Talk:Problematization

Restoration

All citations had been removed from the article and it lost clarity and information. I readded all my old text, leaving the examples. Hyacinth 11:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a Wikipedia article?

I'm not sure the content here is encyclopedic in nature. It seems to me this is really a definition, and as such more appropriate for Wiktionary (which has a very lacking entry on "problematize") - cf. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thoughts? Nicolasdz 15:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

agreed. Question: what is the difference between 'to problemize' and 'to problematize'? 82.111.242.154 (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC) R.E.D.

I've always thought that "Problematize" comes from the idea that an idea can (or should) be thought of as "problematic." This is distinct, in my mind, from it being a "problem," which is suggested by "problemize." A problem needs to be removed or corrected, something problematic needs to be examined, taken apart and put back together -- which is what problematizing consists of. That said, the word doesn't show up in my spellchecker. I wonder how/where it came into being? Begeun (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Problematization is not a simple concept that can be easily defined, and it requires examples and discussion to provide context for its usage. This article goes beyond simple definition. See also: 'Problematize' and Academic Discourse --128.253.53.171 (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well said. It is an important process and a component of critical thinking. Sunray (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the reason that "problematize" needs such complex definitions is because it is not a word. It has been fabricated in very recent discourse in lieu of stretching for actual words in their vocabulary. NortonFord (talk) 11:48, 04 August 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.145.67 (talk)

multiple issues tag

There is no need for a "multiple issues tag" on this article. The issues stem from the fact that it is a stub. When a reader clicks on the "stub" link there are guidelines as to what that means and what to do about it. That seems sufficient to me. Stubs, are articles that need to be filled out. This one is no exception. However, what is there is well-expressed and rather unproblematic :) I've removed the tag. Sunray (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In English please!

"It is a way of defamiliarization of common sense." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.238.31 (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Even the very first sentence of this entry makes close to zero sense. A classic case of writing to be understood only by those who already know what you are saying - which of course defies the purpose of communicating in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.19.110 (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

:-) I see I'm not the first to object to the ridiculous style of this article. Why persevere past the first sentence. "Problematization of a term, writing, opinion, ideology, identity, or person is to consider the concrete or existential elements of those involved as challenges (problems) that invite the people involved to transform those situations." And this is supposedly meant to enlighten people who come to the page! If someone would care to translate that into plain English, the page would be vastly better. Or is the problem that the only people who use the world 'problematize', favour such a style? One meant to conceal, not to communicate? No clear picture of any kind comes into my head when I read that. 'Those situations' - uh, what situations? 'the concrete or existential elements of those involved'?! .. Oh dear. I suspect not a translation, but another sentence written by someone with understanding of the term, and ability to write clearly and simply, would be better. 110.20.158.134 (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The relational context indicates a prospective benefit in the problematization of the notion of problematization. (I'm serious.) Zoetropo (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

In English please! II

This article lead section should include at least one short very specific example of problematization, one that is understandable to someone totally unfamiliar with the (theoretical) terms used here in the article.

The article should also later include at longer and more detailed specific examples of problematization, or perhaps several real-world examples that are detailed elsewhere on Wikipedia. tahc ^chat 17:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)