This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Given the comments below about the one-sided nature of the "critical" section characterised as " practically a hagiography," I have included references to a recent criticism by James A. Lindsay who has researched Freire's work and influence in some detail. Quant analyst ( talk) 17:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Where and how a book was published is of little relevance to whether it is scholarly or not.- I'm going to assume good faith here, but this statement is incorrect, and is said with confidence that could be mistaken for trolling. Passing peer review borders on defining whether or not a text is scholarly, with few enough exceptions. Moreover, some publishers can have a strong political bias / motivation to publish some ideas, so the where and the how are both very relevant in ascertaining the legitimacy of a scholarly text.
Lindsay is widely considered authoritative on postmodern theoryI have never heard of this man before these interactions. That, obviously, is not a metric which matters at all, but I just did a google search and this was the top result. It's a pretty scathing review. I won't pretend to claim that there isn't praise of him out there in equal measure (I have no idea if there is or not, just that I am personally ignorant as to his credentials), but it's disingenous to label him authorative when his views are clearly very controversial. Relatedly, you say
The critical acceptance of Cynical Theories (which you acknowledge) clearly establishes Lindsay as authoritative in his critique of postmodern theory. No it doesn't. One book does not the authority make. Also, the book is aimed at a popular, rather than academic audience. Though that does not inherently reduce a given book's value, it is unlikely to make the author an
authoritative in [their] critique of postmodern theory, given that postmodern theory is fairly entrenched in the academy.
I have already made the case above for citing Lindsay's new book based on stated Wiki policy.No you haven't? What policy is in support of its inclusion? Hobomok has supplied a policy that seemingly is at odds with your opinion, and you haven't link any.
I didn't read all the preceding comments, but as far as I can see, adding Lindsay's newly self-published book amounts to WP:BOOKSPAM at this point in time; the book isn't even catalogued in the Library of Congress or WorldCat, and I haven't found any reviews in reliable sources. Biogeographist ( talk) 15:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
If its inclusion is found objectionable- What do you think has been happening here other than a group of editors objecting to its inclusion?
But the book is another matter which cannot be judged with reference to the author's podcasts (of which there are many), as you have sought to do.First of all, the number of podcasts this author has produced is immaterial. Joe Rogan's opinions on pedagogy are largely unworthy of attention, because he isn't considered to have the prerequisite experience / expertise to deliver insightful critique. Secondly, you have ignored any and all arguments I made against the validity of the book as a source in my above comment, none of which were based on its relation to the podcast, though I did in that same comment independently criticize the podcast as a valid source. You have not addressed my points that the book's status is weakened by not passing peer review, being self-published, that Lindsay is not considered authoritative, and that you have not, in fact, cited any Wikipedia policy which demands its inclusion.
having read the book (unlike anyone else in this discussion), I can aver that it is of comparable quality to its predecessor Cynical Theories.Okay, you're welcome to your opinion that its a good book. The rest of us, however, are not beholden to your opinion. I've read my grandfather's memoirs, and found them to be very insightful to life in Ireland in the mid 20th century, but there's a reason I've never tried to cite from them on Wikipedia. Let's break it down through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Though this policy does suggest an exception to this rule in the case of an
established expert [...] whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, there are three of us contesting that Lindsay is not an established expert. Moreover, per WP:SPS, editors should
Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.. In the case of Pedagogy of the Oppressed there are hundreds and indeed likely thousands of criticisms to be found published in reliable sources. I would invite you to include one of those instead.
can aver that it is of comparable quality to its predecessor Cynical Theories, I would encourage you to read WP:EXPERT. Justify its quality.
Books published by respected publishing housesare considered reliable.
Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
I do find unreasonable the suggestion that the published views of a best-selling author should not be permitted to be expressed in a Wikipedia pageIs this book best-selling? Because otherwise why not just include any celebrity's opinions on an issue they have spoken about in a magazine on every article about that issue? After all, those would be published views. And again, as we keep saying: Lindsay's own publishing house published this book, so it being published is not a meaningful metric.
if anyone finds them objectionable when so published, there is then the opportunity for them to raise them in Talk. That's what we're doing right now. We have found them objectionable, removed them, and are engaging with you on the matter on the talk page.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Creaturesofthewind.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
this article was apparently vandalized by a 3rd-grader: right now the first word is "fart." -- kipito ( talk) 20:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about why Sol Stern's critiques of this text are not included thus far? Shall we rectify this? For your information, the links are as follows: [1] [2] The Sound and the Fury ( talk) 06:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph of the summary has a broken link. Someone who has read the book or otherwise understands the concept of "limit-situation" might wish to create a new page explaining what the concept means. The link could then be repaired. It does seem that the concept is important enough to warrant an explanation. Lonnie Nesseler 19:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnesseler ( talk • contribs)
The section on reception only seems to mention criticism towards the book. Shouldn't it be labeled accordingly? Madgirl 15 ( talk) 02:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This entire article is badly in need of a critiques/criticisms section. It is practically a hagiography. 76.87.143.147 ( talk) 22:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
When was this first written/published? RJFJR ( talk) 21:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
When reading wikipedia in other languages one starts to think that the next sentence
It was first published in Portuguese in 1968
is untrue It propably was so that Freire wrote it 68 in Portuguese, but was not able to publish it then. I assume that the book was written in Portuguese in 1968 but first published in 1970 in English 1972 in Swedish and EITHER 1974 (Portuguese wikipedia: Lançamento 1974) OR 1975 (Finnish wikipedia:Portugalinkielinen laitos ilmestyi vuonna 1975) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.217.252 ( talk) 18:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Here are three options:
What are the policies of linking to readable versions of articles on books? I found all of these via a simple Google Search. Would it matter if we contacted the publisher http://amzn.com/0826412769 to ask for permission to link? --Charles Jeffrey Danoff 06:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Jeffrey Danoff ( talk • contribs)
It seems a little strange that Sol Stern's conservative critiques are included in the summary section, and are three of the six footnotes here. Especially considering Google Scholar has 35,000 entries on the book. I am going to move them to a critical reception section, but someone should address the lack of citations here.-- Theredproject ( talk) 20:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Stern: It seems rather strange that in the section "Critical reception", only one critic is referenced. It gives a rather one-sided, and somewhat distorted view of the work. Including more critiques, both positive and negative, will deliver more information and be less biased. The information also mentions the notion that all education is political but does not mention that elsewhere in the article.
Influences: It seems like two kinds of influences are included in this section: one concerning who/what influenced Freire, and one about who/what Pedagogy of the Oppressed influenced. I think this makes it somewhat confusing; these sections should be separated. Furthermore, the citation from Dick does not seem to have much information about Pedagogy of the Oppressed, other than being typed in secret in South Africa--it seems like more information is needed.
Chapters: More information about the chapters would also be useful. It seems that Chapter 3, in particular, is somewhat of a second thought. More information would be helpful.
Lenaisadora ( talk) 22:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the newly-added Synopsis section may be original research, or depend too much or entirely on the book itself, which may be problematic per WP:PRIMARY. The 6kb synopsis section was added in this edit by Rithvikv ( talk · contribs), a student in this Wiki Ed-associated course, with content expert Shalor. The section of the NOR guideline which I think may apply to this synopsis is the following:
Excerpt from
WP:NOR section
Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
|
---|
Notes
|
My interpretation of NOR policy is that since the synopsis added to this article relies solely on one PRIMARY source, and is not limited to bare-bones description but includes interpretation of the book's content, it is therefore Original research and should be removed. However, the issues regarding original research and the use of PRIMARY sources as it pertains to writing a book synopsis can be subtle, so I have raised it at the NOR policy Talk page; that discussion is here, and you're invited to contribute. I will hold off removing the synopsis in this article, until there is more clarity about the policy itself, or until there is consensus in this discussion about what to do. Mathglot ( talk) 01:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I had a look around, and among the other Wikipedias having an article on Freire's book, the Catalan article had numerous independent references for the synopsis section of their article. I've copied and adapted them in a subsection below. In my experience, verifiability policy is more strictly enforced on en-wiki, than on other wikis I'm familiar with, which are sometimes quite lax about it. If the Catalans can come up with ten references for their synopsis section, than so can we. Or we can steal theirs, if someone cares to figure out where they apply. Adding Barkeep49. Mathglot ( talk) 06:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The "Resum" (Synopsis) section of Pedagogia de l'Oprimit on Catalan Wikipedia has ten references:
References for synopsis section in the
Catalan article
|
---|
References copied from Catalan article Pedagogia de l'Oprimit section #Resum:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Given the comments below about the one-sided nature of the "critical" section characterised as " practically a hagiography," I have included references to a recent criticism by James A. Lindsay who has researched Freire's work and influence in some detail. Quant analyst ( talk) 17:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Where and how a book was published is of little relevance to whether it is scholarly or not.- I'm going to assume good faith here, but this statement is incorrect, and is said with confidence that could be mistaken for trolling. Passing peer review borders on defining whether or not a text is scholarly, with few enough exceptions. Moreover, some publishers can have a strong political bias / motivation to publish some ideas, so the where and the how are both very relevant in ascertaining the legitimacy of a scholarly text.
Lindsay is widely considered authoritative on postmodern theoryI have never heard of this man before these interactions. That, obviously, is not a metric which matters at all, but I just did a google search and this was the top result. It's a pretty scathing review. I won't pretend to claim that there isn't praise of him out there in equal measure (I have no idea if there is or not, just that I am personally ignorant as to his credentials), but it's disingenous to label him authorative when his views are clearly very controversial. Relatedly, you say
The critical acceptance of Cynical Theories (which you acknowledge) clearly establishes Lindsay as authoritative in his critique of postmodern theory. No it doesn't. One book does not the authority make. Also, the book is aimed at a popular, rather than academic audience. Though that does not inherently reduce a given book's value, it is unlikely to make the author an
authoritative in [their] critique of postmodern theory, given that postmodern theory is fairly entrenched in the academy.
I have already made the case above for citing Lindsay's new book based on stated Wiki policy.No you haven't? What policy is in support of its inclusion? Hobomok has supplied a policy that seemingly is at odds with your opinion, and you haven't link any.
I didn't read all the preceding comments, but as far as I can see, adding Lindsay's newly self-published book amounts to WP:BOOKSPAM at this point in time; the book isn't even catalogued in the Library of Congress or WorldCat, and I haven't found any reviews in reliable sources. Biogeographist ( talk) 15:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
If its inclusion is found objectionable- What do you think has been happening here other than a group of editors objecting to its inclusion?
But the book is another matter which cannot be judged with reference to the author's podcasts (of which there are many), as you have sought to do.First of all, the number of podcasts this author has produced is immaterial. Joe Rogan's opinions on pedagogy are largely unworthy of attention, because he isn't considered to have the prerequisite experience / expertise to deliver insightful critique. Secondly, you have ignored any and all arguments I made against the validity of the book as a source in my above comment, none of which were based on its relation to the podcast, though I did in that same comment independently criticize the podcast as a valid source. You have not addressed my points that the book's status is weakened by not passing peer review, being self-published, that Lindsay is not considered authoritative, and that you have not, in fact, cited any Wikipedia policy which demands its inclusion.
having read the book (unlike anyone else in this discussion), I can aver that it is of comparable quality to its predecessor Cynical Theories.Okay, you're welcome to your opinion that its a good book. The rest of us, however, are not beholden to your opinion. I've read my grandfather's memoirs, and found them to be very insightful to life in Ireland in the mid 20th century, but there's a reason I've never tried to cite from them on Wikipedia. Let's break it down through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Though this policy does suggest an exception to this rule in the case of an
established expert [...] whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, there are three of us contesting that Lindsay is not an established expert. Moreover, per WP:SPS, editors should
Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.. In the case of Pedagogy of the Oppressed there are hundreds and indeed likely thousands of criticisms to be found published in reliable sources. I would invite you to include one of those instead.
can aver that it is of comparable quality to its predecessor Cynical Theories, I would encourage you to read WP:EXPERT. Justify its quality.
Books published by respected publishing housesare considered reliable.
Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
I do find unreasonable the suggestion that the published views of a best-selling author should not be permitted to be expressed in a Wikipedia pageIs this book best-selling? Because otherwise why not just include any celebrity's opinions on an issue they have spoken about in a magazine on every article about that issue? After all, those would be published views. And again, as we keep saying: Lindsay's own publishing house published this book, so it being published is not a meaningful metric.
if anyone finds them objectionable when so published, there is then the opportunity for them to raise them in Talk. That's what we're doing right now. We have found them objectionable, removed them, and are engaging with you on the matter on the talk page.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Creaturesofthewind.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
this article was apparently vandalized by a 3rd-grader: right now the first word is "fart." -- kipito ( talk) 20:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about why Sol Stern's critiques of this text are not included thus far? Shall we rectify this? For your information, the links are as follows: [1] [2] The Sound and the Fury ( talk) 06:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph of the summary has a broken link. Someone who has read the book or otherwise understands the concept of "limit-situation" might wish to create a new page explaining what the concept means. The link could then be repaired. It does seem that the concept is important enough to warrant an explanation. Lonnie Nesseler 19:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnesseler ( talk • contribs)
The section on reception only seems to mention criticism towards the book. Shouldn't it be labeled accordingly? Madgirl 15 ( talk) 02:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This entire article is badly in need of a critiques/criticisms section. It is practically a hagiography. 76.87.143.147 ( talk) 22:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
When was this first written/published? RJFJR ( talk) 21:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
When reading wikipedia in other languages one starts to think that the next sentence
It was first published in Portuguese in 1968
is untrue It propably was so that Freire wrote it 68 in Portuguese, but was not able to publish it then. I assume that the book was written in Portuguese in 1968 but first published in 1970 in English 1972 in Swedish and EITHER 1974 (Portuguese wikipedia: Lançamento 1974) OR 1975 (Finnish wikipedia:Portugalinkielinen laitos ilmestyi vuonna 1975) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.217.252 ( talk) 18:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Here are three options:
What are the policies of linking to readable versions of articles on books? I found all of these via a simple Google Search. Would it matter if we contacted the publisher http://amzn.com/0826412769 to ask for permission to link? --Charles Jeffrey Danoff 06:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Jeffrey Danoff ( talk • contribs)
It seems a little strange that Sol Stern's conservative critiques are included in the summary section, and are three of the six footnotes here. Especially considering Google Scholar has 35,000 entries on the book. I am going to move them to a critical reception section, but someone should address the lack of citations here.-- Theredproject ( talk) 20:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Stern: It seems rather strange that in the section "Critical reception", only one critic is referenced. It gives a rather one-sided, and somewhat distorted view of the work. Including more critiques, both positive and negative, will deliver more information and be less biased. The information also mentions the notion that all education is political but does not mention that elsewhere in the article.
Influences: It seems like two kinds of influences are included in this section: one concerning who/what influenced Freire, and one about who/what Pedagogy of the Oppressed influenced. I think this makes it somewhat confusing; these sections should be separated. Furthermore, the citation from Dick does not seem to have much information about Pedagogy of the Oppressed, other than being typed in secret in South Africa--it seems like more information is needed.
Chapters: More information about the chapters would also be useful. It seems that Chapter 3, in particular, is somewhat of a second thought. More information would be helpful.
Lenaisadora ( talk) 22:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the newly-added Synopsis section may be original research, or depend too much or entirely on the book itself, which may be problematic per WP:PRIMARY. The 6kb synopsis section was added in this edit by Rithvikv ( talk · contribs), a student in this Wiki Ed-associated course, with content expert Shalor. The section of the NOR guideline which I think may apply to this synopsis is the following:
Excerpt from
WP:NOR section
Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
|
---|
Notes
|
My interpretation of NOR policy is that since the synopsis added to this article relies solely on one PRIMARY source, and is not limited to bare-bones description but includes interpretation of the book's content, it is therefore Original research and should be removed. However, the issues regarding original research and the use of PRIMARY sources as it pertains to writing a book synopsis can be subtle, so I have raised it at the NOR policy Talk page; that discussion is here, and you're invited to contribute. I will hold off removing the synopsis in this article, until there is more clarity about the policy itself, or until there is consensus in this discussion about what to do. Mathglot ( talk) 01:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I had a look around, and among the other Wikipedias having an article on Freire's book, the Catalan article had numerous independent references for the synopsis section of their article. I've copied and adapted them in a subsection below. In my experience, verifiability policy is more strictly enforced on en-wiki, than on other wikis I'm familiar with, which are sometimes quite lax about it. If the Catalans can come up with ten references for their synopsis section, than so can we. Or we can steal theirs, if someone cares to figure out where they apply. Adding Barkeep49. Mathglot ( talk) 06:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The "Resum" (Synopsis) section of Pedagogia de l'Oprimit on Catalan Wikipedia has ten references:
References for synopsis section in the
Catalan article
|
---|
References copied from Catalan article Pedagogia de l'Oprimit section #Resum:
|