From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Deconstruction: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2015-04-16

This is a brief review of issues behind the rewrite tag and a list of tasks necessary to the rewrite.

The article requires continued efforts to ensure it is kept readily understandable to a lay audience. Given the reconstruction of the article recently, there may be some issues in pacing or logical continuity. Citations are badly needed in some areas.

The lead shall continue to need work.

High traffic

On 18 July 2008, Deconstruction was mentioned from xkcd, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

Recent edits by Byelf2007[edit]

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


I've semi-protected the page for a month due to a persistent semi-vandal. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 22:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"For deconstruction of buildings, see Deconstruction (building). For the approach to post-modern architecture, see Deconstructivism. For other uses, see Deconstruction (disambiguation)."

really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This article still doesn't make any sense[edit]

If the objective of this page is to show that text can exist without meaning, then it has been successful. It makes no sense to anyone who doesn't already understand deconstructivism. VineFynn (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

There are no easy answers to this. Derrida was famously hard to understand, and he argued that deconstruction could not be properly be explained with language because it was an attack on the very language that would be needed to describe it. The clearest explanation I have found is this 90s article by Chip Morningstar, which includes a simple example of deconstructing a text. But because of his critical view, it is unlikely we would be able to use it as a description. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Why exactly should Wiki defer to deconstructionist "definitions" of deconstruction? They appear to be obscurantist, and I see no reason why their refusal to be hypocritical in describing something that defines itself as indescribable should prompt us to ignore sources which give an actually coherent description of deconstruction, even if that definition does not meet the explicitly unmeetable standards of the concept/subscribers in question. There are more authorities on this matter than deconstructionists, after all.

I also don't see a "critical" view being an issue in describing it, but rather Morningstar's lack of authority on the matter; then again, with a subject matter that seems to be defended from criticism by the fact that nobody understands it, what does that matter?

Apologies if I seem bothered, I'm not- I just can't seem to articulate this in a manner which doesn't come off as critical of deconstruction (which I guess *is* telling lol) VineFynn (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I should clarify, by "definitions", I mean "denunciations of definition". I know this article already contains definitions by non-deconstructionists, but they all seem to err on the side of being non-comprehensive- none of them seem to discuss its apparent normativity (which is to say, it says you *should* do something) vis-a-vis literary analysis, despite the fact that it is supposedly not a critical theory. Then again, what would I know? VineFynn (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Multiple issues: more citations needed, research paper, synthesis[edit]

I've just added a message book to underline three issues with this article. Here is a brief description of the problems:

  • More citations needed: quite a few claims seem to be made without a reference. To help solve this, a first step, which I'll try to work towards, would be to add "[citation needed]" in various places.
  • Research paper : the article currently reads like an academic essay presenting the concept. This is not appropriate for a wikipedia article. Fixing this is harder, as it would require in my view to signficantly restructure and rewrite the article.
  • Synthesis : in various places, the article reads like an unpublished synthesis of views on the concept. I confess that I am not entirely sure whether I am making correct use of this template so feel free to remove or change this issue in the message box.

Fa suisse (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fa suisse: As a courtesy, per @VineFynn:'s comments, I'm pinging you to say that I think (strongly) that there's no real point in the Research Paper template, as the content is in fact a very academic one. The article probably should read more like an academic essay than most Wikipedia articles, the same way that thoroughly examined scientific concepts should. I've already removed the template, but we can reopen the issue. Triplingual (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Making "Sense"[edit]

Regarding whether the article "makes sense", it seems like there's an intra-Wikipedia conflict here. For what I think is a parallel example, look at the regular Uncertainty principle article. Though I have a basic grasp of the Uncertainty Principle, I can't follow most of that page. Does that make it not OK? No, it makes it OK for a particular audience that's sufficiently versed in math and science language and practice. This article, too, doesn't need to shy away from complexity and arcana. If it's not comprehensible, maybe you're not sufficiently versed in literary theory. (That's not a put-down. I don't understand Deconstruction terribly well, and I've tried.)

If there's already a settled discussion on Wikipedia about how literary theory has to be explained so everyone can understand it and scientific theories can be explained in a way that's beyond most people, I'd be happy (honestly!) to read it. Triplingual (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User talk:Triplingual. Your explanation makes complete sense to me, and it looks to me also like a very humble and good one. Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 19:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there is a difference between only be understandable to an audience that is sufficiently versed in the jargon of the field etc, and only being understandable by an audience which already understands the concept. I'm not a literary critic, so I'm not saying that it does fall into the latter category, but I do have my suspicions given the criticisms section of this article (which is about the only bit I can confidently say I understand, since I'm supposedly not meant to be able to think of deconstruction in terms of.. language? anyway.) VineFynn (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Totally get that there's a difference. There's also a difference between "jargon" (generally a negative term) and "appropriately specific vocabulary". Here again, to use science as an example, a quark is a quark. It's not a thingy, doohicky, or whatsit. It is addressable by circumlocution, but that tends to use specific vocabulary as well. Remember, just because there's criticism of a concept as being excessively abstruse or hollow doesn't mean it is.
Since it's been a couple weeks, I'm going to go ahead and strip the warning about this being written like a research article. Triplingual (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you User:Triplingual. I completely agree with you. warshy (¥¥) 22:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You should reply to the talk section regarding its addition if you are looking to remove it. Since you didn't and you hadn't previously mentioned your intent to remove it, there was no reason to expect a reply from the user who added it- after a few weeks or ever (or indeed from anyone who might otherwise have defended its addition). You should revert its deletion. VineFynn (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Not to start an edit war or anything (since I don't watch this page and wouldn't stop you reverting even if I did), but I added it back for you :) VineFynn (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what section you are referring to, and I do not agree with your rationale anyhow. Since I had already agreed with User:Triplingual's arguments twice above, I am going to revert you. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 18:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I should think it was pretty obvious what section I was referring to- the one created by the person who made the edit in the first place: Trippy's section here reads like a reply to *my* post, not the linked section, so your extremely enthusiastic agreement didn't seem relevant to the research paper tag either. I had no idea Trippy planned to remove the tag, which is where my rationale comes from- it doesn't matter whether you "agree" with it or not.VineFynn (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@VineFynn: Not sure where you got "Trippy", but that's not my name or handle. I've courtesy-replied to Fa suisse above. Triplingual (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. Thanks, thoughVineFynn (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)