Talk:Euston Manifesto

Reaction in U.S.

How much impact will the Manifesto have in the U.S.? We'll have to wait and see. Here are a few links to start with:

• From "azizhp", a Daily Kos diarist
• From Jeff Jarvis
• From blogger Austin Bay (read the comments too).

These reactions are quite positive; I'll let someone else find the negative ones. Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• The Seattle Consensus is newer, but it is also supportive. Tjss 01:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• William Kristol wrote an editorial in the Weekly Standard about the Manifesto. "It's an impressive document." CWC(talk) 13:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Userbox?

For those who do support the manifesto, shouldn't we make a userbox? Just a thought, I don't have the skills to make a good one. Tjss 01:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Links

I though I'd start a section for recording useful links about the Manifesto. CWC(talk) 13:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Alan Johnson, an anti-Iraq-war signatory, explains his position (Normblog, 25Apr)
• Discussion about whether to sign the manifesto in the Europe United forum
• Shalom Lappin counters four misconceptions about the Manifesto (Normblog, 27Apr, CWC(talk) 12:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC))

POV problems

The entry is written in such a way as to suggests that opponents of the EM all have some uniform view, whereas this is not the case. There is also a tiresome insistence on marking the positions that the supporters of the EM regard as particular points d'honneur as "controversial" even when they are not. The claim (ironically under the heading "Historical Truth") that previous leftist organizations were apologists for communism and often allied with its agents in the west needs to be severely qualified, since most leftists were not apologists. Finally, all the external links but one (which I just added) point to EM-sympathetic sources. Generally, the article needs rewriting from a more neutral POV. As an opponent of the EM (though one who lacks many of the views attributed to "opponents" in the article as it stands) I'm reluctant to undertake this for fear of getting into an editing war with supporters. I'd suggest that a supporter (Counsell perhaps) goes through it again with more of an eye to objectivity. Bristoleast 09:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding grouping together opponents of the manifesto into a uniform view, I think it would help to have a separate section on 'Criticism'. There's now been quite a large amount of varied criticism back and forth between the Eustonites and their opponents, and I think the entry ought to reflect that. -- Epimorph 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Vagueness of document

I see that the document is palatable to both an anti-Iraq-war signatory and William Kristol, a leading neoconservative commentator. Doesn't this suggest that the document is too vague? Autarch 19:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find it at all vague. I would say rather that the Manifesto expresses some views (eg., the importance of freedom and the desirability of democracy for all peoples, whatever their religion) which are supported by various people across the political spectrum who might disagree fiercely on more immediate issues. Note also that Kristol expressed approval but not complete agreement, a common reaction from non-Left commentators (and my reaction too). Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's true. Here's the editorial by Kristol. In it, he notes that he heartily disagrees with some of the more egalitarian statements in the document, but supports its interventionist views. I myself--an American liberal who opposed the invasion of Iraq--have no qualms about the document, because it recognizes that even some of its authors were against the invasion as well. --Tjss(Talk) 17:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Level of Detail

I don't think it's useful for this entry to go through the manifesto item-by-item. As it stands, the 'summary' is almost as long as the Euston Manifesto itself, and isn't very readable. It should be possible to summarise into a few sections headings: perhaps 'Foreign Policy', 'Domestic Policy' and 'Relationship with the existing left'. -- Epimorph 22:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

I reverted the article from the last edit because I felt it strayed too far from the actual document. Specifically, entire sections were consolidated and the titles changed in a manner that makes it difficult for the uninitiated to correspond the sections of this article to the sections of the manifesto. --Tjss(Talk) 02:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

At the moment the summary seems unstructured, so it's not very readable -- it just seems like a big list of unrelated arguments. I think the summary ought to summarise the manifesto into a few major areas, referring to manifesto sections where useful. It's not neccessary to have a heading and paragraph for each manifesto section, especially when many of them are closely related, and others seem to me like boiler-plates (eg 'A precious heritage'). -- Epimorph 16:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that, rather than being a summary of the general sentiments expressed in the manifesto, the synopsis should be a section-for-section description. Other such articles (everything from Harry Potter to Said's Orientalism have similar organizations. If there is a way to liven to prose, we should look at that. But too much consolidation would be just that: too much. --Tjss(Talk) 23:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter and Orientalism are books -- their wiki entries condense several hundred pages of material into a few headings. The Euston Manifesto isn't anything like that long, so I think it could stand a little more reduction. Of course I'm not arguing for 'too much' consolidation -- who would? -- but you seem to be arguing against any consolidation at all -- Epimorph 11:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am okay with the consolidation of sections, provided that the title of each section reflect all titles of the manifesto sections that were consolidated. For example, when consolidating "Democracy & Tyrrany" with "A New Internationalism," the title should have been changed to "Democracy, Tyrrany, and Internationalism" or something like that. Furthermore, while I agree with consolidating sections, I only think that that's okay if the consolidated sections were in a consecutive order For example, combining "Historical Truth" with "Democracy" would not have been okay. I'll try to implement the changes you made with the above amendments. I hope that works. --Tjss(Talk) 23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just made changes quite similar to yours, but following the criteria I listed above. I hope that is acceptable. If not, please let me know. --Tjss(Talk) 23:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That looks ok to me - the new version seems more readable. -- Epimorph 13:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

In preparation for writing a longer section on the criticism of the manifesto and responses, I'm going to collect some critical links grouped by theme, along with responses from the EM supporters. It would be useful if we could find a link for each of the claimed positions for opponents of the manifesto - at the moment they're not very well supported -- Epimorph 12:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Claim that EM contains too many statements of the obvious:

Claim that EM a front for its authors' support for the current foreign policies of the British and American governments:

• Justin McKeating

Claim that EM is not critical enough of UK and US

• Steve Poole

Claim that EM is generally pro-war:

• Daniel Davies, Marc Mulholland, Garry at The Sharpener
• Response from Norman Geras

Good Article

I am hoping we can make this a good article. As such, I have created a list of the requirements for such status (see What is a Good Article?). I have sorted the requirements into categories, based on where I think the article is. Please let me know what you think about by estimations, and please discuss/make changes as needed. I think we're really close. --Tjss(Talk) 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We're Basically There

• Compelling Prose
• Accessible Vocabulary
• Logical Structure
• Lead Section
• Manual of Style
• Stable
• Sources Provided
• Sources Formatted

Needs Some Work

• Neutrality - while I think the article is neutral, it appears from other discussions that some do not agree

Needs More Work

Irrelevant

• Images - I don't know what images we would include for this article

British english

As an American, I have used my style of english (puncuation on the inside of the quotation marks, not outside, etc.). However, according to the Manual of Style, an article's english should be both consistent and reflective of the topic's national origin. Since the Manifesto is British, the article should be in British-English. Fortunately, most of the contributors appear to be British, but if you see an Americanized word/phrase, please Anglo-ize it. --Tjss(Talk) 22:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Norman Geras

The article describes NG as a "Marxist scholar", but press reports usually describe him as a "former Marxist philosopher". I vaguely recall coming across references to Geras a few years ago, as a "post-Marxist" which might be preferable, if cumbersome. That article itself though, needs more work on it. Philip Cross 22:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Norm insists that, whatever others call him, he is still a Marxist---and definitely not post-Marxist. He's probably better qualified than most people to judge this: what with his being a recognized expert on Marxism and his being Norman Geras. Counsell 22:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Gisela Stuart MP

The following (which I edited to tone down the language) had no sourcing. Since it is a fairly controversial charge to claim that a Labour MP intervened on behalf of a Republican presidential candidate in such an outspoken way, I am going to delete this unless someone provides a source, or unless I find one.

One of these, Gisela Stuart MP, declared during the 2004 American presidential election that a victory by challenger John Kerry victory would prompt "victory celebrations among those who want to destroy liberal democracies."

I already added a {{fact}} template. Thanks. --Tjss(Talk) 21:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation to Daily Telegraph now provided as asked for. Bristoleast 22:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I formatted using the ref tags. --Tjss(Talk) 20:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This edit adds nothing to readers' understanding of the Euston Manifesto or of the Euston Manifesto Group. Gisela Stuart did not draft the manifesto and did not attend any of the meetings of the group before its publication. She is listed on a flyer publicising an event on the fringe of the British Labour Party conference because she is a Labour Minister of Parliament and because she signed the manifesto.

The convoluted phrasing that precedes this betrays its author's desperation:

"Of eight people advertised as attending a Euston Manifesto Group meeting a the 2006 Labour Party Conference, six supported the Iraq War."

It's a standard method of opponents of the document to assert that the "real" purpose of the Euston Manifesto is to advance the "pro-war" (that is, pro-Iraq War) case. This is because the war is widely assumed by the mainstream media to have been "disastrous". Those who wish to damage the public perception of the manifesto do everything they can to emphasise the pro-war and/or Right-wing tendencies of anyone associated with it.

Bristoleast's approach is almost as hackneyed as that of those critical newspaper columnists who have given their anti-EM op-ed pieces the title "Euston, we have a problem".

I look forward to reading one of my drunken tirades against Saddam Hussein transcribed by an anti-EM witness sitting further along the same public bar and cited here as proof of the immoderate attitudes of the manifesto authors.

The addition should be deleted.--Counsell 22:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I take it that the public positions of signatories and, a fortiori, the positions take on world politics by people that the EM group selects to represent it at public events, are highly relevant to giving Wikipedia readers an objective view of the character of the group. Counsell's view, according to which the Wikipedia entry should simply reflect the group's own preferred account of itself (i.e. advertising) would, if implemented, be a violation of NPOV. Bristoleast 07:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Counsell's view" is not "that the Wikipedia entry should simply reflect the group's own preferred account of itself". I believe that this entry in the Wikipedia should cover the many controversial and differing views of the document's authors and of the document itself.

For example, the bulk of the manifesto was written by Norman Geras, a well-known and self-described Marxist. I am strongly opposed to Marxism, as are many who might otherwise sign the document, but I cannot object to this controversial ideology being associated with the EM. Geras's Marxism is directly relevant to his world view and to his motivations for writing the document as he did.

Many have argued that there is a well-trodden intellectual path from Marxism to neo-conservatism. I'm not comfortable with that line either, but such considerations are undeniably pertinent to the question at hand, both historically and philosophically, and it would be completely unreasonable of me to object to the similarly controversial ideological label of "neo-conservatism" appearing in this Wikipedia entry.

The question is one of relevance. Are the views recorded here relevant to the Euston Manifesto's concerns? Are the people holding those views anything to do with the creation of the document? Cataloguing the public statements and behaviour of the document's 2000-plus signatories would be absurd, but would be required if Bristoleast's claim of NPOV were to make sense. Instead the aim here is to restrict the entry to recording those views, like Gisela Stuart's, that he thinks will be most unpopular with others. Further, I am also sure that, as with any online declaration, a tiny minority of signatories will be fakes and/or cranks. Perhaps we can add some quotes from tinfoil hat-wearers? -- Counsell 10:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I second Counsell's view. Since Stuart had no connection to the formulation of the manifesto's content, and since this article is about that content and reaction to it, the quote has no place here. It is already on Stuart's own article. --Tjss(Talk)

GA passed

Compared to the good articles criteria, the article is :

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass (needs more citations anyway)

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Additional comments :

• The Summary section should be linked to the manifesto's publication, I think.
• Section Summary should come before the Response section.
• More inline citation should be given for it is still a current subject and should be the most neutral it can be.

It thus passes to GA status. Congrats! Lincher 12:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

GAR: Criticism?

I have listed this article in Good Article Review as there's quite a lot of criticism of the Manifesto none of which is reflected in the body of the article itself. General Idea 22:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems this was closed early for sockpuppeting, (It appears Jayjg has determined this fellow to be a User:HOTR sockpuppet) just so everyone knows. Homestarmy 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Flewers

Flewers is a respected writer and lecturer, and edits New Interventions magazine. That the article first appears in Marxmail is no different than the number of blogs that are used as sources here and that it is a "Marxist" list shouldn't be taken as a negative given the fact that the Eustonites, by and large, are ex-Marxists (or some may still claim to be Marxists). General Idea 15:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Automatic addition of "class=GA"

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, _BOT Giggabot (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"democratic"

I reworded the first sentence to remove the phrase "democratic left". "Democratic" here is a bit POV. There's a slight implication that those left groups that don't support the manifesto are *not* democratic (= don't support democracy) -- which I'm sure all of us that are in such groups would dispute. Mendor (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Blog

I've just removed this: John Holbo at Crooked Timber said that the authors should "admit you were wrong," to those who correctly predicted how the war would turn out, and whose arguments were "basically sound." [1] ..as it was sourced to a blog. Then I noticed that there are other blogs which were used, but they are at least the blogs of signatories. Is there any reason to keep John Holbo's blog post? <<-armon->> (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Update?

The article doesn't have any information on the progress made by this manifesto and/or its adherents since its publication. Has there been anything to report since? Palmiro | Talk 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not. They're not very visible in UK politics - as a group I mean, some are visible as individuals. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Neoconservative?

There is a link to this page in the Related links section of the neoconservatism page. I wouldn't describe this Manifesto as neoconservative, even if it is hawkish. I removed the link before, but it was replaced. What does anyone here think? William Quill (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

They are obviously not neoconservative. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

GA reassessment

I am delisting the article as a GA for the following reasons:

• There are no inline citations in the summary of the manifesto section.
• There are citation needed tags to be addressed.
• The references that do exist are mostly bare links.
• There are quotes that are uncited.

The article can be re-sent to GAN when these are fixed. Wizardman 03:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability

This seems to me to be a basically non-notable group/document: it received some media coverage when it first launched in 2006, then virtually nothing since. I've added the {{notability}} template, and will contemplate taking it to AFD. Robofish (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Euston Manifesto. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060528224425/http://www.counterpunch.org:80/farley05272006.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/farley05272006.html

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Opening Statement

"The Euston Manifesto (/ˈjuːstən/ YOO-stən) is a liberal conservative, pro-American, 2006 declaration of principles signed by a group of academics, journalists and activists based in the United Kingdom, named after the Euston Road in London where it had its meetings" seems to cast the manifesto in a light that is inaccurate, namely as being somehow "conservative", which, upon reading the later sections on its contents, doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe there's some kind of conservatism along such lines, but, just based off of this article, it appears to be a left-wing liberal manifesto in response to certain habits of the Left. It's all about championing openness and human rights and whathaveyou, it seems. I haven't read it, but it just doesn't seem akin to, say, American neoconservatism. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)