Talk:Bob Black/Archive 1

Archive 1

2005 discussion

This looks like someone's self-aggrandizement. -- April

Actually, Bob Black's name is indeed known in underground publishing circles...usually as an egotistic jerk. But his 'Abolition of Work' is somewhat famous. Modemac

Black is indeed a well-known author and personality in the anarchist milieu. He clearly meets the "more famous than an average college professor" test and is deserving of an article here. The article certainly needs some work - beyond an account of "l'affaire Hogshire", its merely a stub and the article is not well organized. The Hogshire stuff probably needs a rewrite for NPOV purposes. Peter Werner - 2005/06/14.

Wooden Shoe Incident

Horseshit. It's not slander to mention that they turned around and DID THE EXACT SAME THING. You can read the goddamned article yourself. Don't hit me with "it's probably slander". It's going back in. SiberioS 04:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I really tire of the useless arguments back and forth about (a)s calling cops. It serves no purpose; most people will have to deal with cops sooner or later as a matter of pure pragmatism. Ideology or being a "good anarchist" has nothing to do with it. But I suppose Wikipedia isn't the place to grind that ax. Keep it in. --Bk0 12:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not a useless argument when considered in context. If Bob Black was a catholic theologian, than yes, it would be irrelevent. But he isn't and the Wooden Shoe isn't a Bible Bookstore. Both make open and avowed claims to their own political affiliation, which is "anarchism", and in the case of the Wooden Shoe (unlike Bob Black who has willfully admitted to and his proclivity to use the legal system before this incident ever happened) has made their opinion known on the issue of using the cops for ANYTHING, particuarly in moments of bodily endangerment. They uniformly condemended Bob Black for "Grassing" and took all his books down. They said it was unacceptable to call the cops after the fact and once out of harms way. Members of the same collective than turned around and did exactly what they criticized Bob Black for. Thats not a "useless" argument, thats a very relevent one. If its useless to other anarchists its because it offends them that someone might actually pointout (a) their rank hypocrisy and/or (b) how little they hold to the very political leanings they confess to believe in.SiberioS

It seems we more or less agree. I didn't look at the context of your addition closely before I reverted it. My apologies. --Bk0 18:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

More commentary from Bob Black (Dec 11, 2005)

(the following was added to the end of the main article, along with numerous edits which were preserved):

NOTE TO THE EDITOR (not for publication_:

This is Bob Black. I've made some corrections above, but several matters are so tangled that you will have to decide what to make of it.

The head-slamming incident confuses two incidents. One, at the Gorilla Grotto in San Francisco, involved a certain John Law slamming my head into the sidewalk, the most violent point in a feud with Grotto proprietor Gary Warne, who later became a policeman, then died. I sued Law, not for battery, but for a later libel. After a few months battling his lawyers, I dropped the suit, but it cost him $3,900.

Four years later, after 5 physical attacks on me by Processed World goons, I did a pie hit -- actually, it was yogurt (an in joke -- against PW honcho Chris Carlsson, who proceeded to beat me up, spit in my face, steal $120 from my wallet, and get me arrested. I never sued PW. PW had sued me trying to get an injunction forbidding me to post flyers "mentioning" PW, but the court refused as that is unconstitutional. I was already planning to leave the area and did so in summer 1985. 5 years later the charge was dismissed, presumably because of the statute of limitations, although I haven't researched the point.

I didn't maneuver my way out of Hog's apartment. He completely ignored the fact that I was holding his wife in front of me, and trained the rifle on her. Eventually I gave up, Hog finally got out of my way and I left at 2:00 a.m. Note that Hog was not arrested for conspiracy, he and his wife were arrested on separate charges (it always happens at a drug bust that everybody present is arrested, but charges against her were soon dropped). Hog was not "apprehended," if this means arrested against his will: law enforcement made no attempt to locate and arrest him, contrary to his claim to be a prominent enemy of the state. If he were, the Feds could have prosecuted him without regard to the State's plea deal, not only on drug charges but as an interstate fugitive (a felony).

About Hagen-Brenner, I do not recall any anarchists, or anybody at all, criticizing me. In that case "going to the police" meant calling to have an apparent unexploded or partly exploded bomb removed from my apartment. Maybe somebody did, but I don't remember it.

I deleted the reference to an "exchange" with Bookchin because he has never replied to my criticisms, although he has replied to John Zerzan, David Watson, John C. Clark, etc. -- just as I was conspicuously omitted from the rogues gallery in "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism" in the first place. Why? He knows I'll just fuck him up even more. Instead, he subsidized a See Sharp Press reprint of a libelous old pamphlet on the Processed World affair.

My understanding...

My understanding is that Bob Black does not use a computer, or if so, rarely does. Most of his writings being available online have mostly been due to friends posting them or posting his responses. While he may not be a primitivist per se, he does write for Green Anarchy occasionally, and to my understanding has a dim view of technology. If he doesn't correct things on here, its probably because he's not the one actually posting his responses.

Also, I wonder about some of the quotes that have been taken out of context, particuarly the welfare one (he was on welfare at the time, this is true, and he's generally admitted to being poor well, just about all the time...is this supposed to be some personal dig?)

I think the edits here are probably geniunely written by Black. They came from an anonymous IP that belongs to an AOL proxy (and were originally put in the main article, not this talk page) so either he has a computer or is using someone else's. The tone fits his style, echoes things he's written before and doesn't say anything particularly trollish as would be expected from a forgery.

I agree that the quotes added anonymously seem like slander. What does it matter to wikipedia if he was/is on welfare? The piece that the quote came from is at least several years old, maybe as much as ten. --Bk0 12:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh I agree they're genuine. I'm just saying he himself probably didn't type them up. I've seen a number of posts or messages from Bob Black which were basically him writing stuff for other people to type up and post online. He has also posted on Flag (an anarchist discussion forum) a couple times, but evidently has a tendency to triple post or not be able to use things on the forum. My understanding, like mentioned above, is he generally steers clear of computers just like Hunter S. Thompson did (who used a typewriter to his death and was known for having a ridiculously hard time using even a fax machine, or what he called The Mojo Wire). Some people just don't care to use or even learn how to use computers.

As for the welfare thing, thats also only a dig if you really view monetary success as crucial. Anyone whose read Bob Black's work (abolition of work anyone?) understands he probably doesn't give a damn. It seems irrelevent to the discussion.

The big issue is that, at the end of the day, Bob Black is lightning rod of controversy most of the time, from within the anarchist community, to the hallowed halls of zinedom. Most, if not all people, declare he probably is a very large asshole. Other people (particuarly the guys at Crimethinc and various anrcho-primitivists) seem to like him alot. Other (Murray Bookchin, etc) don't. The endless prattle about it seems to mostly have died down, though occasionally it flares up whenever the split between left and post left anarchy flare up (which has increasingly happened lately). User:SiberioS

My understanding is that Bob Black does not use a computer Are you thinking of Fred Woodworth (the Match!)? Mr Christopher 16:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Much of this article, specifically the Bookchin sections, seem to be written from a pro-Black point of view. скоморохъ 22:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with that, mostly because the article is written highlighting and using, Black's own words. It would be one thing if it simply stated "Bookchin was wrong" as opposed to what it does say, which is "Bob Black says Bookchin is wrong". There's a big difference, and when dealing with proponents of ideologies its not biased to actually highlight what they say, and their criticisms (and their own critics) in the article. SiberioS (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article does not stick to a neutral point of view. I say this as someone with no political or philosophic stake in the Black/Bookchin debate. April 26, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.222.175 (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should be mentioned that all of Bob Black's enemies hate him because he's skewered them in print. They don't hate him because he's dishonest or a creep, that's for sure. They hate him because he punctures the damn gasbags. What self-decepting gasbag wouldn't?

Too damned long

The bulk of this article appears to be a school book report on Anarchy After Leftism. That section could (and should) be reduced to a paragraph or two. It would take care of the POV complaints raised above as well. --71.241.206.81 (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that particular work seems to be prominent in his theory, so it is natural to expect a substantial portion of the article to be dedicated to it. Maziotis (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No NPOV

This article is pretty much hagiography, please discuss if you want to remove the template about it being out of balance (it surely is).Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be very interested, but I'll kick off with a couple of detailed points here and just start cleaning the article up in a few days if there is no response. To start with, the non-POV impression stretches back to the beginning of the article, and it hasn't changed much since. See the comments at the top of this page for confirmation. The subject of the article also seems to have had significant influence on its content, as can also be seen on this page. Specific disputable points are the statements that Bob Black originated the ludic and abolition of work ideas (at least in the sphere of political discussion). Both assertions are false, and their falsity is easily established. Also, much of the article lacks sources of any kind or, worse, is based on anecdotal statements from its subject.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hogshire appears to be a living person, the passages concerning him both on this page and in the article raise serious biography of living persons problems. Interestingly, it is also easy to read one passage as implying that Mr. Black was among the police raiders of Mr. Hogshire. Black would have to be a very unusual kind of anarchist to consistently brag about doing this, it is almost the article's centrepiece now.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a great article!

Bob Black is brilliant!!! "The Abolition of Work" is a Masterpiece!!! I read it years ago and I cherish every word of it.Classicjupiter2 00:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I reprinted it like 12 years ago. It may be that Bob Black face-to-face could be hard to put up with, but I think his writing is decades ahead of the tired crypto-Stalinist crap his detractors are always trying to push. I find he's spot-on with his analysis of the left and is one of the few in "anarchism" who are worth reading. 71.19.38.228 01:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bob Black here . . . a couple of points. As you can see, I use a computer -- I have since the mid-1990's -- but not very well. It's people like Fred Woodworth and John Zerzan who don't. I introduced some revisions here at least once, but I haven't figured out how to add source references. Most of the instructions I don't understand. Long before Wikipedia, or at least before I was written up here, I donated my copious correspondence, and some other materials, at its invitation, to the Labadie Collection at the University of Michigan graduate library. It is all available to anyone, except that for materials less than five years old, my permission is required. Nobody's ever asked for it, and nobody seems to have ever looked at the material. Thus everything I wrote to people, or that people wrote to me, about Processed World, SubGenius, Hogshire, Bookchin, etc. is publicly available. I've moved many times over the years, including a move from Albany to Buffalo (2005) and back (2008) and stuff gets lost that way.

I have also divested myself of almost all of my large collection of fanzines and suchlike publications. These include many texts relevant to my controversies. In my vanity, I separated the ones I was published in from the others. The ones I was published in, along with other texts I was published in (my own books, anthologies I weas in, etc.), I had arrayed on my bookshelves and, in my vanity, referred to it as the 15 Foot Honor Shelf. I was often published, from the mid-80' to the mid-90's, in these mostly DIY, mostly ephemeral media, the ones I talked up in the Boston Review in 1987 ("Mailing Their Way into Anarchy") and in the texts included in Beneath the Underground (1994) -- so often that for awhile I got a contributor copy from somebody almost weekly. I regret its demise, which is largely to be attributed to the Internet. (Although, in 1996, when I was visiting Jim Hogshire -- who was also prominent in the zine scene and had also talked it up in somewhat more exalted publications -- I said I thought it was "past his prime," and he agreed.) Anyway, I finally donated almost all the Honor Shelf zines to the Labadie Collection. Of the others, I donated almost all of them to the Long Haul Infoshop in Berkeley, California.

So, as for references to my version of things, why is what I send here directly, not considered a "source"? When the same thing, if it appeared typeset or merely photocopied, would qualify as a source? If Wikipedia is going to publish articles on someone like me, it should appreciate that much of the documentation, where there even is any, is in private correspondence or ephemeral publications. As I've explained, in my case, I've made much of that publicly available, but it's not in my possession anymore.

I see at the bottom of the page that "Encyclopedic [sic] content must be verifiable." That can't possibly mean what it says. What counts as verification? Apparently, the fact that someone has said it somewhere else before. But how does that make something veridical, i.e., true? Repetition does not make truths into lies or lies into truths. I see this a lot because almost everybody who makes various accusations against me these days is just repeating, unknowingly, accusations that have been parroted ten or twenty times before he heard it, by persons unknown to him, who wrote for reasons unknown to him. This is Stalinist epistemology: repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth.

I don't know if the reference to my having been on welfare is still in the article. I'm not on welfare. I've been on welfare, but not in many years, if only because Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress abolished "welfare as we know it" in 1996. Since then, public assistance is only available on a temporary basis except for the disabled, who are expected to apply for SSI Disability so they can get their money from the Federal government. Around that time, until, possibly, 1998, was the last time I collected welfare. I've at times collected benefits from unemployment compensation, food stamps, Medicaid and maybe other programs. I've even made several thousand dollars from lawsuits. But generally, I don't care to discuss my finances -- since I am not running for office -- at least until Ramsey Kanaan, Caitlin Manning and Chris Carlsson and Adam Cornford (Processed World), Doug Smith/"Rev. Ivan Stang," Chaz Bufe, Jim Hogshire, the estate of Murray Bookchin, etc., make full disclosure.

Anyway, what I write here, should be considered a "source." So long as it is attributed to me, the reader may decide how credible it is. In this respect it is no different from any other historical source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.108.78 (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Too long for having no citations

Most of this article's sentences are unsourced, and there are only 4 citations total, leading me to believe most of this article is original research. A major problem with these mega-citations is they are not verifiable. An example would be saying "the law says X" and citing a volume of the Statutes at Large. I doubt you would or even could disprove it, given the vagueness of my claim and the large amount of material cited. As it stands, I would have to read every one of Bob Black's books to find out what in this article is or is not OR. Or I can just challenge everything.

Looking at the history of this article, I am inclined to do the latter. This article has steadily been exploading with unsourced material, year in year out, since 2002 or so. The current citations seem to have been added recently, and are less citations and more like references to his works. All these are good examples:

• "outspoken critic of the post-left anarchist tendency"
• "Though he does not refer directly to Black's work"
• "an omission which Black interprets as symptomatic"
• "Bookchin clearly has Black's rejection of work as an implicit target when he criticises authors such as John Zerzan and Dave Watson, whom he controversially labels part of the same tendency"

That sounds like an essay, and that was one paragraph of like 14. And all of this would probably need a secondary source for the analysis, even if it wasn't wrong. It may sound draconian, but it is in an effort to keep out what is known on the street as "bullshit". Int21h (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, so what do you specifically propose? This thread has either not been seen or is being ignored, but I have a feeling that PoV pushers will come out of the woodwork as soon as the self-sourced and attack materials are touched. Giving it a try right now.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Can provide sources for the couple of new points I added, the deleted parts appear to be subject-generated. Most of the article is the same.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I propose mass deletion. Anything and everything that looks non-obvious. The only the thing that sucks is that this course of action would likely throw out the baby with the bathwater; ie. it would remove accurate, relevant material. I will try and break it up in as many edits as possible to make reversion easier, but as these things usually go some overzealous people revert edits but continue to leave absolutely no citations, or some ambiguous and impossible to verify citation... I will probably mass challenge them first to give people time to review the material. Int21h (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Corrections from Bob Black

This is Bob Black. I have only just seen your listing for me; I was unaware of your existence. I suggest some corrections.

You state that I am disliked by many because of the Jim Hogshire affair. But you also correctly say that I have criticised many other anarchists. For many whom I had previously criticized -- like Fred Woodworth and Chaz Bufe -- the Hog business was merely a welcome pretext for revenge. In fact, even those I have criticized long afterwards, such as Bill Brown and Murray Bookchin, then suddenly publicly developed an indignant interest in an ancient scandal they had ignored for years.

I was not attacked by "other publishers" because I have never been a publisher. The publishers who turned on me, Lompanics and Feral House, were Jim Hogshire's publishers in whose self- interest it was to exploit the incident to publicize his books. In the case of Adam Parfrey/Feral House there was also the element of solidarity, since he too is a narcotics addict (heroin, which is reportedly now Hog's drug of choice). His absurd letter never attracted more than about 30 signatories, most of them Loompanics or Feral House employees, prior enemies of mine, drug addicts and my ex girl friend. As Rev. Crowbar of Popular Reality wrote, what's most impressive is who didn't sign.

Since you choose to say more about the Hog affair than about all the rest of my activity, you might at least include links to sites like Spunk.org where you can read some of my side of the afair, in "My Date with Jim Hogshire" and "Letter to Doomed Planet and Pistil Press." For an example of an anarchist publisher -- Green Anarchist [London] -- who extends critical support and an analysis of my critics, see John Connor's letter at the Bob Black pages at www.inspiracy.com, which is also where to find more of my texts in one place than any other. I don't operate it, it belongs to Rodney E. Griffith. I don't recognize the website address you say is "my" website. I've never had my own website.

The Hog afair ended in anticlimax. Hog raised probably thousands of dollars by pledging to go to trial as a test case for his legally ludicrous theory that possession of opium is legal if you made it from legally obtainable ingredients. (There was already case authority to the contrary.) Instead, he copped a plea to a misdemeanor. The money for the trial ended up in his opium teapot. Then it turned out that, with his 15 minutes of fame behind him, Hog was after all nothing more than a junkie. He's burned out. He hasn't written a book in 8 years (I've written 2, and other things). Asking about him from Seattle contacts a few years ago, some said they never heard of him, others that they've heard nothing in years, and one ho repeated a rumor that Hog is now a heroin addict, fulfilling another of my prophecies.

In other matters: I don't consider myself an "anarcho- primitivist." The anthropologist's name is Richard Borshay Lee, not Richard Borshoy Lee. The linkto the Swedish site was new to me -- I'd heard of a Swedish translation of "Abolition of Work" but never saw it. You could also provide links to translations into some other languages, everything from French to Finnish.

I respect your work, but...:"he boasted that he had informed on Hogshire to the police leading to the latter's arrest." Is that really true? I hope not, man. At least not "bragging" about it. We shouldn't associate with the police unless we're throwing tear gas canisters back at them ;) (P.S. i bought your book online the other day, should come in the mail soon) --Tothebarricades.tk 03:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I respect Black's work too, but it is true. Actually the letter to Seattle PD wasn't anonymous, [See Sharp Press] (operated by Chaz Bufe) has a scan of the original letter, it is addressed from "Robert C. Black" complete with address. Make of it what you will. Bk0 04:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Black... This is a Wiki... please feel free to edit and correct anythink you feel violates Wikipedia:NPOV. I do agree that this article currently sounds like a personality slam by someone with a grudge, and I've never even heard of you or the situation and can tell that this is a very biased assesment.

More corrections added 4 Feb 2005:

Never mind the quotes, your short text is seriously inaccurate in many ways, some significant, some not so.

I was never a criminal defense attorney, not when I was young, and not anytime since. Because, like most American lawyers, I am not a litigator. I am unaware that anyone has ever made this claim before you published it, or since.

My former publisher Loompanics did not stage a "book-burning" of my books. Mike Hoy would never do that -- it would destroy his reputation. Rather, he sold off the copies of "The Abolition of Work" until they were gone -- and scrupulously paid me royalties. If you don't believe me, ask him. Again, this is a fairy tale never told before.

I didn't have dinner at Jim Hogshire's house. The weird thing about Mr. & Mrs. Hog is that (because of the dope they were on) they had no appetite, as Hog told me, they didn't eat, except reluctantly, there was no food in their refrigerator. We nibbled on crackers. Again, I've read 10 articles put up or ghost-written by Hog but none of them ever said this. So I think you should take my word for it unless Hog or his EX-wife (all this made her fed up with Hog) contradicts my story. But they will not, because they have both descended into narcotic oblivion. You won't even be able to find them. They may be dead. Whoppie!

I never made a phone call to the Seattle police. Hog, by his own admission, did make a phone call to the Seattle police to bust ME, but that is likely another of his lies, especially considering what the cops might see if they visited his apartment. Still, if true, it means that he snitched on me before I snitched on him. Rather, I went back to Albany, thought hard about it all, and then WROTE TO the Seattle police (who had already heard of him, it turned out). A dirty business but necessary to my honor.

You go wrong in supposing that the hysteria and witch-hunt whipped up, for business reasons, by Hog's publishers Loompanics and Feral House, 9 years ago, still matters. I am more active, more creative, indeed more famous than ever -- just do a Google search on me (and on Hog) and you will be convinced. I am an anarchist of worldwide importance, translated into a dozen languages. Who's ever translated Jim Hogshire? Even most of my political enemies are too embarrassed to bring up the Hog scandal. Bookstores controlled by anarcho-Stalinists, such as Lucy Parsons Center, bring the Hogshit up, but only as a transparent pretext for banning my books because they are revolutionary.

Perhaps it would help if you include my mailing address in your listing in case any of your readers has questions.

Bob Black PO Box 3142 Albany, NY 12203 USA

I am an anarchist of worldwide importance this made me chuckle :-) Mr Christopher

It did it also to me :) --Againme (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

line-wrapping added by some anonymous freak

I got real tired of each paragraph being a single line high.

This entry on Bob Black does a disservice to the range of Black's writings and influence on contemporary anarchism. It's true that "many anarchists" and "many publishers" dislike Black. There are a few anarchists who are critical of Black, but there is simply no evidence of widespread hostility towards Bob Black.

Black is a provocative writer and thinker. Attempting to use his personal life to discredit his intellectual work is just an example of intellectual laziness. -- Chuck0

Are all anarchists so used to protest that when it comes time to actually do they still just protest? Here we have two prominent representatives of DIY, not Doing It Themselves. Mr Black, if you aren't a primitivist, change it, if they got the anthropologist wrong, change it, etc etc. I could understand not wanting to bother, even respect not giving a damn what others think about it, but that you would write a 6 paragraph essay in the comments section and not make a single change that actually matters is damned weird.

not necessarily, Mr. Black has claimed to be something of a computer illiterate and the 'wiki format' is still something of a novelty to many. His style is to write critiques and retorts and reply he did. fwiw. -not bob black — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.214.138 (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

And Rev Chuck, the informing affair was not brought in to 'discredit his intellectual work', it was brought in because this is an article about Mr Black, and while his personal life might be irrelevent to a discussion of his work, it's not out of place in an encyclopaedia article about him. If you feel more is needed on his work, then by all means bring it in. DIY.

This was added to the article:

Never mind the quotes, your short text is seriously inaccurate in many ways, some significant, some not so.

I was never a criminal defense attorney, not when I was young, and not anytime since. Because, like most American lawyers, I am not a litigator. I am unaware that anyone has ever made this claim before you published it, or since.

My former publisher Loompanics did not stage a "book-burning" of my books. Mike Hoy would never do that -- it would destroy his reputation. Rather, he sold off the copies of "The Abolition of Work" until they were gone -- and scrupulously paid me royalties. If you don't believe me, ask him. Again, this is a fairy tale never told before.

I didn't have dinner at Jim Hogshire's house. The weird thing about Mr. & Mrs. Hog is that (because of the dope they were on) they had no appetite, as Hog told me, they didn't eat, except reluctantly, there was no food in their refrigerator. We nibbled on crackers. Again, I've read 10 articles put up or ghost-written by Hog but none of them ever said this. So I think you should take my word for it unless Hog or his EX-wife (all this made her fed up with Hog) contradicts my story. But they will not, because they have both descended into narcotic oblivion. You won't even be able to find them. They may be dead. Whoppie!

I never made a phone call to the Seattle police. Hog, by his own admission, did make a phone call to the Seattle police to bust ME, but that is likely another of his lies, especially considering what the cops might see if they visited his apartment. Still, if true, it means that he snitched on me before I snitched on him. Rather, I went back to Albany, thought hard about it all, and then WROTE TO the Seattle police (who had already heard of him, it turned out). A dirty business but necessary to my honor.

You go wrong in supposing that the hysteria and witch-hunt whipped up, for business reasons, by Hog's publishers Loompanics and Feral House, 9 years ago, still matters. I am more active, more creative, indeed more famous than ever -- just do a Google search on me (and on Hog) and you will be convinced. I am an anarchist of worldwide importance, translated into a dozen languages. Who's ever translated Jim Hogshire? Even most of my political enemies are too embarrassed to bring up the Hog scandal. Bookstores controlled by anarcho-Stalinists, such as Lucy Parsons Center, bring the Hogshit up, but only as a transparent pretext for banning my books because they are revolutionary.

Perhaps it would help if you include my mailing address in your listing in case any of your readers has questions.

Bob Black PO Box 3142 Albany, NY 12203 USA

What sort of self-important "anarchist" asshole calls the cops on someone who insulted him for his obnoxious actions?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Black. 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/20141216043154/http://littleblackcart.com/Defacing-The-Currency.html to http://littleblackcart.com/Defacing-The-Currency.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) 20:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hogshire section removed

I have removed the section of this article about the 'Hogshire controversy', as it contained negative allegations about living people and was not properly sourced. Negative statements about living people must be backed up by reliable sources, per WP:BLP. (I also noted that the Jim Hogshire contains no mention of this alleged 'controversy'.) Robofish (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish it was there, because (a) it might make anti-semitic speedfreak junkies who dabble in Islam think twice next time they pull an assault rifle on an unarmed, invited guest (b) it's food for thought about what exactly Loompanics's priorities were, and made me wonder exactly how far-right Mike Hoy used to be...at the time Libertarians and Anarchists shared a pretty small closet and The War On Drugs was probably the main bridge...but (c) it was an event that inspired most of Bob Black's old enemies to condemn him for "grassing" - which might've pleased them but alienated every young anarchist I knew (a group of about 50 teenagers in Portland, Oregon - we were rumbling with Tom Metzger fans and various commies/ALF-types who'd try to strong arm us for anything we made off our bands or fanzines or whatever. The idea of "turning the other cheek" was not very appealing. I wondered if an anarchist would condemn an anarchist for turning in a rapist or a murderer. I wondered if riding the bus made me a collaborator with the state. I was a pretty interesting event but we liked Bob Black because he's funny, honest, and really smart - Jim Hogshire on the other hand basically wrote really bad advice that probably got some people arrested, and a prison survival book without going to prison. Anyway, at the time, if you were into Loompanics, it was a major event. I decided to check out a lot of the writers Bob Black was familiar with and I'm not burned out on anarchy yet. But I'm sure anyone interested would be better off reading about it in Black's own words (or Hogshire's, which are funny and hysterical...if not hysterically funny...he must've been in quite a tizzy. Hope he had enough Xanax to get him through.) So there you go...and Mr. Black...I'm sorry we didn't voice our support. If you're ever in PDX, you got a lot of fans here, and your recent stuff has been better than ever. 76.115.63.153 (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Hogshire sections probably are not directly necessary to include on the page except as source for the politically relevant fact of Black being a police informant. I looked for a reputable source for this information and found undisputed copies of Black's letter to the police, but none from a wiki-worthy source (for instance one site had an expired cert that made chrome freakout for my safety). Rico (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead

Why the Kenn Thomas quote in the lead? Why is his opinion notable in this context?BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree and removed it. Also a comment about how influential 'Abolition' was/is as well as multiple poorly sourced statements in accord with the higher standard for poorly sourced statements on living figures. -not bob black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.214.138 (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the inflammatory description of Black as a "snitch" for the more factual "police informant" (which is the same thing but more generally understood). I re-added the undisputed fact that he is an author. And finally, since Black would like to describe himself as an anarchist and others hotly debate his anarchism given his snitchery and dominating tendencies, I use the phrase "self-described anarchist." Rico (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Evidence of being a police informant

This section is especially relevant as Black claims he is an anarchist and his work with police informs those who read his writings. Black himself appear to have repeatedly sanitized this biography ("I deleted, as I have several times before, the libelous account of my conflict with Jim Hogshire. I can't be bothered to replace it." ~Bob Black) which I call for more highly-placed editors than myself to lockdown. He is a wiki-editor as evidenced by his (long) writings here in the talk page.

As is often done on controversial wiki bio pages, I moved the deleted content that offers well-sourced evidence of Black's work with police to a [Bob Black#Controversy]] section. It contains no unsourced negative information about living persons, either Black or Hogshire. A well-sourced and brief version of the text read:

Black created controversy when, in 1996, he authored an informant letter to the Seattle Police Department Narcotics Division against Seattle author Jim Hogshire[2]. Black's letter alleged, among other things, that Hogshire operated a drug lab, advised police that Hogshire owned firearms, and brought attention to Hogshire's publications about illicit drug properties. Black's informant letter triggered a drug raid on Hogshire's home, police investigation, and over a year of trial. Hogshire eventually was cleared of all drug charges[3].

With two decent sources:

• "Bob Black's Letter to Seattle Police". See Sharp Press. Retrieved August 3, 2017.
• Goldberg, Carey (May 25, 1997). "Author of Book on Poppy Cultivation Cleared of Drug Charge". The New York Times. Retrieved August 3, 2017.

Corrections to proper Wiki form are welcome. Deletions however, I trust will be adequately explained here.Rico (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Revisiting this. An editor is repeatedly inserting reference to this incident in the lede with a See Sharp Press citation. I don't believe it belongs there, not being a defining moment of his life or career, but I do think it warrants mention below, e.g., under "Personal life".

Following an altercation during a stay at author Jim Hogshire's house in 1996, Black wrote a letter to the Seattle police informing of a drug laboratory there, which led to a raid authorization. They found no such lab and their charges were later dropped.<ref name="Pollan2021">{{cite book|last=Pollan|first=Michael|title=This Is Your Mind on Plants|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IOUHEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT35|year=2021|publisher=Penguin Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-593-29691-2|page=35}}</ref>

The fact that this is in a Michael Pollan book takes it beyond a niche incident, imo. My addition was reverted with the edit summary "WP:BLP" but I'm missing the actual argument there. I don't see a reason to warrant mention in the lede paragraph though. czar 18:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m fine with it being mentioned in the body but def not in the lede. The phrasing “police informant” is also POV. Volunteer Marek 06:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)