![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It looks like someone used this page to do some socialist-bashing. Stephen Hicks' credibility is certainly not thoroughly established, and a quick look at his website reveals links to the Heritage Foundation. The response itself is also too general to be included in this article, not to mention the fact that it's a gross over-simplification of how socialism had changed since the 1800s. This book is hugely influential and many have written about it, there should be some commentary out there that's more relevant and credible.-- Dalarocca ( talk) 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It appears several people are in agreement that the relevance and the credibility of the source for responses is in question. Having read this book I believe this response is also a straw man argument against Marcuse. I am removing the section. ( Glamajamma ( talk) 14:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC))
I don't see how Stephen Hicks' connection to the Heritage Foundation makes him suspect. He is a scholar and might be of a conservative persuasion, but I don't think that the Left has a monopoly on credibility. It's not our job to decide which institutions are "legitimate" and which are "illegimate." I would consider somebody to be a reliable source if they are a scholar in good standing, meaning they haven't been discredited through fraudalent scholarship or other misconduct. It is not legitimate in a republic where there is freedom of thought and freedom of speech for some to decide which views are correct or incorrect. The criteria for legitimacy when it comes to academics is not whether we agree with their philosophy. NapoleonX ( talk) 19:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Nearly 1/3 of the article is the response section. The response section is based off of one person's opinion. Someone should change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.42.222 ( talk) 16:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The use of the past-tense in the introduction ("argued," "created," etc.) seems to suggest that One Dimensional Man was intended to be more of a current-events work than a description of society which would remain relevant.
While it would be accurate to say that certain aspects no longer apply to the world after the end of the Cold War, the fundamental premises of the book remain very much applicable to the contemporary world.
If nobody has any objections, I'm going to change the wording to the present-tense.
--
Apjohns54 (
talk)
15:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I regard this book as an unreliable source for two reasons. First, the couple academic reviews I could find were quite critical of the book's reliability. Here is Marcus Verhaegh writing at The Independent Review:
Alas, the fingerprints Hicks discovers seem to be somewhat blurred. Kant and Hegel both appear drawn in caricature. ... [S]tudents with little knowledge of modern philosophy who are likely to be swayed by Hicks’s readings of key modern figures are decidedly not a proper audience for this work, except outside the context of a classroom setting where Hicks’s views can be challenged in an informed fashion. His reading of Kant, Hegel, and others sacrifices too much in depth for a simple, “on message” presentation. The best audience for this work would be undergraduates in an appropriate classroom setting and those likely to be skeptical of or decidedly in disagreement with Hicks’s reading of Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and others, but who may benefit from the articulation of opposition to contemporary leftist strategies and tactics that Hicks presents from a libertarian perspective (with definite Objectivist shadings).
And here is Edvard Lorkovic writing in Philosophy in Review:
[A]lthough it accuses (rightly I think) postmodernism of being too polemical, Hicks' text is itself an extended polemic. Instead of disproving postmodernism, Hicks dismisses it; instead of taking postmodernism seriously and analyzing it carefully on its terms, Hicks oversimplifies and trivializes it, seemingly in order to justify his own prejudice against postmodernism. If postmodernism is in fact untenable, which it very well might be, Stephen Hicks has unfortunately not demonstrated that.
Second, the book seems to stand up poorly to the standard at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For one, as both reviews indicate, Hicks is apparently advancing a novel argument rather than summarizing the findings of the scholarship; it's closer to a primary source than to a secondary source. For two, as far as I can tell the publisher, Scholargy Publishing, is not a traditional academic publishing outlet with peer review. Lord Mondegreen ( talk) 22:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Per WP:RSOPINION, Hicks' book is a reliable source for his opinion on this topic. The context in which its used here makes it clear that what is being expressed is his opinion rather than a fact. I haven't put my mind to forming an opinion on this, but it appears the issue is one of weight, rather than reliability. Cjhard ( talk) 03:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC) |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It looks like someone used this page to do some socialist-bashing. Stephen Hicks' credibility is certainly not thoroughly established, and a quick look at his website reveals links to the Heritage Foundation. The response itself is also too general to be included in this article, not to mention the fact that it's a gross over-simplification of how socialism had changed since the 1800s. This book is hugely influential and many have written about it, there should be some commentary out there that's more relevant and credible.-- Dalarocca ( talk) 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It appears several people are in agreement that the relevance and the credibility of the source for responses is in question. Having read this book I believe this response is also a straw man argument against Marcuse. I am removing the section. ( Glamajamma ( talk) 14:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC))
I don't see how Stephen Hicks' connection to the Heritage Foundation makes him suspect. He is a scholar and might be of a conservative persuasion, but I don't think that the Left has a monopoly on credibility. It's not our job to decide which institutions are "legitimate" and which are "illegimate." I would consider somebody to be a reliable source if they are a scholar in good standing, meaning they haven't been discredited through fraudalent scholarship or other misconduct. It is not legitimate in a republic where there is freedom of thought and freedom of speech for some to decide which views are correct or incorrect. The criteria for legitimacy when it comes to academics is not whether we agree with their philosophy. NapoleonX ( talk) 19:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Nearly 1/3 of the article is the response section. The response section is based off of one person's opinion. Someone should change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.42.222 ( talk) 16:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The use of the past-tense in the introduction ("argued," "created," etc.) seems to suggest that One Dimensional Man was intended to be more of a current-events work than a description of society which would remain relevant.
While it would be accurate to say that certain aspects no longer apply to the world after the end of the Cold War, the fundamental premises of the book remain very much applicable to the contemporary world.
If nobody has any objections, I'm going to change the wording to the present-tense.
--
Apjohns54 (
talk)
15:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I regard this book as an unreliable source for two reasons. First, the couple academic reviews I could find were quite critical of the book's reliability. Here is Marcus Verhaegh writing at The Independent Review:
Alas, the fingerprints Hicks discovers seem to be somewhat blurred. Kant and Hegel both appear drawn in caricature. ... [S]tudents with little knowledge of modern philosophy who are likely to be swayed by Hicks’s readings of key modern figures are decidedly not a proper audience for this work, except outside the context of a classroom setting where Hicks’s views can be challenged in an informed fashion. His reading of Kant, Hegel, and others sacrifices too much in depth for a simple, “on message” presentation. The best audience for this work would be undergraduates in an appropriate classroom setting and those likely to be skeptical of or decidedly in disagreement with Hicks’s reading of Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and others, but who may benefit from the articulation of opposition to contemporary leftist strategies and tactics that Hicks presents from a libertarian perspective (with definite Objectivist shadings).
And here is Edvard Lorkovic writing in Philosophy in Review:
[A]lthough it accuses (rightly I think) postmodernism of being too polemical, Hicks' text is itself an extended polemic. Instead of disproving postmodernism, Hicks dismisses it; instead of taking postmodernism seriously and analyzing it carefully on its terms, Hicks oversimplifies and trivializes it, seemingly in order to justify his own prejudice against postmodernism. If postmodernism is in fact untenable, which it very well might be, Stephen Hicks has unfortunately not demonstrated that.
Second, the book seems to stand up poorly to the standard at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For one, as both reviews indicate, Hicks is apparently advancing a novel argument rather than summarizing the findings of the scholarship; it's closer to a primary source than to a secondary source. For two, as far as I can tell the publisher, Scholargy Publishing, is not a traditional academic publishing outlet with peer review. Lord Mondegreen ( talk) 22:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Per WP:RSOPINION, Hicks' book is a reliable source for his opinion on this topic. The context in which its used here makes it clear that what is being expressed is his opinion rather than a fact. I haven't put my mind to forming an opinion on this, but it appears the issue is one of weight, rather than reliability. Cjhard ( talk) 03:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC) |