Talk:Eros and Civilization

message: He was not exactly a gay rights champion. He even believed there were reasons not related to birth for homosexual behavior and that people should express them ala Beatnik literature.2601:447:4101:41F9:595D:1EFC:BE67:64B5 (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already stated Marcuse's "true beliefs" clearly. You added a sentence to the lead reading, "Despite influencing the gay liberation movement, it was acknowledged that Marcuse's prime objective was to integrate both Eros and Logos". Your addition was poorly written as well as inappropriate and unnecessary. You have suggested no reason why the lead should make such a statement and nor is there any such reason. In addition to violating the guideline against editorializing, your addition could also be considered original research. One of the sources you used, this, was an essay "submitted by a student". It is not an acceptable source per WP:RS. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Marcuse Wanted to Integrate Both Eros and Logos

message: He indeed stated that Eros became "archaic mystical residue" as early as Plato in the book itself.2601:447:4101:5780:912B:BB0D:A08B:D86A (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:PROPORTION. Just because someone states something in a book, that does not mean that we mention it in an article about the book. We mention the most important points only. What reason do you have for thinking that that is one of the most important points? What sources are there that state that the idea that "Eros became "archaic mystical residue" as early as Plato" is one of the most important points about Eros and Civilization? I have looked through many books and articles about it, and I am aware of no such sources. I note that in your insulting and inappropriate edit summary here, which violates our policy against personal attacks, you state that I, don't "want to accept the truth about Marcuse". What "truth" is that, exactly? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Please don't erase a snippet of the exact book

message: IP 2601:447:4101:5780:912B:BB0D:A08B:D86A has made a number of edits to the article recently. I am sure that these edits are intended to be helpful. They are not, however, actually helpful. The IP edit visible here added the following text to the lead,
"Despite influencing the gay liberation movement, it was acknowledged that Marcuse's prime objective was to integrate both Eros and Logos. Marcuse's views later received criticism from gay rights activist Jerald Moldenhauer."
The addition is inappropriate for a long list of reasons.
It appears to be intended to explain that Marcuse's prime objective was not to influence the gay liberation movement. The explanation is unnecessary, however, because no one has ever claimed that Marcuse's prime objective was to influence the gay liberation movement and nothing in the article suggests that this was Marcuse's prime objective. So the added text appears to be an attempt to fix a problem that does not actually exist. Besides that, the added text is a form of editorializing, and it violates WP:LEAD, which states, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." There is no sense in which Jerald Moldenhauer's criticism of Marcuse is part of the "most important contents" of the article. There are no good grounds for mentioning Moldenhauer in the lead. The text stating that "Marcuse's prime objective was to integrate both Eros and Logos" was followed by several citations, but it does not reflect the contents of the "Reception" section, and thus is also inappropriate to the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Your response is irrelevant. I have mentioned specific guidelines that your edits violate and serious problems with the text you added. You have responded with incivility and nonsense. Try actually explaining what "truth" it is that you are talking about, instead of making uncivil comments. Additional problems with your edits include the fact that you used some non-reliable sources, for example this essay, which explicitly notes, "This work has been submitted by a student". That is entirely inappropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Please discuss the multiple objections I have made to your edits. WP:RS is an extremely important guideline. It cannot simply be ignored. Per WP:RS, we base articles on respected, reliable sources, not things like student essays. What would make you imagine that basing an article on a student essay was a reasonable thing to do? Your comments about Moldenhauer show that you do not understand the objection I made against that addition. Per WP:LEAD, we mention only the most important points in the lead, and Moldenhauer's criticism of Marcuse is not one of them. There are plenty of important critics on, or commentators on, Marcuse, whose names are not mentioned in the lead, so it is totally unreasonable and out of proportion to mention instead that one obscure person. The fact that the lead mentions Eros and Civilization's influence on gay activists is irrelevant. That doesn't somehow make Moldenhauer's criticism of the book into one of the most important points of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Per WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." The issue is the importance of Moldenhauer's comments, not their relevance. Nothing you have said indicates that they are of such importance that they merit mentioning in the lead. Despite what you have claimed, you did indeed use a student essay as a source in the article, for instance in the edit you made here. It is 100% unacceptable as a source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

text: No. I understand your rationale, but it has exactly no basis in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and in fact violates them. "We mention something gay in the lead so something else related to gay stuff should be mentioned too" is worthless reasoning. There are numerous sources discussing Marcuse's influence on the gay movement, but Moldenhauer is a totally obscure figure and has no importance in relation to the article as a whole. The fact that he happens to have been a gay activist does not make him important enough to mention in the lead, least of all when figures who are of far greater importance in relation to Marcuse's work are simply not mentioned.  Your addition is both unnecessary and totally unreasonable. Your text "Despite influencing the gay liberation movement, it was acknowledged that Marcuse's prime objective was to integrate both Eros and Logos" is also inappropriate editorializing. No one ever said influencing the gay movement was Marcuse's prime objective, so there is no need to clarify that it wasn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

text: An additional unacceptable source which you used is this. It was posted on a blog and is noted as being "an essay written for a course". It does not appear to have been published in a peer-reviewed publication, or anywhere else, and thus again certainly does not count as an acceptable source per WP:RS. Would you please stop adding both that unacceptable source, and the other unacceptable source, which I already pointed out was unacceptable many months ago? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

text: The fact that the book influenced some gay liberationists is of sufficient importance that it warrants mentioning briefly in the lead, in my view. I don't believe that the brief mention of this fact is of such moment that it has to be followed by a mention of the fact that one particular not-very-well-known gay activist was critical of Marcuse. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive IP editing 

message: In addition to the other problems with the IP's edits, as noted above, an additional problem is misinterpretation of primary source material, Eros and Civilization itself. Text added by the IP includes the following, "He also claimed that Eros had become "archiac mystical residue" as early as early as Plato and that over time, Logos will likely absorb Eros." The reference to "archiac mystical residue" is rather vague and unclear in meaning, but it is not basically incorrect. The statement that according to Marcuse, "Logos will likely absorb Eros", is basically incorrect. It is an outright misinterpretation of the last two pages of chapter five of Eros and Civilization.
Just to provide proper context, here is the relevant passage of Eros and Civilization:
"Freud's interpretation of being in terms of Eros recaptures the early stage of Plato's philosophy, which conceived of culture not as the repressive sublimation but as the free self-development of Eros. As early as Plato, this conception appears as an archaic-mythical residue. Eros is being absorbed into Logos, and Logos is reason which subdues the instincts. The history of ontology reflects the reality principle which governs the world ever more exclusively: The insights contained in the metaphysical notion of Eros were driven underground."
Note that Marcuse nowhere states something that could accurately be summarized as, "over time, Logos will likely absorb Eros".  In context it is clear that Marcuse is using evocative language to discuss how, in his view, a set of insights were suppressed, not somehow postulating that "Logos will likely absorb Eros", whatever that means. The IP has seized on two sentences, taken out of context, and used them to create a baseless understanding of what Marcuse wrote. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinterpretation of primary source