Talk:Agonism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
[edit] OR
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means it is a tertiary source. That means articles should be based on existing secondary sources. This article primarily cites primary sources. That makes it a secondary source, which is to say original research. This article must either cite a substantial secondary literature on 'agonism' or go hence. mgekelly 23:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Here's some secondary sources. While this article may need revamping to be more wiki-like, the theory itself isn't original research. Sorry, I don't have time to fix it myself- I was just checking out this page because agonism was mentioned in school today.
Agonism in divided societiesIn Search of the talkative public] Agonism and pluralism--PaeneJoscose
- The article already does use secondary sources, as well as primary ones. And even if it was enitrely secondary, that wouldn't make it original research. If you want to add material from those three sources, go for it, I've no doubt it'll usefully supplement the article - but there's no need to not reference primary material alongside them. For example, all articles related to the Marxist tradition on Wikipedia cite Marx and Engels. Of course they do, and no one is suggesting that they 'go hence'! In my view, 'original research' consists in creating one's own primary source - e.g. a personal account of a news event, direct onto wikipedia - or an original or obscure account/interpretation of primary/secondary sources. And I think you'd have to be clear what bit you thought was orignal or obscure. Breadandroses 08:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Though I have begun to familiarize myself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in preparation for editing, there is a lot to know and people don't seem to have consensus on some of the guidelines. My own personal standards for original research, from academia, are close to yours- an original text or a unique synthesis/interpretation of an existing work, i.e, a book report is not orginal research, despite having primary material as its source. But the WP:NOR policy seemed to imply that there needed to be secondary sources backing up the primary source. Since I'm not familar with exactly how Wikipedia decides to delete articles (it seems a little arbitrary at times) I wanted to add some secondary sources, since it seems like sometimes people nominate things for deletion because it isn't an important topic to them, and I thought this article was useful.PaeneJoscose 12:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers for the reply PaeneJoscose. Do you think the best thing, then, might be for you to add more material from secondary sources, such as those you listed? (I'm afraid I don't have alot of wiki-time right now...) Breadandroses 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Just saw that you said you don't have alot of time either in your first post... oh well, perhaps someone else will take it on. ;)
- Though I have begun to familiarize myself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in preparation for editing, there is a lot to know and people don't seem to have consensus on some of the guidelines. My own personal standards for original research, from academia, are close to yours- an original text or a unique synthesis/interpretation of an existing work, i.e, a book report is not orginal research, despite having primary material as its source. But the WP:NOR policy seemed to imply that there needed to be secondary sources backing up the primary source. Since I'm not familar with exactly how Wikipedia decides to delete articles (it seems a little arbitrary at times) I wanted to add some secondary sources, since it seems like sometimes people nominate things for deletion because it isn't an important topic to them, and I thought this article was useful.PaeneJoscose 12:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nazism
I'm not sure why the comment connecting Schmitt and Nietzsche to Nazism is relevant to this article, so I'm deleting it. I don't contest Schmitt's connection to the Nazis, it's just I'm not sure why that's something that needs to be mentioned in this article. It's something that is and should be dealt with in the Carl Schmitt article. Jordansc 16:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't read past that line about the Nazis. The next few sentences explain why this is relevant, but they're also POV. So, rather than be bold and hack it all out, I think it should be discussed. Jordansc 16:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think that the claim that Nietzsche "essentially involved a celebration of the domination of some portion of society over others" is constestable. I'm not familiar with Schmitt's writings, so I can't comment on him.
-
- Perhaps phrasing those lines as something like "Agonists have engaged with the work of Schmitt and Nietzsche, drawing from Nietzsche's theory of (insert concept agonists refer to here). In contrast to Schmitt's concept of (...), which celebrated conflict and the elimination of the 'other', Agonists believe that while political tensions have an essential place in society, those tensions can be addressed discursively in a pluralist society..." I think when concepts are reified they can sound more POV. Jordansc, does that address your POV concerns? Could you clarify? BreadandRoses, your thoughts? PaeneJoscose 11:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the questionable nature of the comments on Nietzsche. Although some have read Nietzsche as an endorsement of Master morality, I believe there are just as many works citing him as an agonist of sorts. 128.239.195.11 (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
