|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated Stub-class)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
This is a largely unsourced-but-sourceable narrative: there are two distinct Nick Lands, as there are two distinct Wittgensteins. The current NL is quite alien to his old pupils like Ray Brassier, but he's the one who writes in That's Shanghai, the one who wrote "The Dark Englightenment", cited in the external links but not in the text and so on.
When I chanced upon Robin McKay, who had co-written an introduction with Brassier to Fanged Noumena, I had to ask whether that Nick Land was the "Dark Enlightenment" Nick Land, and well -- it's the same person, and he had written this essay that sort of implies that Nick Land went insane from overwork:
and I quote
- According to the present-day Nick Land, the person who wrote the following texts no longer exists. Yet for anyone who knew him, it is difficult to speak about these works without recalling Land as he was then.
There's a whole story to be dug up here; I'm just involved enough with it that I'm not the right person to start typing on the actual page. But something has to be said about this.
Came here to read about the man but I found -- to me impossible to judge -- "weasely" information... "Nick Land WAS a philosopher..." (Sounded dead to me) and "currently 'works' at..."Wahlin (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Unintelligible 'Notable Ideas'/Lack of NPOV
Anybody who goes to this page to look for a summary of the ways that this 'philosopher' has influenced the discourse--which is, I think, the best use of Wikipedia when it comes to philosophy--will be pretty baffled by such hermeticisms as 'numogramatics' or 'tic-xenotation.' This might not be so bad if there were some explanation of such terms somewhere in Wikipedia, but alas, Land's disciple(s) have not been so diligent. Also it seems that 'numogramatics' contains three m's in most sources, although I still have no clue what it means or what might make it notable. Clearly, then, the 'notable ideas' section requires serious revision, supplement, or removal. It's also curious that Kode9, the electronic music artist, is listed as a major philosophical descendent of Nick Land.
From the forementioned issues, it's pretty clear to me that this is not a neutral article. At the very least, the article needs to have a little more information in regards to Land's supposedly notable ideas, because right now it reads more like a CV than an article on a contemporary thinker of note. Philosophies may differ here, but I think it should be clear to the reader why a given philosopher should be given an encyclopedia article, and that clearly isn't apparent here. This would lead me to question the general notability of this guy or the 'Dark Enlightenment' which he birthed, but I don't mean to presume on that larger topic. If anyone has ideas on how to settle these notability problems, I'd love to hear. --One More Dilettante (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- He's had a lot of press, most recently around the Dark Enlightenment stuff. He'd pass general notability. But yeah, this isn't a very good article at all - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead and removed the 'notable ideas' section until someone can come up with some better candidates and/or elaborate on those ideas of his that are supposedly notable. --One More Dilettante (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)