Talk:False necessity

False Necessity Book?

The introduction of this article mentions a book called "False Necessity" I did not find a reference to the book anywhere else in this article. I feel that, while this information is relevant, it is not complete enough and does not belong in the introduction. I believe that because of this a new article needs to be written specifically about the book and there ought to be a link to it at the top of this article. Would someone be willing to crate the proposed article?

I see your point. I rewrote the intro to reflect your concerns, moving the creator and the book to the background section. The idea behind this webpage was to introduce the theory of false necessity and to lay out its argument and implications. The book itself develops these themes in further directions of human emancipation, radical democracy, and imagining new institutional arrangements. I will work on a separate book page once this article is complete (the background section needs further clarification, and it needs a section on impact and reception). Archivingcontext (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Undoing revisions of June 16, 2012

Editorial revisions of the article were made on June, 16, 2012 and found here. These revisions were done based on the rationale of "very bad editorializing and OR." I have undone these revisions for the following reasons:

1. There was no editorializing in the article. No statements of opinion on behalf of the Wikipedia authors were made in the article, and no editorial comments on the content were professed.
2. Similarly, there is no original research in this article. The information presented here is drawn from relevant sources and well cited. Indeed, it seems rather disingenuous to flag the article for lacking citations considering the extent of citations throughout the article. Given the concern, however, I have gone ahead and added notes in those places that were flagged, except for the background section which contains a single note referencing the sources drawn upon to write the section.
3. Many of the editorial changes are not only unjustified, but also can change the meaning of the sentence. E.g. "False necessity, or anti-necessitarian social theory, is a contemporary social theory that champions the plasticity of society and the unlimited potential for transformation," was changed to "False necessity, or "anti-necessitarian social theory, is a contemporary social theory which holds that society is plastic and can change in unlimited ways." To champion the placticity of society is different from holding a view that society is plastic. The latter gives the impression that social arrangements are made out of some substance, and not that social arrangements can be fluid and change. Similarly, unlimited potential for transformation is not the same as changing in unlimited ways. The former speaks of a potential to change, not some infinite ability to unrestrained transformation. The latter expression here is wrong. Words matter, and they matter in communicating a meaning. The theory of false necessity is based on a profound understanding of history and the arrangement of social institutions that fit together is specific ways. The theory does not hold that anything can happen and all arrangements are possible.
4. Some editorial revisions are necessary and completely valid. However, given that they were all done at once, and the majority are unjustified, the entire effort must be reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivingcontext (talk • contribs) 12:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No “statements of opinion” are necessary for something to be editorialized. In the first paragraph alone, we find “champions,” “foremost,” “develops an attack on,” “embraces,” “discards,” “open up a world,” etc. These are non-neutral, non-encyclopedic terms. Such terms can be included, but only if they are the same terms used by a reliable source and are attributed to them in the text.

I do not know much about this particular topic and certainly I may have inadvertently introduced errors (e.g. in my evaluation of what is or is not probably original research), but your example does not impress me in this regard. For example, there is no denotational difference between “having unlimited potential for transformation” and “[able to] change in unlimited ways” ‒ it is simply a reduction in the extra connotational baggage (and also an increase in concision). If you can propose a different phrasing without the editorializing terms, please do so.

You also say that “The theory does not hold that anything can happen and all [social] arrangements are possible.” This is a direct contradiction of the “unlimited potential” stated in the original definition. If not all social arrangements are possible, then the potential for society to transform into new arrangements is not unlimited.

I added the Refimprove tag because there are large uncited blocks of text in the article, several of which seemed dubious. While it is better now, you can still see that (for example) the entire Background section has only one citation. The template does not imply that the entire article is lacking in citations, only that more citations are necessary.

Finally, if you think that some of my revisions were valid, then you should not have removed them. I would then know exactly which ones you objected to. Arc de Ciel (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: As per the edit summary, your changes are definitely improvements. However, as you haven't responded (and you also didn't specifically contest most of my revisions anyways) I've added the rest of my revisions back into the article. I left out the Refimprove template this time, but kept the CN tags where I had put them before. Feel free to edit further if you think you can make more improvements or ask me questions here about any of my specific changes. (I might try to make more improvements as well if I have time, since the set of my edits that we've been discussing didn't address everything.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and effort in helping to improve this article. Editing is always a big task. Given the nuances of the theory and its deep integration in classical social theory I must insist on some of the original language. I have tried to cite as necessary but forgo the annoying scare quotes. To address your concerns:

1. Editorializing. I have tried to refocus in a way that is more blandly neutral in accordance with WP:Editorializing. Proper citations will follow when certain language is necessary, e.g. "discards the tendency," etc.
2. Language. Not to be demeaning, but it would help to first familiarize yourself with the literature before editing the entry on it. The article is meant as an introduction to the materials and in doing so it cannot help but appropriate some of the concepts and language used. (I have tried to flush out the necessary background in the background section.) For example, there is a distinction between the potential for types of change and the actuality of change. Similarly, there is a difference between "forms" and "patterns." The distinction in this language means something, it signifies different concepts. I trust that this will become clear with a more sustained engagement with the literature.
3. Citations. In accordance with academic standards and WP:Cite the background section has a single footnote at the beginning with four references. If you feel more comfortable moving it to the end, please do so, but this is really just preference. But the need for further citation throughout the section is not necessary.
4. Edits. I will go back through and take the time to preserve those valid edits. Please forgive any offense at my editorial choice of words or phrases that must remain despite your better sensibilities.Archivingcontext (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Don’t worry, I won’t contest your understanding of the literature. If I did, though, I would expect you to be able to cite specific quotes from the sources supporting your interpretations.

Again, the article has improved. A few more things:

1. Please tell me what specific part of the Wikipedia citation policy you are referring to.
2. “…to open up a world without constraints where the possible becomes actual.” I don’t see what this adds. “To open up a world without constraints” is the same as “to remove constraints” (or “to allow the removal of constraints”), which is the same as “to liberate human activity [etc],” which is a repetition of the first part of the sentence. “The possible becomes actual” is the same as “Those things which are possible, happen” or ““Those changes which are possible, happen,” which (since things that happen are possible by definition) is the same as “changes happen.” Not that the phrase is not poetic, of course, and it could be included if it were cited as a quotation.
3. "Contemporary political thinkers and philosophers have championed the theory of false necessity.” I didn’t remove this due to weasel terms (although you could make a good case for it), but due to a) editorializing (mainly the term “championed”), b) vagueness (the next obvious questions include: how many of them, how many disagree, how membership in the group "contemporary political thinkers and philosophers" is determined, etc), and c) concision, because the sentence doesn’t contain any information that is not easily inferred from the rest of the paragraph. --Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You guys are bickering about form. Why don't you take all that effort and invest it into improving the content? As one versed in social theory, I don't have a problem with the syntax. It makes sense and should be left at that. There is no need to waste time on editorial choice of language and terminology. Employ the language of the genre and expand it. This article does not need to be copyedited, it needs to be expanded! E.g. flush out the implications of the theory. 140.247.11.34 (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Because form is important too. It promotes effective communication (which makes the content easier to understand), neutrality (which makes the content unbiased), etc. Otherwise, we wouldn't need a Wikipedia Manual of Style. Arc de Ciel (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

AcD: What is important is that you stop editing content that you admittedly know nothing about! You wear your ignorance on your sleeve. AC: Clarify the articulations of the theory. I have made an initial attempt in the lede. 140.247.10.232 (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not "admitted" knowing nothing about the topic, and I know enough about the basics of how articles are constructed on Wikipedia. If my edits are negatively affecting (verifiable) content, then I expect that you will be able to provide quotes from the sources that support your interpretation of how the content is being affected. If you can do that successfully, I will agree with you. However, "it makes sense and should be left at that" is not a sufficient reason. (I am still waiting for the next reply from ArchivingContext.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I will withdraw and leave the article to you (due to my limited Wikipedia time, I try to avoid overly long talk page discussions). I hope that I've helped you (ArchivingContext) improve your writing for the future. I still recommend the changes to the lead that I gave my rationale for above, and I suggest that you could also learn a lot from trying to bring this or another article to GA status. (Talk-page content debates on high-traffic articles are also a good place.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)