Talk:The Rhetoric of Drugs

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Literature Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature

Reaction of "physicist" Rita Levi Montalcini[edit]

Sorry, I forgot to log on, the edit was made by me under IP 90.231.34.215

Here's why I deleted it:

1) It contradicts the Wikipedia article on Rita Levi Montalcini. She was not a physicist, but a neurologist. If you believe this is incorrect, find a verifiable source and change the Rita Levi Montalcini article instead.

2) What makes her remarks about Derrida's work notable? Before escalating this into a full-scale edit war, please outline the reason why this should be included here. --GSchjetne (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a notable scholar commenting on the work of another notable scholar. When the article will grow and include additional observation we can reorganize them.--Sum (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC) PS. More precisely, Montalcini is a Neurobiologist, wikipedia can not be used as a reliable source.[reply]

But why did Montalcini disagree with Derrida? It only says here she was bothered with the work. --GSchjetne (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Reaction of Rita Levi Montalcini[edit]

This is a dispute about whether or not the following passage should be included in the article:

Neurobiologist and anti-drug activist Rita Levi Montalcini was bothered by Derrida work and commented: "my impression is that this guy amuses himself quibbling, in order to appear original".[5]

21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

It's a notable scholar commenting on the work of another notable scholar. [...] --Sum (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I find several problems with the inclusion of this passage in the article:

It does not say what aspects of the work she disagreed with, nor does it say what her motivation for doing so was. (Come on, it's not enough to say she was "against drugs")
In what way is the reaction notable to subject of the article? Has she, for instance, published a notable work proving the concept of a drug to be a scientific one?
Is it even verifiable? I wouldn't know, the article cited as a source is in Italian, and when I try put it through Google's translation software it comes out as more or less gibberish to me. An proper translation of the source would be helpful, or better yet, a source written in English.
When taken out of context, the quote itself is merely an ad hominem attack towards Derrida. I can't see how it adds anything to the article.

--GSchjetne (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this article is actually about the book, it's perfectly proper to include what reliable sources have to say for & against it. There should be a lot more. Peter jackson (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't say what Montalcini has to say aginst the book. It only says what Montalcini has to say against Derrida himself! If I could read Italian, I could assess the source, and I would be more than happy to clarify what Montalcini had to say against the book myself. --GSchjetne (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source quotes Montalcini's opinion on the work, "Derrida is just quibbling in order to appear original", which is not a simple "I don't like it". The fact that she's making, as anybody can see, a very poor argument, has nothing to do with the inclusion in the article. --Sum (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sources in languages other than English are perfectly adequate in the eng.wiki. In fact, this article is about a French language work. And yes, it is appropriate to also have a translation of the relevant parts. I'll add some when I can.--Sum (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the quibbles of a philosopher!" accuses Rita Levi Montalcini, which was the protagonist, with Di Pietro and Archbishop Martini, of last anti-drug publicity campaign. [...] Rita Levi Montalcini turns up her nose, bothered: "it seems to me that this gentleman ( 'questo signore', an Italian mildly derogative expression ) amuses himself quibbling, in order to appear original. Those that we call drugs ( "stupefacenti", an Italian word that sounds somewhat more 'official' ) are substances that are well identified both on the pharmacological-botanical level and on the behavioural level. You can mythologize them as much as you want, but it has been proven, that they are not at all, means to reach an higher knowledge. On the contrary, they decrease cognitive ability and increase emotional responses. Neither Newton nor Einstein made their discoveries under the action of any drug".

Thank you. I have now changed the quote to actually address the contents of Derrida's work, not his style of writing. It still needs some clarification regarding when the appeared in an anti-drug ad. Was it a few months prior to the publication of The Rhetoric of Drugs, or the publication of the cited article? --GSchjetne (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Derrida has shown numerous times that there is no real distinction (that is, a rigorous and precise one) between style and content.--Sum (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]