Talk:Slavoj Žižek bibliography

Untitled

I created this page in the interest of saving space on the Main article page. I thought I could link to this page instead of hosting all the articles on that page. If you are thinking of nominating this for an Article for Deletion, then please, at the very least, see the talk page of that article, specifically the section (currently at the very bottom) entitled "Huge bibliography". Thanks! :) --Heyitspeter (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

List articles by date, like for books?

Similar to the lost for books, can somebody help list/categorise articles based on year of publication? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.128.75 (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Demanding the Impossible

Should we go ahead and add Demanding the Impossible, given that it came out on Monday? 75.167.91.3 (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Citation Method

While this page is very helpful and exhaustive, it doesn't use a homogenous citation style and therefore appears a bit messy. I advocate for using Template:Cite book to better organize this article and improve its appearance. --Joeyvandernaald (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Model bibliography after Lenin's bibliography page

This bibliography is a bit messy; the materials don't a uniform citation method, the articles list is likely not complete or not updated; there's a list of films that Slavoj has appeared in this doesn't really pertain to his bibliography. I propose that we model this bibliography after Vladimir Lenin's - located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin_bibliography Joeyvandernaald (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Including articles in different languages?

Does it make sense to make an attempt to include all articles in different languages here? I'm especially skeptical given that the article at present does not seem to differentiate between popular news articles and academic ones. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Advocating the deletion of articles from this page

Per the discussion that took place around the deletion of the Stanley Aronowitz bibliography, where the bibliography was proposed for deletion and the findings of the discussion advocated that only books be included in any bibliography for a scholar, I would advocate that this article be cleaned up by removing the lists of articles at the bottom of the page.

Further, it appears to me that the most influential of Žižek's works are his books and not articles. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Mistake?

I'd like to point out that the title "Birokratija i uživanje" is not in Slovene but rather in Serbo-Croatian. This might imply the work is not in the correct section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:EE2:F06:2600:BC44:9582:5A51:E0EE (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Basque Articles

Basque versions of articles in google-drive-pdfs are being linked, with a facebook profile as publisher. To me they look like machine translations. I don't see additional value in it. Quin451 (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Zizek speaks Norwegian, Basque, Greek or any of those other languages near the bottom. They are probably translated for that country's readers and as such they shouldn't be included. They're just English articles translated for different European papers.--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Well I guess, most of the non-english articles are translations for the "country's readers". Idk if that's a reason why "they shouldn't be included". What do you have in mind? Move every table to the corresponding language version of the WP-site? My point is (see above), that the basque articles look like machine translations, with no clear publisher. That's what distinguishes them. Quin451 (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

arbitrary deletion of Russia Today publications

Since the deletion of the same arbitrary parts of this bibliography page continues I open this talk section in good faith.

First David Gerard, then Amigao removed random parts of this page mentioning publications on Russia Today.

They both undid edits and simply commented with links to WP:RSP (Reliable sources), implying that the edits had an unreliable source. While Russia Today is listed as "publish[ing] false or fabricated information", I argued that using this fact as a justification for deletion applies WP:RSP out of context.

Again: "Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation". Even if the author makes himself a "mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation" by publishing on this platform, I see no reason why this should not be mentioned on the BIBLIOGRAPHY page. One could argue, that makes it all the more reason to mention it here.

After laying this out David Gerard again deleted the same edits changing his comment to linking to the WP Wiki on single-purpose accounts. This was the only reaction to my argument. The user thereby implies that I have a conflict of interest editing this bibliography page, having not enough "reliability and neutrality". The user has stated correctly that this account is a SPA. I created it with the sole purpose to put this page in order in the run-up to the Peterson–Žižek debate. You may have a look at the state of the page before I started editing. I will continue to use this account as a SPA, because I don't want my other account associated with my fan-boyish edits on this page. There is no inappropriate use of an alternative account happening, which David Gerard implies but does not even tries to justify.

My objective was/ is to enhance the formatting, integrity and reliability of this bibliography page. This includes mentions of Op-eds published by RT.

Since David Gerard started to speak of "edit-warring", I ask the user to lay out his argument. Because I can't see how he is not using WP rules out of context or how I work against integrity and reliability of the project.

Let us put an end to this unnecessary drama. Quin451 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

RT isn't being used as a source here, I fail to see why linking to op-eds he's written in RT amongst a huge list of op-eds he's written elsewhere is an issue. I imagine the people reverting you didn't look very closely at what they're actually reverting. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Volteer1. Žižek has been writing a lot on RT especially after 2015. These contributions have to be mentioned, and their content sourced back to RT. In this case, RT is being used as a primary source; the way you quote a book in order to describe its content and not as an objective source for a subject. It seems that those reverts were unjustified and based on a superficial reading. Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Even if RT engages in propaganda and disinformation (weird how that never applies to american media like NYTimes) it is not being used as a source. Zizek's articles reflect his views, not RT's. They are simply being published there, so the reverts make no sense. - Ïvana (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

A bibliography aims to collect texts by an author as a reference, not to critically evaluate the texts themselves. For a bibliography, it is irrelevant whether the text itself contains controversial statements or is published in a medium that is controversial. Rather, it is the other way round that precisely those publications (in RT) are of higher interest. In no case, however, should these be excluded from a bibliographic record of the text corpus. --Kommerz (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Deprecated sources which are not blacklisted should not be used as a source of information but of course can still be referenced when discussing an attributed claim if it is important for context or if saying that person X wrote for said source. BeŻet (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)