Talk:Jacques Derrida/Archive 4

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jacques Derrida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516144840/http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=13&vol=6&no=1 to http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=13&vol=6&no=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305215949/http://www.studiovisit.net/SV.Derrida.pdf to http://www.studiovisit.net/SV.Derrida.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121302413200/http://www.themodernword.com/features/interview_caputo.html to http://www.themodernword.com/features/interview_caputo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jacques Derrida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120520021511/http://www.continental-philosophy.org/2007/02/15/uc-irvine-drops-suit-over-derridas-personal-papers/ to http://www.continental-philosophy.org/2007/02/15/uc-irvine-drops-suit-over-derridas-personal-papers/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110224024836/http://www.lawrence.edu/dept/english/courses/60A/handouts/pharmacy.html to http://www.lawrence.edu/dept/english/courses/60a/handouts/pharmacy.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160413130756/http://www.dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Derrida/Excuse.htm to http://www.dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Derrida/Excuse.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson Frequently Mentions Jacques Derrida by Name
I've been watching a lot of Jordan Peterson's videos lately and have noticed that whenever Peterson talks about the current political breakdown (as he sees it) he invariably mentions either "French Intellectuals of the 1960's" and "Jacques Derrida" as those being most responsible. Given Peterson's popularity, I think that some mention of Peterson's criticisms should be mentioned in order to improve the article.2605:6000:6947:AB00:477:B8E0:DAB4:AECF (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Substantial Revision
The article stated, falsely and misleadingly, that Derrida's influence is pre-eminent in continental philosophy, which is simply not the case. In European Philosophical Departments Derrida is studied just as one out of the many authors available for modern philosophy. It is instead in the English and American academies that Derrida represents the bible of social sciences, cultural studies, queer studies, critical theory and feminism. The Doctorate honoris causa awarded to Derrida by the University of Cambridge is enough to substantiate his influence on the Anglosphere. There is indeed a natural connection between his semiotics and a certain analytic tradition claiming that all problems of philosophy are problems of language and that truth is nothing else than a region within a particular discourse, or narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the degree proves anything. The philosophers thought he was a trash-monger, but to save embarrassment enough non-philosophers were persuaded to vote for the grant. Seadowns (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Seadowns, it is misleading to claim that Derrida holds sway in American philosophy departments. While both Derrida and many of the figureheads of analytic philosophy share an interest in language, their approaches are different and often mutually hostile. One only need read about the infamous encounter between Derrida and Searle to substantiate this. Derrida (along with many other post-war continental thinkers) is found in literature departments more than in philosophy departments here in the US. The substantial revision claiming otherwise is grossly misleading and must be amended. 173.242.231.155 (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead rewrite
The lead violates various principles of the Lead policy, in particular, the lead should summarize the most important points, and significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

As one example: this central statement in the Lead has almost no support in the body of the article:"He is one of the major figures associated with the post-structuralism and postmodern philosophy."While structuralism is amply covered in the body, only a single sentence about the post-structuralism with which Derrida is associated is to be found in the body. The word postmodernism does not occur there at all. This is an absurd state of affairs. Here is page 12 of results for "Derrida postmodern" in Books; so there are no lack of sources available for it.

This is only one example, but the whole lead needs to be rewritten to conform to policy. One quick and dirty approach that I've seen work, is to take the entire lead, except for the defining sentence, and include it under a new section title, called "Background" or "Introduction", or some such. (That's mostly just to get it out of the way.) Then, start beefing up the lead, adding material to it in proportion to the amount of material in the body of the article. Note that if the body is constructed properly and sourced properly, the lead will not need any references, because everything in it should summarize already-sourced detail in the body, and duplicate references are not required in the lead. Finally, pare down the new "Introduction" section, to remove any redundancy. Mathglot (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Original research
There is a lot of original research in the article that needs to be cited or more likely, removed. The Searle–Derrida debate is one section that contains an essay-like, individual interpretation based on a mix of reliable sources, and original theorizing, based on quoting the original works of Derrida and John Searle. This is off-limits; anything about the debate needs to be sourced to reliable, secondary sources, not primary sources. This is only one of many such examples. Mathglot (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Citing Magliola against the "turn"
I'm here to provide the request third opinion about this disagreement.

Obviously, this article should give all significant viewpoints their due weight. If some scholars dispute the "political turn", we should say so. However, since Derrida is so famous and widely-discussed, a one scholar's opinion alone does not constitute a significant viewpoint. If other scholars share the view, we should mention and cite a range of them, not just one, and only quote from the most significant. For this reason, I'm going to edit the article so that it mentions Magliola only as an example of an scholar that disagrees with the turn, with a note stating that more sources are needed.

BingfengdeLake, your editing seems to focus almost exclusively on Robert Magliola. There's nothing necessarily wrong with having a narrow interest, but you should not assume that Magliola should be quoted in the article about every topic he has written on.

Warshy, I think you should be more careful about removing good-faith, cited additions of content with limited explanation. Simply reverting someone's edit is very discouraging and doesn't help them understand what they should do differently. Your only explanation was "this just adds more confusion to an already very confusing topic", but that's not a good reason to remove content. We don't avoid topics because they're confusing. Instead, it would have been better to address the real issue and explain why you think mentioning Magliola is misleading or undue weight.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

suboptimal phrasing
Minor point but..."In 1985 Sylviane Agacinski gave birth to Derrida's third child, Daniel" - is this the normal way in English of describing a birth? Was Daniel only Derrida's child and not Agacinski's? Sounds as if the mother was just an incubator. 85.230.180.35 (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly OK. You can't say "gave birth to their third child", because Derrida's prior children were by different incubators women. EEng 20:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)