Talk:Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Inclusion of James A. Lindsay's recent critiques

Given the comments below about the one-sided nature of the "critical" section characterised as " practically a hagiography," I have included references to a recent criticism by James A. Lindsay who has researched Freire's work and influence in some detail. Quant analyst (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Lindsay’s book is published by his own New Discourses label. It is essentially self-published. His podcast is similarly outside of scholarly critique for the same reasons. Lindsay himself is a math PhD and self-described “cultural critic.” I'm fairly sure that’s as deep as it goes. I’m not aware of him being described as an expert in any field represented here by any Reliable Source. —Hobomok (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Quant analyst, we've been over this before elsewhere: You're now engaged in an edit-war while there is ongoing discussion right here, in violation of WP:BRD. Xx78900 reverted your addition earlier today. You re-added the material. I reverted you. You re-added the material. I reverted you a second time and discussion began here. In spite of this discussion, you re-added the material a third time.

I will not revert in recognition of WP:3RR, but you need to engage in discussion at talk, per guidelines. If you refuse to do this, I'm going to the relevant noticeboard, because this behavior is now a pattern. Please follow convention around WP:BRD, especially when multiple editors have reverted this addition and provided clear rationale for doing so.--Hobomok (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not engaged in an edit war. I have now removed the video I posted originally and replaced it with something more relevant. I have also only as of today included a link to a scholarly book. You on the other hand have reverted every single change I have made for the last two months based on no videcne other than your own opinion and without first engaging in talk which is against policy Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. I have so far reinstated my change only once with an explanation in Talk why I was doing so. This is entirely in line with policy. Quant analyst (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not. You were reverted by the editor mentioned above today. You added this information again. You were then reverted twice more and you added the information again while discussion was ongoing. You've added this information three times today. New Discourses is a website and blog. It is not a high-level source on the level of other sources on this page. It does not belong here, and you've insisted on adding it three times today after you've been reverted three times by two separate editors.--Hobomok (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You are once again talking nonsense. I removed the original video and added new sources today, including the reference to Lindsay's new book (published only this month). You reverted them twice and I reinstated twice. The additions from user:Biogeographist were not reversions and I did not undo them. The only other undo I performed today was on a typo I had inadvertently introduced. Quant analyst (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Diff here of your first reversion today regarding Lindsay. It does not matter if it was the original Youtube video, his self-published book, or the Youtube video hosted at Lindsay's website. You've been told multiple times why this content does not belong here. Regardless, a third editor has now explained this, so I think we're done.--Hobomok (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Where and how a book was published is of little relevance to whether it is scholarly or not. Newspaper reports are outside scholarly critique too but Wikipedia is replete with such sources. There is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines against the inclusion of videos or self-published books as relevant sources. Indeed we would never have heard of Václav Havel or many other dissident writers including Nobel Laureates if the samizdat origins of their work had been considered a reason to ignore their writings. Further, Linday's book Cynical Theories published by Pitchstone, which covers many related themes, is a bestseller and has been given widespread favourable reviews. If someone who has taken the trouble to obtain and read Lindsay's latest book (as I have) would like to comment on its reliability and/or scholarly nature I am happy to discuss with them. Quant analyst (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Per Wiki guidelines regarding self-published works, Lindsay's book (and his New Discourses blog) are not high-level sources, as another editor explained to you earlier today.

We're not talking about the other works or writers you mention here. We're talking about Lindsay's self-published book and, by extension, his blog, which are not reputable sources.

If you want to quote from Cynical Theories, by all means, do so. This current book is not an acceptable source, though, as others have explained to you, and you're currently engaging in an edit-war to add it, against policy.--Hobomok (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you actually read the guidelines you cited? They clearly state that Acceptable use of self-published works includes when "The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The critical acceptance of Cynical Theories (which you acknowledge) clearly establishes Lindsay as authoritative in his critique of postmodern theory, including and in particular its impact on pedagogy. Quant analyst (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

My point is this: Lindsay and Pluckrose published Cynical Theories with Pitchstone. That makes it acceptable to cite. It does not make Lindsay an expert on postmodern theory or pedagogy. His self-published book and his podcast posted to his own website do not belong here. They are not reputable sources.

Therefore: A case could be made for citing Cynical Theories, but a case cannot be made for citing Lindsay's self-published works. Note that Pitchstone did not publish or endorse this new book.

Please note again, I am not the only editor who has told you this today.--Hobomok (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Your dishonesty continues. The commentator User:Xx78900 you cite as having repeated your criticism of the new Lindsay book turns out to be someone who reverted a previous change of mine nearly a week ago before the Lindsay book was even published! Furthermore he made the reversion after you had already made the same reversion and without engaging in talk, in violation of policy. I have already made the case above for citing Lindsay's new book based on stated Wiki policy. You reiterating your personal unwillingness to accept that Lindsay is widely considered authoritative on postmodern theory adds nothing of substance to the discussion. I will engage again when you have some substantive better-founded objections. Until then please refrain from further attempts to revert. Quant analyst (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Chiming in given I've been tagged by both parties in the above discussion. For what it's worth, Quant analyst, I fully agree with Hobomok on this issue. To address a few issues raised above:

1. Where and how a book was published is of little relevance to whether it is scholarly or not. - I'm going to assume good faith here, but this statement is incorrect, and is said with confidence that could be mistaken for trolling. Passing peer review borders on defining whether or not a text is scholarly, with few enough exceptions. Moreover, some publishers can have a strong political bias / motivation to publish some ideas, so the where and the how are both very relevant in ascertaining the legitimacy of a scholarly text.
2. Having listened to the video you originally cited from, whatever about the book being scholarly, his video was not. It sounded like a man ranting about something he didn't like, not delivering balanced critique. By this I do not mean that critique mustn't be one-sided to be relevant, but that Lindsey seemed to be soapboxing as opposed to genuinely delivering insightful critique. I'm not certain that he himself is notable enough a figure that his own ravings are inherently notable.
3. Lindsay is widely considered authoritative on postmodern theory I have never heard of this man before these interactions. That, obviously, is not a metric which matters at all, but I just did a google search and this was the top result. It's a pretty scathing review. I won't pretend to claim that there isn't praise of him out there in equal measure (I have no idea if there is or not, just that I am personally ignorant as to his credentials), but it's disingenous to label him authorative when his views are clearly very controversial. Relatedly, you say The critical acceptance of Cynical Theories (which you acknowledge) clearly establishes Lindsay as authoritative in his critique of postmodern theory. No it doesn't. One book does not the authority make. Also, the book is aimed at a popular, rather than academic audience. Though that does not inherently reduce a given book's value, it is unlikely to make the author an authoritative in [their] critique of postmodern theory, given that postmodern theory is fairly entrenched in the academy.
4. I have already made the case above for citing Lindsay's new book based on stated Wiki policy. No you haven't? What policy is in support of its inclusion? Hobomok has supplied a policy that seemingly is at odds with your opinion, and you haven't link any.
5. Please be more polite in your interactions.

Finally, I'd just like to throw in my two cents about the issue, not directly related to what is being said above. Pedagogy of the Oppressed is one of the most influential books of all time, whether this is widely known or not. Throughout the western world, Pedagogy of the Oppressed and John Dewey's Democracy and Education form the foundation of most teacher education courses, particularly for post-primary teacher training courses. Anecdotally, as a trained teacher myself, all of my lecturers talked about Freire. Such an influential and widely incorporated theory of education has been lauded and critiqued many times over, the world over, and as we know, Pedagogy of the Oppressed is the third most cited book in the field of social studies of all time. There is an insane amount of genuine scholarly criticism of this book. Why not incorporate that instead of the writings of Lindsay, who A) As a science PhD, and not a cultural studies PhD, is far less qualified than a lot of other critics of Freire and B) is clearly a bit of a status chasing hack imo. I'm probably not going to reply to this again because I have better things to do than argue with strangers on the internet, but I just wanted my own thoughts on the matter out there. Xx78900 (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Your comments are noted as is your expressed unwillingness to discuss this matter further. Re the video, it as an unscripted podcast to subscribing followers, so is of course not "scholarly" in its style. If its inclusion is found objectionable (although many podcasts are cited on Wikipedia pages), I will not insist on its inclusion and indeed I have already removed it, as you probably noted. But the book is another matter which cannot be judged with reference to the author's podcasts (of which there are many), as you have sought to do. Quant analyst (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't read all the preceding comments, but as far as I can see, adding Lindsay's newly self-published book amounts to WP:BOOKSPAM at this point in time; the book isn't even catalogued in the Library of Congress or WorldCat, and I haven't found any reviews in reliable sources. Biogeographist (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The book was only published last week so it is not surprising it has neither been catalogued or reviewed. This is not a reason to denigrate its inclusion as spam. Quant analyst (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Biogeographist is not making the case that the contents of the book are necessarily spam, rather that your insistence of its inclusion constitutes spam. I would agree that in the case of a new publication, it not being yet catalogued nor reviewed does not indicate that it is of poor quality. But as a result of it being new, we do not yet know the quality of this text, and so we should be hesitant to include it. Xx78900 (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, having read the book (unlike anyone else in this discussion), I can aver that it is of comparable quality to its predecessor Cynical Theories. I will correct the wording of my comment above but I do find unreasonable the suggestion that the published views of a best-selling author should not be permitted to be expressed in a Wikipedia page: if anyone finds them objectionable when so published, there is then the opportunity for them to raise them in Talk. Quant analyst (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Against my better judgement, I'm replying again, though I am struggling to continue to assume good faith as it seems that you are being deliberately obstinate, Quant analyst. In this comment I will reply to both your reply to my large comment above and this one here, starting with the former.

1. If its inclusion is found objectionable - What do you think has been happening here other than a group of editors objecting to its inclusion?
2. But the book is another matter which cannot be judged with reference to the author's podcasts (of which there are many), as you have sought to do. First of all, the number of podcasts this author has produced is immaterial. Joe Rogan's opinions on pedagogy are largely unworthy of attention, because he isn't considered to have the prerequisite experience / expertise to deliver insightful critique. Secondly, you have ignored any and all arguments I made against the validity of the book as a source in my above comment, none of which were based on its relation to the podcast, though I did in that same comment independently criticize the podcast as a valid source. You have not addressed my points that the book's status is weakened by not passing peer review, being self-published, that Lindsay is not considered authoritative, and that you have not, in fact, cited any Wikipedia policy which demands its inclusion.
3. having read the book (unlike anyone else in this discussion), I can aver that it is of comparable quality to its predecessor Cynical Theories. Okay, you're welcome to your opinion that its a good book. The rest of us, however, are not beholden to your opinion. I've read my grandfather's memoirs, and found them to be very insightful to life in Ireland in the mid 20th century, but there's a reason I've never tried to cite from them on Wikipedia. Let's break it down through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

• Per WP:RSSELF, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Though this policy does suggest an exception to this rule in the case of an established expert [...] whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, there are three of us contesting that Lindsay is not an established expert. Moreover, per WP:SPS, editors should Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.. In the case of Pedagogy of the Oppressed there are hundreds and indeed likely thousands of criticisms to be found published in reliable sources. I would invite you to include one of those instead.
• In response to you stating that you can aver that it is of comparable quality to its predecessor Cynical Theories, I would encourage you to read WP:EXPERT. Justify its quality.
• Per WP:SOURCE, Books published by respected publishing houses are considered reliable.
• Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
• etc., etc.

1. I do find unreasonable the suggestion that the published views of a best-selling author should not be permitted to be expressed in a Wikipedia page Is this book best-selling? Because otherwise why not just include any celebrity's opinions on an issue they have spoken about in a magazine on every article about that issue? After all, those would be published views. And again, as we keep saying: Lindsay's own publishing house published this book, so it being published is not a meaningful metric.
2. if anyone finds them objectionable when so published, there is then the opportunity for them to raise them in Talk. That's what we're doing right now. We have found them objectionable, removed them, and are engaging with you on the matter on the talk page.

I would to be clear: I am not against the inclusion of negative commentary on Pedagogy of the Oppressed. There are better sources out there than this book. Xx78900 (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Creaturesofthewind.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

this article was apparently vandalized by a 3rd-grader: right now the first word is "fart." --kipito (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sol Stern, anyone?

I'm a bit confused about why Sol Stern's critiques of this text are not included thus far? Shall we rectify this? For your information, the links are as follows: [1][2]The Sound and the Fury (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Broken Link, "Limit-situation"

The fourth paragraph of the summary has a broken link. Someone who has read the book or otherwise understands the concept of "limit-situation" might wish to create a new page explaining what the concept means. The link could then be repaired. It does seem that the concept is important enough to warrant an explanation. Lonnie Nesseler 19:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnesseler (talk • contribs)

Reception or Criticism?

The section on reception only seems to mention criticism towards the book. Shouldn't it be labeled accordingly? Madgirl 15 (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This entire article is badly in need of a critiques/criticisms section. It is practically a hagiography. 76.87.143.147 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

When written

When was this first written/published? RJFJR (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

When reading wikipedia in other languages one starts to think that the next sentence

  It was first published in Portuguese in 1968

is untrue It propably was so that Freire wrote it 68 in Portuguese, but was not able to publish it then. I assume that the book was written in Portuguese in 1968 but first published in 1970 in English 1972 in Swedish and EITHER 1974 (Portuguese wikipedia: Lançamento 1974) OR 1975 (Finnish wikipedia:Portugalinkielinen laitos ilmestyi vuonna 1975) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.217.252 (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Broken link to readable version in external link

Here are three options:

• Full text:
  • Archive.org of the original link HTML https://web.archive.org/web/20070219053451/http://marxists.anu.edu.au/subject/education/freire/pedagogy/index.htm
  • PDF from New Hampshire professor http://www.users.humboldt.edu/jwpowell/edreformFriere_pedagogy.pdf
• Chapter 2 http://www2.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/education/freire/freire-2.html

What are the policies of linking to readable versions of articles on books? I found all of these via a simple Google Search. Would it matter if we contacted the publisher http://amzn.com/0826412769 to ask for permission to link? --Charles Jeffrey Danoff 06:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Jeffrey Danoff (talk • contribs)

Sol Stern, redux

It seems a little strange that Sol Stern's conservative critiques are included in the summary section, and are three of the six footnotes here. Especially considering Google Scholar has 35,000 entries on the book. I am going to move them to a critical reception section, but someone should address the lack of citations here.--Theredproject (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed/shifted some of the sections of the Stern quotes because they were his interpretations of other studies. Given that his own pieces are deeply oppositional to Freire, it seems responsible to keep them in the critical reception. Furthermore, he doesn't actually include any citations, so it compromises Wikipedia:Verifiability. There was one 2006 opinion piece in which he was talking about Eric Gutstein. Stern writes:

Like Ayers, Gutstein reveres Paolo Freire. He approvingly quotes Freire’s dictum that “there neither is, nor has ever been, an educational practice in zero space-time—neutral in the sense of being committed only to preponderantly abstract, intangible ideas.” Gutstein takes this to mean that since all education is political, leftist math teachers who care about the oppressed have a right, indeed a duty, to use a pedagogy that, in Freire’s words, “does not conceal—in fact, which proclaims—its own political character.”

I think this section is useful, but it really needs to be re-centered around Gutstein, and and away from Stern. Gutstein's text (mentioned in Stern's piece) should be cited here.--Theredproject (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Stern, Influences, and Chapters

Stern: It seems rather strange that in the section "Critical reception", only one critic is referenced. It gives a rather one-sided, and somewhat distorted view of the work. Including more critiques, both positive and negative, will deliver more information and be less biased. The information also mentions the notion that all education is political but does not mention that elsewhere in the article.

Influences: It seems like two kinds of influences are included in this section: one concerning who/what influenced Freire, and one about who/what Pedagogy of the Oppressed influenced. I think this makes it somewhat confusing; these sections should be separated. Furthermore, the citation from Dick does not seem to have much information about Pedagogy of the Oppressed, other than being typed in secret in South Africa--it seems like more information is needed.

Chapters: More information about the chapters would also be useful. It seems that Chapter 3, in particular, is somewhat of a second thought. More information would be helpful.

Lenaisadora (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Synopsis section

I'm concerned that the newly-added Synopsis section may be original research, or depend too much or entirely on the book itself, which may be problematic per WP:PRIMARY. The 6kb synopsis section was added in this edit by Rithvikv (talk · contribs), a student in this Wiki Ed-associated course, with content expert Shalor. The section of the NOR guideline which I think may apply to this synopsis is the following:

Excerpt from WP:NOR section Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Notes

My interpretation of NOR policy is that since the synopsis added to this article relies solely on one PRIMARY source, and is not limited to bare-bones description but includes interpretation of the book's content, it is therefore Original research and should be removed. However, the issues regarding original research and the use of PRIMARY sources as it pertains to writing a book synopsis can be subtle, so I have raised it at the NOR policy Talk page; that discussion is here, and you're invited to contribute. I will hold off removing the synopsis in this article, until there is more clarity about the policy itself, or until there is consensus in this discussion about what to do. Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Listed at WT:NOR Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Listed at WP:ENB Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Mathglot: while I know of this book I have not read it. What specific phrases are you concerned are OR rather than simply summarizing a WP:PRIMARY source? I personally think this section could use a rewrite - even if there isn't OR (and I see phrases that could either be OR or not, hard to say without having read the book) as it is probably overly detailed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49:, thanks for your comment. I haven't read it either, and I'm sure my examples would be better if I had, but to me it's beside the point. Regarding "what specific phrases": basically all of them. I just don't think PRIMARY applies to non-fiction in the same way as it does to fiction; but that's more an argument for the discussion at WT:NOR rather than here. Picking some specific phrase or sentence to object to, could theoretically lead to a debate among Wikipedia editors about whether I'm right or you are; or whether this or that statement in the long synopsis section is a fair representation of what Paulo Freire is saying in his book. I just don't think that's an appropriate kind of debate here, because it puts us, as editors, in the position of being interpreters of Freire, and the Wikipedia article in the position of a secondary source, and that's not what we are supposed to be doing. I'd rather that we find reliable (and independent) secondary sources, and quote or summarize those. Failing that, in my opinion the entire section should be removed, or at least tagged for {{better source needed}}, and removed later, if nothing is forthcoming. But that is just my opinion, and I'm hoping the discussion at WT:OR will help shed some light. Mathglot (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I had a look around, and among the other Wikipedias having an article on Freire's book, the Catalan article had numerous independent references for the synopsis section of their article. I've copied and adapted them in a subsection below. In my experience, verifiability policy is more strictly enforced on en-wiki, than on other wikis I'm familiar with, which are sometimes quite lax about it. If the Catalans can come up with ten references for their synopsis section, than so can we. Or we can steal theirs, if someone cares to figure out where they apply. Adding Barkeep49. Mathglot (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for tagging me Mathglot. I was concerned over the synopsis section as well. I've left a message on the student's talk page, asking them to participate in the talk page discussion, as well as letting them know what the concerns are. I have no problem with the synopsis section getting reduced, replaced, or removed. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources for synopsis

The "Resum" (Synopsis) section of Pedagogia de l'Oprimit on Catalan Wikipedia has ten references:

References for synopsis section in the Catalan article
References copied from Catalan article Pedagogia de l'Oprimit section #Resum:

Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)