Talk:Deconstruction

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Poujeaux (talk | contribs) at 18:35, 19 February 2014 (→‎Unjustified tagging). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Recent edits by Byelf2007

1. The article ought to explain what the X is as soon as possible. Currently in the second sentence it says "Although he avoided defining the term directly, he sought to apply..." This is background info on *how* the concept came about by the creator but not *what it is*. Having "Derrida proposed the deconstruction of all texts where..." as the second sentence works much better in this respect.

2. The lede is currently very unprofessional: "On the one hand..." and starting a paragraph with "but" are particularly bad. I think I've cleaned them up pretty well.

3. A bunch of separate sections on what deconstruction is is very weird. I think it's much better to put them under "On deconstruction".

4. "Definitions by other authors" seems unprofessional to me. I prefer "Alternative definitions".

5. "Developments after Derrida" also seems unprofessional to me. I prefer "Post-Derrida development".

6. I believe etymology sections are encouraged. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 June 2012


Merger proposal of Jacques Derrida on deconstruction

Rationale The two articles are nearly identical, with the exception of the lead (mind that the lead of Deconstruction is about Derrida on deconstruction), and the comparably tiny "Alternative definitions" section in Deconstruction. 㓟 (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest not merging them. Just my 2cents...This one was originally created as a standalone article because so much of it was redundant in the original Deconstruction article. There was a bit of edit-warring at Deconstruction because it was so Derrida-heavy. Thought I'd provide some background. But I really don't have a horse in this race. Happy editing... OttawaAC (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Heidegger created the concept and it has been advanced theoretically outside of Derrida both before and after him, no it should not be merged 75.161.86.55 (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A selective merge of relevant, non-redundant material is probably called for. If there is concern that Deconstruction is too heavily weighted toward Derrida, maybe some material could go to Jacques Derrida, but from the current condition of Jacques Derrida on deconstruction, I don't see a big potential loss if the page is just redirected to Deconstruction. Cnilep (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am I correct in concluding that this proposed merger has consensus? MergerDude (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest not merging them. I agree to lighten up the "Deconstruction" Article from Derrida's influence and to expend more on other authors while keeping the other article about Derrida on Deconstruction. However, I do not really have the expertise to carry out this task. All I know about Deconstruction is extracted from Derrida's theories. --Christophe Krief (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No reason was given against the merge (other than a suggestion not to) so I'll go ahead and do it. Bhny (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No arguments were presented against the merger so I think there is a consensus. You gave ample opportunity for the presentation of arguments and Christope Krief's "I suggest not merging them" and OttawaAC's "I'd suggest not merging them" aren't arguments, i.e. they are devoid of reasons, and Wikipedia doesn't operate on the basis of ballot. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

2 comments on the side of the railroading of one particular view/critique of decontstruction that has just begun:

  • One possible answer to my own central question above, as to why you have chosen WP as the vehicle for publishing your own critique of deconstruction, is that in the real academic world, one cannot hide behind "another" pseudonym. Actually, in there one cannot hide behind pseudonyms at all. To publish in the real academic world, one has to stand squarely behind one's name. (Again the metaphysics of presence?)
  • Interesting how it seems to be a pretty common tactic of philosophers to simply argue that the opponent is not even "intelligent" enough to understand the concept as it is being used by the philosopher. You have argued that Derrida used this tactics against his opponents, and here you are, just using it again against me... This is just another case of 'the pot calling the kettle black..."
  • If and/or when this clear case of POV pushing and of name calling goes to some kind of arbitration on WP be sure that I will be here to bear witness. warshy¥¥ 18:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where have I published my "own critique of deconstruction"? So you are criticising me for something that you claim I will do in the future? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also nowhere did I use the word intelligent in my discussion with you so don't quote that word as if to suggest I used it. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just re-read your inept ramblings with fresh eyes. What the f**k are you on about? You have THREE comments, count them. "On the side of the railroading"? So a metaphor for an action has a "side"? Where is my critique of deconstruction? Show it to me. The "real academic world" as opposed to what, "the fake academic world"? Why is "another" in quotes? Why are you answering your own (misguided) questions? If you know the answer then why ask a question? You made your intelligence—and again why is "intelligent" in quotes—an issue and then you posted a bunch of garbage that would cause someone to question your intelligence. So you've arrived at the conclusion that you are infallible and omniscient? You are implying that you are always entirely correct in your comprehension of everything. You've ruled out the possibility of error on your part a priori. So are you saying that I am a philosopher but at the same time saying that you know more about (all branches of) philosophy than a philosopher? If it's a "pretty common tactic of philosophers" and it is "interesting" then give me a list of all the philosophers that do what you allege. To form the conclusion that it is a "pretty common tactic" you must have performed some sort of survey. "[U]sing it again against me"? So where and when have I used this alleged tactic on you before? Why are there ellipsis here: 'the pot calling the kettle black..."? That phrase is complete so you aren't elliding anything so it doesn't need ellipsis within the (asymmetrical) quotation marks. "If and/or when" means: "If and when" (i.e. if it happens and when it does happen) and "If or when" (i.e. If it happens or when it happens) and that is a redundancy, the "and/or" serves no purpose in that context. Show me where the "clear case of POV pushing" is in my edits to any article. You are harassing me on the basis of an unfounded allegation. If you continue this behaviour of unfounded allegations I will report your behaviour. "I will be here to bear witness", no you won't be here on the talk page you will be there wherever the arbitration occurs. Your behaviour constitutes WP:Harassment and WP:AOBF; you are threatening me on the basis of what I have not done and what you predict I will do. If you persist in threatening me and making accusations against me on that basis of your alleged ability to see into the future then I will be making a complaint against you. You have been warned. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least we know his name... I fully agree with warshy's point on the "metaphysics of presence". For someone insisting on this issue you are somewhat aside the subject rather than within Mr anotherpseudo.--Christophe Krief (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe, you should read closely before signing your name. What did wish-washy post? This deserves to framed:
Philosophiæ Wishy-Washicus

As a complete newcomer to the field of Phenomenology in Philosophy, my first reaction in comparing the two leads, is that the old one, for an encyclopedia entry, is actually far superior and much better. That is because it tries to explain what Deconstruction is from within the main definitions and explanations provided by Derrida. The new lead should be probably the introduction to a philosophical paper on deconstruction to be published in a Philosophy peer-reviewed journal. It departs from a starting point that is inherently critical of deconstruction and of Jacques Derrida, and tries to “explain” it by first pointing out what would be the philosophy's weak points or inconsistencies, in the view of the writer, of course. To start explaining deconstruction in a basic encyclopedia entry by mentioning the metaphysics of presence right in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the lead shows the critical intention of the writer, rather than the explanatory intention.

From a first cursory reading of the new lead I can see I am already completely confused by the assertion, on the one hand, that “intrinsic meaning exists,” which is then completely negated in the next sentence by the assertion that “Deconstruction denies the possibility ... of essential or intrinsic meaning.” Looks to me, on a rather cursory reading of the only the first paragraph so far, pretty much like a non-sequitur right of the bat?...

From all the walls of text that the editor has previously published on this page and on the Derrida page, it looks to me that he should be using his time and his knowledge and views of the subject to write professional papers to be published in Philosophy peer-reviewed journals, not on writing basic encyclopedic entries for people non-knowledgeable or non-specialized in Phylosophy in general, for which an encyclpedia is generally written.

Signatory Wishy-Washy Signatory ____________________ <-- Christophe please sign here

Christophe, read closely. Is he saying what you are saying? Your concern—if I have understood you—is that the concept of the metaphysics of presence is too complicated and too esoteric to mention in the lead. Wishy-washy on the other hand thinks that the metaphysics of presence is something I/Derrida (who knows from that semi-literate nonsense) invented. He doesn't understand that deconstruction is a critique of the metaphysics of presence; he thinks it is a component of deconstruction and (for some unstated reason) that it represents a weakness of deconstruction and that the mere mention of it undermines deconstruction. Look at the second paragraph of Philosophiæ Wishy-Washicus for a confirmation of this. Clearly wishy-washy is incompetent. Wishy-washy's charge is utterly bizarre and incompetent. If you wish to endorse it then be my guest but by doing so you will be at the expense of your credibility. Above you wrote:
"The previous lead was awful, this is why I have worked on your replacement which represents an opportunity to improve this article... Thanks for this anotherpseudo... But please do not waste this opportunity. Don't take it personally."
Then you write:
"I fully agree with warshy's point on the "metaphysics of presence"."
So you agree with wishy-washy that by mentioning the metaphysics of presence in the lead—which is the object of deconstructive critique, the antithesis of différance—represents a surreptitious attempt to undermine deconstruction from the outset? That is like saying mentioning capitalism in the lead of the article on Marxism "shows the critical intention of the writer, rather than the explanatory intention". Is this what you are endorsing? I think you need to clarify yourself.
To you wishy-washy you are ignorant and entirely incompetent to comment on this article or any article on philosophy. For the sake of your education: The metaphysics of presence is not a component of deconstruction it is what deconstruction is critiquing. Deconstruction attempts to demonstrate the error of the metaphysics of presence, it is not an error of deconstruction and no part of my lead stated or implied otherwise. The contradiction that you think you identified is a product of your ignorance. The metaphysics of presence suggests that intrinsic meaning is possible; deconstruction qua critique of the metaphysics of presence suggests that intrinsic meaning is not possible. It looks like you have made a hobby of making a fool of yourself on Wikipedia and this is just but one other episode. You are a member of the epistemology task force. Well f**k me gently with a chainsaw. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anotherpseudo, I agree on the fact that your are not present on Wikipedia as a human being, so that it is Ironic for you to insist on elaborating on "pure presence". You have insulted Western philosophy on Wikipedia with direct unprovoked attacks towards me and others. You should either come clean to speak man to man (as per Heidegger understanding of man to man) or you should be more respectful. I don't know and I don't care about your previous discussions with Washy, but during discussions with you, your lack of respect and your personal attacks were obviously linked to the hiding of your identity. So it is your absence on Wikipedia which lead to your attitude, and this is very ironic in relation to your insistence on the metaphysics of presence. I think it is what washy said, and it is why I agree with him on this subject.--Christophe Krief (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-modernism and post-structuralism aren't the entirety of Western philosophy, they are actually a relatively small part of Western philosophy that is more fad than serious work. My username is not a breach of WP:UN and I am not going to use Heidegger the Nazi as a moral exemplar. Yes "man to man", but that does not include Jews, homosexuals etc.. I'm happy to not meet Heidegger's standards of moral excellence. I'm not going to do all of the heavy lifting and just have you tacking on silly citations that breach WP:NOR and arbitrarily deleting my work without any attempt at establishing a consensus. I'll leave the article to you and wishy-washy. In any event I have proved my points: I have a better understanding of deconstruction than the charlatans that inhabit this sorry part of Wikipedia; I am able to provide a lucid exposition of deconstruction; and I can write more fluently than the charlatans that lurk here. In summation: this. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to post on this page a little contrary opinion on the new lead being pushed here by this certain pseudonymous user. My little attempt at a critical reading of the first pargraph of the new lead was met with abuse, scorn, derision, mockery, offense, and threats. My attacker to begin with, refuses to address me as an equal user of WP, worthy of basic human respect, by simply referring to me through an invented mock user-name, which is conceived to begin with to convey disrespect, disregard, to diminish and to make a mockery of the person posting a different opinion. Simple offending vulgarities where thrown at me twice. I was called "hallucinating," "bizarre," "ignorant," "semi-literate, "inept," and even "a fool." (No, the rhetoric is actually much worse than that: "It looks like you have made a hobby of making a fool of yourself on Wikipedia and this is just but one other episode.") I was also called a charlatan, no less, me "and my kind." ("You allied yourself on the side of ignorance, stupidity (and semi-literacy), ... siding with ineptitude...")

I was categorically determined, multiple times, as an "incompetent" editor. Nay, more than that, it was actually already determined by this certain pseudonymous user, based on two or three little interactions we've had during the past month or so, that I am "entirely incompetent to comment on this article or any article on philosophy."

In addition to all this, I have also been warned and threatened by this pseudonymous, rather anonymous user.

Look above and see the heap of offense and scorn the same pseusonymous user has thrown at a different opponent. What would any normal person call all this? This type of aggresive, diminishing, actually abusing and demeaning behavior toward people that dare to hold or express here in writing a different or contrary opinion? Since I believe I have at least now faithfully described here what has gone on above, and all the names, adjectives, and qualifiers that were thrown at me for daring to post a contrary opinion, I will for the time being just leave it at that. After all, occasional interactions with this type of interlocutor must be just another facet of trying to edit/contribute to Wikipedia. warshy¥¥ 19:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lead paragraph again

I've reverted to my last edit as this at least has a short 1st paragraph that is almost encyclopedic and understandable. Obfuscation doesn't help anyone. Please keep it simple and correct errors and improve the references. (We need more secondary references and less Derrida quotes) Bhny (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I modified the second phrase in preserving the intended meaning. In the same phrase you had: "is that - or that - ond that". With regard to non Derridean reference, you sound as if they should be added whatever their relevance as to provide a wider range of references... I disagree on this point... - It appears to me that it is only a reference to Heidegger's Destruktion of Western philosophy which is missing in the lead. This aspect of Heidegger's work exerted a profound influence on Jacques Derrida, although there are also important differences between Heidegger's Destruktion and Derrida's deconstruction. I will be adding a reference to or from Heidegger's Destruktion. Any other references will need to be carefully chosen for their importance and relevance. --Christophe Krief (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edit, that is an improvement. I'm currently only interested in the first paragraph and the references 1 through 6 are primary texts by Derrida with overly long quotes, ref 7 seems a good reference, but the rest make it seem like wp:OR. Also, I could not see the words "metaphysics of presence" in any of the references.Bhny (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at including a reference to Heidegger's Destruktion but it appears that all references to Martin Heidegger were removed from the article. Is there a reason for this?
Reference 1 is from me... There is no personal research except from the reference to Lacan which I am sure about but cannot prove it. I am not willing to write a book about it, but I am sure that Derrida never quoted Lacan because of his strong political involvement. However the use of the term "meconaissance" in the French version "Of Grammatology" cannot have another source than Lacan's researches. The rest of ref.1 is only stating information on the first use of the term Deconstruction in a published work. It points the reader of this article towards a pillar of Decosntruction, so i believe that it should be preserved as the first reference.. What would you consider more relevant? With regards to ref.7 I think that it could be replaced with something which has more history and more background. It is a joke that Heidegger is missing from this article when unknown authors are quoted in the lead.--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified tagging

Various editors have added vague tags to the article with no talk followup in the past (see WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING). An anonymous editor added yesterday the following tags: Lead too long, Over-quotation, Confusing.

According to WP:LEAD the lead "should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate"; obviously, the introduction is not too long for the overall article length.

The confusing tag is unjustified as well. There were some weasel-worded and vague phrases in previous versions but I recently removed them. One should note that the subject of this article is technical since anyone to understand the details of the theory would have to be familiar with several related debates over literary criticism, epistemology, and ontology within Continental philosophy. However, the article is fairly readable for readers who are not familiar with the material and the lead is written quite well: I deem that non-experts can understand and verify its content.

We could only keep Over-quotation since this is an issue that has been raised several times before in the talk-page. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the strict reading of WP:LEAD, and irrespective of the overall length of the article, which is of questionable relevance, the question of whether the lead is too long is 'obviously' a matter of opinion. In particular, the fourth paragraph could easily be moved into its own section below, but this would not help the readability of the lead at all. It is the second paragraph which could do most with thinning out and simplifying, without being dumbed-down. This might bring the benefit that more readers would read the whole lead before giving up.
This leads on to the next argument, over whether the article is confusing or not. Familiarity with the context of the debates within Continental philosophy no doubt helps understand the subject, but why would someone with such a familiarity ever refer to Wikipedia to help them understand deconstruction? They would be unlikely to need Wikipedia for this purpose. Instead, they would probably just start by reading some Derrida. To say that anyone unfamiliar with those debates cannot understand deconstruction is tantamount to saying anyone referring to this article in order to understand deconstruction at its most basic level is wasting their time. Maybe so, but I find that attitude rather undermines the point of having this Wikipedia article. Much better to risking dumbing down the article than take that approach.
Jonathan G. G. Lewis 04:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonazo (talk • contribs)
The lead remains 90% my original work and is the clearest synoptic account of the topic that the article has ever had. Any further simplification of the 2nd paragraph risks making it inaccurate. My orginal lead had at least one citation from a well-regarded secondary source for every citation of Derrida as a demonstration of the technical accuracy and WP:NOR of my version of the lead. The motive for this was the oversupply of ignorant idiots that circled this article and made it the technically inaccurate and obscurantist pile of shit that it was (and largely remains). I agree that the article remains awful, and I hasten to add that I am responsible only for (most of) the lead. It is plainly obvious that as soon as you leave the lead you are landed into a qualitatively different territory. The article—less the lead—is technically inaccurate, badly composed using broken English and uninformative. Part of the problem is due to Derrida's writing being awful and easily misunderstood—as the article itself readily demonstrates. Part of the problem is the seemingly inexhaustible supply of amateur (pseudo-)philosophers that are attracted to this article. But certainly part of the problem is the phenomenological framework of deconstruction (and much of Continental philosophy) and this can't be magically dispensed with. I detest obfuscation as much as I detest Derrida but I do not think that the idea central to deconstruction—the metaphysics of presence—being steeped in phenomenology as it is will yield to a simpler exposition, that retains technical accuracy, as I have produced in the lead. My original lead was more elucidatory than the current version in regard to the central obscure idea behind deconstruction; the current lead is essentially an edited version of my original lead with the secondary sources (which served to demonstrate WP:NOR) removed. In creating the lead I read through about 20 secondary sources to see if a simpler elucidation—that was also accurate—existed and I found none. My participation in the article ended because I was the only editor doing any real work. I had three ignorant idiots hounding me and when I left the article they didn't contribute anything more to it. The idea which troubled these idiots was akin to the idea that an atheist couldn't have substantive knowledge of Christianity. Essentially that because I openly believe Derrida is a con-artist and that deconstruction is bullshit I must not understand it and will necessarily give it partial account. My lead—which I repeat is 90% preserved in the current lead—was heavily supported with references to Derrida's texts and respected commentaries yet this idiotic and unsubstantiated accusation of biased editing persisted. The first, i.e. [1], citation should be removed. It is not one of my own and is based on a translation by an editor, hence it breaches WP:NOR. The text of the citation is also poor English that adds nothing but confusion. The over-quotation in the article proper is a product of the ignorant idiots I have already mentioned. They don't understand deconstruction so they just cut-and-paste slabs of Derrida's badly written, French-to-English translated text in a bizarre ritual of faux scholarship. The "glue text" between the quotes is even more cryptic and badly composed than the Derrida quotes, e.g. "This confirms the subject as not present to itself and constituted on becoming space, in temporizing and also, as Saussure said, that "language [which consists only of differences] is not a function of the speaking subject."[41] Sub-sections such as this are just more obfusactory bullshit as is the entire negative definition of deconstruction which the article is built around. I've commented at length on this unencyclopedic style and the inappropriateness of embracing Derrida's claims and agenda in the act of composing an ostensibly encyclopedic article about deconstruction but this fundamental point is yet to be acknowledged by anyone. With other articles this point is so obvious it is not worth making but here it is not only not even questioned its violation is championed by some as a virtue. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is awful and the tagging is entirely justified. It's full of technical jargon and completely incomprehensible to anyone who isn't already an expert in the field. WP:LEAD: "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style". But clearly I must be an "ignorant idiot". Poujeaux (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that merely because you are unable to understand a text—with the exclusion of all other salient considerations—that text is deficient then you too may be yet another ignorant idiot that is drawn to this article. Deconstruction is a contribution to long-running conversation in Continetal philosophy, it represents a response to an established position. You can't understand deconstruction unless you understand to what it is that Derrida is responding. Further, you can't understand deconstruction unless you understand the conceptual framework within which Derrida's contribution is presented. If you contend that the lead is awful then I challenge you to try and read one of Derrida's books, e.g. Of Grammatology, and provide an alternative lead—that is more lucid but also technically accurate—here in the discussion section. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:::::: This is quite comical. You seem to have forgotten what the point of an encyclopedia is. A common failing among obsessive wikipedia editors. I came here to try and find out what the term "deconstruction" meant, without having to read Derrida's books. Poujeaux (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As AnotherPseudonym wrote above, the central idea of deconstruction is the metaphysics of presence. Of Grammatology is an attempt at deconstructing the metaphysics of presence. A simpler exposition (that is, an exposition which would omit the starting point of Derrida's critique of Western philosophy) would be downright misleading. I have encountered several books by literary theorists (see Donald E. Hall, Literary and Cultural Theory: From Basic Principles to Advanced Applications, Houghton Mifflin, 2001, p. 161ff.) and art historians (see Rosalind Krauss's introduction in: Hal Foster, Rosalind Krauss, Yve-Alain Bois, Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism, London: Thames and Hudson, 2004, Introduction, 4: "Poststructuralism and Deconstruction", p. 48) who attempt to gently initiate readers to the applications of deconstruction to literary criticism and art historical interpretation. However, such books are not authoritative sources about deconstruction as a philosophical enterprise, and one could argue that often, they actually obfuscate even further the concept of deconstruction behind unrelated concepts drawn from post-Derridean discourse. --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Derrida's entire project is meaningless without the metaphysics of presence; a text can only be deconstructed to the extent that it relies on the metaphysics of presence. The binary oppositions—that people that have received one lecture on Derrida in the context of a semester unit on "theory" in a fashion or art course are invariably obsessed with—are merely products of that metaphysics of presence. The binary opposites in and of themselves have no special significance. Deconstruction is—at bottom—an anti–foundationalist critique and it is incomprehensible unless you understand the foundation that is being critiqued. Expecting a lead to somewhow supply all of the necessary conceptual background material and to also be concise is a fool's errand. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why have all references to Heidegger and Destruktion been removed?--Christophe Krief (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AnotherPseudonym: ``However, the article is fairly readable for readers who are not familiar with the material and the lead is written quite well: I deem that non-experts can understand and verify its content. `` is false. The whole article in general, and the lead in particular, means absolutely nothing to a non-expert. And YES that means the text is deficient because WP is NOT a thesis: it is supposed to be understandable by anyone — it is especially true for the lead. Cheers, Thouny (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thouny, thanks, spot-on. Poujeaux (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified reverting

Omnipaedista, if you do not agree with my contribution, please, explain me why. Please:

Be polite
Assume good faith
Avoid personal attacks
For disputes, seek dispute resolution

On my side I try to respect article policies:

No original research
Neutral point of view
Verifiability

Thanks Hibrido Mutante (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BRD. Please discuss before making changes against consensus. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have made radical changes to the long-established lead section. Moreover, claims such as "Derrida called undecidables, that is, unities of simulacrum, "false" verbal properties (nominal or semantic) that can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition: but which, however, inhabit philosophical oppositions, resisting and organizing it, without ever constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution in the form of speculative dialectics (e.g. Différance, Archi-writing, Pharmakon (philosophy), supplement, Hymen, gram, spacing)" are clearly original research. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Sorry. You are wrong.
This is not “original research”, as you suggested. It would be easy for you to confirm that.
Please, do some homework before reverting the contributions from other users.
Please, confirm you are competent to do your own contributions, and, please, do a favor to yourself and to others: do not edit beyond your means (wp: competence).
Please confirm, Derrida own words (Positions p. 43), in a famous interview (and that is being used extensively in this article) are:
“I have called undecidables, that is, unities of simulacrum, "false" verbal properties (nominal or semantic) that can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition, but which, however, inhabit philosophical oppositions, resisting and disorganizing it, without ever constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution in the form of speculative dialectics (the pharmakon is neither remedy nor poison, neither good nor evil, neither the inside nor the outside, neither speech nor writing; the supplement is neither a plus nor a minus, neither an outside nor the complement of an inside, neither accident nor essence, etc.; the hymen is neither confusion nor distinction (neither identity nor difference, neither consummation nor virginity, neither the veil nor unveiling, neither the inside nor the outside, etc.; the gram is neither a signifier nor a signified, neither a sign nor a thing, neither a presence nor an absence, neither a position nor a negation, etc.; spacing is neither space nor time; the incision is neither the incised integrity of a beginning, or of a simple cutting into, nor simple secondarity. Neither/nor: that is simultaneously either or; the mark is also the marginal limit, the march, etc.). In fact, I attempt to bring the critical operation to bear against the unceasing reappropriation of this work of the simulacrum by a dialectics of the Hegelian type (Which even idealizes and "semantizes" the value of work), for Hegelian idealism consists precisely of a releve of the binary oppositions of classical idealism, a resolution of contradiction into a third term that comes in order to aufheben, to deny while raising up, while idealizing, while sublimating into an anamnesic interiority (Errinnerung), while interning difference in a self-presence.”
This interview is also used here:Stanford online encyclopedia("Derrida has provided many definitions of deconstruction. But three definitions are classical. The first is early, being found in the 1971 interview “Positions”):
“ Insofar as the difference is undecidable, it destabilizes the original decision that instituted the hierarchy. After the redefinition of the previously inferior term, Derrida usually changes the term's orthography, for example, writing “différence” with an “a” as “différance” in order to indicate the change in its status. . Différance (which is found in appearances when we recognize their temporal nature) then refers to the undecidable resource into which “metaphysics” “cut” in order to makes its decision. In “Positions,” Derrida calls names like “différance” “old names” or “paleonyms,” and there he also provides a list of these “old terms”: “pharmakon”; “supplement”; “hymen”; “gram”; “spacing”; and “incision” (Positions, p. 43). These names are old because, like the word “appearance” or the word “difference,” they have been used for centuries in the history of Western philosophy to refer to the inferior position in hierarchies. But now, they are being used to refer to the resource that has never had a name in “metaphysics”; they are being used to refer to the resource that is indeed “older” than the metaphysical decision.”
Please, do not revert all my contributions. It took me a long time to do it. You can change this or that sentence, even paragraph and explain me why. But do not revert everything I’ve done.
Thanks.
Hibrido Mutante (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid personal attacks. It is not OR sensu stricto, but it still is problematic. This is not the way we write articles. Copypasting long quotes from interviews is not appropriate when writing a lead section. The previous lead section is long-established. There is no consensus for your changes. Also, please explain your pointless changes to formatting. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:OR again: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." There is an abundant secondary literature on deconstruction. We need to have more citations to secondary literature (see the thread above). Accumulating overly long Derrida quotes is a terrible way to write an article on deconstruction. Your edits primarily consist in accumulating quotes. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:PARAPHRASE. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "we" who are you talking about? I'm an editor just like you. Please, respect others. You are just like everyone else. And you have to prove you are competent to edit (and revert) contributions from others with valid arguments.
I made long contributions to this article during the last two years. Most of it includes now long contributions by me but also by many others.I accepted some of your contributions during the last two months, even when they were, in my opinion, incompetent, but I thought they were not totally wrong.
In my contributions I tried to maintain most of what was in the old version (except small parts that were only repeating without adding anything). This is how I understand pluralism. Please, do the same and try to get serious consensus with me.
If you want to correct something I have done, please feel free. BUT explain me properly why. And avoid ad hominem fallacies....
DO NOT REVERT everything. It is not polite!!(" reverting good-faith actions of other editors may also be disruptive and can even lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing. Read the three-revert rule (part of the Edit warring policy")
Could you please explain what you do not agree with in my contributions before editing what I have done. If you want reach "consensus" you have to explain what you do not agree.
Your first explanation that I was publishing "original research" was false and proved to everyone that you are not competent to be editing this article. You should apologize...It would be nice.
We are talking here about 4 paragraphs. Please explain me what you do not agree in each one. Also, make it clear when your critics are about content or only about form.
It is not true that my contributions are only "primary sources".
First paragraph is based ONLY in secondary or tertiary sources to correct limited framing about deconstruction(including, but not limited to Encyclopedia Britannica about the subject): "deconstruction, form of philosophical and literary analysis, derived mainly from work begun in the 1960s by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida,(...) In the 1980s it designated more loosely a range of theoretical enterprises in diverse areas of the humanities and social sciences, including—in addition to philosophy and literature—law, psychoanalysis, architecture, anthropology, theology, feminism, gay and lesbian studies, political theory, historiography, and film theory."
Second paragraph adds important reference to Rorty to complement limited understanding about what is "difference" in previous version.
Third paragraph and forth are based on Stanford approach. Present version does not understand that there are 2 phases in deconstruction with important ethical and political implications, explaining its importance to other authors, specially in human sciences(and your accusation that this was my "personal research" is a symptom of your lack of understanding about the subject". ("Derrida has provided many definitions of deconstruction. But three definitions are classical. The first is early, being found in the 1971 interview “Positions” and in the 1972 Preface to Dissemination: deconstruction consists in “two phases” (Positions, pp. 41-42, Dissemination, pp.4-6)").
This was present in older versions but incompetent editing remove it. We must correct this.
I repeat:":“ Insofar as the difference is undecidable, it destabilizes the original decision that instituted the hierarchy. After the redefinition of the previously inferior term, Derrida usually changes the term's orthography, for example, writing “différence” with an “a” as “différance” in order to indicate the change in its status. . Différance (which is found in appearances when we recognize their temporal nature) then refers to the undecidable resource into which “metaphysics” “cut” in order to makes its decision. In “Positions,” Derrida calls names like “différance” “old names” or “paleonyms,” and there he also provides a list of these “old terms”: “pharmakon”; “supplement”; “hymen”; “gram”; “spacing”; and “incision” (Positions, p. 43). These names are old because, like the word “appearance” or the word “difference,” they have been used for centuries in the history of Western philosophy to refer to the inferior position in hierarchies. But now, they are being used to refer to the resource that has never had a name in “metaphysics”; they are being used to refer to the resource that is indeed “older” than the metaphysical decision.”
I believe we are doing a proper use of paraphrase here ( "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...," together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph".)
Please, avoid being vague in you accusations and give "us" concrete critics and serious explanations why you do not agree with my contributions. Also, make it clear when your critics are about content or only about form.Edit step by step and avoid edit warring.
Please, respect other editors.
Thanks
Hibrido Mutante (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) "I accepted some of your contributions during the last two months, even when they were, in my opinion, incompetent, but I thought they were not totally wrong." You do not own the article; moreover, you keep making ad hominem attacks. Regarding the lead I still believe that you are closely paraphrasing primary sources in an undue way. The old lead by AnotherPseudonym has been de facto accepted by many editors who have edited the article during the last few months. Your new version of the lead (essentially, a long quote from a Derrida interview) is obfuscating. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact, no one owns the article, not me, not you (but it looks you don't understand that). Respect others. The difference between me and you is that I don't come here and simply revert what others do, even when I do not agree with it. You should do the same.
No, I don't "keep making ad hominen". I use the word "incompetent" referring: do not edit beyond your means (wp: competence). You accused me of publishing original research. I proved you didn't know what you were talking about and, in my opinion, that proved you were editing beyond your means. You are still doing it.
Please, at least, apologize for the serious accusations you have made (don't defend your self attacking me).
You just have to read the posts here to confirm that most editors don't agree with AnotherPseudonym during December. You can find serious critics to him and his behavior (from all the editors except you). No one wants to talk with people with that king of behavior. No one wants to be insulted by people with any sense of social behavior. And if when you say "we" you are considering yourself and him... I would advice you to choose your partners better. But it is only a friendly suggestion.
All the rest of "us" do not agree with AnotherPseudonym and you. Maybe, we just need more time than you to make our contributions referring solid sources (at least reading the basic interviews referred by the experts in the subject, but also other encyclopedias about it). We are more than two, and we are giving small contributions for this article for many more years than you.
First: You should start by confirming that I respected most of your contributions (even if I think they are from people that do not understand properly what "deconstruction" is, how it proceeds and why it is useful to others and to whom).
It is totally false I added a "long quote from Derrida" (this is the 3rd time you give false justifications to your behavior.)
I proved you that each time. Last time, I explained my sources to the first paragraph( Enciclopedia Brittanica), and what I have added to the second (Rotry quotes) and to the last one (based on Encyclopedia of Stanford). Quotes from Derrida come from different interviews and articles (but most were contributions from many editors that are already in the rest of the article).
To each paragraph I explained the reasons to my contributions.
Please, avoid being vague in you accusations and give "us" concrete critics and serious explanations why you do not agree with my contributions. Also, make it clear when your critics are about content or only about form.Edit step by step and avoid edit warring.
DO NOT REVERT. It is not polite!!(" reverting good-faith actions of other editors may also be disruptive and can even lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing. (part of the Edit warring policy")
Thanks
Hibrido Mutante (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) (i) "incompetent editor" is indeed an ad hominem attack. Please refrain from making baseless accusations. (ii) I do not agree with the impolite way AnotherPseudonym addresses other editors, but this does not mean that I do not appreciate his/her efforts at improving the article. (iii) My first comment regarding your edits on your talk page was this: "Please stop messing up the formatting of pages and stop removing [...] content without a justification". I apologize for the "clearly original research" part of my criticism above but I still abide by the belief that messing up the formatting of pages and removing content without justification (as you did in the Jacques Derrida article) is not constructive. I also still abide by the belief that the new version of the lead is obfuscating and that the rest of your additions (superficial modifications of material from other sources) consist in closely paraphrasing Derrida and Rorty in possible violation of WP:COPYVIO. I will not revert your edits anymore but I still deem those contributions to be of questionable value. As Bhny wrote above "we need more secondary references and less Derrida quotes" ("we" refers to Wikipedia editors). Eventually many of those quotes will have to be removed. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you changed your tone. Now we can work consensus ;)
i) I've based my "accusation" in the "clearly original research" part of your criticism. You have apologize. I don't have more reasons to call your attention to it. I'm glad we can change tone.
ii)I've tried not to delete AnotherPseudonymous efforts at improving the article. Only to complement it with a) other areas where deconstruction is used b) explanations about the two phases of deconstruction
iii) I'm sorry if a) I've messed formatting.There were a lot of copy pastes and I agree that here and there I was not rigorous.Sorry. I see you already clean it up. Thanks, in the name of us all.b) It was not my intention to delete anything. I have already corrected it. If there was something that escaped me, fill free to point it to me. I will try to correct it asap.
iv)I did not understand your criticism to my contributions to each paragraph and why you consider it obfuscating. I assume that after more than a quarter of a century reading about these subjects there are things that are obvious to me and can not be so to others. I assume that me, as Derrida,grown up in a different "form of life", playing a different "language game" and I would like to believe that, even so, it is possible to partially translate our perspective to English, even being aware of possible "indeterminacy of translation", "incommensurability" and/or "différend".
iv)Considering paraphrasing, as I pointed before, I believe we are doing a proper use of it: ( "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...," together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph".)
I believe you agree with first and second paragraph.
Third paragraph and forth are based on: Stanford approach.: "Derrida has provided many definitions of deconstruction. But three definitions are classical. The first is early, being found in the 1971 interview “Positions” and in the 1972 Preface to Dissemination: deconstruction consists in “two phases (Positions, pp. 41-42, Dissemination, pp.4-6)").
(...) “ Insofar as the difference is undecidable, it destabilizes the original decision that instituted the hierarchy.
After the redefinition of the previously inferior term, Derrida usually changes the term's orthography, for example, writing “différence” with an “a” as “différance” in order to indicate the change in its status. . Différance (which is found in appearances when we recognize their temporal nature) then refers to the undecidable resource into which “metaphysics” “cut” in order to makes its decision.
In “Positions,” Derrida calls names like “différance” “old names” or “paleonyms,” and there he also provides a list of these “old terms”: “pharmakon”; “supplement”; “hymen”; “gram”; “spacing”; and “incision” (Positions, p. 43).
These names are old because, like the word “appearance” or the word “difference,” they have been used for centuries in the history of Western philosophy to refer to the inferior position in hierarchies.
But now, they are being used to refer to the resource that has never had a name in “metaphysics”; they are being used to refer to the resource that is indeed “older” than the metaphysical decision".
I'm open to develop a new version of these 2 paragraphs that presents this phases. I used material that was already in the rest of the article. I think it is a good way to say the same thing (and even better).But I'm open to review its form.
I believe we Can do it together. Please suggest.
Thanks
Hibrido Mutante (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deconstruction&oldid=596218131"