Talk:Gender Trouble

message: Shouldn't there be more books/journals listed under further reading? For the one book that is mentioned, shouldn't there be a more complete reference/bibliographic note?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.231.129.51 (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there should be fewer. Wikipedia is not a catalog. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mikeblas, with regards to the material you recently removed from this article, I have to say that I am not sure it does qualify as an original research essay. I can see how some of it might, but much of the material appears acceptable; other parts could be acceptable if suitably modified. I recently rewrote the article Spinoza: Practical Philosophy; here is a link to the article as it was before I rewrote it. Before the rewrite, the description of the book was about as bad as the material you removed from this article, but it was still valuable in that it gave me something to work with. It made better sense to rewrite that material than to simply remove it. Here too, rewriting would have been a better approach than outright removal. In any case, since that was such a drastic edit, I think it would be reasonable for you to discuss it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone interested in re-writing the material can recover it from the history. The material in question hadn't been addressed (in any substantial way) in more than eight years since being originally posted in May of 2006. At a certain point, we have to decide that a rewrite isn't forthcoming and we need to start anew. Per WP:PLOTSUM, the given summary was also too long. Above all, material posted must be verifiable; this OR essay wasn't, and has been removed because of it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you and I are familiar with the fact that past versions of the article are stored in the revision history - but not everyone who might be capable or interested in rewriting the article would necessarily know that, Mikeblas. I think one can reasonably suggest that removing the material altogether makes it less likely that anyone will attempt to rewrite it. As you mention the length of time that material was in the article without any substantial improvement, I should note that the content of Spinoza: Practical Philosophy remained largely unchanged from the time it was first added by an IP address in 2006 until I rewrote it in 2015. The content of articles does have to be verifiable, but one needs to distinguish between original research on the one hand and material that is simply uncited on the other; much of the content you removed was the latter. Citations could have been added with a bit of effort. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That not everyone knows how to use a feature isn't a reason for eeryone else to avoid its requirement. If you'd like to shape up the deleted text, feel free to do so and re-add it afterwards. Until then, I think it should remain deleteed because it's OR, refectling the opinion of its author, and too weakly referenced to be viable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we'll see about that. I am not going to rush to restore that material, but I might quote some of it here on the talk page and ask you or others who think it should stay out of the article why they think given passages are original research rather than simply uncited material. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading