Talk:Lewis Mumford

message: 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)
thread_title:  Important work developing idea of Regional Planning and the US Regional Planning Association? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Philosopher or Historian 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: Mumford's appearance as the antagonist in a major, contemporary literary work deserves mention in the article.Yeago 13:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: 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)
thread_title: 2

message: 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. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 17:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3

message: 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)
thread_title: 4

message: 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)
thread_title: 5

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mumford's correspondence 

message: 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? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Kepler? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Epitaph  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Family life, Illegitmacy, Relationships, Marriage, Lovers 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mumford and Jane Jacobs 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Bioviability