Talk:Michael Hardt

Group of 88 involvement still censored by biased Wikipedia editors

I have never come acros a more unified and biased overt effort at censorship than this "Group of 88" issue. So many people on so many pages for years pleading for ANYTHING to be admitted, and rampant abuse by biased editors using their authority to stamp out as much as possible. Read any article from this date, 5 years after the event, about either the continuing lawsuit or or related news and the betrayal by the Duke faculty is still a hot button issue. If anything has ever been notable, it's this story, yet in the "NPOV" "nuetral" Wikipedia you can see it has been intentionally smothered for years, evidence in the years of debate on the talk pages. Still, no mention of this international news 5 years and running controversy on this page. I am disappointed Wikipedia, you have shown your true bias, and are incapble of resolving to be truthful. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I frankly don't understand why someone keeps editing out Hardt's involvement in the Group of 88. Surely advocating for communism in the 21st Century(given the almost incomprehensible body count that can be attributed directly to communist regimes) is more embarrassing than trying to use the press to convict three innocent individuals before the conclusion of their trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. This man should not be taken seriously if he prejudge those lacross players he has no credit in my opnion.-Tra2112 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.68.75 (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment

NB the concept of the "multitude" is not "introduced" in "Empire." And the notion that it is only "vaguely and tenuously" discussed in "Empire" is rather tendentious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.33.163 (talk • contribs)

Nothing on the Duke lacrosse team fiasco?

Scrolling through the article's history, I see that all mention of Dr. Hardt's connection with the Duke faculty's slander of the lacrosse team has been edited out. It won't work; there's more to the internet and other public discourse than just Wikipedia. You can't be a gatekeeper when the walls are down. Still, there should be some sort of mention, as it is in connection with that case that the general public is likely to know of him. The Sanity Inspector (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Gloriamarie (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I took away the section, headlined "Controversy" and dedicated solely to Hardt's signing, along with 87 others, a letter to his university newspaper about the Duke lacrosse affair, and my change was promptly reverted. It seems from his/her contributions that User:HoundofBaskersville is particularly concerned with the Duke lacrosse scandal. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think that this is the place for such concern. Again, as I indicated in my original edit summary, it does not seem a particularly important event over the course of Hardt's career. To feature it so prominently here is to give it undue weight. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you jbmurray for your post and for acknowledging my humble contributions. My interests do include, but are by no means limited to the Duke Hoax, and I hope you will find the small history of my edits to be fair and honest. Hardt's role in the Hoax may be small in comparison to others such as Houston Baker, Richard Brodhead, and others, but is nonetheless notable and important. Beyond signing the widely-criticized Group of 88 statement as you pointed out, Hardt also was one of the principles along with Lubiano and Weigman to bizarrely attack critics and claim that the victims of the Hoax (beyond Mangum ) were themselves, as anyone who has followed the case would easily discover. In response to the concern about notoriety, the Lacrosse scandal's wide-reaching effects are still being felt today not only at Duke (numerous multi-million dollar lawsuits), but around academia in the larger sense. The academic setting which the Group of 88 was born out of is ever-so germane to political and some cases, questionable qualifications of the signers of the statement-Hardt included. Beyond that, The Sanity Inspector's post above speaks well enough and seems to suggest that I am not alone in meriting this inclusion. I hope that clarifies my revisions, which edit summaries, (alas!) do no justice. Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Quickly, as I'm on the road and won't have much time over the next week or so... Again, I don't want to downplay the Duke lacrosse scandal. I haven't looked at the article dedicated to it, but I see no problem in pointing out Hardt's role there. As you say, it was relatively minor compared to some, but he did indeed sign the statement--along with 87 others. I have no problem with that being noted and discussed. My simple point is that here, in this article, that section seems like undue weight. Were this a much longer and fuller article, then perhaps there would be more of a case.

Or to take another tack: that was a section entitled "Controversies," and it seems to me that Hardt is much more controversial for his writing, not for his signing collective statements. For instance, the recent Washington Post review of Commonwealth called it (and I forget the exact phrase) an "evil" book. His other work with Negri has also attracted harsh criticism from some. This, dealt with of course in suitable NPOV style and with due note of the praise that his work has also drawn, seems much more relevant to Hardt's career as a whole. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with jbmurray. Signing letters of support/condemnation are usual occurrences in academia. Especially given his involvement in social movements, Hardt has likely signed many. Other academics similar to Hardt, for instance Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, wrote many letters, attended demonstrations, and took controversial stances which weren't included on their pages because they were considered too insignificant. A closer consideration of Hardt's role in the lacrossee scandal would probably bear the same conclusions. If his political advocacy is important, research should be done into all endorsements he has made in order to prevent giving undue weight to a single instance. In addition, HoundsofBakersville's comments on the discussion page of the lacrosse scandal page would indicate a personal motive: "Those who have commented on the active supression of Group of 88 pages will not be surprised to find that the entries on Houston Baker and Alice Kaplan are being mercilessly whitewashed by faculty apologists. Please help in making sure that no fact of the Duke Lacrosse story is lost. HoundofBaskersville (talk) Faculty hacks are on the move again at the Alex Rosenberg page. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)" Also - the only way to trace back the blogger image used on other faculty pages is through Stormfront. Do I smell neo-nazis? --75.60.202.98 (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)--

Thank you for your concern. The posts which you refer to were tongue-and-cheek in relation to a similar post on the board. In addition, I have twice encounted edits on Wikipedia by members of then-John Burness' office, and a third from an unidentifiable Duke department. Since you seem unfamiliar to them, I suggest to you that you may wish refresh yourself with the codes of conduct for Wikipedia here: WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Personal attacks of nazism of any kind are an extremely serious matter and have no place here. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the point from the annonymous user about signing letters and making statements happens often in colleges and universities, I think the social disaster letter is not just a random one as the annonymous user seems to suggest. This particular signing gained widespread coverage and I agree with most of the editors that some mention of it needs to be made. I second jbmurray's idea that we need a section that includes the lacrosse case and his association with the criminal Negri.24.96.77.66 (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"I second jbmurray's idea that we need a section that includes the lacrosse case and his association with the criminal Negri." Um, this was not my idea. However, if there were a section on "controversies," yes, I would say that it would mainly be about what he has written with Negri, which is indeed what makes him notable. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't have a "controversies" section - it's never conducive to NPOV. More info about his collaboration with Negri would be valuable and could go in a section entitled "Co-authorship with Antonio Negri". Other stuff could go in the existing Views section. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely pathetic that some keep removing the reference to Hardt being a member of the Group of 88. Trying to claim membership in that group is not notable, given the infamy of the Duke Lacrosse case and the repercussions of that case (most of which centered around Nifong and others, such as Michael Hardt, trying to use the press to convict innocent men),is ludicrous. Just as lame is stating that "college professors sign letters all the time". Yeah make sure to let me know when any of those letters are part of a controversy involving one of the most famous court cases in recent memory. Please, quit insulting our intelligence by claiming you are removing references to the Group of 88 because of "lack of notability".

Not praised as communist manifesto of 21th century

This book is not praised as communist manifesto of 21th century by 'some' except themselves. The reference is to a Zizek article, which concludes that the book fails in this endeavor.

This is a clear mistake and should be removed. This is so much graver as it is among the first sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakolawski (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography & Biography Update(s)

Hardt's website contains a good list of his publications that could be added to this page: http://michaelhardt.org/?page_id=3198. Additionally, interviews and other pieces are available to draw from in revamping the biography section if someone is interested. For example, this piece 'How to Write with Four Hands' is an account of his relationship with Toni Negri: http://michaelhardt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/How-to-Write-with-Four-Hands-Toni-80th.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyvandernaald (talk • contribs) 14:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The "How to Write with Four Hands" article is very useful, and a few weeks ago I added some information from it to the biography section. I'm hoping to write more using that article (and a few others) soon. As for the publications, it looks like we just need to add some more of his articles, which I'm happy to do. Sinistersnowman (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)