Talk:Deterritorialization

message: This article is written in a dialectical style inappropriate for an encyclopedia; most strikingly, it does not contain a definition of the subject--it does not answer the question: "What is deterritorialization?".  Moreover, the lead section is not a proper summary; rather it is a vacillating reflection on whether or not the authors of a book in which the concept appears may, or may not, have intended the term to be interpreted in various ways.  The rest of the article is also vague and needs a rewrite, but the lead section is execrable.
Not being familiar with Marxist philosophy, I am not willing to do a rewrite myself, so I took the easy way out: I placed cleanup tags, and am now waiting for somebody better qualified to come along and fix it. Freederick (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly does require a re-write and a clear definition in the intro. It's not an especially essay-like tone, however--it just lacks citations for those parts. There's nothing dialectical about the D&G section--that they discuss the relationship between labour and means of production doesn't make it a dialectical approach. The freeing of labour is a major example of deterritorialisation, but there are plenty of others that ought to be here too. I'll have a go myself at some point in the future, but it won't be immediately. I've changed the tag to an unreferenced and intro request. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Unreferenced" does not begin to cover what is wrong here.  I read half the article before giving up because it still had not said anything concrete in answer to the question "What does deterritorialization mean?"  Up to that point, it was nothing but talking around the word and talking about some vague, unspecified relations to outside jargon.  At no point is it remotely informative to someone who stumbled across the word without context and wanted to know what it meant, as of the time I wrote this comment, and in fact the moment I stopped is when I realized it came off much like the product of the postmodern essay generator. - Apotheon (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I came here to say something like this. This article is worthless. Miracle Pen (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

text: I do not believe the tone is written in a dialectical style, however a clear difinition is needed in the intro. Also the use of 'may' in the first sentence of "common sense" is misleading.Meatsgains (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Also, is there a reason for this section being titled common sense? How can it be common sense when the term is not defined, and would it not be better to place this "section" in the intro as a group of examples.Meatsgains (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: :Also, is there a reason for this section being titled common sense? How can it be common sense when the term is not defined, and would it not be better to place this "section" in the intro as a group of examples.Meatsgains (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Common Sense

message: This page needs a serious clean up. A recent edit summary alludes to copy-pasting, which I suspect is what is most likely to be found in these edits No one can possibly produce +- 13,000 bytes in 48 minutes Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  clean up 

message: I am still nonethewiser as to what "deterritotialization" is. The article is absolutely poorly written, seemingly by someone who assumes we are all already anthropology experts. I don't think I am the person to clear it up, but the article definitely needs some serious work. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A cynic might say that Deleuze and Guattari themsleves didn’t really know what they meant, but I would disagree. That would mean they were engaging in authorship to gain money and to gain kudos among French intellectual society of their place and time. If it was all self-referential gibberish, someone would have pulled a thread, and it would all have unravelled. I suspect and hope that the authors really wanted to criticise human society so that it could be improved, and yet they do so in a way that seems to discourage understanding. The argument often deployed to respond to that is that these are concepts we all (or most people) misconceive (cf. the earth being flat; the earth being the centre of the universe; space-time being curved), so getting things straight is difficult. But, yes, the article doesn’t explain things satisfactorily, but would “Read the book!” be a better article? Nick Barnett (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I must be the latest in a long line of people to say this