Talk:What Is Philosophy? (Deleuze and Guattari book)

More of the article is spent describing what Sokal and Bircmont thought of the book than actually describing the contents of the book itself. That's not good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.199.46 (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary section
RJFJR removed a template I added to the summary section. The template was added for good reason and should not have been removed. It stated that, "Section is currently based on a secondary source discussing the work. It should be based principally on the book itself". There are obvious reasons why it is wrong to base a summary of a book's contents on secondary sources discussing that book that I do not feel a need to repeat here. In this particular case, the secondary source employed - a book by Sokal and Bricmont - is highly hostile to the authors of the book the article is about. Sokal and Bricmont's book is relevant to the reception of What is Philosophy?, but certainly the description of its actual contents should not be based on it. Unless RJFJR feels like personally rewriting the "summary" section of the article, the tag should stay for now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

skrooj up my contribs, all my contribs! ^^
While you correctly identified my 22:09 edits as good faith, you seem to have reverted at 22:19 and at 22:12, which would strongly suggest that you didn't take the time to read the l-o-n-g article. It is not a review of What is Philosophy? (so no it has no place in reception), but of a biography which provides background information on the collaboration between Deleuze and Guattari. But, never fear, being wrong, even willfully so, has never slowed any vobomatic truthinators down, has it, FKC? SashiRolls t · c 22:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * SashiRolls, if you had bothered to read the reception section carefully, you would have noticed that many of the views it mentions are contained not in "reviews" of the book but rather in "discussions" of it. "Discussions" can include many things that are not specifically dedicated reviews of a book. The section is titled "Reception", rather than "reviews", for a reason - it is not specifically and only for reviews, but has a broader purpose. It includes comments about and evaluations of the book that are not specifically in dedicated reviews. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Saying who wrote the book is not about "reception". Sorry.   SashiRolls t ·  c 22:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Shatz's comments are not only about the authorship of the book. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * SashiRolls, since you here accused me of "dishonesty", I have to note that that violates WP:NPA and is potentially blockable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I take your charge of "dishonesty" seriously. I will note that it is completely false. You accused me of "dishonesty" for presenting as a review something that is not a review, but your accusation has absolutely no basis. The article explicitly notes that Shatz's comments are a "discussion" of the book - it does not state that they are a review. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Claiming that a review of a biography is part of the reception of the book this entry is about is not very even dealing my friend. I'm sorry if that truth hurts.  I could AGF by assuming you hadn't read the whole article yet, I suppose.  But I'll leave you to your silly ownership behavior.  Again, Bricmont & Sokal do not deserve anywhere near the amount of space you are giving them on this page.  Every one of your refs so far has been behind a paywall.  That is no accident. The fact that you deleted all reference to the biography (intertwining lives) in the first edit is probably no accident either.  Don't want anyone to read too much about Guatarri, who I gather the  etal team doesn't like, perhaps because he was critical of Freud.  Nope, between 22:09 and 22:12 you'd read that article so well that you knew better than I  where it should go, what its pertinence was, etc., etc.  The fact that en.wp tolerates this sort of WP:LTA is why it is dangerous.  SashiRolls t ·  c 23:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If someone writes something about a book and it is published somewhere, then yes, of course that's part of the book's reception, even if it is not specifically in a dedicated review. I have always been careful to indicate the distinction between dedicated reviews and things that are not dedicated reviews; the latter are marked as discussions. Your claim that all the references I have used are "behind a paywall" is false, and if it is meant as some kind of insult it is truly pointless. It simply reflects the fact that I have EBSCO access; it isn't up to me that EBSCO articles are not available to everyone. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Accurate Referencing
Both Bricmont & Sokal & Scruton devote chapters, not an entire book, to Deleuze & Guattari. I'll let FKC add the proper refs since he seems to have the books on hand. Claiming that either of these books were entirely devoted to D&G is as dubious as adding a dozen EBSCO references with one or two word summaries, and with few clues as to why any of those articles might be interesting. This rhetorical tactic of clouding the issue is referred to as "noyer le poisson" in French. But, as soon as FKC has corrected these references (book --> book chapter), we can all be just a little more confident that FKC is not trying to pass work off for something it is not. I'm sure they can show the GF to fix that up... SashiRolls t · c 00:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Bogus references
I've found quite a few bogus references in the list added yesterday in response to my slimming down the prose about Sokal & Bricmont. is asked to provide evidence that the Village Voice ("After the Deleuze") & New Statesman and Society ("French Hare; US Tortoise") articles they added actually exist and are more notable than their complete absence from both google & google scholar would suggest. The article you erroneously titled {Modernity at Sea} in MFS does not even mention Deleuze in the keywords, much less "What is Philosophy?" Please provide direct quotes or a summary of any pertinent info you may have gleaned in the two minutes you looked at it yesterday while burying the page with 22 EBSCO links which turn out not to be all that great at all...  you had to really work to miss the experts so carefully. SashiRolls t · c 14:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Your behavior toward me has been so consistently rude and insulting that I do not know why you would ask me to do anything. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Good references
There are also good references in there. Let me know if I've pitched anything I shouldn't have. SashiRolls t · c 21:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)