![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Herbert Marcuse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This needs to be known 2601:447:4101:41F9:7827:E592:4B47:AAD1 ( talk) 16:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator, please stop erasing Marcuse's own words. 2601:447:4101:41F9:595D:1EFC:BE67:64B5 ( talk) 19:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid there no excuse for covering up what Marcuse wrote and what he believed. 68.47.65.239 ( talk) 01:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is what he believed. If you don't like it, too bad. I even sourced his own book Eros and Civilization. 68.47.65.239 ( talk) 01:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, Wikipedia is an encylopedia. And as an encyclopedia, it needs to mention what Marcuse believed and what he wrote. The most important points are that he thought Eros and Logos needed to integrate to build society and that his philosophy was built around this assumption. You are quite right that they need be summarized, so quit contradicting your own words and let them be summarized. 2601:447:4101:41F9:1C38:F501:2E85:F7A7 ( talk) 11:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Aspects were not minor and were the core of his philosophy. Therefore, you can't use the WP:PROPORTION against me. My edits also contain very reliable academic sources, such as Stanford University. I even included his own book Eros and Civilization as one of my sources. 2601:447:4101:41F9:1C38:F501:2E85:F7A7 ( talk) 23:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Not an assertion at all. Even Stanford backed. You need to quit living in fantasy land and join the real world. 2601:447:4101:41F9:3C4D:17D2:E221:7A4A ( talk) 00:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
3O Response: Wikipedia summarizes notable information about the subject, as reported in reliable secondary sources. Marcuse's own book is suitable to cite a quotation, but it is a primary source and doesn't itself establish notability. There should be a reliable secondary source to show that this is notable and important enough to be included. It would be helpful to use the
|quote=
parameter (and/or |page=
for a page number) in the citation template to make this explicit (particularly when the source is long). Without this, it does look like original research. Additionally, if it is decided to summarize this information, I feel it could be phrased in a way that would be more understandable to the reader. –
Reidgreg (
talk)
14:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
He described perfectly well in Eros and Civilization, which I sourced. 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Even on page 126 He notes how Logos will absorb Eros in his eyes. [1]. 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid Marcuse does say that. Here is another copy of his book. [2] I suggest you read pages 125 to 126. 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid you need to cooperate. 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
No, you are not cooperating and need to agree with what the words of Marcuse were. I'm afraid your talk is getting you nowhere fast 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
You're making me laugh. I'm afraid your interpretation is only art and not science. 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes it make sense. It's even what you were willing to acknowledge when edit the Eros and Civilization article. 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't even proofread that typo because you made your comment. Your ranting makes me laugh too hard and it's hard to me to pay attention to what I write. 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Oops made another typo. 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
"Much of Marcuse's philosophy was centered around the belief that Eros had to integrate with Logos in order to strive. Marcuse defended Plato's argument that while Eros was constructive, Logos was superior and would eventually absorb it. In One Dimensional Man, he argued that Logos would also liberate's one's gratification."
Still laughing. I'm afraid it is not your duty to dictate what is included. I now even sourced a One Dimensional Man snippet from his website. 2601:447:4101:41F9:E469:5CBF:1851:1D18 ( talk) 12:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid the NOR policy refers to unreliable sources. These sources are far from unreliable. 2601:447:4101:41F9:E469:5CBF:1851:1D18 ( talk) 12:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's what exactly what I typed. It has to do with reliable sources with wording which backs the claim, so think that you can attempt to con me further without bringing me more laughter. What is written in your eyes isn't what was written in Eros and Civilization and One Dimensional Man. 2601:447:4101:41F9:CEB:66CF:3DE9:A6B7 ( talk) 01:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Read the policy for yourself. It does indeed refer to unreliable resources. Not even the NOR article supports your fantasies. 2601:447:4101:41F9:CEB:66CF:3DE9:A6B7 ( talk) 02:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Already have. Don't bother to source it some more without laughter, because it sure discusses unreliable resources and the wording of reliable resources. 2601:447:4101:41F9:CEB:66CF:3DE9:A6B7 ( talk) 02:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The IP is behaving in a disruptive manner here. There is a clear WP:REFUSALTOGETTHEPOINT. If they persist, I think it likely that administrators might see fit to impose a ban on them editing this particular article. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Why does Wikipedia's Powers That Be put up with nonsense like this? FreeKnowledgeCreator seems to be acting precisely like a troll. Actio ( talk) 22:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Kathy Acker was influenced by Herbert Marcuse. Or cite it here? Actio ( talk) 22:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The article says Marx criticized the young Hegelians, but he was a member of them and criticized the old Hegelians. Rationaltail ( talk) 00:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Citing Kołakowski to describe Marcuse's views is like citing Ann Coulter to describe the views of Rachel Maddow, or the other way around. This is incompatible with NPOV.-- 79.100.149.219 ( talk) 18:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Also, Leszek Kołakowski description of Marcuse's views as 'essentially anti-Marxist' is presented under the section 'Criticism'. However, coming from Kołakowski, this particular description is not critical, since Kołakowski himself is a vehement anti-Marxist.-- 79.100.149.219 ( talk) 18:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Newimpartial @ Janelleclancy I have no position on the disputed text, but Stanford Encyclopedia of Philopsohpy is not WP:USERGENERATED. See their editorial policy [3] Sennalen ( talk) 20:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Herbert Marcuse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This needs to be known 2601:447:4101:41F9:7827:E592:4B47:AAD1 ( talk) 16:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator, please stop erasing Marcuse's own words. 2601:447:4101:41F9:595D:1EFC:BE67:64B5 ( talk) 19:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid there no excuse for covering up what Marcuse wrote and what he believed. 68.47.65.239 ( talk) 01:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is what he believed. If you don't like it, too bad. I even sourced his own book Eros and Civilization. 68.47.65.239 ( talk) 01:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, Wikipedia is an encylopedia. And as an encyclopedia, it needs to mention what Marcuse believed and what he wrote. The most important points are that he thought Eros and Logos needed to integrate to build society and that his philosophy was built around this assumption. You are quite right that they need be summarized, so quit contradicting your own words and let them be summarized. 2601:447:4101:41F9:1C38:F501:2E85:F7A7 ( talk) 11:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Aspects were not minor and were the core of his philosophy. Therefore, you can't use the WP:PROPORTION against me. My edits also contain very reliable academic sources, such as Stanford University. I even included his own book Eros and Civilization as one of my sources. 2601:447:4101:41F9:1C38:F501:2E85:F7A7 ( talk) 23:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Not an assertion at all. Even Stanford backed. You need to quit living in fantasy land and join the real world. 2601:447:4101:41F9:3C4D:17D2:E221:7A4A ( talk) 00:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
3O Response: Wikipedia summarizes notable information about the subject, as reported in reliable secondary sources. Marcuse's own book is suitable to cite a quotation, but it is a primary source and doesn't itself establish notability. There should be a reliable secondary source to show that this is notable and important enough to be included. It would be helpful to use the
|quote=
parameter (and/or |page=
for a page number) in the citation template to make this explicit (particularly when the source is long). Without this, it does look like original research. Additionally, if it is decided to summarize this information, I feel it could be phrased in a way that would be more understandable to the reader. –
Reidgreg (
talk)
14:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
He described perfectly well in Eros and Civilization, which I sourced. 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Even on page 126 He notes how Logos will absorb Eros in his eyes. [1]. 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid Marcuse does say that. Here is another copy of his book. [2] I suggest you read pages 125 to 126. 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid you need to cooperate. 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
No, you are not cooperating and need to agree with what the words of Marcuse were. I'm afraid your talk is getting you nowhere fast 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
You're making me laugh. I'm afraid your interpretation is only art and not science. 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes it make sense. It's even what you were willing to acknowledge when edit the Eros and Civilization article. 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't even proofread that typo because you made your comment. Your ranting makes me laugh too hard and it's hard to me to pay attention to what I write. 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Oops made another typo. 2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA ( talk) 02:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
"Much of Marcuse's philosophy was centered around the belief that Eros had to integrate with Logos in order to strive. Marcuse defended Plato's argument that while Eros was constructive, Logos was superior and would eventually absorb it. In One Dimensional Man, he argued that Logos would also liberate's one's gratification."
Still laughing. I'm afraid it is not your duty to dictate what is included. I now even sourced a One Dimensional Man snippet from his website. 2601:447:4101:41F9:E469:5CBF:1851:1D18 ( talk) 12:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid the NOR policy refers to unreliable sources. These sources are far from unreliable. 2601:447:4101:41F9:E469:5CBF:1851:1D18 ( talk) 12:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's what exactly what I typed. It has to do with reliable sources with wording which backs the claim, so think that you can attempt to con me further without bringing me more laughter. What is written in your eyes isn't what was written in Eros and Civilization and One Dimensional Man. 2601:447:4101:41F9:CEB:66CF:3DE9:A6B7 ( talk) 01:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Read the policy for yourself. It does indeed refer to unreliable resources. Not even the NOR article supports your fantasies. 2601:447:4101:41F9:CEB:66CF:3DE9:A6B7 ( talk) 02:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Already have. Don't bother to source it some more without laughter, because it sure discusses unreliable resources and the wording of reliable resources. 2601:447:4101:41F9:CEB:66CF:3DE9:A6B7 ( talk) 02:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The IP is behaving in a disruptive manner here. There is a clear WP:REFUSALTOGETTHEPOINT. If they persist, I think it likely that administrators might see fit to impose a ban on them editing this particular article. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Why does Wikipedia's Powers That Be put up with nonsense like this? FreeKnowledgeCreator seems to be acting precisely like a troll. Actio ( talk) 22:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Kathy Acker was influenced by Herbert Marcuse. Or cite it here? Actio ( talk) 22:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The article says Marx criticized the young Hegelians, but he was a member of them and criticized the old Hegelians. Rationaltail ( talk) 00:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Citing Kołakowski to describe Marcuse's views is like citing Ann Coulter to describe the views of Rachel Maddow, or the other way around. This is incompatible with NPOV.-- 79.100.149.219 ( talk) 18:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Also, Leszek Kołakowski description of Marcuse's views as 'essentially anti-Marxist' is presented under the section 'Criticism'. However, coming from Kołakowski, this particular description is not critical, since Kołakowski himself is a vehement anti-Marxist.-- 79.100.149.219 ( talk) 18:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Newimpartial @ Janelleclancy I have no position on the disputed text, but Stanford Encyclopedia of Philopsohpy is not WP:USERGENERATED. See their editorial policy [3] Sennalen ( talk) 20:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)