Talk:Rhizome (philosophy)

message: As the 'citation needed's are about me, I won't edit but I am curious. As the points made in the second half of the paragraph that is about my rhizome article are from the article, and carry on from it, is all that is needed a restatement of the citation at the end of the paragraph? They are all points from the paper. --Davecormier (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Does your article demonstrate that the approach is gaining currency, or is it just an aspiration? I didn't add all those tags, but the argument sounds pretty dubious. DionysosProteus (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of the citation needed stuff relates to stuff actually in the article. I appreciate your feelings about the idea being 'dubious'. Certainly some people have taken it up http://www.elearningeuropa.info/out/?doc_id=19280&rsr_id=19655 this is a nice example. I guess i still don't understand the balance between it 'sounding dubious' and it being from a peer reviewed article. Maybe i still just don't get wikipedia... which is unfortunate, as I teach people how to use it for academia. --Davecormier (talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.100.47 (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not "gaining any currency in academic circles" (nor do you provide a citation for that), at least not yet. This article is essentially an advertisement for your viewpoint and your article. I have articles, too, but I don't plug them constantly, because quite frankly they're not relevant. This is absolutely shameless. Like Kincheloe, some people in Ed just continually raid the Continental Philo vocabulary for buzzwords and foist it off as "research". That's besides the point. You need cites when you say something is "gaining currency". Also, I've never heard of the journal you wrote the article for, I can't find your article online or even cited anywhere (seriously, do you have ANY cites?), and every weblink with your name comes up "page not found". Guinness4life (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

text:  I didn't write it, and would not have claimed that it is 'gaining currency...' whether it is or not. The article has been cited a half dozen times and has been used in classrooms... but is hardly taking over the world. The post preexisted my article... and had stuff added to it after my article was added. You don't "agree" with the article... which is fine, but the article links do currently work... the server of the journal was down, and the links broken, because the journal was discontinued. http://innovateonline.info/ Is wikipedia now constrained to using citations from journals that YOU are familiar with? It's quite well known in my field. Given your approach here, however, you've got the taint of certainty that implies that you don't particularly discuss, but, rather, decide. And you have decided.  --Davecormier (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Needed

message: How does a peer reviewed online journal not qualify as a verifiable source? As of August this was tagged with the unverifiable source tag and yet it has a 'further reading' tag added to it to the peer reviewed article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.96.230 (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unverifiable sources

message: Isn't this misnamed as Rhizome (sociology)?  Should it be something like Rhizome (metaphors) instead?  Jung's usage of the term rhizome as metaphor doesn't seem to be sociological, although Deleuze and Guattari's usage probably is.  Mikkalai's insistence on splitting up the original unitary Rhizome article seems quite problematic.  -- JimR 11:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to a better title. Nothing problematic: totally different areas. That's why we have thousands of disambiguation pages. `'mikka (t) 20:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not just sociology?

message: Is it really appropriate to label 'rhizome' in this usage as a metaphor, given Deleuze and Guattari's hostility to the notion that their appropriation of terms is metaphorical? I appreciate that the article makes a point of their concept of rhizome being non-metaphorical, but both the disambiguation page and the opening line say otherwise. I am not familiar with Jung's usage, but whether or not it is metaphorical, a more neutral description should discuss it as a concept, not as a metaphor. Philosophy does not work exclusively with metaphor - its work is done primarily with concepts, which may or may not have metaphorical elements or forms. Therefore, the philosophical usage of 'rhizome' should be primarily described as 'conceptual' rather than 'metaphorical'. --Rhizomachine 01:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the introduction accordingly. A concept is not a metaphor. Lapaz 04:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metaphor? or Concept? 

message: There are two references in this article to the work of one "Jeff Vail". Mr. Vail is a blogger with a self-edited book at iUniverse press. He does not seem relevant enough to the article to justify his presence there. I would propose deletion.
--Amador 22:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original reference to Jeff Vail was added at this diff by an anonymous poster with no other contributions.  An external link was added here, from a different anonymous IP address with one other edit (to Hubbert peak theory, apparently not related to Jeff Vail).  I changed this to the more precise link to the inline version of the book here, because I thought it did have some relevance.  I don't know anything more about Jeff Vail than this, or have any connection with him.  I'll leave it up to others to decide whether the references should remain.  -- JimR 07:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed them until there is evidence of this person's notability and authority on the topic (ie, he gets his own article). --ZimZalaBim talk 02:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-promotion?

message: 83.19.131.243 21:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to "Critical mass" seems to be incorrect

message: I've removed the references to Carl Jung's use of "rhizome" as it is not a philosophical use (the subject of this article) but rather a passing metaphor. The article still needs substantial work: the educational application detailed is a minor example and contains some terminological errors (data "representation", for instance, doesn't sit well with an anti-representational concept). I'm working on other D&G terms at the moment, but hope to get to this one soon. DionysosProteus (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhizome as Philosophy 

message: Youtuber johndavidebert gives an account of Deleuze’s A Thousand Plateaus ‘intro’ and covers rhizomes (imho) really quite well. Not sure if it would be worth linking in the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pH--FtP0j4 (Focus on rhizomes begins ~03:05, oh, and it’s a two-parter.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.104.119 (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material to link to: youtube video? 

message: I wanted to find out which of the D&G articles garners the most traffic on this site. I thought this might be of interest to other editors interested in the D&G articles. All stats for June 2010:
* Gilles Deleuze 11,862
* Rhizome (philosophy) 2,887
* Félix Guattari 2,623
* A Thousand Plateaus 2,341
* Anti-Oedipus 2,191
* Deterritorialization 1,326
* Capitalism and Schizophrenia 1,208
* Haecceity 1,173
* Body without organs 1,130
* Plane of immanence 1,057
* Affect (philosophy) 647
* Arborescent 545
* Multiplicity (philosophy) 823
* Desiring-production 402
* Minority (philosophy) 388
* Schizoanalysis 369 (though article had been deleted to a redirect)
* Immanent evaluation 344
* Subjectivation 330
* Reterritorialization 319
* Line of flight 317
* Difference (philosophy) 300
* La Borde clinic 282
* L'Abécédaire_de_Gilles_Deleuze 224
* A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity 184
Also related are:
* Noosphere 5,896 
* Individuation 3,658 
But neither article has any substantial treatment of D&G
DionysosProteus (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Most-browsed Deleuze and Guattari articles

message: Is it supposed to?  I can't see what Rhizomes have to do with it, at all, but I may just be missing something. 155.135.55.233 (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it should. The fascicle book is one of the three types of book that D&G describe in the chapter/short book that this article is about--root-book, fascicle-book, and rhizome-book. I'm working on a new version of this article that explains it, but it's not ready to go into the mainspace yet. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascicle (book) redirects here 

message: The source of the second half of this article seems to be largely taken word for word from this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=Li_JzmrWfkwC&pg=PA265
What's going on here? This is not from D&G themselves. The text has now been cited by several outside websites referring back to Wikipedia as the source, but there's no source given except for a page on rhizomes.org which also cites no source!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.109 (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: looks like the book was published in 2011, and the copied text was on wikipedia before that. of course that means we can't cite it but unlesss there's an earlier source its not a copyright violation on our part.  - car chasm (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited Source? 

message: The redirect Rhizome (philosophy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 18:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Rhizome (philosophy]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]