Talk:Jacques Derrida/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Derrida and Wikipedia

Jacques Derrida is among the two or three most prominent and influential philosophers of the twentieth century, and one of the most widely read. It would surely be a great thing if Wikipedia proved itself capable of producing a competent and informative article about this thinker. Unfortunately, a glance at the current state of this article is far from encouraging, and the same can be said for the related articles on deconstruction, and so on. But beyond a glance at the current state, an examination of the history of the editing of these articles makes unavoidable the conclusion that Wikipedia is almost inherently incapable of producing work on this topic of any quality. Put as simply as possible, the problem is this: wherever well-meaning and knowledgable editors have in the past attempted to intervene, to remove the nonsense that has accumulated by uninformed but often enthusiastic editors (whether well-meaning or not), this has in the end always turned out to be a fruitless effort. The insistence by those with little real knowledge that they have as much "right" to "contribute" as specialists (under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is in this sense a "democratic" project: it is not, or rather, ought not to be), and the mistaken belief by others that they are knowledgable when in fact they are anything but, has as its consequence that editors with understanding of the topic are driven away, as they conclude to themselves that it is really not worth the trouble.

This is a great pity, but an inevitable one, if the fundamental situation does not change. I myself am now one of those, something of a specialist in the area, as well as being generally well-disposed to Wikipedia, who can no longer tolerate the thought of trying to "make a difference" to this article. Having avoided even reading the article for a long time, I return to it today, and am immediately confronted by new awful paragraph upon new awful paragraph, a hodgepodge that is clearly the result of every man and his dog adding whatever tidbit of non-knowledge they mistakenly believe they have to offer. To put it as briefly as possible, the article has degenerated even further, to the point of complete incoherence. Readers will learn nothing of significance from this article.

From what I can glean, some of those at the top at Wikipedia, or behind the scenes, understand that the great difficulty this encyclopedia has attracting and retaining qualified and/or knowledgeable specialists is in fact a serious problem. It is a problem that affects some areas of knowledge more than others. In my view, this is one of the articles most ruinously affected by this problem: an article on a topic of interest to many, but that also confuses many, will inevitably be sought out by many readers, and should thus be an article that Wikipedia tries hard to do well. But for the very same reasons it will attract many readers, it also tends to attract too many of the wrong kind of editors (if I can put it like that), who tend to make too many of the wrong kind of edits. The results speak for themselves.

I myself have no solutions for Wikipedia in this regard. What is needed may be clear enough: to reform the culture of Wikipedia to the point that editors capable of writing competently and informatively about this topic have trust enough that their contributions will not only be recognised, but will also not subsequently be undermined by a slow or not so slow process of degeneration (unless they maintain an extreme vigilance against all low-grade additions, a vigilance that is likely to meet with resistance, and a resistance that is likely to result in the eventual loss of the editor from the Wikipedia project). How many potentially committed competent editors have already been lost, probably permanently? But if it is clear enough that this cultural change is needed, it is not clear how to bring about this reform: Wikipedia is clearly and irrefutably an immense success, but this only means that the problems from which it suffers are all the more glaring, to the point that it must be asked whether there is something fundamental in the very structure of the current manifestation of Wikipedia itself that prevents the encyclopedia from reaching even basic levels of competence about topics such as this. This article, and the related articles about Derrida's work, are emblematic of the difficulty of this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.145.130 (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As evidence that the article has indeed degenerated, I invite editors to compare the current state of the article with the state precisely one year ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacques_Derrida&action=historysubmit&diff=428464735&oldid=361736652

The state of the article a year ago was probably close to the most coherent and useful it has ever been. What has occurred since then is very unfortunate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.145.130 (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adjusting the link that you gave above, so that now it gives a "diff" - that is, it enables a direct comparison between the version that you identified and the current article. This allows us to see exactly those changes to which you have referred.

Firstly, in general, I would suggest that you have not identified the problem correctly. There is no such thing as a bad editor, only poor editing practices. Wikipedia has specific guidelines (citing reliable, third party sources, no original research, no synthesis, neutral POV, etc.) that, if followed, produce high-quality content. For this, an editor does not need to be an expert in the field. Wikipedia articles should not be expressions of an expert's competence. Rather, they should summarise as accurately as possible what the reliable sources say about a subject. The competency required from an editor engaged in this task is to be able to read those sources and to represent them / paraphrase them in a way that does not distort their meaning, and to provide an inline citation that allows readers and other editors to go check this for themselves. Those sources should be, in the main, secondary sources. The authors of those sources do all the hard work of comprehension and mastery. At Wikipedia, we 'merely' re-present that work in a form that does not violate copyright and does not violate the NPOV guideline. If these guidelines are followed and you still feel unhappy with an article, then your argument is with the sources cited, not with the authors of the article, however numerous and competent they may or may not be. An article is neither a democratic free-for-all nor the exclusive preserve of a cabal of alleged experts. It's not about the editors, it's about the sources and the editing practices. Any dispute about a particular claim that an article makes should not be resolved by a vote, nor by deference to a hierarchy of authority, but rather by reference to the sources and an assessment of the 'transparency' of their re-presentation here. It is for that purpose that this talk page exists. I would suggest that if Wikipedia's editors deserve criticism, it is for our failure to adhere to this focus on an assessment of sources and a tendency to substitute rival claims of competence/incompetence in our discussions with those with whom we disagree. Sometimes editors clearly do not follow the guidelines. I'm aware, for example, of the nauseating ownership behaviour of a small cabal of editors of the Linguistics article, who have systematically blocked a NPOV account of "post-structuralist" contributions and criticisms of that subject. Such behaviour is inexcusable, but unfortunately requires someone with enough time and will to put in the research and provide citations to counter. Rather than a wholesale dismissal of the project, which as you identify is a primary source of information for a great many people, I would encourage you to be more specific and detailed in your criticisms about the existing material. If your criticisms are primarily concerned with what is not in the article but should be, that is a different matter entirely--see the article "Wikipedia is a work in progress". There are many, many articles, and ones of far greater significance than Derrida, that lack an adequate account of their subject. There is only one solution to this problem: be bold, edit, and add the material that you think is missing. Chances are that there are probably fewer editors contributing in a substantial way to an article than you imagine there would/should be.

Secondly, to look more specifically at the changes that have been made to the article during the year that you identify:

(I notice that the date format and variation of English used have been changed (from British to American), but they are inconsequential and easy enough to restore.)

The lead of the article was tagged as being too short and this has been improved. It is fully sourced, as far as I can see, and presents a reasonable overview of the subject. The biography has been expanded with useful material giving links to other thinkers and a nice quotation that enlivens the account of his early life. In the Work section, the introduction has acquired a paragraph about the "culture wars" that places Derrida's work in a political context. Again, fully sourced. The influences (Husserl and Heidegger) section has been re-arranged, but without any significant change in content.

After the 1967-1972 section, we begin to see more substantial new material. The "nothing outside the text" section correctly identifies his most famous quotation and gives a sense of context for it. Its account could be a little clearer, but is well-sourced. The section on Deconstruction needs expanding, but presents nothing contentious--it links the term to the subject of the previous paragraph. The 1973-1980 paragraph adds more detail on the "culture wars" in the US and the political context in which Derrida's work has been received.

The account of Searle and analytic philosophy has been expanded substantially. Some of the prose here could be tweaked. The material might seem a little trivial, but Searle's charges have been frequently enough repeated for the section to be justified and useful. The "not philosophy" section is good and a valuable contribution. The only argument I can imagine about these sections might be that they belong more properly in the criticism section than in that on his Work.

The Cambridge and 2002 sections are new, while the Wolin and Mourning sections have been moved and altered slightly. The Wolin section belongs in the criticism section, and would benefit from a slightly more neutral tone and a better contextualisation of the debate. The controversy over the honourary degree from Cambridge is notable enough to warrant a section, though it needs some minor cleaning up. There may be more to add about this subject, but that is a different matter. The Mourning section has been improved but requires some citations, and the 2002 section needs some minor cleaning up. Neither present material that shouldn't appear in the article.

The Criticism section is tagged as problematic, alerting the reader to tread carefully. The material on the "African bias" has quite rightly been moved into a distinct section, rather than the general introduction. The argument has been fleshed out somewhat. This section may violate the undue weight guideline, though, since, as I understand it, this is a criticism of minor significance. The criticism from analytic philosophers section needs the Searle/Cambridge degree sections mentioned above to be integrated into it, or at least placed alongside. The actual content has not been changed substantially.

The section "Intentional obfuscation" has acquired a paragraph on the opinions of the journalist Jonathan Kandell, which probably do not belong here and should be deleted. The account of Rorty's views has been simplified a little, which strikes me as an improvement rather than a deterioration. In response to the tags for citations needed in the year-ago version of "Charges of Nihilism" section, the account has altered slightly, but again for the better, offering a more specific detailing of the exact context for the criticism. The Wolin section mentioned above should clearly be moved back here.

In the "Politics" section, Derrida's views on May '68 have been fleshed out with a quotation and citation--clearly an improvement. It has also received some other minor improvements and a small amount of additional, cited information.

A new "Influences on Derrida" section has been added. The distinction continental/analytic lacks a citation but is a useful and important addition (though the prose needs to be a little more neutral). It seems to be here to frame/problematise the subsequent account of his "peers". An argument could be made that it belongs more properly in the Analytic criticism section above, but that is a minor point and would be a talk page discussion. The part on his teenage reading fleshes out the biography section and has citations. Then a list of more important influences is given, though not fleshed out. Again, perhaps a criticism of Undue weight may be levelled, but "Wikipedia is a work in progress".

In the "Peers" section, there is a new subsection on Foucault, half of which is new material. The prose needs some tweaking but it has citations. No doubt there is more to say about the relationship between the ideas of the two, but as a start this section sketches in a couple of details. Again, undue/work in progress applies. That there should be a section detailing the relationship seems fairly obvious. Plenty of critics have attempted to synthesise them or to play the one off against the other.

Some factual information has been added to the "Translators" section. Nothing to criticise there. There is a new section on McLuhan, which consists mostly of quotations from Derrida himself. Perfectly acceptable material, though perhaps it belongs more properly in a sub-article that could be summarised here.

The references section has been fleshed out considerably. The "See also" section has lost some links, due to their appearance in the lead, though there are others that should have remained.

In summary then: A close analysis of the differences between the article a year ago and today reveal that your criticisms of the efforts of those editors who have worked on the article in the last year are largely unfounded. It could be argued that the whole criticism and peer-relations sections should be split into a separate article and summarised here. Perhaps that might encourage editors to add the material that is lacking at present. The point, however, is that the existing material in the article at its present state is perfectly fine. The problem is that more is needed. This has nothing to do with the alleged competence of its editors to date, but rather follows from the fact that "Wikipedia is a work in progress." The problem is not that material has been added and then removed by people who know little or nothing about the subject, but rather that important areas of the subject of this article have not yet been covered. If you do not feel able to do this yourself, you might at least consider sketching in an outline on this talk page of the areas that await the attention of editors. I would suggest using the Template:To do to create a "to do" list.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 13:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OK then, my criticisms are "largely unfounded." The article has improved over the past year, and provides a useful, readable, and informative account of Jacques Derrida's life and work. Problem solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.139.169 (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You are unwilling to offer any specific recommendations for its improvement then?  • DP •  ^{huh?} 10:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

In my view, this exchange is symptomatic of the problems I'm talking about: step 1 is to assert that the article is fine and the criticisms unfounded; step 2 is essentially to say that the problem lies with my "unwillingness." In my view this is unreflective practice, especially given the points I was raising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.215.100 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

And in my view you have demonstrated the disingenuous nature of your criticisms. Taking your criticisms seriously, I took the time and trouble to examine the evidence in some detail. That was step one. I then offered an explanation of some of the policies and procedures that govern the project, in response to your general criticisms and misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works. That was step two. This was followed with a detailed analysis of the differences between the state of the article that you claimed was "the most coherent and useful it has ever been" and its present state. That was step three. Then, I made concrete suggestions about what you could contribute to ensure that the article develops further in a desirable way, most importantly the proposal that you provide a more concrete description of exactly what you feel is missing from the article in the form of a to-do list. That was step four. All of which was a sustained engagement with your comments, which were vague, derogatory, and based on fundamental misunderstandings. If anything is symptomatic of the problems with Wikipedia, it is your failure to appreciate all of that. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked if the real problem to which you were pointing was the absence of important material, rather than its removal or degeneration. I hoped that you would demonstrate that you were motivated by a genuine desire to see the article improved. That hope has not been fulfilled. Instead, your comments amount to little more than self-inflated claims about your own superior competence. Bully for you. I am familiar with the policies and procedures of Wikipedia, the material in this article isn't written by me, and having studied Derrida's philosophy at a post-graduate level as part of my PhD at Stanford, I am confident that I am in a good position to assess the evidence on which your criticisms are based. As I tried patiently to explain above, however, our competencies are not a relevant factor, despite your claims otherwise. The major differences between the two versions of the article lie in the provision of a political context for the reception of Derrida's work in the US. Had you been prepared to detail what you felt was missing from the article or what was specifically wrong with the existing material, I could believe that your motivations were well-founded. Your responses indicate otherwise. Might I suggest you start a blog for your rants? This talk page is intended for discussions about how the article might be improved.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 00:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I can only wonder that you think that was the best response you could offer: a reiteration of steps one and two, more defensively (and aggressively) stated, but still unreflective. I will thus leave the article to its wise custodians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.215.100 (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly some kind of a moron. We'll certainly miss you.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 01:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Another thoughtful response. Yes, clearly I am a moron. Just as it is clear that criticisms of the article are "largely unfounded." Just as it is clear my views were based on "fundamental misunderstandings." Just as it is clear my comments amount to "self-inflated" (sic) claims about my superior competence (yes, Mr Stanford post-graduate). Just as it is clear I am "disingenuous" and that my motivations are not "well-founded." Just as it is clear that you are "familiar with the policies and procedures of Wikipedia" (although I am fairly sure you're not supposed to call your fellow editors disingenuous morons with ill-founded motivations: is that using the talk page properly?). Are you really so sure you have behaved well here? I would not expect to be missed, as you put it, although I am also fairly confident my nearly 6000 edits (over 96% to article space), including hundreds to this very article, amount to a positive contribution. Just as I am confident that any competent reader who reads the article through will conclude it remains very poor, however moronic I myself may indeed turn out to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.215.100 (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that you agree that these things are so clear. Had you made a single concrete and specific criticism about the material of the article or a single concrete and specific indication of what was missing, your comments may be worthy of attention. You haven't and they are not. As a contributing author of this article, you ought to have declared your vested interest and you are as responsible for its omissions as any of the other editors--had I known that this was merely another editor with an inflated sense of self-importance whining that it does not reflect his/her own prejudices, I wouldn't have wasted time on you. And yes, quite sure that taking your comments seriously and devoting time and energy to examining the evidence for your criticisms and inviting you to contribute in a positive way is not only appropriate behaviour, but generous at that. You've demonstrated yourself unworthy of that effort.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 10:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It is remarkable how many times the one editor can assume bad faith, while at the same time claiming to uphold Wikipedia rules. There is no reason whatsoever to presume that my "inflated sense of self-importance" means that I am "whining that [the article] does not reflect his/her own prejudices." What prejudices did you have in mind? What "vested interest"? Furthermore, you consistently seem to miss the basic point: when your first act is to pronounce judgment that my criticisms are "largely unfounded," you are not in a position to claim you are genuinely interested in those criticisms. When you then go on to heap unnecessary and unjustified abusive remark upon unnecessary and unjustified abusive remark, then it is even clearer that you are an editor with whom engagement is unlikely to be productive. It is a pity that you have been incapable of the reflection that may have had a more fruitful outcome, and that despite your postgraduate studies at Stanford, despite your fancy user name, and despite your holding yourself up as a bastion of Wikipedia policy and editorial practice, you have in fact contributed not a thing to the article, and have had no effect other than confirm that the editing climate is still largely inhospitable. Is that really something to be pleased about? Finally, your further accusation that I somehow concealed that I have contributed to the article is false, and your conclusion that therefore I am "as responsible for its omissions as any of the other editors" may indeed be true, but utterly beside the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.199.30 (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

A small point perhaps, but the reference given to support Noam Chomsky's criticism of Derrida is an entirely unreferenced archive essay. While Chomsky does mention deconstruction in the essay it is not at all clear to which specific work his criticism is directed, Derrida's or anyone else.--93.97.110.216 (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's your own personal qualm with Chomsky's essay--as you noted, he mentions deconstruction and Derrida specifically, though the article is a more general attack on postmodernism or poststructuralism. If you think Chomsky is being philosophically unfair, that is your opinion, but it is not up to a Wikipedia editor to judge the fairness or accuracy of criticism, particularly when the criticism is from one of the leading philosophers of the 20th century. 65.96.114.192 (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone actually read the article? He does not mention Derrida or deconstruction specifically. Noam Chomsky is not a philosopher either- he is a linguist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.118.190 (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Deconstruction of archives?

The former archive of this page covers 2004-05. This page is 2011. Where are the rest?86.42.201.224 (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wise and Young

It is not clear that Derrida had ever studied Egyptian or spoke Soninke or Mande. Only Ancient Egyptian has older records than Hebrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite or sth.

This article needs to shake off the post/structuralist language. Parts of it feel like some course paper by someone who has no real grip on the subject matter. Hell, parts of it even feel like The Postmodernism Generator. This is exactly what gives literary critique a bad rep. If post/structuralism is not some postlanguage poetry, the least you can do is to compose an encyclopedia article in laymans language. Ask your sister to review it or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.213.100 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, TL;DR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.213.100 (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi 88.196.213.100 Could you be more specific, please. Could you point the "parts" that were less clear to you?

Your comments

• are not polite
• Don't assume good faith
• Don't avoid personal attacks (in fact it looks more like a collective attack)

Nevertheless I assume you are just an example of a "layman" that is not used to this complex subjects. Not just a "lazy man" ;) .

This article contains a good example of what we can start calling "Searle's Syndrome": Arguing based on insults, lack of politiness, active misunderstanding and not reading with the efforts that academic subjects require (we are not talking about Britney Spears here). I believe you don't review yourself in it.

Derrida is not more difficult than Brouwer, Hilbert or Kurt Gödel but it's not easier either. He is a contemporaneous philosopher and his work takes into account the contributions from this 3 authors for a formalist understanding of semiotic systems. We can see that the articles from them all are having difficulties to get more than a B rate here in Wikipedia. I think it's natural. And people going there already know that the subject is difficult. Unlike Derrida's article there are people that prefer to approach him as a "literary critic", even after Cambridge tried to explain he is one of the most important philosophers of the XX century. It doesn't help.

It's not easy to "compose an article" about it to "laymans". More so to "lazyman". And we know many readers that come to wikipedia are in that class.

The same happens with Ferdinand Saussure, Hjmeslev, Jackobson, Copenhagen school of Linguistics, Bourbaki, Hyppolite, Althusser, Tel Quel, Rene Tohm, just to mention some of the articles that could help to support understanding Derrida's formalism (and how he questioned it). It's like trying to explain Heisenberg to someone that doesn't even know Newton... you have to start somewhere. We need to explain not only the terms, the operations as well the pertinence of his contributions regarding privious ones, to someone that doesn't even know that "physics" exists (or just has some big prejudice that Heisenberg just wants to prove everything is "uncertain").

Derrida's understanding requires we get familiar with "structuralist" and "semiotics" jargon and modus operandis. The articles about Saussure and Semiotics, as they are today, are not big help. But I suggest you start there and first try to really understand what "difference" is, technically speaking. I tried to make it more clear here.

I really believe that, together, combining our ignorance and our knowledge, we can at least give some clues to people that are in fact interested in learning about the subject.

Please, be polite and give proper contributions. The fact you are not familiar with the subject can help. But, please, spend enough time following what is being said here, and point out passages that are more obscure to you.

If you read "Wittgenstein" entry you will not understand what is in fact said in the Tratactus (what is the "world" or a "truth function", an "atomic fact" (that is translated by "states of affairs" without further explanation - letting people that know how to read German quite confused), what is a "logic picture" (???) or a "proposition with meaning". In fact they just spend 3 paragraphs to present the only book he published during his lifetime, and one is spent explaining why he chose that name...You have to go and read the main article (I'm not saying you will be able to understand but, well, we learn that Russell "fundamentally misunderstood the Tractatus" in the first place... so... layman will try to do his best but is not granted he will be able to do so).

The same for the Philosophical Investigations (or even more confusing). We are said in the first paragraph it "was ranked as the most important book of 20th-century philosophy" but I can't figure it out why in the 2 last paragraphs where it is mentioned (after learning so much about his life). It doesn't even refers properly "language games" and I was not sure if we could start talking about ethics and esthetics "again". I go to the main article and, to be honest, I don't get much more, and can't understand what he has done different from all the other philosophers in the history of western culture. There is no criticism and the examples that are given to me are quite poor. But, once more, the article says his approach "can be very effective and rewarding, but it can also make Wittgenstein's philosophy difficult to grasp". So we try a little bit more ;) (and we don't go to "discussion" section insult everybody and say this is only philosophy for engineers that haven't even read Aristotle)

Thank you for your collaboration. We will try to do our best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 11:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead too long

I don't know how the lead got to the length it is, but it clearly is, as of this moment, far too long. It may have been too short in the past, but it's currently far longer than it needs to be; I accept that the expansion was in good faith, but the result is bad. I'm disinclined to try cutting the lead back right away, but I hope other editors can accept the need for this. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Origin of "Jackie" Early Name

As has been repeated in some other popular sources, this article states that Derrida was named Jackie after the American actor Jackie Coogan. While a reference follows that claim to a good obituary, the obituary makes no mention of his name. The Powell biography states only that "'Jackie' was what his parents considered to be an American name." (Powell, Jacques Derrida, 12), without specific sources.

Unless a source can be produced to show that Derrida was in fact named after Jackie Coogan, I recommend changing this piece of information, and as such I've changed it. Given the content, trajectories, timing of their careers, if anything, it seems possible that the name came from Jackie Cooper, not Jackie Coogan (ironically, these pages warn readers to avoid confusing them), or possibly both or neither of them, but without direct attribution it seems wise just to let the Powell statement stand. Wichitalineman (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

a twitter friend has noted that Glendinning makes the Coogan claim in his "Brief Introduction" (http://books.google.com/books?id=MD2bjG8K3zUC&lpg=PA6&ots=5eFvZAHg-z&dq=derrida%20jackie%20coogan&pg=PA6#v=onepage&q=derrida%20jackie%20coogan&f=false); however he does not state that he had access to archives or personal interviews, which Powell did. Given that Coogan and Cooper were both well-known in film when Derrida was born, it seems to me that affirmative proof is needed before the claim should be included here. The claim that he was named after Coogan seems to me at least possibly an attempt to ridicule him, and unless it is demonstrably true I don't think it belongs here. Wichitalineman (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

the same twitter friend points out how famous Coogan apparently became after The Kid in 1921, though this is earlier than Cooper's late 1920s fame in Our Gang (Derrida born 1930). Still think more direct attribution of the claim to JD's parents or JD himself necessary to the Coogan claim living on here. Wichitalineman (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

brief update: I have now found reference to Coogan several more places, but all unattributed (Powell is still the only person to have apparently first-hand access to any of the players). the source closest to JD seems to be Helene Cixous's Portrait of JD as a Young Jewish Saint. I have ordered the book from ILL & will update here when I've read through the documents & see what they reveal. Wichitalineman (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now obtained a copy of Cixous's book, where she refers to "the cap of Jackie Derrida Koogan, as Kid" (viii). Apparently the spelling "Koogan" appears in the French edition as well and was deliberately carried over into the English translation. While Cixous was a "lifelong friend" of Derrida, according to this site they met in 1962: http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/derrida/connection.html, well into Derrida's adulthood. I think the best thing is to use the quotation from Powell and parenthetically indicate this and one other source that suggest he was named after Coogan, which I'll do now. If others have other suggestions/sources please chime in. Wichitalineman (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Language issues

I'm trying to consult this article and can't help noticing that the English is quite bad, it almost needs "translating" into real English to make sense in parts. Definitely below Wikipedia standards in that respect. I realise this is a criticism of form, not content, but a cleanup is called for if you want to improve the quality of the article. --A R King (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur and add that the content also is—in some parts—deplorable. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Criticism Section

The Criticism section doesn't actually document any of the substantive criticisms that have been made against Derrida and of deconstruction. It is generally of the form A criticised Derrida regarding X₁; B criticised Derrida regarding X₂...Z criticised Derrida regarding X₂₆ but without actually documenting the substance of the criticism. Searle—for example—in more than one paper published in a reputable (and hence citable) peer-reviewed journal provides substantive critiques of deconstruction and demonstrations of Derrida's ignorance and/or misunderstanding of fundamental concepts in modern philosophy of language. Yet the article merely quotes Searle on obiter dictum regarding Derrida's awful prose. This creates the false impression that these incidental comments comprise Searle's critique of Derrida. Also it is not just analytic philosophers that have criticised Derrida and deconstruction, there are many within the Continental tradition have done so, e.g. literary theorists such as Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (who translated Of Grammatology into English) and Terry Eagleton, sociologists such Jürgen Habermas as well as literary thoerists operating outside of the Continental tradition such as John M. Ellis (who wrote [http://www.amazon.com/Against-Deconstruction-John-Martin-Ellis/dp/0691014841 Against Deconstruction]. The article in its present form is propagandistic in that it presents a narrative of noble Derrida fighting against nasty Anglo-American analytic philosophers; this message is—frankly speaking—garbage. The many academics (some of which I have mentioned earlier) that are not analytic philosophers that have poured acid on deconstruction and on Derrida's pretensions should be represented in this article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Consistent with the objective I have described above I had included actual criticism in the Criticism section and removed the irrelevant garbage that was inserted in the Searle section. The sub-section on Searle should be—as the title suggests—where Searle's criticism's of Derrida are documented not where Derrida is given space to just repeat his original argument in different words and to make sanctimonius displays. Derrida doesn't actually rebut any of Searle's arguments and the included material—which I deleted—indicates that much so it is not worthy of inclusion in a subsection ostensibly dedicated to documenting Searle's criticism. Derrida's professions of piety and sanctimony are irrelevant. Derrida doesn't actually provide a cogent answer to the charge of obscurantisme terroriste (regardless of where it came from and how it was communicated). Instead he postures moralistically. How is Derrida's posturing relevant to the charge and why does it deserve inclusion in a subsection that is ostensibly dedicated to the criticism made by Searle? Derrida's pious display doesn't inform me about whether he does or doesn't practice "obscurantisme terroriste", it has no substantive content and is irrelevant, it is a non sequitur and hence has no place in the article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It would also be great to include material from "The Language Criticism and the Sciences of Man: The Structuralist Controversy" (Richard Moss, Telos, 1970) if anyone reading has access to this article. groupuscule (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC: How should the article treat Searle's critique of Derrida?

The purpose of this RfC is to find out how the article should treat Searle's critique of Derrida. Specifically two separate questions: 1. Do the three long block quotes by Searle give undue weight to Searle's viewpoint, and do they improve the article? 2. Does it make sense to treat the debate separated into a "Derrida's viewpoint" and "Criticism by Searle" - or should the debate be treated as a whole providing both views and showing how they relate to each other. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Re Q1: The three long block quotes from Searle don't give undue weight to Searle's viewpoint. WP:UNDUE is not determined by a word-count and it is largely irrelevant where the subject of an article and one of his/her interlocutirs is concerned . Since Searle is Derrida's interlocutor (on the matter to which the subsection pertains) his position must be included. A criticism section needs actual criticisms rather than references to criticisms so yes my additions do improve the article. If the concern is with proportionality—which is distinct from WP:UNDUE—then I am happy to paraphrase.

Re Q2: Derrida's viewpoint is in the rest of the article. Searle is responding to deconstruction which is thoroughly covered in the article, hence it needn't be repeated in the Criticism section. The Criticism section is supposed to be dedicated to criticism. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comments as requested and more:

• The Searle/Derrida dispute should live at its own page, where there is room to explain the position of both sides at length. Derrida had many complex engagements with other philosophers and it would be very difficult to treat these all fully at this page. The page Limited Inc exists now and could be developed further with this material. (A move or new page at "Searle–Derrida dispute" or something might be conducive to more evenhanded coverage.)
• Regarding Q2 it might make sense to explain the arguments text by text but also have space for general discussion and outside comments.
• Regarding Derrida-bashing on the Derrida page (Q1?), I think it's totally important to record that some people hate his guts and think he's a purveyor of 'outdated' 'banalities' or whatever. We don't need to belabor this point or editorialize on top of the criticism. Derrida's responses to Searle also need to be explained—obviously, right?
• Regarding the quotation from Chomsky, it's pretty well-known and may be notable enough for inclusion in the article, but probably doesn't need to be contextualized as Chomsky playing on Searle's team.
• Ramble: Personally, I always thought that Searle erred in taking such a combative approach to Derrida's writing on Austin, digging his own hole deeper and deeper as he tried to stage the type of intellectual combat that is more typical of Anglo-American philosophy. Coming from this perspective, the idea of a "Searle–Derrida dispute" would implicitly accept Searle's framing. (But an alternate title might favor Derrida's.) My personal opinion about the scenario isn't that relevant and we obviously want to include all perspectives that would be helpful to a reader. At the same time, it would be kind of funny to present this accusation of Derrida's "ignorance" of the "type-token distinction" as the last word. I think most people who have read Derrida's work carefully, even those who hate it, would recognize that he is critical, not ignorant, of this type of concept. groupuscule (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of the above seems reasoanable, I could live with it but the depth and extent of the criticism directed at Derrida and deconstruction needs to be represented in the Derrida article. The criticisms against Derrida and deconstruction are not just from Anglo-American/analytic philosophers and that should be made clear. Derrida has been criticised by members of the so-called "New Left" some of which are literary theorists and others are philosophers firmly within the Continental tradition. You seem to be trying to present the falsity that all the criticism can be stereotyped as Derrida vs. Analytic Philosphers. That is good propaganda (an example of poisoning the well) but it is egregiously misleading and more suited to a hagiography than a encyclopedic biographic entry. Derrida's understanding of Marx was criticised by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (who produced the English version of De la grammatologie—hardly a partisan critic of Derrida). Derrida's reponse to Spivak was—as per usual—that (a) Spivak misunderstood him; and (b) Spivak is an incompetent reader (yes, his translator is an incompetent reader; let that thought sit with you for a little while). Stuff like this needs to be documented and it corroborates Searle's account of Derrida's rhetorical ploy. The Derrida vs. Analytic Philosophers narrative is propagandistic bunkum. Lastly I don't think it is evidently clear that Derrida actually understand the "type-token distinction" or is even aware of it. Your expression of incredulity doesn't amount to an argument and has no evidentiary value. Can you present any evidence in Derrida's writings that he understand the "type-token distinction"? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi AnotherPseudonym, I'm not sure how you got the impression that all criticism of Derrida should be "stereotyped as Derrida vs. Analytic Philos[o]phers". In my opinion we should include plenty of criticism from people who consider Derrida's writing comprehensible but disagree with his methods or conclusions. (I posted a link to one such article above.) I agree 105% that the dispute between Derrida and Spivak belongs in the article, but I don't agree with the way you've simplified it or classified it under "obscurantism". It's very clear from the beginning of Spivak's article, "Ghostwriting", that this dispute took place two decades after Of Grammatology and revolves specifically around Derrida's relationship to Marx (and capitalism, and anti-capitalism, etc.) The argument that Derrida's response betrays him as a fraud and thereby confirms his obscurantism is interesting but probably not appropriate here unless it got some real play in secondary sources. [This probably isn't the place for a debate about how well Derrida groks the ontologies of analytic philosophers so I'm taking my further comments to your talk page.] Peace, groupuscule (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The substantive basis of the dispute between Spivak and Derrida can be included, what I have posted does not preclude that. My plan was to create a subsection that contains tha criticism that Marxists have made against Derrida and I was planning to put Spivak's contentions re Marxism in there. It is irrelevant when Derrida abused Spivak—the point is that he did do and he did so by telling her that she is an incompetent reader. So the person that produced the English version of Of Grammatology has poor reading comprehension skills and you are going to defend this ludicrous idea? The very idea is prima facie absurd—how could Spivak have even produced Of Grammatology if she can't understand Derrida? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

... I'm not sure how you got the impression that I meant to take sides between Derrida and Spivak. But I don't agree with your interpretation of the dispute as "prima facie absurd". Derrida wrote a lot of essays and books, some of which are more comprehensible than others. Personally, I think Of Grammatology is more accessible than Glas. Derrida might have a good read on the history and logic of metaphysical philosophy, but be totally stupid about Marx. I don't know. But it doesn't seem totally impossible and ridiculous that Spivak and Derrida could totally agree about one topic in 1970 and then totally disagree about a different topic in 1995! These are people, not algorithms. groupuscule (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That Spivak and Derrida had a disagreement is neither in dispute nor relevant to the point that I am trying to make. The relevance of the Spivak dispute is that Derrida invoked his well-worn rhetorical ploy of claiming that his interlocutor did not understand him and did not understand him because she is an incompetent reader. So in relation to the span of time that exists between Spivak's (widely praised) production of the English language version of Of Grammatology and her penning of Ghostwriting her readding comprehension deteriorated such that she developed "an outright inability to read". That proposition is prima facie absurd. You are despatching strawmen of your own construction. The diagreement is not the issue per se, the issue is—once again—Derrida's response to the disgreement. Furthermore, the elephant in the room is that the champion of the idea that the definitive or essential meaning of texts is illusory is complainining about an interpretation of one of his texts not concurring with his authorial intention. Derrida's corpus is ostensibly dedicated to undermining traditional hermeneutic practice—which includes a recognition of the salience of authorial intent—but when he is criticised he invokes the princicples of traditional hermeneutics. Derrida was clearly unable to take his own bitter medicine. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not worth it

Wikipedia is a remarkable and important invention. Unfortunately the article on Jacques Derrida (and other related articles) has long been a sore spot, the main reason for which is that it attracts editors with an axe to grind. Those who might work to create a worthwhile article soon lose energy or interest, as it becomes clear that the battle against the silliness of other editors is unwinnable. I myself gave up on the article years ago, and a glance now shows nothing much has changed. This longstanding situation is regrettable and, as things stand, seems irretrievable. As things stand, Wikipedia possesses no mechanism capable of attracting and holding onto editors competent in this subject. I have no solution to this problem. 49.184.0.193 (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with you but I suspect that you are one of those editors that seeks to create a hagiography on Derrida. Your post contains a "dog whistle" and it is naive of you to resort to this ploy. The standard rhetorical ploy of those that have a quasi-religious devotion to post-modernism and post-structuralism is that all "critics just don't understand". Even Spivak the translator of Of Grammatology just doesn't understand. So long as Spivak sung hosannas to Derrida her understanding of him was not in question and was actually praised. But when she dared criticise Derrida she in an instant became an incompetent reader that was unable to comprehend the depth of Derrida's profundity. Really? The upshot of this rhetorical ploy is a species of unfalsifiability, viz. if you criticise Derrida/deconstruction you don't understand Derrida/deconstruction. The temerity of Derrida in resorting to this Sophistry was amply demonstrated by his implausible accusations against Spivak. So what then is Derrida and his deconstruction if criticism is an impossibility? A demi-god and his infallible doctrine? A prophet and his revealed scripture? Is that how they are to be approached? So is deconstructive theory and practice flawless, without defect? What would you deem to be legitimate criticism of deconstruction that an "editor competent in this subject" would include in the article? This matter aside the article is awful because it is essentially a series of quotes from Derrida that have been loosely unified by fragments of awful English prose that reads like (a) it came from someone for whom English was not their first language; and (b) its author sought to emulate the awful writing style of Derrida. I am willing and able to turn the pile of crap into a cohesive article that accurately and clearly paraphrases Derrida but I fear that if I do this the abject poverty of Derrida's scholarship will become apparent and out of a sense of embarassment the cultists will merge and apply the Derridean rhetoric ploy on me: I will be told I didn't understand Derrida and the fruits of my laborious effort will be supplanted with po-mo gibberish thus restoring the fig leaf on Derrida's privates. Manus appears to be gearing up for that, are you also girding your loins? AnotherPseudonym (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in what I wrote supports your "suspicion". Your own sentence beginning "I am willing...", however, makes clear that you are one of those editors who are not suitable to edit this article but insist on doing so anyway. 49.184.3.209 (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You have confirmed my suspicion and also told me that my suspicion is without foundation in the same post. Is that the quality of applied logic that in your self-concept uniquely qualifes you to edit the article? Also, can you bring yourself to rise above innuendo and actually submit an argument to support your position or will that effort exhaust your faculties and send you to bed early? What—in specific terms—uniquely qualifies you to edit the article? Do you have a Gallic po-mo version of the seer stone that Jospeh Smith used to translate the golden plates? How does it work? You put the Derrida text in a beret and put the Derridean seer stone atop the book and read off the translation—analogous to Smith and the hat? Given différance, the absence of essential meaning, the absence of definitive meaning and the infinite flow of meaning from a text, on what basis do you adjudicate that one interpretation of Derrida is to be preferred over another? On what basis do you privilege one reading of Derrida over another? Is there an implicit violent binary hierarchy of "correct reading of Derrida"/"incorrect reading of Derrida" in your discourse? Why do you seek to violently marginalise me with your use of "either/or"? Can we not disrupt the "either/or"—decenter the "correct reading of Derrida"—and replace it with a "both/and" where a free play between the "correct reading of Derrida" and "incorrect reading of Derrida" occurs? Surely that would be what Derrida wanted for us (on this scientifico-technico-informatico-digital simulacrum disseminationing apparatus (that is what Derrida would have called the web))? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

What in what I wrote confirmed your suspicion? Your response shows, in general, why competent editors avoid having anything to do with this article. 114.78.175.100 (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

All of what you wrote (and have since written) confirmed my suspicion. You are big on (implicit) self-flattery aren't you? Your IP address (I wonder what Derrida would call that?) changed. Are you the same person or does it take at least two people of your calibre to pool their cognition in order to produce vacuous and self-flattering edits? "Yeah, it's just not worth it, isn't it? I think I'll get on Wikipedia and share my aimless ruminations and I'll see if I can squeeze some self-aggrandisement in if I can by making oblique references to "competent editors" and how they are withholding their knowledge and no one will notice that I am talking about myself because I am smart and everyone else is stupid. Yeah, it's just not worth it.[snivel, snivel, sneer, sneer, watch Adam Hills: The Last Leg because Adam is nice.]". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm new to the turf and I haven't read much Derrida myself yet. I know that reading him, especially in English, is a very difficult (sometimes a rather quite annoying and frustrating one indeed) task , since I've read quite a bit of Levi-Strauss and of Foucault in English. French language and English language philosophies and cultures are very difficult to put together in any deeper sense, no matter the context. But American perceptions of French thinking these days are also in general quite unflattering, as we all know. However, all that cultural and political context aside, I would think that the avowed goal of exposing "the abject poverty of Derrida's scholarship" would not make for a very neutral approach to editing this article to begin with. warshy^¥¥ 13:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that you are verballing me I don't think you are well placed to be pontificating on matters of probity or bias. Nowehere did I state or imply that it was my "avowed goal" to expose the abject poverty of Derrida's scholarship. What I wrote was:

I am willing and able to turn the pile of crap into a cohesive article that accurately and clearly paraphrases Derrida but I fear that if I do this the abject poverty of Derrida's scholarship will become apparent and out of a sense of embarassment the cultists will merge and apply the Derridean rhetoric ploy on me'

Do I really need to explain that? What I am saying is that a plain English rendition of Derrida's brain necrotising prose will be embarassing to his idolators because as an example of philosophy it is actually quite poor. This embarassment will trigger the usual refrain ("you don't understand Derrida") and the prose will be re-encrypted to try and preserve the illusion of profundity and erudition. That is how the game is usually played. In a review of Jonathan Culler's book The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction Mas'd Zavarzadeh writes:

The Pursuit of Signs is another testimony to Culler's uncommon ability to elucidate fairly complex ideas and his talents as a superb synthesizer of various intellectual perspectives. He takes his task of presenting ideas very seriously, and it is a mark of his intellectual integrity that before republishing the essays collected in this book he has revised, rethought and rewritten them extensively. He proves himself, once more to be an excellent theoretician (conversant with various theories and their ramifications) but not an innovative theorist (one who actually theorizes and is given to speculative thought and formulates theories to account for perceived phenomena). This might explain his deeply rooted conservatism, in which his mediations tame radical new ideas, and also account for his unproblematic prose and the clarity of his presentation, which are the conceptual tools of that conservatism. (emphasis added; pp.332-3, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Spring, 1982))

I couldn't make this stuff up. Zavarzadeh upbraids Culler because he writes too clearly on the implausible pretext that "unproblematic prose" and "clarity of...presentation" are instruments of oppression! The real reason is because Culler—who is sympathetic to deconstruction—has produced a relatively clear exposition of deconstruction and it all is much less impressive than the bloviation makes it appear to be. This is the psuedo-problem that I was trying to communicate. Lastly WP:NPOV pertains to behaviour as manifested in the editing of articles not to beliefs. No one has a neutral point of view and WP:NPOV doesn't require a neutral point of view, there is no way to police a neutral point of view and a neutral point of view is irrelevant. The message of WP:NPOV is to write in a manner that is consistent with a neutral point of view. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

When you start out stating that "the abject poverty of Derrida's scholarship will become apparent" the statement seems to me to imply in plain English that "the abject porverty of Derrida's scholarship" is a fact that is already determined as far as you are concerned. It is now only a matter of it becoming apparent to other uninitiated or uninformed WP readers or not. I think that puts you clearly, to begin with, on the camp of those that do not have a very positive view of Derrida's philosophy. Which is fine, because as you say "WP:NPOV doesn't require a neutral point of view." Since I come to Derrida from Saussure and from Levy-Strauss, both of whom impress me quite a bit in the depth of their thinking (as far as I am able to undertand it, of course...), I think that at least puts you, as far as I am concerned, on the side of the ones that come to edit here with the purpose of diminishing Derrida's stature, not of putting it maybe, if possible, on a more sturdy foundation. That's all, I think. As far as we are clear that there are sides in this debate, and that some editors here stand more definitely on one side than the other, we may be able continue collaborating here, just by the sheer essence of the mechanism itself (I am referring to WP of course...), as time allows... Regards. warshy^¥¥ 16:14, 21 August 2013

So what then is the significance of your two posts? What have you added to the discussion by posting them? You started by putting words in my mouth and with a "mentalistic" interpretation of WP:NPOV which also appeared to serve the purpose of erecting you as a pious chmapion of (imaginary) neutrality. Then you follow that post with a post that mainly consists of banalities, truisms and platitudes. Yes, we all have a point of view. Yes, WP:NPOV concerns manifest behaviour not private mental states. Yes, some people adore Derrida and some don't. When were these points in contention except when you suggested or implied otherwise in your initial post? Your initial post was premised on the false notion that WP:NPOV exists only to offset hostile opinion but is irrelevant to excessively laudatory opinion. Until I corrected you, you appeared to think that my expression of a critical opinion of Derrida was problematic but your expression of a favourable opinion was unproblematic. Neither are intrinsically problematic and they both become problems only in so far as they compromise editorship. The point of WP:NPOV is promote to neutrality in editorship not advocacy or promotion. Your idea that, "I think that at least puts you, as far as I am concerned, on the side of the ones that come to edit here with the purpose of diminishing Derrida's stature, not of putting it maybe, if possible, on a more sturdy foundation" is misguided. What you are describing is advocacy and that is contrary to WP:NPOV. It is not within my remit as an editor to be "diminishing Derrida's stature" nor is it within your remit to "putting...[Derrida] on a more sturdy foundation". Both constitute advocacy. The task of the (Wikipedia) editor is to report such that the content of the article comes to represent—as near as is practically possible—the facts (as they are understood by subject matter authorites) on a matter. It is a matter of fact that many scholars are critical of Derrida and of deconstruction so these contrary opinions must be part of a factually accurate article. The existing article has been criticised becaue it merely repeats Derrida's obscure prose—via direct quotation and with "glue" text that imitates Derrida's obscuratntism—and the only solution to this legitimate criticism is to paraphrase Derrida in plain English, i.e. without post-structuralist gibberish. My point—once again—is that I fear that this plain language rendering of Derrida will be unacceptable to zealots in the same way that Culler's "unproblematic prose and the clarity of...presentation" was unacceptable to Zavarzadeh. That has nothing to do with me wanting to "diminish...Derrida's stature", rather it is an expression of concern that the plain language translation will be taken by Derrida's idolators as "diminishing Derrida's stature" because an act of demystification will have taken place. Given that such a reaction was expressed in an (ostensibly) scholarly journal—The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism—in response to a scholarly text—Culler's The Pursuit of Signs—it very likely that the same will happen in relation to the article with the subsequent result that the painful effort of producing good English from Derrida's "bombastic rhetoric and illogical ramblings"[1] will be lost. Capisce? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of my intervention so far is to point out that starting from the view that there is a definite stature to the thinking of the philosopher in the history of western thought, and the problem is to determine the right stature and to put it (the correct stature of the philosopher's thought within the context of that history, not the philosopher himself) on a more solid foundation in the WP article, is a better or more neutral starting point or approach to the editing of this article than to determine from the start that "the abject poverty of Derrida's scholarship will become apparent." The attempt to determine the correct measure of the stature of the philosopher's thinking in the history of western thought, and to put it on a more solid and less controversial foundation in the article is not advocacy whatsoever, as long as it is based on "the facts as they are understood by the subject matter authorities," as you well and correctly put it above. Or, in simpler words, I guess we'll just have to see and judge what happens here from now on. warshy^¥¥ 14:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is the problem in a nutshell: an editor engages in nonsensical attacks, in which "everything" confirms his "suspicions", clearly has no regard for or understanding of the article he insists on editing, seems to have no insight into his own behaviour, and is determined to continue fighting what he has obviously decided is a battle of extraordinary importance. And the whole point is: even if this particular editor gets tired of the game and ceases their damaging intervention, others are sure to spring up in their place. This has been the story for years, and the result is an unreadable and very silly article and a longstanding absence of competent editors. 114.78.175.100 (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Why do you even bother with these pathetic snivelling vacuous posts that do nothing more than communicate your emoting and self-flattery? I don't care for your emoting or self-flattery and I doubt anyone else does either. Do you have anything substantive to offer? Do you have an argument to advance? You may as well have just cut-and-pasted your original snivelling post three times. Yes we all understand your profound mastubatory insight: you are one of the elect that really understands Derrida and you will be punishing the world by withholding your Derridean illumination from Wikipedia. Mea culpa—I am overcome with grief and I will now don my cilice for the day. Now please go away you supercilious buffoon. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Classy 114.78.164.132 (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Searle

A year or two ago an editor was trying to make the article on John Searle into primarily treating Derrida's critique of Searle. Now AnotherPseudonym seems to be making the reversed efforts here making the section on the Searle/Derrida dispute into simply a platform for showing Searle's critique without even mentioning let alone trying to explain Derrida's view or the substance of the disagreement. The section is also inserting three lengthy quotes by Searle, without even describing the substance of Derrida's critique of Searle to which Searle was responding. The article is not improved by this kind of unbalanced and writing which seems simply to be editor's trying to inflate the importance of which ever of the two philosophers they happen to side with. This does not lead to informative useful encyclopedic articles. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Derrida's argument--to which Searle is responding--has already been detailed in the preceding parts of the article. The Criticism section is--as the title suggests--dedicated to criticism of the preceding content not a reiteration of the preceding content. Searle is providing a critique of deconstruction and of Derrida's rhetoric--those have been adequately covered, they needn't be repeated. The many quotations from Derrida are the central problem of the article and secondarily the "glue" prose between the quotes reads like it was written by someone for whom English is not their first language. My edits are justified; the quotations from Searle present Searle's case and the Chomsky quote corroborates Searle's position and they are well-sourced. The onus is on you to present a case against my edits before deleting them. For this reason I am reinstating my edits. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand how wikipedia works, when your edits are challenged you THEN procede to the discussion page and do no reinsert the challenged material untill there is a consensus to do so. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

There was ample opportunity to challenge my proposed edits and neither you nor anyone else availed themselves of that option. You summarily deleted my edits without any commentary in the talkpage either before or after the deletion--that is not consistent with WP:BRD. Just a comment in the edit summary is not sufficient, YOU should have gone to the talkpage at the least after your first reversion of my edits then we could have discussed the matter. As I have already stated I was already in the talkpage before I made any edits so you could have commented under my initial commentary--but you didn't. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· :) I'm curious to see how WP will be able to handle with AnotherPseudonym. You just need to go around and check how he is clearly bias about this subject and offensive with everybody.

He

   is not polite, and welcoming to new users
   does not assume good faith
   does not avoid personal attacks
   For disputes, does not seek dispute resolution

Check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deconstruction#Abuse_of_the_English_Language. Or the way he insults other editors: "tenthly, if I want an ugly house designed then I'll be sure to contact you. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)". I'm surprised that you took this issue. Congratulations (once more). You know I don't believe this is possible. But I'm here to change my mind if I'm proved wrong. Knowledge and power go together, but people want to forget it. "Crowd sourcing" believers must be aware of this issues ;) Good luck :) Hibrido Mutante (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Who cares what you do or don't believe is possible? Seriously. Who cares? Who are you that anyone would care for your irrelvant and poorly argued opinion? You can't write and you don't understand deconstruction nor Heideggerian phenomenology so it is inevitable that you will produce a crap "article". What did you actually accomplish? You gathered a bunch of lengthy quotes and glued them together with awful semi-literate English and now you are using that as a benchmark of expositional possibility. If you submitted the shit that you posted on Wikipedia as a first-year essay in philosophy you would get a fail and you would be repeating first year. Culler and Norris' expositions of deconstruction are well-regarded and they are both considered authorites on the subject. Their books don't consist of lengthy quotes interspersed with execrable English. But we'll ignore these well-published authors and follow you—some buffoon that operated three sock puppet accounts to create a false consenus. The best thing that you could do for the two articles is go away. And aren't you so profound and insightful: "Knowledge and power go together, but people want to forget it." Of course you're no ordinary person you have a special insight, you are the Übermensch. The notion that you represent the ne plus ultra of exegetical, literary and analytical ability and that you reached some sort of intrinsic maxima with your utterly facile and excremental edits is self-delusional. The facts are that you reached the limit of your own incompetence. That is all. Who cares whether you change your mind about anything? Why do you believe that anyone cares about what you—an established incompetent—believes? Why also do you assume that everyone else is an ignorant and incompetent as you are? Some of us get paid to write, some of us have relevant undergraduate degrees, some of use have relevant advanced degrees. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we get rid of all the quotes?

There are like, 500 million quotes in this article. This is completely different to how any other biographical article is written on wikipedia. This style it makes it hard for someone unfamiliar with Derrida (myself, for example) to understand what is being said. Wikpedia is an encyclopaeida, and as such I'd argue an *entry point* to topics, so it should be simple and easy to grasp.

Have read the other comments on the talk page, and I don't understand what anyone here is on about. It is possible to remove the comments and make the article somewhat more readable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.228.82.171 (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I moved a couple of quotes into the refs but whole sections of this article are a mess. There's no reason for any of this detail when separate articles exist on his ideas. Bhny (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've begun trimming it down, but it is a lot of work. It seems like someone inserted a badly translated essay on Derrida's ideas into this article. This is redundant since there are already main articles about each section and this article is about the man not his philosophies. Bhny (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that some of the those articles have been flagged as being candidates for merging with this article. Jacques Derrida on deconstruction for example reproduces much of the material in the current article. I am currently going through Derrida's texts and those of his major expositors to produce complete and accurate citations with a view to accurately paraphrasing Derrida and removing the lengthy quotations but I am unsure where I should apply these edits. The lengthy Derrida quotes are most likely from someone that doesn't really understand what Derrida is trying to say but seeks to pretend otherwise; this is something that one also finds in some low-quality commentaries. It is the poseur's (or poseuse's) move (that bears some resemblance to Searle's Chinese room, i.e. a hollow mechanical symbolic exchange). The description of deconstruction is innacurate despite the lengthy quotations (which would seem to confirm my suspicion). Derrida's entire corpus is essentially a polemic against what Heidegger described as the metaphysics of presence that both he and Heidegger contend is foundational of Western philosophy (as they conceive it in their ethnocentric terms). The cliche binary and hierarchical conceptual dichotomies are incidental to the so-called metaphysics of presence and its primary dichotomy of presence/absence. There is an article on the metaphysics of presence but it is a stub and there is no reference to it in the current article yet it is an idea that is "central" (irony recognised) to Derrida and deconstruction. Neither this article nor any of the subsidiary articles actually explain the deconstructive "project" in terms that would enable someone without any prior knowledge to gain any understanding. To this extent none of these articles serve any legitimate purpose, they have no pedagogical value, they are empty gestures that just repeat the usual Derridaean cliches and "tropes" for consumption by poseurs and poseuses. The other glaring omission is critique. Where are the criticisms from such people as Ellis, Habermas, Abrams, Gadamer, Graff et al and what of the Saussure (e.g. Daylight) and Husserl (e.g. Evans, Mohanty) experts that contend that Derrida has either misrepresented or misunderstood Saussure and Husserl? A literary theory/philosophy/post-philosophy/meta-philosophy/quasi-philosophy/"strategy"/"experience"--or however you wish to describe deconstruction--can't be presented without any of the critique from subject experts as if it is some flawless and unassailable entity from another world. Furthermore, deconstruction peaked in popularity in the 1970s. Certainly it is not dead but even Derrida himself admitted "It is not like it was in the 1970's...A certain fashion has probably waned" (in his interview with The New York Times Magazine in 1994) and in current texts on literary theory it is merely listed as another theory in a long line of theories. Yet the articles present deconstruction as if it is "the last word", as if it is current. Rapaport--for example--is a vociferous defender of Derrida and he wrote The Theory Mess: Deconstruction in Eclipse in 2001. Furthermore current French philosophy is NOT poststructuralist (see [1], [2] (the syllabus is indistinguisable from that of an Anglo-American philosophy department)). The French themselves have move beyond poststructiralism. It needs to be explained why deconstruction is no longer current--in philosophy and literature departments anywhere in the world--and the critiques explain why this is the case. Everything that could be wrong with the constellation of articles on deconstruction is wrong with them--that in itself is quite an accomplishment. I am willing and able to overhaul this article but I don't want to spend time that I could be devoting to research and composition arguing with some putz who completed a 101-level subject on "theory" in the course of getting a degree in cinema studies, fashion or architecture that thinks (a) they are experts on deconstruction (and philosophy); (b) post-structuralism and deconstruction represent current French philosophy; (c) deconstruction killed "Western metaphysics" and deconstruction is the last word on all matters literary and philosophical. The current articles have the fingerprints of the said putz all over them, that is why they are so incomparably awful. To make them completely irredeemable the English is also atrocious: shit form and shit content. Can we get a decision on whether there is to be a merging or dispersal of the content? Can we establish a consensus on producing an informative, well-sourced article that reflects academe's broad position on deconstruction (specifically departments of philosophy and literature NOT departments of fashion, cinema studies, architecture, theatre, pottery, basket weaving, dance, painting and photography)--and that entails incorporating critique? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Bhny, the quotes you found here were from a famous interview from Derrida to Julia Kristeva (and another from the same book around Hegel). A serious online encyclopedia (Stanford)used the same material to present Derrida and Deconstruction: "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)."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/#Dec

I don't believe WP can do better with the same sources (I don't think this one is perfect, but it is a start). In subjects that are fracturing, and consensus is not "around the corner", minorities will be oppressed and militants will rule (rules will be used to serve their interests and impose their views). But I'm here to be proven wrong (for more than 2 years I was not).

Concerning AnotherPseudonym insults... sorry.. I don't have the time...

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/405956.article

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/CriticalTheory/critical2.htm

http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/press/news/press358_e.html

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a few points here. 1) First you don't write an encyclopedia article by stringing together quotes. 2) Derrida is almost impossible to understand directly so quotes are almost useless. 3) This article is about the man, not his ideas. 4) Jacques Derrida on deconstruction obviously should be merged into Deconstruction as has been proposed. 5) AnotherPseudonym makes a lot of good points that (if sourced) should be added to the article on deconstruction. Bhny (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Further, Hibrido Mutante has a troubled history. That account has been blocked for revert warring and for being associated with sock puppets. @Hibrido Mutante you don't understand deconstruction and you can't write so that leaves you incompetent in relation to improving this article. What you contributed to was garbage and our aim is to rise above that standard not reproduce it. You use those lengthy quotes because you don't actually understand what Derrida is trying to say and at the same time you are trying to cultivate an illusion of experise. That you managed to miss the key ideas behind deconstruction shows that you are a poseur. You also don't appear to have any familiarity with Derrida's major expositors such as Norris, Culler, Johnson, Hillis Miller. Each tranche of text that communicates a major idea of deconstruction should be substantiated with at least one citation from a text from Derrida and one from one of his expositors to ensure that the paraphrasing of Derrida is as accurate as possible. Any quotes can appear in the citation rather than the article. If the Derrida article is to be purely biographic—and a consensus is emerging around that idea—then what I wrote should be applied to the article on deconstruction. Consistent with a biographic entry the article should then document the de Man Affair as well as Derrida's efforts to censor the publication of an interview he gave regarding Heidegger's Nazism. @Hibrido Mutante What is the significance of those URLs? Many citations of Derrida are in the context of criticising deconstruction and most are from aesthetic fields that are encompassed by the humanities (e.g. cinema studies, fine art, literature). The apparent three definitions of deconstruction that you refer to are more apparent that real: they are elucidations, elaborations and refinements—or at least attempts as such—rather than three mutually exclusive and irrenconcilable defintions. There are many inconsistencies in Derrida's work but they are not such that they render a clear exposition of deconstruction impossible and thus necessitate a multitude of lengthy opaque inline quotes. Garbage like this: "In subjects that are fracturing, and consensus is not "around the corner", minorities will be oppressed and militants will rule (rules will be used to serve their interests and impose their views)" doesn't augur well for your contribution. There is no "fracture" in relation to Derrida nor of decontruction, it is as Rapaport explains an "eclipse" (and Rapaport is an advocate for Derrida and deconstruction). Deconstruction had its "time in the sun" in the 1970s and since then it has experienced a slow and steady decline. The syllabi of philopsophy departments in the Anglo-America world and in continental Europe are unchanged, they are the same as they were before Derrida published anything. Philosophy of language is completely unchanged by Derrida. I am unable to find an undergraduate text on the subject that even mentions Derrida. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I merged "Jacques Derrida on deconstruction" into "Deconstruction". About half of it was duplicated so I deleted that. Bhny (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Biased tone

Some of this article seems to have a strongly POV tone in favour of Derrida. For example, the Criticisms section refers to criticisms of him as 'attacks', and to use the heading 'Hostile obituaries' for obituaries containing criticisms is just ridiculous. Ben Finn (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Also the intro is far, far too long. Ben Finn (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It is difficult to me to agree with you that "criticism section" as a "POV tone in favour of Derrida"...and you just need to check the people that contributed to it to confirm that probably that was not their intetion (confirm, for example, debate between Anotherpseudonym and Manus above). But feel free to give your "tone" to that section (remember that in general they were made based in consensus constructed by different editors, with different points of view. You just need to check discussions above to confirm it. Avoid being yourself bias ;)

You could start by trying to solve the issue pointed by Manus, referring "dispute with Searle": "This article lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help to create a more balanced presentation. Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message. (August 2013)"

I agree in changing the word "attacks" and, no doubt the heading "hostile obituaries" (was a contribution from an "hostile reader" :)

Regarding intro, it is smaller than 4 paragraphs and smaller than the one used in other important philosopher's articles (e.g Wittgenstein or Hillary Putnam). It looks ok to me.

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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) Hibrido Mutante (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. Please discuss before making changes against consensus. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Please, give me valid explanation why ALL (!!!) my contributions are being deleted. I've respected others contributions.If you want to make changes to my contributions, do it sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph. I'll explain my options. Respect others.

Can you explain me what you want me to explain to you? Consensus about what exactly?'Consensus with whom?'

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you do not agree about my contributions. BUT explain "us" properly why (See: WP:BRD"Consider reverting only when necessary. It is not the intention of this page to encourage reverting. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one").. And, please, avoid ad hominem fallacies... This is how we get consensus around here. Please, ply by the rules.You don't own wikipedia. You do not decide alone what must be reverted or not.

DO NOT REVERT everything I do. 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")

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) Do not continue to revert. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made. When the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants in the discussion. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It is false. I haven't done a "Bold" edit". Please, be exact in your explanations. it is difficult to get consensus when your interlocutor is vague and imprecise (to say the least).

I added some references that are only a complement to what was there, based in Encyclopedia Britannica about the subject, but not limited to it (valuable references to books and articles): "In the 1980s it (Deconstruction) 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."

My contribution:

He had a significant influence upon the humanities and social sciences, including —in addition to philosophy and literature— law [5] [6] ,[7] anthropology ,[8] historiography ,[9] linguistics ,[10] sociolinguisitcs,[11] psychoanalysis, political theory, feminism, gay and lesbian studies."

Could you please explain: I need consensus about what?

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. (I don't see anyone else in the "discussion" (is this a discussion?)

(See: WP:BRD"Consider reverting only when necessary. It is not the intention of this page to encourage reverting. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one")

Thanks

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) You removed the part which contained criticism by Quine and Chomsky. The section was referenced. While I do not object in principle to the removal, I would like you to elaborate on your changes. Such removals should be properly justified. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It was not my intention to remove anything. I only tried to arrange the material, considering the critics from Manus to this section. I believe the criticism by Quine is now included in the section about the letter to Cambridge (it was repeating the same material). About Chomsky, to be honest, I don't remember deleting it. If I have done it it was not on purpose. Maybe I lost it in the middle of the copy-paste process. I will check and put it back.Sorry.

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

How is this sentence to be interpreted  ?

In the Philosophy paragraph is the following sentence :

This approach to text, in a broad sense,[48][49] Saussure is considered one of the fathers of structuralism and he posited that terms get their meaning in reciprocal determination with other terms inside language.

Could someone more intelligent than me please explain what it means ?

Thanks. Bramblebank (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramblebank (talk • contribs) 21:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC) I discovered that this sentence is an incomplete transcription of a similar sentence in the wiki page "Deconstruction":

Derrida approaches all texts as constructed around elemental oppositions which all discourse has to articulate if it intends to make any sense whatsoever. This is so because identity is viewed in non-essentialist terms as a construct, and because constructs only produce meaning through the interplay of difference inside a "system of distinct signs". This approach to text is influenced by the semiology of Ferdinand de Saussure.[46][47]

Saussure is considered one of the fathers of structuralism when he explained that terms get their meaning in reciprocal determination with other terms inside language

So I have added a few words in an attempt to restore the intended meaning of the sentence and improve its grammar. Bramblebank (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

trying to preserve the status quo

"During the American 1980s culture wars, this would attract the anger of politically conservative and right-wing intellectuals who were trying to defend the status quo." Lots of footnotes, but still sounds POV. Is that the only reason "right-wing intellectuals" fought against Derrida? And other intellectuals who weren't "right-wing" but who still believed in some sort of rational humanism? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for calling attention to that. It was blatantly biased material, and I have removed it accordingly, per WP:NPOV. Such material should only be presented as the opinion of the source in question. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Influence of Saussure

Would it not make sense to add Saussure as an influence on Derrida? Saussure's linguistic structuralism forms the core of what Derrida critiques in his own work.

Jarickman2 (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jacques Derrida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150424125330/http://www.newpartisan.com/home/derrida-1930-2004.html to http://www.newpartisan.com/home/derrida-1930-2004.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy section

This is not my area so forgive my ignorance but I don't know what this phrase "metaphorical depth models" means. It seems like a specialised term or even vaguely jargony...would appreciate if someone who understood such things could add an explanation or an internal link to give clarity for the benefit of the casual reader.

Thanks Darrell Wheeler (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)