change that neutral perspective significantly.

As to the inspiration being true or not, the verifiability policy says in its opening line, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Yeago has provided several references that cite Rand's journals stating that he was. That should be enough to support verifiability.

The Toohey info should stay in the article. In fact, it looks like it should be more than just one sentence in a section hiding beneath the references. RossPatterson 02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

it should stay in wikipedia, it should not stay in this article. this article is about mumford, the toohey is trivial to mumford, it is not trivial to other things, but it is trivial here. --Buridan 02:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this debate is coloured by POV questions - given that Rand's character (supposedly based on Mumford) appears to convey Rand's negative opinion of Mumford, and given also that Rand herself appears to arouse strong POV in some contributors. So I wonder whether anyone can find a different example we could discuss more productively, that might avoid some of these POV questions. For example, suppose that J. K. Rowling announced that one of her characters (Horace Slughorn perhaps) was based on a real-life person (Dick Cheney perhaps). Supposing that this fact could be verified, how/where would it be represented in Wikipedia? But this is a made-up example - are there any real examples elsewhere we could draw from? --RichardVeryard 19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Here are a couple of examples:

• The character of Oliver Barrett IV in Erich Segal's Love Story is based on Al Gore and Tommy Lee Jones, from the days when both men were roommates at Harvard. To my knowlege, the only mentions of this in Wikipedia are in the Al Gore controversies and Tommy Lee Jones articles. It is not mentioned in Erich Segal or in Love Story (novel). Al Gore controversies is listed as a See also in Al Gore. Regardless of whether you consider Barrett to be a paragon of manhood or a ***-whipped wimp, Wikipedia provides you with the link between Barrett and Gore, and does it in a Gore-focused article.
• Al Gore's Penguin Army video is an entire article about a video parody of Gore's An Inconvenient Truth The lead includes an image of Gore's head superimposed on what appears to be the body of the Batman villain, The Penguin and surrounded by Tuxes (Image:PenguinGore.JPG). The article is listed as a See also in Al Gore. According to the article, the video was produced by a lobbying group whose clients include General Motors and ExxonMobil and uploaded to YouTube masquerading as an amateur home composition. In short, the main topic of the article places Gore in a negative light.

Just a couple that I researched a week ago while forming the opinions I've expressed above. I'm sure there are others, but I knew to look for the Love Story case. RossPatterson 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I find examples all the time. Take the article Payola. After reading the intro, it segues into a few references in pop culture--one by the Dead Kennedy's. Is the reference by DK about Payola relevant to Payola? According to Buridan's logic: NO. The Dead Kennedy's had nothing to do with the Payola scandal, they merely happened to be a contemporary, notable contributer. It should be removed because it is Trivial, and moreover it represents a Non-neutral view about the practice of Payola.

I don't think there is any concern about NPOV. I added the questionable reference and, if you check My Contributions, you can see I am an *avid* contributer to Mumford and I have *never* contributed to any Rand article, except in relation to Mumford. Of course I will be hounded by accusations of "bad faith" but I've looked at his contributions and user page and he clearly has an agenda for removing Rand where he feels she doesn't belong. In at least one case I happen to agree with his judgment.Yeago 01:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

let's keep in mind that the novel isn't 'popular culture' and that the section that the article was under until yeago renamed it in an attempt to keep it was trivia. so for many many months, yeago recognized it as trivia... now it isn't. now it is popular culture... and it isn't that either. --Buridan 01:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said Yeago was infallible. In my opinion the section was mistitled as Trivia. I'm not sure References in pop culture is right either, but it's better. Actually, looking at the Influence section, I think that's where it belongs. RossPatterson 02:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any reliable scholarship saying that rand was an influence, or that this particular bit of trivia constitutes something influential to mumford. this bit of information is just trivia to mumford's article. even when it is cited, it is trivia. --Buridan 11:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You've got the relationship backwards. Here and below.Yeago 14:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

that would have to go on rand, not here, as I'd argue that there is real question as to whether this constitutes influence still. here it is trivia, there or on the book page, it might not be.--Buridan 16:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeago is correct. The Influence section is about Mumford's influence on others, and that's exactly what we're discussing here — Mumford's influence on Rand as expressed in her novel. RossPatterson 15:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought the fact that letters between the two appear in his posthumous publication of letters would have been good enough. If he had corresponded with Richard Nixon or Franco (dictator) I don't think there would be a problem. Its really an added bonus that she went on to frame him as a societal enemy. Even if it were some more obscure novel of hers I'd agree with you Buridan, but, I may be wrong in saying she's "pop culture" but who hasn't heard of The Fountainhead?Yeago 07:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

actually it would be an issue there too if it wasn't significant to mumford's life in any demonstrable sense. would you say for instance that my correspondence with the head of a school at LSE or with a Senator constitutes influence, or is significant? I wouldn't, for this to have signicance, it needs to be more than 'it exists', 'they corresponded', and 'people say'. if it is merely a position that some people find cool or fun, but doesn't really tell you anything much about the person. as i said, this bit of knowledge belongs on the book page, where it can be explained in depth and you can understand that mumford is one of 4 people that people think rand said was her inspiration. --Buridan 11:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my earlier comment, I am not accusing anybody in particular of POV. But it seems to me that this issue is consuming an enormous amount of energy, and I find it hard to understand why it should matter that much to anyone UNLESS there is some real or imagined POV somewhere. (For example, people reacting against what they perceive as POV in other people.) --RichardVeryard 09:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

i'm not sure what the pov of preservation on this page is, but the negativity associated with rand and the tendency of people to link her from any page imaginable with the slimmest of trivia is one of the reasons i deleted this. i looked saw it was trivia when looking at rand's linked to list and deleted it as trivia, which it was abled at the time. then yeago renamed it to pop culture. as i've said... if you had say 10 or 15 other references to pop culture, i could see this staying as one of many, but just sitting there alone without context, it is still trivia and belongs on the book page.--Buridan 10:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here comes the cabalist....

Oops, sorry guys, didn't realise you wanted discussion here and not at MEDCAB. So, rather then read through the above section, I'd like to start fresh here. If each involved user could make one short statement (separate them with level 3 headings), it would be a good way of getting started. Thanks, Giggy _U^CP 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1

Mumford's appearance as the antagonist in a major, contemporary literary work deserves mention in the article.Yeago 13:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

2

It is unclear that it is mumford or one of 3 other people, and it is trivial to mumford's life and article in any case. --Buridan 13:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

3

I agree with Buridan's take on the matter: the claim that the character is based on Mumford is unverified speculation; and, even if true, adds nothing to an understanding of his life, work, or importance. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 17:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

4

I agree with Yeago, this is interesting and worthwhile material. It seems to me like it belongs in the Influence section, which discusses Mumford's influences on others. Sorry for the late comment, I've been offline for a week. RossPatterson 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

5

I find the arguments on both sides reasonable but not overwhelming, and I do not care how it is resolved. But I am puzzled why so much time and energy should be devoted to such an unimportant matter, and I suspect there may be some other agenda (actual or imagined). --RichardVeryard 09:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediator's comments so far

I'll assume no-one else is going to comment (if you do, go above this and notify me). It seems that the issue is about the "references in popular culture" section, concerning Mumford being the inspiration for a character in The Fountainhead. This has been reverted as "trivia"

If this is the case, why can't we just do what it says at Wikipedia:Handling trivia - Integrate the information about the novel into the article. I think it could be slotted into the Life section, but this isn't about my choice, but about a compromise with you guys. So what do you say to:

1) Keeping the information in the article, per Wikipedia:Handling trivia.

2) Putting the information in the "life" section.

3) Putting it somewhere else in the article.

Opinions? Comments? Giggy _U^CP 01:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

the information isn't about mumford's life or really about mumford at all, it is about a character in a novel that may or may not be based on mumford, though we have a walled-garden type citation set that shows it is citable as such. even if you integrate it, it is still trivial in relation to his life, it isn't trivial in relation to the novel. I'd say

4) the information should not be in the article. it should be put on the book's page, but only if a primary source can be provided.--Buridan 10:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been suggested by someone else. I am for adding it to the 'Influences' or 'Life' section. Enough good sources have been found. I can't afford to view the Mumford or Rand letter collections, where the mention originates.Yeago 12:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree you have sources, but without a primary source, this may be fabrication. the primary source is what the other sources refer to, but we do not yet have, though there is no necessity to having it, it just moves this from trivial opinion to trivial fact. even if we have that eventually, it still should go on another page. --Buridan 12:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh good. I suppose we'd better VfD Jesus, too. =). The source for Mumford's inspiration is given at The Fountainhead: "Mayhew, Robert (2007). Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. Lexington Books. ISBN 0-7391-1578-2 (pp. 57).". There's yer primary source. Feel free to VfD Jesus still, however. I'm not really interested in your rebuttals unless the mediator declares it appropriate.Yeago 21:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

that is what is called a secondary source, a primary source would be the place where ayn rand says it, not a place where someone thinks she may have said it. --Buridan 21:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If I were citing usenet I may agree, but once the suspicion gets into the notable world its usable here. Published scholarly books are certainly far within inclusive criteria.Yeago 22:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

primary sources contain the original material, seconday sources talk about the material. it is just a definition. in this case, it is secondary, it is fine to include as i've admited, but for mumford it is trivial.--Buridan 23:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't need a primary source, although it would be preferred. Secondary sources are enough, so is there any other reason this (which is clearly a reliable source) can't be included in the article? If it's true, it seems notable and relevant to me. Obviously it should be in the novel's article too. Giggy _U^CP 01:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

can you explain how it is relevant... it is about a book that may have no relation. this is trivia, it has nothing to do with mumford's life unless you know otherwise. --Buridan 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

it is about a book that may have no relation - it may have no relation, yet it is cited independently and discussed at some length? To take a random quote from the article, "In light of the international significance of Mumford's writings, the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., has designated an impressive auditorium as the Lewis Mumford Room." - how does THAT have anything to do with this life? Giggy _U^CP 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

that would be an honor that establishes notability given by a notable institution that actually exists. we have 4 different people that may be rand's evil personae, all or none of them may be the case, but it is trivial in any case, as it describes the book, whereas the room is clear attribution by a major institution, not a possible mention in a fictional novel. that is the difference between something that is incidentally about one's life and something that honors one's life. --Buridan 22:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't Rand apeing Mumford in her book be a similar establishment of notability, by notable personage? Obviously, the difference here is negative-honor. =)

Also, 4 different people? I heard there was one other inspiration. 4?Yeago 01:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

3 other, sorry, 4 total is what i've seen elsewhere. it may have been in wikipedia, else it was in one of your citations.--Buridan 21:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

and no rand aping mumford in her book, if that is what she did, is not the same at any rate as a room in LOC.--Buridan 21:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It may not be "as notable" but it still meets the notability guidelines. There is nothing there about relative notability. Do you say it's notable? Giggy _U^CP 23:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Buridan over the principle of "link relativity" or "relative notability". For instance, he recently removed a reference to Ayn Rand from Thomas Aquinas. There is every reason in the world to do this. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a policy written up on link relativity (and I'd almost rather there not be, given the waves of witchhunts like WP:OR).Yeago 02:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

note, i did not make claims about notability, i said it was trivial in terms of his life, which it is. if we want to put everything that is notable in relation to mumford we'd have to put many hundreds of bits of trivia here, but we do not include the trivial where it is not contextually pertinent. we include stuff about a book, on the books page, especially when it is disputably in relation to its putative designee, but to include the trivia here is pointless other than as yeago notes 'use value', which isn't a value for inclusion. I do not deny that i remove quite a bit of rand references from other articles when they are clearly trivia to that article. i hold the principle that rand does not need to appear on every topic in which there may be some minor relation claimed by one of her followers. this is one of those. --Buridan 12:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle! I disagree in application! =) Oh, and whoa... this is not 'one of those' as none 'of her followers' had any part in including the reference or discussing it here. Yeago 20:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(<--)Yes, I also agree in principle (dunno what I was thinking). But how do you disagree in application, Yeago? Giggy _U^CP 23:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply because they are contemporary American literary figures who had correspondence.Yeago 02:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Should i get a mention on vint cerf's or joiichi ito's page because we've had correspondence? given of course that someone eventually writes a wikipedia page for me, heh....? I'd say no... as there is no clear relation of influence, much like here there is just a possibility that people cite.--Buridan 08:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so Yeago is saying it should be included per correspondence? Er....how does he/she rebutt Buridan's comment then? Giggy _U^CP 09:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that because of this correspondence, as well as their contemporaneity, Rand's use of Mumford in The Fountainhead is relevant in the Mumford article. If it were a more minor character and not a main villain, if the author was instead Daniele Steele, or any number of other factors I would agree. If Mumford appeared in a Saturday Night Live skit as a curmudgeonly old nihilist it would not be included. One has a proximity to the author that the other simply does not.Yeago 13:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Where to from here?

So as far as I can see, one side wishes to include the information about Mumford being the inspiration for the book, as it's relevant to the article, because it influences a major, notable character in the book.

The other side says this is pointless and irrelevant trivia in terms of Mumford's life, and that it should only go in the book's article.

Both sides seem to agree on having the info in the book's article, so we won't dispute that. The only dispute is if Mumford being the inspiration for the character is a significant part of his life.

Also, it seems both sides agree on the concept of "relative notability." So let's go from here. How relatively notable is the book to Mumford's life? How much of an impact did it have on his life? Short, sweet answers if possible :) Giggy _U^CP 06:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

none, i've never seen mumford cite or refer to it in any of his works.--Buridan 12:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't disagree with Buridan here, however, the question seems to ignore the object—after all, I am seeking its inclusion in the Influences section not the Influenced by section.

Also 'how relatively notable is the book to Mumford's life' ...to who? To Mumford? The book seems to be negligible. To the reader, scholar, critic of Mumford? Potentially very much so, as the book is a major reference representing contemporary thought on his character.Yeago 17:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

then we have to ask... do we present the researcher with trivia, or do we present them with citations to follow, as a researcher, this little bit of knowledge would only be interesting to me if i had a fairly narrow project dealing with ayn rand's book, and wouldn't have much use as best as i can imagine, coming to terms with things about mumford. the book is not about mumford, the character is not mumford, and is arguably based on mumford and a few other people. so i currently don't see where it fits here. It is useful information and people can find it in search or by looking for things that link to mumford. --Buridan 17:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You make so many foregone conclusions I simply cannot reply (at least not according to the direction of 'short, sweet) as above. From your opening sentence I will say 1) nobody said anything about not providing citations 2) Mumford criticism on the whole is relatively scant (especially at the popular-reading level) so research need not be Rand-oriented 3) Mumford's presence as Toohey certainly could help >me< come to terms with things about Mumford (in pursuit of #2).Yeago 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The influences section currently contains a short list of authors who were influenced by Mumford. Why not add another name to the list? Giggy _U^CP 22:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

that might work, but it seems a stretch. it would be best just to let it go.--Buridan 22:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just Rand and not Toohey? Seems potentially misleading.Yeago 13:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And Rand and Toohey then? Giggy ^Talk 04:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I think.Yeago 12:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Buridan, your say? Giggy ^Talk 00:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you really unsure about what Buridan's say is? Or my own for that matter? He's for exclusion and I'm for inclusion. Isn't it up to you to make a decision?Yeago 14:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem that rand has much place here either way, and toohey has less of a place. unless you can show some relation of influence. I could see putting rand under influencees here if mumford was an influence on her page, but no. as for the book citation... it is mumford or any of 3 other people as the basis of the character, seems completely spurious and trivial to me.

Mumford's correspondence

Several books have been published of Mumford's correspondence with various important figures, including Van Wyck Brooks, Frederic J. Osborn (an associate of Ebenezer Howard, not Fred Osborne), David Liebovitz, Patrick Geddes, Frank Lloyd Wright and Henry Murray. (Lewis Mumford: A Bibliography / K. Published Collections of Letters) None of these are mentioned in the Mumford article. Just to put the dispute about Ayn Rand into some proportion. --RichardVeryard 12:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that seems rather silly, as books have been filled about these correspondences. On second glance the article only mentions that he critiqued Wright, not their decades-long friendship!Yeago 13:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Mumford is not mentioned at all in the Frank Lloyd Wright article. But the FLW article does mention an alleged characterization of FLW in a book called (yes you've guessed it) Fountainhead ... --RichardVeryard 16:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha, pretty funny about the reference there, too. As for the lack of reference to Mumford, they were great friends for decades, that's just silly.Yeago 19:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Kepler?

I removed the following, and bring it here for discussion:

In cataloguing the "obsession" of classic thinkers with space travel, Mumford turns his attention to an obscure work by Johannes Kepler entitled Somnium where Kepler speculates about the possibilities of lunar travel (supposedly attainable as early as 1609). Mumford cites this work as an example of a science-driven transition from Heaven to space travel as the salvation and ultimate goal of the human race—a recurring theme of Mumford's writings loosely summarized as sun worship which, according to Mumford, is a psychotic emanation from the "collective psyche" of mankind.

After illustrating Kepler's "keen grasp of the embarrassing details" and inferring interior compulsions were to blame, Mumford charges Kepler with being "steeped in sun-worship". While these inflections lie below the level of outright attack they are dismissive of Kepler's reasoning and even speculate as to his subconscious motivations.

First of all, this is unreferenced, so one cannot even know the source of this information. Second, I would question how important this is to Mumford's writing. Why does it deserve its own section? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Mumford discusses this in detail in pages 45-50 of The Pentagon of Power, Vol 2 of The Myth of the Machine, and refers to it further at about half a dozen points in the book. DaveApter (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Epitaph

In the event anybody makes it this far down the page, I have a question / suggestion: Does anybody know if his "requested" epitaph was put on his tombstone? - If so, (with a cited source, of course) this info would make an interesting addition to the article. His quote -- from Wikiquote:

I would die happy if I knew that on my tombstone could be written these words, "This man was an absolute fool. None of the disastrous things that he reluctantly predicted ever came to pass!"

E74.60.29.141 (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Family life, Illegitmacy, Relationships, Marriage, Lovers

Okay, the ideas are what's most important, but I came here to learn more about just who Mumford was as a person -- something you can't get from his books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.174.225 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lewis Mumford. 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/20130826194408/http://www.nea.gov/honors/medals/medalists_year.html to http://www.nea.gov/honors/medals/medalists_year.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Mumford and Jane Jacobs

Lewis Mumford is mentioned as a major theorist in urban planning in the Jane Jacobs article. Mumford & Jacobs have each been influential thinkers I’ve paid some attention to. Jane’s daughter, (Mary) Burgin Jacobs, has been a friend and one-time neighbor of mine. It was through Burgin that I had the pleasure of meeting Jane one time, decades ago. Burgin feels, and I agree, the contrast, in certain respects, between her mother’s and Mumford’s views has been obvious and significant.

I believe someone could do a good job with bringing in the contrasts (and criticisms) each respectfully had with the other. Since urban planning hasn’t been a major focus in my life, I wouldn’t be an appropriate person to bring this into the Mumford article (nor into the one about Jane).

Please, if you have the background & knowledge, do bring this contrast in viewpoints (and spheres of influence) into the article.Joel Russ (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Bioviability

"Mumford was deeply concerned with the relationship between technics and bioviability. The latter term, not used by Mumford, characterizes an area's capability to support life up through its levels of complexity."

This reads very strangely – if the relationship is central to Mumford's work, but "bioviability" is not the term that he uses, it would make sense to at least begin by setting it out in the terms he does use. I don't know enough about Mumford's work to suggest an edit, but wanted to flag this up in the hope that someone better informed can take a look. 81.26.251.117 (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)