|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Perry Anderson article.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
too much random, not enough relevant
This article is just a few random facts and opinions about Anderson, who has had a long life with a lot more in it than mentioned here. It needs greatly expanding with more material before picking at the little details. In particular the 'achievements' section is a bit silly (being disapproved of by Thompson is not Anderson's major achievement in life...). Just my 2 cents Marinheiro 14:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. What is up with that ridiculous "family history" section? It's totally irrelevant! The only possibly wiki-worthy fact is about his brother, which was already mentioned at the top. I propose deletion. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Components of the National Culture
Re: the above comments. This essay, republished I think from NLR in the Penguin collection Student Power, was immensely influential in its day, and read far more widely than many of Anderson's other essays. It tries to identify common trends in British intellectual life, e.g. an inability to reach a totalising view, dominance of emigre intellectuals, and packs an enormous punch in a very small compass. I think someone who knows enough about Anderson should try to work it into the narrative. I'm pretty certain the relations between Thompson and Anderson were a bit more nuanced than approval or disapproval on either side. Sjwells53 (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The article says:
- Thompson wrote an essay for the annual Socialist Register that rejected Anderson's view of aristocratic dominance of Britain's historical trajectory
In favor of what? --Singkong2005 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The article says: "He bore the brunt of the disapproval of E. P. Thompson in the latter's The Poverty of Theory, in a controversy during the late 1970s over the structural Marxism of Louis Althusser, and the use of history and theory in the politics of the Left." Having read Thompson's essay more than once, I have always been under the impression that Althusser bore the brunt of his disapproval. pmr (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Please clarify "neoconservatives"
The article says:
- In the Tracks of Historical Materialism regards Paris as the new capital of intellectual reaction, a finding that may shock neoconservatives who treat postmodernism as a left heresy.
Should "neoconservatives" link to Neoconservatism in the United States? In any case it seems like a big generalization about a broad label.
This could be reworded to be more NPOV. Just some observations from a non-historian... Singkong2005 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)