Talk:A Thousand Plateaus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Fashionable Nonsense and POV

I have some real reservations about citing the Sokal and Bricmont book on this page specifically. Sokal and Bricmont are by their own admission not experts in philosophy. More to the point, they have next to no repute within the fields of the thinkers they attack. They're beloved by laymen in the humanities, but their relationship with the actual field is akin to that of the handful of credentialed global warming deniers in the world of climatology. Furthermore, Fashionable Nonsense attacks a huge raft of thinkers, and does so on general terms with a bunch of examples.

Despite this, I don't think the book should be scoured from all criticism sections. But including mention of it on articles about individual works by the thinkers it criticizes gives, I think, undue weight to their viewpoint. In terms of this specific book - a subtopic of the larger subject of Deleuze and Guattari - Sokal and Bricmont just aren't credible or significant commenters and their inclusion has POV problems. I have no objection to the paragraph on Fashionable Nonsense in Gilles Deleuze, but that, I think, is the article where the criticism belongs. When you're on the level of granularity involved with an individual book by someone then broad methodological objections to their entire corpus, particularly when advanced from outside their field, are akin to citing Judith Curry in Bond event. 108.213.200.251 (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What are your sources for any of these claims? Are other editors expected to accept removal of sourced information from this article simply because of your unsupported claims about the source used (the Sokal/Bricmont book)? So far as I'm aware, Sokal/Bricmont have never said specifically that they aren't experts in philosophy, rather they've said that they aren't experts in the specifically philosophical work of Deleuze et al. They are experts in science, and inasmuch as the Deleuze/Guattari book discusses science, it's reasonable to mention Sokal/Bricmont's view of the failings of Deleuze/Guattari's discussion. I think this is done in a way in accord with WP:NPOV. More broadly, Sokal and Bricmont happen to be well-known critics of Deleuze and Guattari, and it's really too bad if you don't like that. You complain about POV in the article, but it's actually your arguments for removing the Sokal and Bricmont material that are POV. You are perfectly entitled to your view that "Sokal and Bricmont just aren't credible or significant commenters", but it's not a valid reason for removing anything. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure, when it comes to sourcing material, the burden of proof is on the people trying to include it. And so I would ask you - where is your evidence that Sokal and Bricmont are of any significant import as critics of this book (as opposed to Deleuze in general, this not being the Gilles Deleuze article)? They are a pair of critics who aren't even in Deleuze's field. Nor is A Thousand Plateaus primarily about science, although, yes, science does come up in spots. So we seem to have two people not from Deleuze's field criticizing Deleuze in general for something that this book is not primarily about. How, exactly, is it of sufficient relevance to be worth mentioning in this article? Again, I'm not disagreeing that Sokal and Bricmont are notable critics of Deleuze in general, but I really don't see how they're notable critics of this specific book. What makes their criticism notable with regards to A Thousand Plateaus specifically, i.e. to the topic of this article 108.213.200.251 (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You can declare yourself fairly sure of anything you like, but your views are not relevant if they aren't based on site policy. You haven't made any valid argument for removing this material. WP:RS, for instance, just doesn't say what you apparently suggested it does. The Sokal/Bricmont reference is not "criticizing Deleuze in general", as you falsely suggest. It is a criticism of one specific aspect of Deleuze and Guattari's extremely wide-ranging book, which is barely "philosophy" in the traditional sense of being mainly devoted to rigorous and abstract argument. Your talk about notability is beside the point. Notability is a policy which concerns which subjects may have articles created about them; it does not concern what sources we use in an article. See WP:NOTE. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I mean notable not in the site-specific fashion but in its conventional sense as a synonym for "significant." WP:NPOV states, and I quote directly, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." I am asking for any evidence that this brief mention in Fashionable Nonsense has any significance whatsoever to the subject of A Thousand Plateaus, a book that has been cited in literally thousands of other books. Seriously - Google Scholar has it at 11,174 citations. Many of those are going to talk about the book substantially, whereas Fashionable Nonsense mentions it on exactly one page. Merely being one of those 11,174 is not sufficient to qualify as a significant aspect of the subject, and for obvious reasons not all 11,174 can possibly be mentioned in this article. What about Fashionable Nonsense's brief one-page mention makes it one of the ones we should pick out of those 11,174 and discuss, as opposed to the myriad of scholarly viewpoints we omit?

Even if we treat all 11,174 of those citations as equal - and let's be honest, a healthy number of them mention the book on a hell of a lot more than one page, Fashionable Nonsense is .009% of the total academic commentary on the subject of this book. It currently makes up 14% of the Wikipedia article on the subject of this book. Indeed, more time is spent discussing Sokal and Bricmont's views on the book than are spent actually discussing what the book says. Please explain why you think Sokal and Bricmont are due this amount of weight. 108.213.200.251 (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleuze and Guattari's work has been criticized for its alleged abuse of scientific language. That doesn't appear to be in dispute. It's a criticism not only of their work in general, but also of specific books, for example, the book this article is about. My view is that a single sentence about the issue here is not giving undue weight to the issue, and is entirely in accord with WP:NPOV. You would have a point about undue weight if the article (for example) listed the specific pages of A Thousand Plateaus that Sokal and Bricmont consider the worst and most pseudo-scientific parts of the book, but it doesn't. I was careful to leave that kind of detail out. The fact that A Thousand Plateaus has been cited in numerous books doesn't show that Sokal/Bricmont's remarks aren't significant, and it's bizarre to suggest it does. They provide a critical perspective on this aspect of the book that other discussions of it might not. You seem to be arguing that if I can't produce an argument that satisfies you, this material absolutely must be removed. That's just not how things work here, I'm afraid. See WP:CONSENSUS. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Polisher, you haven't answered the anonymous editor's central argument, viz., that Sokal & Bricmont's criticisms of this book (Mille Plateaux) are not significant aspects of the reception of this book, and that mentioning them so prominently when only one other aspect of the reception of this book is mentioned (Negri's appraisal), is undue emphasis. By contrast, the main Deleuze article discusses a wide sample of critical reception, including a general appraisal of its influence. As the article currently stands, with so little content, only if Sokal & Bricmont's comments were particularly influential on the reception of this book would it be appropriate to single them out for special mention. 271828182 (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not answer the argument because I found it so strange. As a general principle, I do not think it makes sense to say that only "significant aspects of the reception" of books should be mentioned in articles about them. It implies that only well known or famous reactions to a book ought to be mentioned. Yet clearly quite obscure things that someone has written about a book could be worth mentioning if they convey information about that it is interesting or not to be found in better known sources. This is not an attempt to justify my view that Sokal and Bricmont deserve mentioning briefly in terms of Wiki policy, it's simply a common sense observation. If policy isn't flexible enough to take this point into account, I think it should be. The IP editor hasn't tried to explain clearly exactly what policies require removing this material. In any case, as Sokal and Bricmont are well known critics of Deleuze in general, and A Thousand Plateaus is part of Deleuze and Guattari's work, I fail to see any problem mentioning their views briefly. I believe that does answer the point that "Sokal & Bricmont's criticisms of this book (Mille Plateaux) are not significant aspects of the reception of this book". That this article says relatively little about A Thousand Plateaus is true and regrettable, but removing that one sentence of criticism won't improve it the slightest bit. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me elaborate on the point a little. I have expanded the content of this article only a little, but I've expanded other articles to a much greater extent, and I think the lessons there are relevant. I've rewritten the Life Against Death article altogether, and I've certainly found there that it helps to mention obscure or little known sources. To take just one particular detail, the article mentions Liam Hudson's view in his book The Cult of the Fact that Life Against Death was neglected by radicals because its publication coincided with that of Herbert Marcuse's Eros and Civilization. Now, is that a "significant aspect of the reception" of the book? Hardly - it's simply an opinion expressed by one relatively obscure writer in a little known book. Yet it's also quite a valuable and relevant piece of information, so it makes sense to include it regardless. The same would be true of a multitude of other things that article mentions. Insisting that we mention only "significant aspects of the reception" of a book would result in a dreadful article, if what it means is that we can only mention the views of writers who are well known for having commented on a book. Let's not set up rigid standards that can't be applied consistently in reality. If the views of a comparatively obscure commentator like Hudson can legitimately be mentioned in an article, what sense would it make to exclude the views of Sokal and Bricmont here? They are much, much better known for their views about Deleuze and Guattari than Hudson is for his views on Norman O. Brown. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, while you may not think that "only significant aspects of the reception should be mentioned," WP:NPOV is unequivocal on the point. It's policy, and as a result we do have to be careful about not giving undue weight to one aspect of the topic. WP:CONSENSUS is a squishy concept, but it doesn't allow for putting NPOV up to some sort of vote, whether formal or informal. To be clear, this isn't about satisfying me either - it's about satisfying basic standards of evidence. So again, and recognizing that this article is a different one with a different topic than Gilles Deleuze, and thus that something can be a significant point of view for one and not for the other, can you provide some evidence that Sokal and Bricmont are a major thread of commentary on this book in particular? Sources would be good - perhaps a major commentary on A Thousand Plateaus that makes mention of Sokal and Bricmont, or an article or two that focuses on Sokal and Bricmont's critique of this book in particular. I'm not looking for an argument that the line doesn't violate WP:NPOV - I'm looking for practical evidence - secondary sources that demonstrate that this is a major line of criticism for this book in specific. 108.213.200.251 (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not "unequivocal" that "only significant aspects of the reception should be mentioned". It simply does not say any such thing (which is just as well, because it would be ridiculous if it did). What it does say is that, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Given how well known Sokal and Bricmont's attack on Deleuze and Guattari's work is, the suggestion that a single brief sentence mentioning their criticism of A Thousand Plateaus doesn't belong here is unconvincing. The argument that Sokal/Bricmont can't be relevant here because they are well known for their attacks on Deleuze and Guattari's work in general rather than this specific book is disingenuous. Sokal and Bricmont's attack includes detailed criticisms of A Thousand Plateaus, and it's precisely because their criticisms of what they see as the weaknesses of specific texts such as this one were seen as convincing that their attack became famous. By the way, why are you asking for evidence that Sokal and Bricmont's critique is "a major thread of commentary on this book in particular"? Why aren't you asking for that evidence where Antonio Negri's view that A Thousand Plateaus is the most important philosophical work of the 20th century is concerned? There seems to be something of a double standard at work here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I quoted the relevant section of WP:NPOV. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." At this point, I find your attempts to evade this question increasingly troubling. (But for the record, I haven't queried the Negri mention largely because I don't have any doubts of Negri's importance with regards to this book. Do you? If so, we can certainly discuss that, though I'd spin that off to a different discussion.) In any case, please provide evidence - you know, actual sources - that indicate the significance of Sokal and Bricmont's critique to this book in particular. I'll wander back here towards the end of the week, but if you can't provide evidence that the weight given to Sokal and Bricmont is due, I'm going to remove it again. 108.213.200.251 (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. So you have no trouble at all with including Negri's praise of this book because you personally have no doubt that it's important, and therefore don't feel that evidence of its importance is required? Yet you demand that evidence, in the form of sources, must be provided to show that Sokal and Bricmont's views are important. That's a blatant double standard. It amounts to saying that no evidence is needed for anything you consider important, but that evidence must be provided for anything you question, a preposterous position. Other editors aren't stupid, and will be able to understand what you're trying to do. If you continue to edit war here, I'll get the article protected. In fact, just your threat to do that would probably be sufficient reason for getting the article protected now. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can take the view that sources for Negri's importance aren't required, because you don't question their importance, I think I can equally well take the view that sources for Sokal/Bricmont's importance aren't required, since I don't question theirs - I don't believe in double standards, after all! But if other editors (not only you) insist that such sources are required, it shouldn't be especially difficult to find them. Reviews of Fashionable Nonsense would be a good place to start. Sokal links to them on his website. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Polisher, you wrote: "Sokal and Bricmont's attack includes detailed criticisms of A Thousand Plateaus". However, I can find no such criticisms. In fact, the only mention of the book by name is on p. 168 of the English version. Here is the entirety of their discussion:

"Should the reader entertain any further doubts about the ubiquity of pseudo-scientific language in Deleuze and Guattari's work, he or she is invited to consult, in addition to the references given in the footnotes, pages 20-24, 32, 36-42, 50, 117-133, 135-142, 151-162, 197, 202-207, and 214-217 of What Is Philosophy?, and pages 32-33, 142-143, 211-212, 251-252, 293-295, 361-365, 369-374, 389-390, 461, 469-473, and 482-490 of A Thousand Plateaus."

That's it. (There is an earlier footnote on p. 155, but again, it is just page references, no discussion at all.) While this is fairly representative of the level of commentary in Fashionable Nonsense, it falls well short of detailed criticism of A Thousand Plateaus, let alone a "significant view" of the subject of this article. 271828182 (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You are perfectly correct, and thank you for correcting me. The point that their criticism of A Thousand Plateaus is fully deserving of a brief mention stands, however. Sokal/Bricmont's attacks on Deleuze's works is well known enough for the case for its inclusion to be obvious. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Their attacks are well-known enough to merit inclusion in an article about Deleuze or Guattari, yes, absolutely. (As they are in the article on Deleuze.) But offering a bunch of page references with no discussion is barely to have a view on A Thousand Plateaus at all. It is a fortiori not a "significant view". 271828182 (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sokal/Bricmont's comments on A Thousand Plateaus, brief as they admittedly are, are quite enough to make their view of it clear. I don't believe the brevity of their comments indicates that they aren't a significant view; the issue of what counts as significant is more complicated than that. I'd recommend seeking wider community input on this issue. Perhaps a request for comment, or something of that order. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the extreme brevity of their comments on A Thousand Plateaus, I think at the very least some supporting evidence in the form of secondary sources discussing A Thousand Plateaus specifically in light of Sokal and Bricmont is in order. I'm willing to accept that their comments on the book, brief as they may be, could theoretically be significant, but I'd want evidence. And my own reading in the field hasn't brought any to light. So again, I'm asking you to provide some. If Sokal and Bricmont are a significant part of this specific book's reputation then there's going to be a trail of secondary sources that discuss their comments on this book specifically. If you can provide these sources - as I said, my experience in the field hasn't done so - I'm happy to drop my objections. Otherwise, though, I really don't see what reason there is to treat this as a significant viewpoint other than your say so. As for Negri, I've started a separate discussion below on him. 108.213.200.251 (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. It would be fatuous to suggest that the fact that a source briefly says something about a book means that its views cannot be significant and should never be mentioned in an article. It shouldn't even be necessary to point out why. Your comment ("If Sokal and Bricmont are a significant part of this specific book's reputation then there's going to be a trail of secondary sources that discuss their comments on this book specifically") has no basis in WP:NPOV; it simply seems to be a rationale for removing material you disagree with. No policy anywhere says that a source's views have to be "a significant part of this specific book's reputation" to be mentioned. NPOV requires only that significant views should be mentioned, which is not the same as the requirement you've just invented or even close. A source's views can be significant for many reasons; the fact that Fashionable Nonsense is a famous book is a good enough reason to consider what it says significant (and its being a famous book does not depend on my say-so; it would be well known to anyone familiar with the topic area). So your demand for sources is out of place. Other editors don't have to meet your arbitrary tests, and grandstanding won't help. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Fashionable Nonsense is significant in a general sense, but this does not mean that it is significant to this particular topic. Again, the requirement is that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Quite simply, given that it is mentioned exactly once in the book and only to give a broad listing of page numbers, I dispute that Fashionable Nonsense is significant to this subject. Which is very clearly what the requirement is - not a general test of significance in the abstract, but a test of significance to the precise subject of the article. I am open to other proposals for how one could demonstrate its significance to this specific subject - secondary sources that show Sokal and Bricmont's engagement with this topic seemed a straightforward one. But your vague assertion that the book is significant because it is significant holds very little weight. Some evidence of some sort is required. I am willing to be open to what it is, but you've offered nothing whatsoever that indicates that Fashionable Nonsense is significant to the subject of this article, and NPOV is unambiguous that significance to the subject of the article is a requirement for inclusion. 108.213.200.251 (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sokal/Bricmont's opinion on the book is as relevant as anyone as else's (for WP purposes) but context is everything. First, they are not really saying anything definitive, but merely suggesting there are examples of this type of writing style (but saying what they are). Second, their names shouldn't just be dropped in there — they should include some kind of descriptor about who they are or why their opinion matters (for example "In their book Fashionable Nonsense AS and JB, critics of postmodern language, cited...". Third, it would be more accurate to say they "cite" (or even "suggest") instead of "believe". Fourth, this doesn't even have to be a criticism - just an observation of the writing style. Fifth, I would be careful about using the term pseudo-scientific language because it is not clear what that means (which seems to be the point of the book) and authors don't provide any examples (just page numbers where there may be examples). Also, regarding the issue of undue weight, at this scale the answer is to add more content to balance it out. This is a Start-class article which means "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources." I would include this, but, if I'm reading it correctly, something along the lines of "Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, critics of postmodern language, cited A Thousand Plateaus as an example where the writing style was unnessarily complex." or "Language critics Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont suggested the writing style had examples of postmodern complexity." maclean (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I continue to be skeptical that the due weight of Sokal and Bricmont on the subject of A Thousand Plateaus (as opposed to on the Gilles Deleuze article, where I agree wholeheartedly that discussion of Sokal and Bricmont belong). The context of their mention is basically a laundry list of "in this book here are the bad bits, whereas in this book here are the bad books." I really don't see the particular significance to this specific book. Even in a bulked out article with an extensive discussion of A Thousand Plateaus's reception I'd find Sokal and Bricmont a strange choice for inclusion. 108.213.200.251 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not assert that "the book is significant because it is significant." I said that it's significant because it's a famous and well-known book, which is just a fact, whether one likes it or not. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that the number of times a source - such as the Sokal/Bricmont book - mentions something is relevant to whether it's significant enough to be worth mentioning in an article about it, and the reasons should be obvious. Even a single brief reference can contain very valuable information. So the IP is just plain wrong in his/her/its views of what NPOV requires. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've not denied that it can contain very valuable information, but I see no reason to assume that, in this instance, it does. This is getting tiresome - what evidence can you offer that Sokal and Bricmont are a significant perspective on this specific book? That's the only question I have at this point, but it's one you're conspicuously avoiding answering. 108.213.200.251 (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would you "assume" anything at all about the merits of their views, or suppose that other editors would care what you "assume"? You seem to think that it's vastly important what you think of the merits of a source, and that if what it says is wrong in your opinion, then out it must go. If I wanted to exclude views from this article that I thought were wrong (which I don't, since I understand how helpful it can be to readers to tell them what writers have even incorrectly said about a book), then Negri's bizarre suggestion that A Thousand Plateaus is the most important philosophical text of the 20th century would be the first thing I would remove. It's certainly much more implausible than anything Sokal and Bricmont say about it. Sokal and Bricmont are well known critics of Deleuze, and they know something about science. Ergo, yes, their views are significant. Over and over again, you've asked why they are significant, and over and over again, I've explained why. There's no point to complaining that other people cannot demonstrate something to you that you do not want to have demonstrated to you. 02:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Their views about Deleuze are significant. No one is doubting that. But how are their views about A Thousand Plateaus significant? You haven't given any compelling argument for that claim, and that's the issue here. The anonymous editor is not being unreasonable. 271828182 (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't define "significant" in so many words. Presumably, the idea is that intelligent adults are capable of understanding the meaning of "significant" without too much difficulty. It appears self-evident to me that views expressed about a book in a famous book that received widespread praise are indeed significant. No doubt one can endlessly spin out arguments that they aren't, based on idiosyncratic understandings of what is "significant" (in the spirit of, "there are endless understandings of 'significant' and here is mine...") but the policy wasn't meant to be applied or understood in such perverse ways. It would appear that "significant" is understood in contrast to utterly fringe views such as, eg, Holocaust denial and flat-earthism. Fashionable Nonsense is not above criticism, but it really would be taking things too far to place it in that category. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Polisher, I am generally considered an intelligent adult, but I seem to understand "significant" in a rather different way than you do. In particular, I do not think "views expressed in a famous book that received widespread praise" are self-evidently significant views. For example, John Allen Paulos' book Innumeracy is a widely praised book and I'd guess it's more famous than Fashionable Nonsense. In it, Paulos briefly argues that the quantity of water needed for the Flood would have surely destroyed Noah's Ark. It's a far more developed view than Sokal and Bricmont's of A Thousand Plateaus, since Paulos actually devotes several sentences to the view, rather than list page numbers. And Paulos' view seems entirely plausible. But that doesn't make it a significant view about Noah's Ark, or one to be included in the Wikipedia article on Noah's Ark. Nor do I think "significant" in this context is the contrary of "fringe" (see [WP:FRINGE], which makes it clear that fringe views are those opposed to "mainstream scholarly opinion"). "Significant," in this context, seems a variation on notability: that Sokal and Bricmont's views on A Thousand Plateaus have received or generated noteworthy independent attention. And while Sokal and Bricmont's view about Deleuze and French postmodernism in general are significant and notable in this sense, I still have yet to see any evidence that Sokal and Bricmont's views about A Thousand Plateaus in particular are significant or notable. 271828182 (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Significant, in the relevant context of WP:NPOV, for most purposes does mean non-fringe. I think that's perfectly obvious. The examples of views not considered "significant" are things like holocaust denial and flat-earthism. You might personally think that it would be good to define "significant" as something that "received or generated noteworthy independent attention", but WP:NPOV doesn't define it that way, or anything even close to that. If you have any further doubt on the matter, I would suggest taking it up at the neutral point of view noticeboard, where I have started a thread. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Your reading of the policy has no basis in fact. Beyond that, of four editors who have been involved in this discussion, you're the only one to support the sentence as it stands. I am removing it. I am open to the possibility that some mention of the book may be warranted, but the one the article currently has is not, and at this point there is a clear consensus against it. 108.213.200.251 (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. "Significant" means non-fringe in this context. It doesn't matter if you assert otherwise. Four editors have commented so far - two, including you, opposed inclusion, but two others - Maclean25 and myself - support inclusion in some form. Maclean25's objections were to an earlier version of that material, not to the version that you removed, so your claim that there is a consensus for removing it is wrong and downright dishonest. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Would love to see someone post an explanation of sokal & bricmont's criticism as applied to ATP. (Actually would love this even more for Difference and Repetition, Deleuze's harder-core (more formal) work, to which their criticisms apply more directly. That would be a freakin' great place to spell out their critique of Deleuze's take on calculus etc. groupuscule (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC) P.S. What we need isn't less criticism, it's more content on the book itself! Let's get to it! :-) groupuscule (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Eleven instances of pseudoscience

Re this silly (just my opinion) revert battle: Why not say "eleven"? (That is sort of all we have to go on, isn't it?) groupuscule (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason for not saying eleven is that the exact number of allegedly pseudo-scientific passages the book contains is completely irrelevant. It makes no difference at all to Sokal and Bricmont's view of the book what the exact number of such passages is. Furthermore, it seems obvious that they don't insist on there being exactly eleven of them. They do provide a listing of allegedly pseudo-scientific passages, but there is no indication that it is meant to be exclusive, or that more such passages could not exist. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe part of the problem is that they never specifically discuss anything in the book! Maybe we should not include this factoid if we're just reproducing S&B's territory on our map by alluding to the existence of a possible criticism without actually making the criticism. Also, if the original text accuses D&G of pseduo-science, why not say that it accuses D&G of pseudo-science? Personally I find bizarre that so much energy can be put into disputing this topic... I think we'd all care about it much less if we had proportionate coverage of the book itself. groupuscule (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sokal and Bricmont are well known physicists and critics of what is seen (rightly or wrongly) as post-modern thought. It ought to be worth including at least one brief sentence on their views. This was debated over at length, and taken to the neutral point of view noticeboard, and in the end agreement was reached that yes, it should be included. If you want to start the debate all over again, and take it back to the neutral point of view noticeboard again, then you can, but it seems like a foolish effort. As for the pseudo-science part, the agreement reached was that "pseudo-science" is a vague and unhelpful term that shouldn't be used. Again, I suggest looking up the past discussions on this before making any changes to the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If 'pseudo-science' is a vague and unhelpful term that shouldn't be used, then it would seem that Sokal & Bricmont's extremely brief criticism of the book could be criticized similarly. I can't tell you how uninterested I am in having a dispute about Sokal & Bricmont on the "neutral point of view noticeboard", a forum to which luckily I've never resorted. In my personal opinion these characters have some good points but may have gotten carried away in targeting the entire post-structuralist genre... thereby feeling able to dismiss a text like A Thousand Plateaux—which two very intelligent people spent years of their lives working on—as pseudoscience, based on some page numbers. However, you'll recall (or read above) that I supported including this little factoid—which is not particularly thought-provoking or informative—because I'm more interested in expanding the article than in warring. That being said, I don't understand why you're so attached to the current wording of the S&B statement. No hostility meant, I just don't understand what's going on such that this single sentence is the object of major discussion but there is almost nothing about the book itself. So I reiterate my suggestion of collaboration below. And if you want to work on a "Criticism" section instead of a Plateau", that would be great! groupuscule (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Having dredged up the discussion on the noticeboard, I find that the "consensus" to which you're referring is the transient suggestion of one user, offering their opinion based on not knowledge of either the book under discussion or of the critique. I don't think that's grounds for continual stubborn reverts now. PoC: I respect all the work you do on philosophy books, for real, but... that's not consensus! Consensus isn't about getting your way through a formal procedure and then maintaining it... it's about having a conversation with all interested parties, with the goal of understanding all the ideas in play so that we can create a better outcome. The term "pseudo-science" may be unhelpful, but it's what S&B use, and I am at a loss to determine how the current wording is any more helpful to any imaginable reader. Furthermore, I feel like you've been really rude to 108.213.200.251 and I don't think that's cool. groupuscule (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Just so there is no misunderstanding of this point, the "pseudo-science" wording that the IP tried to revert the article to is in fact the wording that I originally added to the article. It was User:Activism1234 who suggested, "Physicsts Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont suggest that A Thousand Plateaus contains many passages that use scientific terms in arbitrary or misleading ways." That wording, with only minor modifications by one other editor, had been stable for some time following the discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard, and it seems like a reasonable conclusion that it represents the consensus. I certainly think it is an improvement over what I originally added. You suggest that Activism1234 is ignorant both of A Thousand Plateaus and Sokal/Bricmont. I do not know how you would know this, and it doesn't seem reasonable to make such assumptions. If you think the point is important, then you could raise it with Activism1234, if he or she is still interested. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

So far as rudeness is concerned, I don't think that I have been either more or less rude than the IP, and I think a look through the revision history of the article, and a comparison of the IP's edit summaries next to mine would confirm that. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I reject Polisher's "reasonable conclusion" that the sentence reflects a consensus of editors. It reflects his view, and that of Activist1234 (presumably), but I still find inclusion of Sokal and Bricmont's fleeting reference to A Thousand Plateaus to violate WP:UNDUE. 271828182 (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Simply repeating what you have said in the past, without giving new arguments, is not very helpful, and neither is focusing on that one detail of the article to the exclusion of everything else. Could you explain why all the other material that has been added to the article recently (not by me) does not violate WP:DUE? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Polisher of Cobwebs this is hilarious. Why were they blocked? Wow, we should have postmodern theorists talk about how "pseudo-poetic" physicists are on their wikipedia entries! Go, go, go! If anybody wants to collaborate, the postulates on linguistics chapter mentioned in the TOC below is fun. It seems that in our very !own entry on a book of philosophical/psychological theory, the Wiki-Voice is taking sides for a guerrilla skeptic POV on how one can scientifically write about the body without organs. How funny is that! :D

References

SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Fashionable Nonsense, again (see above)

well, I am waiting for "@FreeKnowledgeCreator:" to come defend the idea that there is consensus for the dubious "pseudo-science" factoid being the topic sentence of a paragraph... I see one blocked contributor claiming that it is not frivolous above. By making this comment I'll add myself to the existing consensus that it should be removed. It certainly is not mentioned in the somewhat more useful Stanford IEP. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The sentence under dispute appears to be this, "The physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont argue in Fashionable Nonsense (1997) that A Thousand Plateaus contains many passages in which Deleuze and Guattari use pseudo-scientific language." That sentence simply reports what Sokal and Bricmont's views are in the book in question. As such, it is a factual statement, and there is nothing "dubious" about it. It is not "the topic sentence of a paragraph", as you falsely state. Your claim that there is a "consensus that it should be removed" is factually false. Your comments are confused. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

My comments are not at all confused. For example you state that the sentence with an unwarranted blue-link to pseudo-science is not a topic sentence. Wikipedia (which is obviously unreliable) defines a topic sentence as follows: "In expository writing, a topic sentence is a sentence that summarizes the main idea of a paragraph. It is usually the first sentence in a paragraph." Please observe the third paragraph in the reception section as you last edited it on 8 December 2018 (also the fourth §). As you can see, before I edited the article it was the first sentence of a fairly long paragraph (for en.wp) that had nothing to do with pseudo-science. We should not say more in WikiVoice than what is supported, which is exactly what I've tried to do with the more neutral, just the facts, prose I added. Also, I don't think you could exactly argue that prankster Alan Sokal & fr:Jean Bricmont are the "consensus" view on Deleuze. ^^ Anyway, we've said our piece; I've diminished what several of us have identified as WP:UNDUE now. Let's see if other people have an opinion on how to improve the article, shall we? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they are. Essentially everything you have said has been wrong or mistaken in one way or another. I do not need you to define "a topic sentence" for me. Your claim that the sentence "The physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont argue in Fashionable Nonsense (1997) that A Thousand Plateaus contains many passages in which Deleuze and Guattari use pseudo-scientific language" is a topic sentence and "summarizes the main idea of a paragraph" of which it is part is simply wrong. 100% wrong. The paragraph of which that sentence was part is just a collection of different opinions and the sentence about Sokal and Bricmont in no way "summarizes the main idea". The paragraph does not even have a "main idea", as it is simply a collection of unrelated opinions and quotations from different sources. I cannot imagine what you think you are accomplishing by claiming something so obviously false. You are inventing utterly spurious, baseless reasons for trying to remove the sentence about Sokal and Bricmont and I think that would be obvious to any unbiased person reviewing this discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good point you've made about how there aren't any topic sentences in your article (you've written 43.8% and the blocked editor contributed 7%). don't shoot the reporter ^^ I'm not sure why you moved this from the original discussion about why the existing prose was WP:UNDUE. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You confused matters by adding brand new comments to a very old discussion that no one had contributed to for more than six years. That makes it that much harder for other editors to follow the discussion and understand what is actually happening. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You comment, "We should not say more in WikiVoice than what is supported, which is exactly what I've tried to do with the more neutral, just the facts, prose I added" - the material was already "just the facts", as you would have realized had you understood it properly. It simply states what Sokal and Bricmont's views are and does not endorse them. Once again, you are trying to justify your changes by making false claims. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was tired. I fixed the prose of your 4th revert by adding the quotation marks for what you were directly quoting and preferentially blue-linking. Why blue-link pseudo-science & not language? Why not both? Calm-promise is always better than dog-ma-tics, right? ^^ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Whether it is appropriate to link a given term depends on the nature of an article. In the case of an article especially concerned with language, it may make sense to link the term "language". Otherwise WP:OVERLINK applies. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Stanford Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Sokal & Bricmont

Here is the topic sentence of the section on "The 'Science Wars' Critique" for the sake of comparison.

Deleuze was one of the targets of the polemic in Sokal and Bricmont 1999. As much of their chapter on Deleuze consists of exasperated exclamations of incomprehension, it is hard to say what it is that Sokal and Bricmont think they have accomplished.

~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Wikipedia is not the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. We are a different project with different rules and objectives and we don't have to do things the same way they do. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's partly right, there are *relevant* differences. Here are some notable ones:

3. Contributions to the Encyclopedia are normally solicited by invitation from a member of the Editorial Board. However, qualified potential contributors may send to the Principal Editor or an appropriate member of the Editorial Board a preliminary proposal to write on an Encyclopedia topic, along with a curriculum vitae.

By qualified, we mean those persons with accredited Ph.D.s in Philosophy (or a related discipline) who have published refereed works on the topic of the proposed entry. By refereed works we mean either articles in respected, peer-reviewed journals or books which have been published by respected publishing houses and which have undergone the usual peer review process prior to publication.

4. All entries, whether solicited or approved, will be refereed by one or more of the subject editors on our Editorial Board or by one or more external referees who have been approved by a member of the Editorial Board.

source

~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

See also:

References

Lyotard

SashiRolls, you have twice now altered material about Jean-François Lyotard's comments about A Thousand Plateaus in The Postmodern Condition, claiming that the material misrepresents Lyotard. It did not misrepresent Lyotard. Lyotard comments in the book,

"I have read in a French weekly that some are displeased with Mille Plateaux [by Deleuze and Guattari] because they expect, especially when reading a work of philosophy, to be gratified with a little sense."

(page, 71; the comments in brackets are an editorial interjection)

What appeared in the article was,

"The philosopher Jean-François Lyotard commented, however, that he had "read in a French weekly that some are displeased with Mille Plateaux... because they expect, especially when reading a work of philosophy, to be gratified with a little sense."

There was no "misrepresentation". The article accurately reflected what Lyotard wrote, even if it was incomplete. Your preferred version reads,

" At the beginning of a short essay on postmodernism, Jean-François Lyotard lists many examples of what he decribes as a desire "to put an end to experimentation", including a displeased reaction to the book that he read in a weekly literary magazine saying that readers would like to be "gratified with a bit of sense". Behind this "slackening" desire to constrain language use, Lyotard identifies a "desire for a return to terror." "

I don't consider the "At the beginning of a short essay on postmodernism" part necessary or helpful. I can understand why you would mention Lyotard's comment about a desire to put an end to experimentation, since I grant that it places his comments in context. The last part of your addition ("Behind this "slackening" desire to constrain language use, Lyotard identifies a "desire for a return to terror") concerns something that Lyotard wrote many pages after his comment about the perceived senselessness of A Thousand Plateaus. It has barely anything to do with A Thousand Plateaus, and it is a clear case of undue material. I suggest the passage be rewritten as follows:

"The philosopher Jean-François Lyotard commented, in an essay included in The Postmodern Condition (1979), that dismissive reactions to A Thousand Plateaus he had read in a French magazine were an example of a widespread desire "to put an end to experimentation".

Either that, or the reference to Lyotard could be removed entirely. It says nothing of substance about the book. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The text as written before misrepresents the source. The first three pages of the text follow the anaphoric pattern "I have read X, I have read Y, I have been reading Z..." all of which are examples of the first noun in the essay -- "slackening" -- and lead to the penultimate line of the essay which is included in the quote field of the reference template. I take it you opened the index and found the reference on page 71? You should probably also have read the ones that lead to Frederick Jameson's forward: "Lyotard's affiliations here would seem to be with the Anti-Oedipus of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, who also warned us [...] that the schizophrenic ethic they proposed was [...] a way of surviving under capitalism, producing fresh desires within the structural limits of the capitalist mode of production as such." I do not understand why you want to keep Lyotard saying he read something in Lire (or similar), and refuse the actual philosophical analysis of that reading. I do not see any reason why you would want to remove the source now that it's clear that it bears directly on the accusations of "pseudo-scientific language" use. :P — SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The text was an almost verbatim copy of what appeared in the book. It may have been incomplete but it wasn't a misrepresentation. If your question about why I would "refuse the actual philosophical analysis of that reading" is a reference to my suggestion that the part about "Behind this "slackening" desire to constrain language use, Lyotard identifies a "desire for a return to terror" be removed, the answer is simple: the passage in question is undue and has barely anything to do with A Thousand Plateaus. It is separated from his mention of A Thousand Plateaus by many pages and it plainly isn't a comment on the book; it's just a comment about a vaguely related issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Could you stop bludgeoning the talk page, please? I misspelled a word and had to get an (edit conflict) again within 5 minutes of responding. Your previous edit is indefensible without the larger context. With the larger context, indeed, Lyotard did mention the review for a reason: he wanted to point out how speech is policed in a very Deleuzian way. Cf. insigne (pun on enseigner), p. 75 sqq. of A Thousand Plateaus. (language as power, hard to avoid performative speech, etc.)

You've been controlling this page for years, can't you just let go for a few minutes? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your comments are beside the point. Perhaps Lyotard did mention the review because "he wanted to point out how speech is policed in a very Deleuzian way". Even if that is true it is irrelevant. Your addition, ' Behind this "slackening" desire to constrain language use, Lyotard identifies a "desire for a return to terror" ' is not a comment about A Thousand Plateaus at all, but an statement of Lyotard's views about other issues. As such, it does not belong in the article. WP:UNDUE applies. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of undue material, you added this: "Writing about this "science wars critique" for the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy entry on Deleuze, Daniel Smith and John Protevi contend that "much of their chapter on Deleuze consists of exasperated exclamations of incomprehension." That also is not about A Thousand Plateaus, except perhaps indirectly. It is a comment about Sokal and Bricmont, and as such it has no place in the article. It would be appropriate material for the article on Fashionable Nonsense but it is obviously inappropriate here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary cookie break

Wow, as of now, the article reception section is almost half-potable in its quirkiness. There were some good sentences buried in those overlong paragraphs that had no topic sentences. (ps: that's a compliment actually, some of those sentences are quite good). I also appreciated that you deleted some of the less pertinent stuff. I didn't want to be unkind deleting, that's why I moved the Madagascar text into "influence" for example.

Concerning the Smith & Protevi article on Deleuze there is a section on the book at the Stanford encycophilo that is 100 times better than this page, in addition to the comments on Sokal & Bricmont's fashionable nonsense, which is cited in the previous sentence. I see no reason not to leave the reference to Sokal & Bricmont, that way students can come and just turn the pages of the book following the citation template and write how X or X' are pseudoscientific, and see what their philosophy teachers think of their en.wp reading.

Sincere thanks for motivating me to sift through the article. In a weird counterfinality,¹ had you not been so darn ADJ, I might not have VERBed.

¹ I see you're also a contributor to the CDR which I may look into, that book is pretty far up there on the unreadability scale. I didn't see the notion of fraternity-terror anywhere in that article. I used to have a link to a good resume of that particular stage of movements on my user page somewhere. ^^ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed the comment by Smith and Ptotevi for a very clear and very simple reason: the material is not about A Thousand Plateaus and shows nothing about the book. It is a comment about Sokal and Bricmont. Whatever connection it has with A Thousand Plateaus is indirect at best. That being the case the Smith and Ptotevi material does not belong here, per WP:UNDUE. You behaved inappropriately by restoring the material here. You should not have marked the edit as minor. Minor edits are those that there could never be a reasonable dispute about: " In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. " There is a dispute here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I have some sort of Twinkle thing installed just above the undo button which I was aiming for, while the page was still loading. I should definitely have restored the material which is directly relevant to the book as demonstrated in the comment above and by a click on the link to the material. I've already shown why on the talk page (peer reviewed material about the book in question) Now that I've apologized for my misclick, good night! ps: please don't delete the Stanford Encyc again, it might give others who stop by some ideas for improvements to this article, which still needs a lot of work, especially the summary section, obviously. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

No. I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong about this. The material in question ("Writing about this "science wars critique," Daniel Smith and John Protevi contend that "much of their chapter on Deleuze consists of exasperated exclamations of incomprehension") is a criticism of Sokal and Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense. It is about Fashionable Nonsense, not about A Thousand Plateaus, and it is altogether inappropriate to place it in this article rather than in that on Fashionable Nonsense. To add material like that, which has only some kind of indirect connection to the article's topic, confuses things and worsens the article rather than improving it. You are not making any kind of convincing case by referring to your own past comments in a circular or self-referential fashion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that you deleted your previous, rather insulting, claim that readers will learn nothing about A Thousand Plateaus... from this link. I'm beginning to think that Bbb23 was right to doubt there was much hope, I'm afraid, you are not using your eloquence to *build* an encyclopedia. Are you worried your 100,000+ contribs will be replaced by Stanford? It is puzzling to me that you have fought for years to keep Sokal & Bricmont in this article and that now you want to delete any reference to their confused criticism of the texts. This is a particularly good reference, because unlike the others it does not focus exclusively on the comments that are about What is Philosophy. You should really edit your quote in the cite template to delete the dozen extra page numbers. They concern a different book entirely, and you're apparently concerned (now) about nothing extraneous being in the text... I could do it for you if you like... SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of Sokal and Bricmont's book, Fashionable Nonsense, is criticism of Fashionable Nonsense, not a discussion of A Thousand Plateaus. It belongs in the appropriate article, which is not this one. So no, I don't believe that there should be "any reference to their confused criticism of the texts" because the article is not about them. Refusing to acknowledge that this is a legitimate point doesn't make it any the less legitimate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

As for, "You should really edit your quote in the cite template to delete the dozen extra page numbers. They concern a different book entirely, and you're apparently concerned (now) about nothing extraneous being in the text": I have no idea what you are talking about. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Summary section

SashiRolls, I thank you for your efforts to improve the article. I think many of your changes are improvements and do help the article. Unfortunately, some of your changes are not improvements. I believe you need to modify your approach. For example, I think there are problems with your recent edits to the "Summary" section. Some of the content you added there ("Each chapter of the body is dated, sometimes precisely ("November 20, 1923: Postulates of Linguistics) and sometimes less so ("10,000 BC: The Geology of Morals") is unnecessary or trivial; other additons ("Like the first volume, the second volume of Capitalism and Schizophrenia was politically and terminologically provocative") are inappropriate inasmuch as they are comments on, observations on, or opinions about, the book rather than simply description of its contents. Material of that kind may belong in the "Reception" section, but not in the "Summary" section. Please reconsider your approach, discuss these issues on the talk page, and do not simply reinstate your edits when they are challenged. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I am sorry, but it is completely unrealistic of you to expect to be able to ignore other editors when there is a dispute and your edits are challenged. Again, please discuss things on the talk page and try to reach consensus. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Properly attributing authorship

SashiRolls, as I have already pointed out to you, the sentence "Like the first volume, the second volume of Capitalism and Schizophrenia was politically and terminologically provocative" is an opinion about A Thousand Plateaus, not a description of its contents. As such, it does not belong in the "summary" section. It should be moved to the reception section. An additional problem with that content, besides the fact that you have placed it in an inappropriate section, is that there is no proper attribution. You have supported the sentence with a citation to an article by Charles J. Stivale, but simply including a citation is not a substitute for clearly attributing the material to its author in the text. See WP:INTEXT. Without proper attribution, the material could be considered a copyright violation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

First you say I'm talking out of my hat, then you edit the page for the second time despite the in-use tag insisting that I give *you* a citation. So I take time out of trying to actually provide a summary of the book to satisfy your need for attention by finding a reference that echos my formulation (based on reading at least two other articles), whereupon you suggest I'm guilty of copyright violation. You seem rather desperate. PS: please read WP:NOTHERE and go do something constructive somewhere instead. I formally recommend serious thought be given to topic-banning you from this and related pages unless you can show you have contributed something positive to this much-needed rewrite that you keep disrupting with trivial complaints. Notice also how this new concern of yours relates to your previous refusal to quote Sokal & Bricmont for "pseudoscientific language". SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Your comments are insulting and foolish. You cannot drive other editors with different views away from an article by adding an "in-use tag". Beyond that, there is a real potential copyright problem with the material you added. Per WP:INTEXT: "In-text attribution is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation after the sentence. In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation); indirect speech (a source's words modified without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing. It can also be used when loosely summarizing a source's position in your own words. It avoids inadvertent plagiarism and helps the reader see where a position is coming from." This is a real problem even if you refuse to recognize it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Please provide the exact quote you are accusing me of violating copyright on a text I hadn't read until you forced me to find a reference talking about very obvious issues of terminology and provocation. Thanks. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I already, at the beginning of this thread, pointed out the misplaced text at issue. The relevance of WP:INTEXT is obvious. It is perfectly possible to violate copyright even if you are not using the exact same words as a given source; paraphrasing can also involve possible copyright violation. It would be easy to avoid copyright violation or the appearance or suspicion of it by simply rewriting the sentence so that it reads something like, "According to Charles J. Stivale, like the first volume, the second volume of Capitalism and Schizophrenia was politically and terminologically provocative." Your text can still give the appearance of violating copyright even if you only read the source after a citation was requested. It's a real problem you need to avoid. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The reference is entirely unnecessary; it is a widely established fact that C&S is creative (in re terminology) and provocative. I'm still waiting for the citation you say is now an accidental copyvio. I'll be happy to add it to whatever I decide to write about this little wiki-bullying episode. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

If by the "reference" you mean the citation you provided, then it is certainly necessary, as your addition is otherwise a clear case of original research, essentially you making something up and putting it in an article. Now either the citation to Charles J. Stivale does support the text in question ("Like the first volume, the second volume of Capitalism and Schizophrenia was politically and terminologically provocative") or it doesn't. If it does, then that text is possible copyright violation without explicit in-text attribution to Stivale. If it doesn't, however, then you added a citation that fails to support the existing text - also a problem, since it means the text can still be considered original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Disruption after 4 minutes

As I mentioned I gave you four days to improve the article without editing it. You gave me four minutes.

You claim: other additions ("Like the first volume, the second volume of Capitalism and Schizophrenia was politically and terminologically provocative") are inappropriate inasmuch as they are comments on, observations on, or opinions about, the book rather than simply description of its contents.

While deleting something [completely different... ]

As Brian Massumi says on page xi, quoting Guattari:

"The most tangible result of Anti-Oedipus was that it short-circuited the connection between psychoanalysis and the far left parties", in which he and Deleuze saw the potential for a powerful new bureaucracy of analytic reason.

[...]

A Thousand Plateaus... was billed as a sequel to A-O and shares its subtitle: Capitalism & Schizophrenia. But it constitutes a very different project. It is less a critique than a positive exercise in the affirmative "nomad" thought called for in Anti-Oedipus

Did you by any chance open the book to check that reference in the 4 minutes between my edit and your revert? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls, whether you accept this or not, other editors reverting your edits is not in and of itself a form of "disruption". All of us get our edits reverted at times. It is part of life on Wikipedia and you need to find a better way of dealing with it than edit warring or making accusations against people. Discussing precisely which edit summaries were used in precisely which edits is not a sensible or profitable thing to do: please focus your attention on the content issues. As I said, the comment, "Like the first volume, the second volume of Capitalism and Schizophrenia was politically and terminologically provocative" is an opinion about A Thousand Plateaus, and as such belongs in the "Reception" section and not the "Summary" section. I do not see any meaningful response to that in your comment above. As for Massumi's comments, they similarly are one man's opinion. My view of them is that would make a good addition to the "Reception" section, but they do not belong in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (FKC tweak) (edit conflict) (FKC tweak)

Please acknowledge that you understand that this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I have placed the "in-use" template on the article, and that you are therefore not correct to be reverting my edits after giving me 4 minutes to work on them. You have been on this page since 2012; I think you need to learn to share and stop the stonewalling. I also think you should not be deleting well-sourced information as I've shown you doing with the blue link above. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Please stop making irrelevant comments and actually address my criticism of your edits. The problem with the material you added (the "well-sourced information") is not that it is uncited but that it belongs in the "reception" section rather than the lead and the summary section, where you insisted on placing it. The fact that information is cited does not automatically make it appropriate to any section of the article: "Like the first volume, the second volume of Capitalism and Schizophrenia was politically and terminologically provocative" is an opinion about A Thousand Plateaus that would be appropriate only to the "reception" section. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls, this inappropriate edit by you contains a false claim: "restoring quotes from Guattari and Massumi that were deleted without comment". I did not remove that material without comment. I gave detailed explanations for my edits here and I stand by them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Now that you have added something to the talk page about the material you are actually deleting, I will humbly suggest that since it appears on page XI of the book being summarized, it belongs in the "summary" section of the entry about Massumi's translation of Mille Plateaux and not the "reception" part of the entry. Now please find an other entry / talk page to contribute to for a while? I'm sure you're needed more elsewhere than here. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You are confused, because you placed Massumi's comments in the lead, not the summary section. Your rationale is also completely mistaken, because the comments are by Brian Massumi, not by Deleuze and Guattari. They were added to the English translation, and they are not part of the French original. Since they are not by the book's original authors, they simply do not merit inclusion in the summary section - placing them there would imply that Massumi's foreword is equivalent in importance to Deleuze and Guattari's work. You would have a point if the article were specifically about the English translation of A Thousand Plateaus, but of course it isn't. The article is not about "Massumi's translation of Mille Plateaux", as you falsely state; it is about Mille Plateaux itself. Suggesting that Massumi's comments belong in the "Summary" section is equivalent to suggesting that some minor figure's introduction to an edition of Das Kapital belongs in a "Summary" section describing the contents of Das Kapital. That would certainly be wrong and your position is equally wrong. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The title of this entry is not Mille Plateaux. The translator's foreward is part of the assemblage of the book they translated, just as the index is. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is about the book A Thousand Plateaus, not specifically the English translation of the book by Massumi, and it is preposterous of you to suggest otherwise. The fact that the article's title is A Thousand Plateaus and not "Mille Plateaux" is irrelevant, as it simply reflects the fact that this is English Wikipedia and not French Wikipedia. Massumi's foreword to his translation of the book obviously is not part of the translation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

There is not much point continuing this. I'll conclude by stating the obvious. Without Massumi's work there would be no object A Thousand Plateaus identified by the ISBN 0-8166-1402-4. The foreward and index are part of that book-unity, at least in the common capital/scientific understanding of the concept "book". ^^ As Heidegger is reported to have said, "every translation is already an interpretation". — SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

There is not much point continuing this because your position is a blatant absurdity. No, the article is not specifically about the English translation of Deleuze and Guattari's book, and it would be impossible to write a worthwhile article the basis of the assumption that it was. For example, would you remove all mention of the book's reception in France or by French authors? One couldn't include such information if the article were only the about the book's English translation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Content Dispute / Behavior Issues

For those who come to this page later, it would be well to note that Polisher of Cobwebs was blocked as a sockpuppet of FreeKnowledgeCreator. Is this how Wikipedia is meant to work? On this page, four different users have advanced arguments for reducing the undue emphasis on a single chapter of what the SIE of philosophy has identified as a polemical book, and FKC seems to swim against this current. Their latest revert is to remove quotation marks from directly quoted material in their own text, and to give blue highlighted wiki-weight to the term "pseudo-science" in the first sentence of a paragraph. They also, in the same revert, wish to emphasize that Sokal & Bricmont are physicists, despite the fact that their criticism of Deleuze's work seems to turn around historical questions about differential calculus (Sokal is a mathematics professor.) Protevi & Smith, cited in the previous section of this talk page, describe Fashionable Nonsense as a polemical book in the thesis statement of their paragraph concerning what they call "The 'Science Wars' Critique". The content problem is as follows: I have made three successive proposals, all three of which were intended to be productive. Polisher of Cobwebs FKC's deletion of any version other than their !own is the problem. (comment: when a single editor advocates for the edits of a blocked editor they count as only one !vote, a fortiori in cases in which the blocked editor was blocked for being a sockpuppet of the single editor in question).

original text: The physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont argue in Fashionable Nonsense (1997) that A Thousand Plateaus contains many passages in which Deleuze and Guattari use pseudo-scientific language.

proposal 4: The physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont argue in Fashionable Nonsense (1997) that A Thousand Plateaus contains many passages in which Deleuze and Guattari use "pseudo-scientific language". (diff 5)

proposal 3: Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont argue in Fashionable Nonsense (1997) that A Thousand Plateaus contains many passages in which Deleuze and Guattari use "pseudo-scientific language". (diff 4)

proposal 2: The physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont list what they consider to be "pseudo-scientific" language in the book in Fashionable Nonsense (1997). (diff 3)

proposal 1: The physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont list all the pages on which they contend that Deleuze and Guattari use "pseudo-scientific" language while writing philosophy about the body without organs. (diffs 2, 1)

References

I would like to hear from other people about the proposed edits, I will try WP:3O or an RfC if nobody watching the page wants to get involved. I am also considering action at ANI concerning WP:BITE, !WP:OWN, WP:SOCK... WP:EW, etc. This will depend on whether or not the obstruction continues as further, referenced, contributions are made. ~ 🐡 ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry issues were dealt with many years ago. The administrator who dealt with my sockpuppetry case, Bbb23, could have blocked me indefinitely, but in fact left me with permission to use one account. I have used only this one account for years now. There is thus no basis for "action" concerning WP:SOCK. You are being tendentious by trying to use my past behavior as a weapon against me instead of dealing with the issues at hand. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The rest of your comment is a series of tendentious claims and complaints about nothing. I've already tried to explain to you that what other users may have said more than six years ago has no bearing on current consensus. There is no reason why "pseudo-science" should be placed within inverted commas in the text of the article, and it's ridiculous for you to try to turn that into some issue of massive importance. Likewise, there is no reason why "pseudo-science" should not be linked, and no importance at all in the fact that the term occurs "in the first sentence of a paragraph". Sokal and Bricmont's professional backgrounds are obviously relevant, and you had and have no good grounds for removing mention of them. I am sorry if you were angry you were reverted. I can only point out that it happens to all of us at times. Try making better edits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, rickroll the adjective pseudo-scientific to pseudoscience: no problem. However, we should provide our readers with a counterbalancing link to language. You ask why there should be "inverted commas". My answer is: because it is a direct quote. Not recognizing this, when it is written in the quote= field of the citation template seems (at least to me) to be stubborn, dilatory, and disruptive.

Their background as polemicists is well-known, too, why not add that? The polemic was apparently about whether humanities scholars (philosophers, literary or social theorists, etc.) have the right to use ordinary words also defined in the language of mathematics and science in provocative ways. Cf.

References

— SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

No, we should not wikilink "language". See WP:OVERLINK. It applies here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, then we delink "pseudoscience". See MOS:LINKQUOTE, given the above reference. If there is no need to link the noun "language", there is no need to cross-dress an adjective as a noun to add blue to the text. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

No. Whether "pseudoscience" should be linked or not has nothing to do with whether "language" should be linked or not. They are completely separate issues. You are talking nonsense. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

That's just about enough abuse. Be aware that while I am a friendly person with a thick skin, my patience for toxic comments has its limits. For the record, I see tha before someone (maybe you?) squeezed the bluelink to pseudo-science in, you were involved in a pointless edit war about whether or not en.wp should be precise about the number of sections that were identified as uses of "pseudo-scientific language" in their allegedly "seminal" chapter on the book this is the Wikipedia entry about: diff 6. I also see one person dominating the previous discussion of this page at WP:NPOV/N here. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for my rudeness. However, as I said, whether "pseudoscience" should be linked and whether "language" should be linked are separate and unrelated issues. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to apologize; we'll get along better if we're both nice about it. I have added the question to WP:3O as neutrally as I could. The best solution I see is to create a new paragraph with a topic sentence about the polemic followed by a couple reactions from the community of Deleuze experts (such as those listed above). How would you craft such a paragraph? I am obviously afraid to invest time doing it because of your previous 5 reverts, so I'll ask you to write the first draft of a more neutral presentation. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I see no advantage to any of your proposed changes. I see no reason to follow a single sentence mentioning criticism of A Thousand Plateaus by Sokal and Bricmont with "a couple reactions from the community of Deleuze experts". Remember that the article is about A Thousand Plateaus, not about Sokal and Bricmont; we don't want to add material that could be considered off-topic or undue. As far as I'm concerned the article is entirely neutral already. No need for remedies for problems that don't exist. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I've had a look at the discussion here and I think there are (some) reasonable points here, so I wonder if a suitable compromise can be reached. Some immediate thoughts:

• SashiRolls, your suggestions labelled proposals 1 and 2 as the quotation marks around the term pseudo-scientific look like scare quotes. This is also a problem with proposals 3 and 4, though quoting the phrase "pseudo-scientific language" looks less like a scare quote and more like a quotation from the source.
• Your suggestion about wikilinking "language" misses the fact that the term language is much more common and well-understood than is pseudoscience. Linking the latter at its first appearance in the main article text is consistent with standard WP practice, and as Sokal and Bricmont are using the term in its ordinary sense makes linking within a quotation appropriate.
• FreeKnowledgeCreator, a quotation of the content is appropriate and S&B have a point, D&G's writing uses scientific terminology without regard to its actual meaning – which has led to criticism of "inorganic life" as invoking vitalism, for example (see "Inorganic, Yet Alive": How Can Deleuze and Guattari Deal With the Accusation of Vitalism?).
• This could be expanded by noting examples from Slavoj Žižek and the dismissal by defenders like Andrew Culp who wrote, referring to both Žižek and criticisms of pseudoscience, that Deleuze's defenders are correct to dismiss such criticisms as either incomplete or outright spurious. Yet there is a kernel of truth that goes back to an old joke—a communist is someone who reads Das Kapital; a capitalist is someone who reads Das Kapital and understands it. The present response from Smith and Protevi would also fit more naturally.
• So, I suggest redrafting to something like:

In their 1997 book Fashionable Nonsense, physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont criticised "the ubiquity of pseudo-scientific language in Deleuze and Guattari's work," citing examples from both A Thousand Plateaus and their earlier book What is Philosophy? In a similar way, Slavoj Žižek has criticised their use of terms like "inorganic life" for using terms without regard for their existing meanings (a common criticism during the Science Wars) and for invoking the ideas of vitalism, a concept that "form[s] the basis for many pseudoscientific health systems" and which was largely abandoned by biologists by 1930 and by philosophers of biology by the mid 1960s. Defenders of Deleuze and Guattari have argued that critics focus on the surface of the arguments without comprehending the depths. For example, Daniel Smith and John Protevi contend that "much of [Sokal and Bricmont's] chapter on Deleuze consists of exasperated exclamations of incomprehension" and so does not engage with the deeper meaning of their work In a similar way, Andrew Culp states that "Deleuze's defenders are correct to dismiss such criticisms as either incomplete or outright spurious" and goes on to imply that these critics do not understand what they are reading, summarising them with "an old joke—a communist is someone who reads Das Kapital; a capitalist is someone who reads Das Kapital and understands it." Critique addressing the comprehensibility of the work also came philosophers; in a 2015 interview, British philosopher Roger Scruton characterized A Thousand Plateaus as "[a] huge, totally unreadable tome by somebody who can't write French." Similarly, Jean-François Lyotard has written of a desire "to put an end to experimentation", citing the displeased reaction he had from reading A Thousand Plateaus in a weekly literary magazine, stating that readers of philosophy "expect [...] to be 'gratified with a little sense'."

• What do you think, as a replacement for the existing paragraph? EdChem (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Thank you for commenting, EdChem. Now that you have commented, a case can be made for removing the third opinion request, since this is now arguably no longer simply a dispute between two editors. If you think that the term "pseudo-scientific language" ought to be placed within inverted commas, then I am content to agree to that - it is not really a crucial issue.

While I welcome your proposal, I do have some problems with it. It begins with, "In their 1997 book Fashionable Nonsense, physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont criticised "the ubiquity of pseudo-scientific language in Deleuze and Guattari's work," citing examples from both A Thousand Plateaus and their earlier book What is Philosophy?" - I am not sure why What is Philosophy? should be mentioned here, as it is not the subject of the article; the article is only about one specific book, not about Deleuze and Guattari's work more generally. I have not read the Žižek material. If it is specifically about A Thousand Plateaus, perhaps that could be stated more clearly than it is in your proposal. If not, I am again uncertain why it is relevant. The same point applies to the following material: "Defenders of Deleuze and Guattari have argued that critics focus on the surface of the arguments without comprehending the depths.[2] For example, Daniel Smith and John Protevi contend that "much of [Sokal and Bricmont's] chapter on Deleuze consists of exasperated exclamations of incomprehension" and so does not engage with the deeper meaning of their work[5] In a similar way, Andrew Culp states that "Deleuze's defenders are correct to dismiss such criticisms as either incomplete or outright spurious" and goes on to imply that these critics do not understand what they are reading, summarising them with "an old joke—a communist is someone who reads Das Kapital; a capitalist is someone who reads Das Kapital and understands it." It all looks more like material about Deleuze and Guattari in general than material specifically about A Thousand Plateaus. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I think your suggestion specifically about the Lyotard material - "Similarly, Jean-François Lyotard has written of a desire "to put an end to experimentation", citing the displeased reaction he had from reading A Thousand Plateaus in a weekly literary magazine, stating that readers of philosophy "expect [...] to be 'gratified with a little sense' " - is good. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input EdChem! I like the idea of adding comment from Zizek, I think, but definitely do not like the idea of ending the paragraph with the introductory matter in Lyotard without mentioning what Lyotard actually says about the example, i.e. that it is part of a rear-guard attempt to control speech (that it is part of the "desire for a return of terror, for the realization of the fantasy to seize reality. The answer is: Let us wage a war on totality; let us be witnesses to the unpresentable, let us activate the differences and save the honor of the name." (82) Again, Lyotard uses an interesting form in that short essay. The comment about readers "expect[ing] to be 'gratified with a little sense'" is part of a list of complaints about postmodernism Lyotard "has read" (in the first section called "Demand"). In the next session, titled "Realism", Lyotard says that the hegemony of scientific/capital control of language is at issue:

There is no denying the dominant existence today of techno-science, that is, the massive subordination of cognitive statements to the finality of the best possible performance which is the technological criterion. [...] The objects and the thoughts which originate in scientific knowledge and the capitalist economy convey with them one of the rules which supports their possiblity: the rule that there is no reality unless testified by a consensus between partners over a certain knowledge and certain commitments. (76-77)

I'll look into the new citations you've suggested once the "Summary" section has been improved, as that should probably be the priority at the moment. The paragraph currently in the entry about the "pseudo-science" accusation currently contains no errors; it would be a mistake to reintroduce a misrepresentation of Lyotard's position, I think. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls, you may not like the idea of not mentioning Lyotard's views about attempts to control speech ("Behind this "slackening" desire to constrain language use, Lyotard identifies a "desire for a return to terror.") but the question has to be asked, why should your judgment override that of other editors? Three editors have commented on this so far - myself, EdEchem, and you - and no one agrees with your view of this. As those who look up The Postmodern Condition will find, Lyotard's comments about controlling speech are separated from his mention of A Thousand Plateaus by many pages, and they have only the slightest and most tenuous connection with it. Your insistence on keeping them in the article anyway is an example of your support for content that doesn't meet the test of WP:PROPORTION. Removing Lyotard's mention of free speech issues wouldn't introduce any kind of "misrepresentation", it would simply remove something that is not a comment or observation about A Thousand Plateaus and thus doesn't belong in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I did not see Edchem make any claim about whether or not he had read the short essay in question. It would be very surprising indeed if Roger Scruton's criticism of postmodernism in Fools, Firebrands and Whatnot was similar to Jean-François Lyotard's "Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism?" (which on any given day interested readers can usually find online). Reading the whole essay leaves little doubt about Lyotard's opinion about the "rear-guard attacks" he opens the essay describing. Here is another citation from part II to help you get the picture: "The demands I began by citing are not all equivalent. [...] But in the diverse invitations to suspend artistic experimentation, there is an identical call for order, a desire for unity, for identity, for security, or popularity (in the sense of Öffentlichkeit, of "finding a public"). — SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

What Lyotard's views about free-speech issues are is not the question. The question is why material about Lyotard's views about free speech belong in the article, given that they are material about Lyotard's views on that specific issue, not material about Deleuze and Guattari or A Thousand Plateaus. Here as elsewhere in the article you are making the mistake of including material that is only in the most indirect sense relevant to the article. WP:PROPORTION and common sense dictate that such material should be kept out. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoting FreeKnowledgeCreator: :Thank you for commenting, EdChem. Now that you have commented, a case can be made for removing the third opinion request, since this is now arguably no longer simply a dispute between two editors.

Though I did not come here from WP:3O, you could consider my comments as a third opinion.  :)

Quoting FreeKnowledgeCreator: If you think that the term "pseudo-scientific language" ought to be placed within inverted commas, then I am content to agree to that - it is not really a crucial issue.

Actually, I am not keen on it being in quotation marks as they seem too much like scare quotes – that's why I suggested a form of words with a more substantial quotation, so that the quote was clearly a quote.

Quoting FreeKnowledgeCreator: While I welcome your proposal, I do have some problems with it. It begins with, "In their 1997 book Fashionable Nonsense, physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont criticised "the ubiquity of pseudo-scientific language in Deleuze and Guattari's work," citing examples from both A Thousand Plateaus and their earlier book What is Philosophy?" - I am not sure why What is Philosophy? should be mentioned here, as it is not the subject of the article; the article is only about one specific book, not about Deleuze and Guattari's work more generally.

Having added a more substantial quote, we now have a more general comment on D&G's work, which is then illustrated with two works (one the subject of the article) and matching the pages provided in the associated reference. I think including only Plateaus would seem odd, given the quotation.

Quoting FreeKnowledgeCreator: I have not read the Žižek material. If it is specifically about A Thousand Plateaus, perhaps that could be stated more clearly than it is in your proposal. If not, I am again uncertain why it is relevant.

The source I used for that has a discussion of the ideas of D&G's "inorganic life." As a scientist, I recognise this phrase as a classic example of pseudoscience in the sense complained about regularly in the science wars – where scientific terms are appropriated and used without regard to their actual meanings. D&G discuss inorganic life in chapter 14 of Plateaus, see p. 550 where it says "it is inorganic, yet alive, and all the more alive for being inorganic." Added: According to the source I have quoted, "The best way to understand inorganic life is through Deleuze and Guattari's concept of the assemblage. This concept is most thoroughly explained in the "Geology of Morals" chapter of A Thousand Plateaus." So, this material is directly relevant to the book. Expanding the coverage to make this clearer would be fine with me. EdChem (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoting FreeKnowledgeCreator: The same point applies to the following material: "Defenders of Deleuze and Guattari have argued that critics focus on the surface of the arguments without comprehending the depths.[2] For example, Daniel Smith and John Protevi contend that "much of [Sokal and Bricmont's] chapter on Deleuze consists of exasperated exclamations of incomprehension" and so does not engage with the deeper meaning of their work[5] In a similar way, Andrew Culp states that "Deleuze's defenders are correct to dismiss such criticisms as either incomplete or outright spurious" and goes on to imply that these critics do not understand what they are reading, summarising them with "an old joke—a communist is someone who reads Das Kapital; a capitalist is someone who reads Das Kapital and understands it."

These are some of the responses to the science-based criticisms of D&G's work, including what is in Plateaus. To include criticism / critical comments without the response to those criticisms would be unbalanced. I see this as relevant comment on the book in question. EdChem (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoting FreeKnowledgeCreator: I think your suggestion specifically about the Lyotard material - "Similarly, Jean-François Lyotard has written of a desire "to put an end to experimentation", citing the displeased reaction he had from reading A Thousand Plateaus in a weekly literary magazine, stating that readers of philosophy "expect [...] to be 'gratified with a little sense' " - is good. Quoting SashiRolls: I ... definitely do not like the idea of ending the paragraph with the introductory matter in Lyotard without mentioning what Lyotard actually says about the example, i.e. that it is part of a rear-guard attempt to control speech (that it is part of the "desire for a return of terror, for the realization of the fantasy to seize reality. The answer is: Let us wage a war on totality; let us be witnesses to the unpresentable, let us activate the differences and save the honor of the name." (82) Again, Lyotard uses an interesting form in that short essay. The comment about readers "expect[ing] to be 'gratified with a little sense'" is part of a list of complaints about postmodernism Lyotard "has read" (in the first section called "Demand"). In the next session, titled "Realism", Lyotard says that the hegemony of scientific/capital control of language is at issue: <quote removed> and also reply from FKC and then further comments removed.

I agree with FKC in that I can't see the relevance of Lyotard's general views in relation to the criticisms made of the D&G book Plateaus. The quotations you point to are well separated from the one we all seem to accept as relevant, and the topic also seems different. I do not agree that removing the latter material introduces any ambiguity or inaccuracy that relates to this book. EdChem (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems to suggest that Lyotard is condoning the view which he clearly is not. The cited "I have read..." view is on page 71 in the first § of Part I "Demands", the cited "The demands I began by citing are not all equivalent. [...] But in the diverse invitations to suspend artistic experimentation, there is an identical call for order, a desire for unity, for identity, for security, or popularity (in the sense of Öffentlichkeit, of "finding a public" is on page 73 of the first § of Part II. If you prefer to use something from this quote instead of using the first noun in the essay (p. 71) and the quote from the conclusion of the essay (p.82), that would be fine. However, suggesting that Lyotard holds the views in a similar way to conservative British philosopher Scruton would, in my view, again, be an error.

If you have access to EBSCO, @EdChem:, I would also be interested in your assessment of the changes FKC made on What is Philosophy? (Deleuze and Guattari) and the methods used. I'm still waiting to hear back from FKC about the relevance of those 22 refs that were poured into the entry without any demonstration of their standing or centrality in studies of the book. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Botcode needs fixing

I set up an archiver bot and made a mistake. There is no link in the header to talk archives number #1 OR #2. How should I fix this? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)