Talk:Postmodernism/Archive 5

A word with no meaning
Postmodern has come to mean so many things to so many people and disciplines that I don't believe it has any concrete meaning at all. Describe Dickens as Victorian and everyone knows what you're talking about. Describe any work as modern and everyone knows it to be of the current era -- not a category such as post-Renaissance or Elizabethan -- so postmodern is merely a tautology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbartimo (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have read the lead of this article at least 4 times and still have no idea what it's talking about. I suppose we can find humor here in observing that this article itself is an exemplar of the very thing it seeks define to. What an intellectually bankrupt movement. Billare (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Postmodern music
Minimalism is not Postmodern music. It is a later development. I will rewrite this soon but leave the minimalist stuff as "later devs" or something. Jubilee♫ clipman 01:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you decide to write a terribly clever post about how ridiculous postmodernism is or how it doesn't mean anything, please read this first
I respect how wonderfully witty you are. We all acknowledge that you're a great genius. But postmodernism's existence or non existence and whether or not humanities is burping, etc., are entirely irrelevant. Here's a relevant comment: "The description of postmodernism is likely to be unclear to the general reader, and here is a specific and helpful suggestion for how to fix that. My own cleverness here is irrelevant compared to the need to make this article helpful and reader friendly.  After all, my cleverness is really just a defense mechanism against something I don't really understand.  Please help the general public understand this concept by making this specific change..." Yes, postmodernism is a ridiculous word, but it is a commonly used word -- so commonly used, it really needs an article that makes the concept clear. Self-congratulatory wit is just a waste of time.

For example, here's a less than helpful comment: "Describe any work as modern and everyone knows it to be of the current era." This is simply not true. "Modernism" is a term that is as complicated -- if not more complicated -- than "Postmodernism." In literature, "Modernism" could mean something written between WWI and WWII, or it could mean something written between the Enlightenment Period and today. A comment like this betrays an ignorance of the true complexity of words like this as they are commonly used. Even my little old college freshmen get the concept that there's a difference between "contemporary" and "modern." If this page were about modernism, a more helpful comment would focus on the difficulty of communicating to the general reader this complexity: since "modernism" has multiple meanings, how could we communicate that accurately without alienating the uninitiated? A comment like that would lead, hopefully, to suggestions for ways to organize the article so that the multiple meanings are accurately and clearly presented. No one is going to read a comment like "Postmodernism doesn't exist" and say, "By God, you're right! Let's erase the whole page!" Therefore, what can be accomplished other than a giggle of satisfaction?F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * well... aren't 3/4 of all wikipedia edits the 'giggle of satisfaction' or the 'sigh of satisfaction' or some other little thing.  but i otherwise completely agree with your analysis, though i doubt anything will change by posting it.  --Buridan (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't say I'm guiltless of the satisfied giggle, especially when I first started doing this. I'd say the ratio of useless snarky comments to actual proactive helpful comments is more like 100 to one.  And I think that's because most of the time people have very little commitment to actually do something, and it's easier just to be a smart ass.  I know there's no way to stop this tendency entirely, but I'm hoping one or two people might have second thoughts.F. Simon Grant (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a notice at the top of the page, and made sure it's reasonably visible. But you know some of the apparently less constructive comments should be telling you something as well, about accessibility. Rd232 talk 15:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

First sentence
The first sentence of the article seems ill-chosen: "Postmodernism literally means 'after the modernist movement'." I don't really have suggestions for improvement, but the first sentence of an article should describe it better, more like "Postmodernism is an aesthetic, literary, political or social philosophy, which was the basis of the attempt to describe a condition, or a state of being, or something concerned with changes to institutions and conditions (as in Giddens, 1990) as postmodernity." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.83.20 (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds nice! Still, the sentence you quoted initially is - IMHO - still relevant for the lead because the article later relates to what the postmodernists and/or poststrucuralists etc want, because there's much of that "reaction to the previous movement/thought of"-thinking in it (for lack of a better way to say this)--FlammingoHey 00:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Final sentence in lead
Would anyone be able to make the final sentence in the lead a bit more clear in what it's supposed to mean? Elucidating the symbolic meaning of those terms in their relation to postmodernism and post-structuralism would be helpful. And why is there a hyphen in the name of the latter, and not in the former? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Post-postmodernism and steampunk?
Hey, it just occurred to me that among all the ideas performatism, hypermodernity, Altermodern, and digimodernism (which I've barely if ever heard of), there is no mention of an explicitly aesthetic dimension. I'm not saying it is the only candidate, but steampunk seems like an interesting contender! To cite *one* example, look at the way Alan Moore's comics have moved from very postmodern experiments in works like Supreme, to more steampunky things like the recent/ongoing Century novel. Another reason that steampunk is an interesting candidate is that it takes a sort of Deleuzian approach to cyberpunk -- and thereby becomes a critical mode from which to deal with high technology; it is simultaneously very "human" and very connected to (disruptive, disrupting) words and fiction. I could say more, but I should probably check some references out first! Arided (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would certainly agree, but it probably belongs more on the postmodern literature page. A lot of people, for some reason, had resistence to adding cyberpunk to the postmodern literature page.  It's much easier to see how steampunk is postmodern since pastiche, temporal distortion, and playfulness are huge parts of pomo lit.  Steampunk may be too specific a permutation of tendencies within lit to really work well on the main pomo page, so I'll post something on the pomo lit talk page.  It may face resistence, but I'll fight for it too.F. Simon Grant (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Performatism, altermodern and digimodernism all have very strong aesthetic dimensions. Don't "characterise" what by your own admission you know nothing about. 217.154.158.238 (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Historians in Postmodernism
I just wanted to respond to the footnote recently added by Rjensen in the introduction (the first footnote). This seems like a concern to bring up on the discussion page, not in a footnote. It's difficult to argue that postmodernism has not affected the interpretation of history, even if you argue that proper historians don't use it. Look at Foucault and Kuhn. They certainly reinterpret history. Are they proper historians? Not necessarily, but that's not the point. They contributed important concepts to postmodern thought. It will likely confuse general readers to add a minor, nitpicky point like that -- especially as the first footnote. A better idea would be to just get rid of "history" in the intro and make sure it's very clear in the sections about Foucault and Kuhn that they used postmodern ideas to reinterpret history.F. Simon Grant (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * the point is that very few historian use pomo -- the number is not zero but it has not caught on. Rjensen (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that. I'm just saying that the original phrasing is that "postmodernism is used to interpret history."  There's a difference between that and "Historians use postmodernism."  So Foucault can use postmodernism to interpret history without being a historian, and historians in very small numbers can use pomo without negating the fact that postmodern thinkers use it to interpret history.  We're talking about two different things here.  That's why I say "history" can be taken out of the intro (if just to avoid confusion) and we can bring up the dispute about its use by historians elsewhere on the page.  A lot of people on this discussion page seem up in arms about pomo being used in science.  Maybe we can have a section about disciplines where it hasn't caught on.  Or would that go on the criticism page?F. Simon Grant (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The notion that historians use or do not use postmodernism is problematic. First of all, you would need to discuss the "linguistic turn" to show how historians struggled with the postmodernist challenge.  Secondly, history in many ways is interdisciplinary, depending on the focus of the subject.  Social history and intellectual history each borrow methodologies from other disciplines, such as sociology, anthropology and literary studies.  So when you start including and excluding scholars as "proper" historians based on disciplinary boundaries, you run into problems of deciding when a type of historical focus should be considered the work of another discipline.  Thirdly, many historians accept aspects of postmodernism, while rejecting other aspects.  How much of postmodernism would a historian need to accept to be considered a postmodernist historian? Loungehead (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Postward Disillusionment
Not to pick on you Rjensen, but again you seem to be reading vague and poorly explained concepts and misinterpreting them as mistakes. You erased the following quote and said that disillusionment happened in the 20's: "Following the devastation of fascism and World War II many intellectuals and artists in Europe became distrustful of modernism." And here's the reference that followed: "For a relevant treatment of modernism, see Adorno and Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment."

Please, I urge you and anyone before making changes like this, please discuss them. The justification for your deletion -- that this disillusionment happened in the 20's -- is based on the strange logic that disillusionment about the modern world can occur only once. It happened after WWI and after WWII. After WWI, disillusionment with the modern world produced High Modernism. After WWII, it produced postmodernism. The seeming disintegration of Old Europe after WWI led the artist to desire a new way to recreate culture; the domination of fascist and nazi dictatorships led the artist to address lack of control. It's two very different tpes of disillusionment, and they are important to understand, I would argue, in order to understand postmodernism. I believe the deleted sentence should be returned but with more explanation and perhaps more support from citations.F. Simon Grant (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * the statenment is OR and is not well sourced (Adorno and Horkheimer are used as examples of this, --that is as primary sources. In any case they did not write postwar). Let's get some recent historians making this argument, please. Rjensen (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm not defending the original line because I think OR is okay, and I'm not the one who wrote the original, so this is not me defending my poorly sourced addition. Indeed, I believe it can be made better with a better source.  I just want to make sure we do these things for the right reason.  This is why discussing them here first is a good idea.  If you just mean the Adorno/Horkheimer source was not postWWII, that's understandable.  You seemed to be saying that disillusionment in general was isolated to postWWI which is just not true.  Post-WWII disillusionment is a big part of pomo.  I'll argue that the concept of the original statement you deleted is valuable but needs to be more specific and needs a better source.F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * well I thinjk dating pomo to the 1945-50 period is much too early. I think the upheavals of the 1960s is a better turning point. Rjensen (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a relevant point to debate. The 60's upheavals were certainly the peak of the postmodern shift, but clearly the forces that made that happen had their start in the 50's.  The world certainly didn't become suddenly pomo in '45, but disillusionment over the war and the postwar materialism certainly affected the great thinkers of the 50's. My area is lit, so I can't speak with confidence about other areas, but most of the developers of pomo lit were affected in some way by the war (Beckett, Vonnegut, Heller, etc.) or postwar culture (Black Mountain, the Beats, Pynchon, etc.) so pomo wasn't the dominant force in the 50's, but it's hard to argue that it did not start in the 50's.  Good point to debate.  I'd like to hear other perspectives and discuss how this might affect the page.F. Simon Grant (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * intellectual impact should not take two decades to show up. Looking at the key dates in the article, there are none in the 1945-55 era. -- it took these powerful intellectuals 10-20 years to notice they were disillusioned? Rjensen (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a very scholarly comment. If you were familiar with Vonnegut, Heller, Beckett, Ginsberg, Kerouac, Burroughs, Pynchon, etc., etc., etc., you would not make such an uninformed statement.  Vonnegut started writing in the early 50's but didn't really get taken seriously until Slaughterhouse Five in the 70's.  Heller wrote Catch 22 about WWII (but really about post-war America) in the early 60's.  Beckett wrote Godot in 48 and it was first produced in 52 (my dates may be way off, but I'm ranting more than arguing here).  Ginsberg was an unknown poet until 56.  Both Kerouac and Burroughs published in the early 50's but didn't really become who they were in the publishing world until 57 and 59 respectively.  Pynchon's first trilogy which he started to publish in the 60's was two thirds about WWII and one third about postwar America.  I know impact is not supposed to take two decades but it does.  Saying they took a decade to notice they were disillusioned is just insulting and ignorant.  Please base your comments on facts, not personal observations and a poor understanding of how a culture changes.  I think this is a point worth debating but debating with facts.  I acknowledge that actual scholarship, postmodern theory, etc. was a sixties phenomenon, but if you're talking about postmodernism in the arts, it has clear beginnings -- or at least origins -- in postwar culture.  Whether to call this a transitional period or the true beginning of postmodernism is a relevant debate; to say this line of thinking just doesn't exist is, as I said, just ignorant.F. Simon Grant (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

'See also' should really be in a template
I think all the links in the 'See also' section should really be in a template. Is that possible, or does anyone disagree? The basic idea is to make them accessible to those who seek further, but not taking up so much space in the article. — Zujine |talk 14:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Structural overhaul
I just restructured the whole article. I changed barely any of the content, but just gave most everything new headlines and rearranged things a bit differently. And I pulled out all the large and ugly templates asking for references - half the article suffers that problem, and it seemed unfair to single a few places out. I also deleted the whole quote section because I thought it was pretty boring and unencyclopedic. I am still eyeing warily other parts of the article - like the gigantic quote from one person. I will wait and see how these changes go down first before editing further. — Zujine |talk 14:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the further reading section need to be so long?　I think it would be more valuable to the reader to provide some good, key works on the subject, rather than this many. It may be disorienting to newcomers. — Zujine |talk 06:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's so long because the PM covers so many different fields and subfields--many cultural fields, including literary criticism, linguistics, architecture, visual arts, and music etc etc. The idea of having a short definitive guide, of course, violates the spirit of postmodernism. "disorienting"--yes that is the first reaction most people have to postmodernism. Rjensen (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think our articles are supposed to be actual reflections of their subjects, in how long they are, or how they are structured. That doesn't gel with me. — Zujine |talk 15:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Officially coronated" by boundary 2? Really?
I was just casually browsing through the page again and noticed how all of a sudden boundary 2 "officially coronated" the term postmodernism in 1972. I question 1) the phrasing, 2) the accuracy, and 3) whether or not this is just an add for boundary 2. First, it was "officially coronated" meaning it was given a crown by an office with authority ... I get the implication, that this journal (that I've never heard of though I'm very familiar with postmodernism in general, though I'll give the original poster the benefit of the doubt) spread the word "postmodernism" in its current usage.  "Coronated," I'd maybe accept even though it's a little silly, but "officially" makes it seem like decisions like this could be decided "officially" and that this one journal had some sort of authority. Also, "postmodernism" had been floating around for many many years before 1972.  I understand the issue of deciding when it was first used in its current form.  The first time I could identify was Ihab Hassan, The Dismemberment of Orpheus, 1971.  It says that in that section because I put it there. I'm dubious about it being that late though I haven't found any better information and nobody else on this page has challenged that (if you have better info, please do challenge it, I beg of you). So if we just look at the structure of that section, we have boundary 2 officially coronating postmodernism in 1972 at the beginning of the section and Hassan first using it in its current form in 1971 at the end of the section. Is boundary 2 more important than Hassan? Is this a contradiction? What is the most accurate way to address this issue? Even if we don't get to the true story, at least I think we should fix the structure of the section, with 1971 coming before 1972. We also need good citations. The only citation to support the idea that boundary 2 officially coronated postmodernism is a website for boundary 2. It stinks of advertisement to me, but, again, I'll give the original poster the benefit of the doubt. We can do better! We can be accurate! And we can make this very confusing subject clear to everyone!F. Simon Grant (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, philologically inaugurated is a better word, but seriously, boundary 2? What the hell is boundary 2? It sounds like a weight loss pill. I'm incredulous because it's not like I don't know jack about postmodernism. I know it fairly well, yet I've never heard of this. You'd think I'd run across it before this point. More importantly, you can't seriously claim postmodernism started in 1972. It's ridiculous. Whoever posted the boundary 2 stuff, please explain. I asked six months ago and nada. I'm all for fake selfpromotion, but the idea that pomo started in 72 I find offensive. That craps in the face of all the much more important people that came before this weightloss pill or whatever it is. Since we're faking things, just fake an earlier date. That's all I'm asking.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is of course when to state that something began. There's no consensus on when modernism begins let alone postmodernism. Then there's the issue of when one ends and the other begins and whether or not postmodernism has ended or whether or not postmodernism actually ever existed or was just late modernism, and so on. I'm thinking that the claim for 1972 is based actually on Charles Jencks' position that architectural postmodernism begins in 1972. As for boundary 2, that's an academic journal. Since none of this can be categorically or factually pinpointed, a claim published in a journal is as useful or as useless as any other. I'll be bold and make the claim that PoMo started on Jan. 1, 1952. I'm going to get an essay published in a peer-reviewed journal (double-blind, natch) to prove my point. So that makes it official, yes? Of course not. The article needs to reflect various claims for postmodernism and state clearly that there is no consensus anywhere about any of this. I'd say remove anything that is so clearly defining something as varied as a date and expand and clarify the section that explain that there is no consensus on dates.  freshacconci  talk talk  15:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally somebody responds. I agree totally. I'm fine with keeping boundary 2 whether it's fake self-promotion or not. The claim that pomo started with it in 72 is what I find problematic, and it's much better to assert the uncertainty of the issue (no matter how much jokesters like to bitch about the uncertainty of uncertainty [ha ha, postmodernism on wikipedia is so postmodern so we should just abandon it, ha ha, b/c humanities is burping, ha ha, I said burp which makes me giggle]). For example, I've heard the notion that pomo started with architecture in the 70's, but is that the real start of pomo or the use of the term? Charles Olson was using it in the 50's. Latin American writers were using it long before that. Since lit is my area of expertise, I can tell you with certainty if we're talking about the actual style of postmodernism, it started in the 50's. Perhaps the best way to approach it is to have a clear distinction between when the style started to be used (50's) and when the term started to be used (70's) and propose several possible beginning points -- boundary 2 can be one of them. We would then back it up with sources that aren't just blatant self-promotion.F. Simon Grant (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism in intro fixed
The Anchor Blue edits were plagiarism: http://www.transparencynow.com/overview/viewtable.htm Good job, Drmies.F. Simon Grant (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

good.88.230.30.66 (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

yeah.88.231.236.53 (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Stuckism
An editor added a great deal of info on Stuckism positioning it as the principle critique of Postmodernism (an idea which is unsourced and WP:OR). It is also poorly written and contains quotes with spelling errors but it's unclear if that is how the text was spelled in the original sources (and thus requiring a [sic]). This is way too much emphasis on Stuckism per WP:UNDUE and the only source provided is a blog. The editor reverted my removal of this section stating that it could be expanded with more sources. Expanding is not the answer as this is very much original research and synthesis of primary sources (interviews). I won't revert at this time to avoid a war but this really doesn't belong.  freshacconci  talk talk  19:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

2 separate points

 * Can we make the long table of magnificent exegetes 'hidden' until one clicks 'show'? Secondly, needs more pictures~! — Zujine |talk 20:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Article needs a cleanup and focus
Hello,

I'm having difficulty getting through this article. What is the purpose of the section called "Overview of ideas (see also Postmodern philosophy)"?

Shouldn't all that just be moved into the Postmodern philosophy article, and only leave a summary here? The Postmodern philosophy article is very short and barren of detail on the philosophers, IMO, while this article contains way too much philosophical stuff.

This article here should be a general, summary article, n'est pas? Kindest regards, KennethSides (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

incorrect opening statement
Postmodernism is clearly not a "philosophical movement". it is incorrect to state this as it is heinously misleading (as I am aware it is causing alot of confusion judging by the contents of 'talk'.. It is a concept that encompasses a wide range of ideals and practices. And postmodernism is not philosophy. If anything, it incorporates a number of philosophies and critical methods that can be considered 'postmodern', the most obvious of note are feminism and post-structuralism. Put another way, postmodernism is not a method of doing philosophy although postmodernism could be regarded as a way of thinking about something but does not constitute a philosophy. It would be more helpful to begin as simply a concept, movement or an era that encompasses a range of ideals and practices. Pgtimms (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgtimms (talk • contribs) 21:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Pgtimms (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Further to this I have re-written most the introduction for clarification. This should make more sense when someone is attempting to understand the main body of the text Pgtimms (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the need to be accurate when speaking of such an abstract concept. However, vagueness and redundancy seem to accomplish the opposite. Postmodernism being "not a philosophical movement in itself" and "not a method of doing philosophy" are inferred from its definition of being a "concept," no? Can we be more succinct here?98.155.87.113 (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem
The article "Modernism" says exactly the following: "Modernism explicitly rejects the ideology of realism ..."

The article on "Postmodernism says exactly the following: "Postmodernism describes a range of conceptual frameworks and ideologies that are defined in opposition to those commonly attributed to modernism and modernist notions of knowledge and science, such as ... realism ..."

Someone's wrong on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.201.214.79 (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the article on Modernism in art - it is true that modernist art rejected the aesthetic realism. But Modernism as a general movement did not reject epistemological realism in science which is what is meant here. I'll try and make that clearer.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It;s indicative of the utter confusion and sheer silliness of the Modernism / Postmodernism distinction. "Modernism" is persistently being confused with "the Modern era". To sugest that there is "modernist science" like there is "modernist poetry" just replicates and elaborates the confusion. There is no single modernist "general movement", so of course "it" did not reject "epistemological realism in science". Postmodernism emerges from Modernism - the network related movements, though that certainly did not in any clear sense reject epistemological realism, it is surely absurd to say that realism is a framework or ideology "attributed to modernism". Paul B (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to modernity which is more accurate. And yes the idea of epistemological realism and logical positivism are associated with modernity as an ideology - mainly by postmodernists who frequently see themselves as transcending this ideology towards a more complex kind of relativism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
Postmodernism in political science has been proposed for merging into this article since May 2009 (by someone). I relaunch this proposal here, unable to find what became of it elsewhere and convinced it will be useful. I propose that Postmodernism in political science be merged into Postmodernism. I too think that the content in the first article needs a wider context which is explained here. Hérisson de Cloche  10:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Merger discussion

 * oppose I think diversity and contradictions in articles are more representative of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 09:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - The broad context is given here and many informations would be clearer if edited together.  Hérisson de Cloche   10:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - The article is fairly under-developed and would fit into a section within the main Postmodernism article. — Zujine |talk 06:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose I think there are bigger problems here. For example, we have this article: Manifestations_of_Postmodernism, which outlines several ways in which postmodernism manifests; but the Postmodernism article does so as well. In addition, we have Postmodernism (international relations), which is basically a stub but similar to the politics article. We also have Postmodern philosophy, which overlaps a bit with this article. Then there are *lots* of others - see here:
 * I suggest we merge of Manifestations of Postmodernism as a section of the Postmodernism article, integrating literature, art, architecture, etc so it is consistent
 * Then merge Postmodernism in political science with Postmodernism (international relations), renaming as Postmodernism (political science); and having Postmodernism (international relations) redirect to a section of the article.
 * The postmodernism article would remain a general survey of the topic, with a short summary-style description of any sub articles (like those on music, politics, philosophy, etc.), and then link out to thus sub-articles as necessary. --KarlB (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Karl brown on the broader issues, and agree with his solution. That would be to fold many of those smaller articles (not just PoMo in PolSci) into the Manifestations article, then have a section in this main article about that. We don't need half a dozen small scrappy articles. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks but I think my proposed solution is different than what you stated. I wanted to merge manifestations into the main PoMo article (since some manifestations are already there); combine it into a cohesive section; but keep it summary style, letting the existing scrappy articles remain, or at least judging them independently. I've clarified the wording above - sorry about that. --KarlB (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. Well my perspective is toward cleanliness and consolidation, and that stubs, if they can be, should be folded into their mother articles. So I've just given a different proposal to Karl brown's, which probably doesn't help anyone. The people who edit this area the most actively should have a disproportionate say in the final decision. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Manifestations of Postmodernism Keep as separate articles, with summary in Manifestations of Postmodernism --KarlB (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've struck my suggestion for the merge above. Instead, I propose the following:
 * Keep two articles - Postmodernism and Manifestations of Postmodernism (or at a better name). Postmodernism will talk about the philosophers, the literature, the term, its general impact, with a few examples, etc. Manifestations of PoMo will be the summary-style article, that is broken into sections detailing all of the different manifestations. I've catalogued them here, with my recommendations:
 * Postmodern career counselling
 * Postmodern vertigo
 * Postmodern law
 * Postmodern psychology
 * Postmodern spirituality
 * Postmodern career counselling
 * Postmodern Reformation (dubious) - seems a bit fuzzy; perhaps should just be deleted
 * Postmodern Christianity
 * Postmodern feminism
 * Postmodern marketing
 * Postmodern picture book
 * Postmodern social construction of nature
 * Postmodernism in political science
 * Postmodernist school (rename to Postmodernism (criminology)
 * Postmodern branding (merge with Postmodern brands)
 * Postmodern architecture
 * Postmodern communication
 * Postmodern music
 * Postmodernist anthropology
 * Postmodern art
 * Postmodern dance
 * Postmodern literature
 * Postmodern philosophy
 * Postmodern religion
 * Postmodern theatre
 * Postmodernist film
 * Postmodernism in political science (merge with Postmodernism (international relations)
 * This is something I can get behind. I'd move the ones above less then 4kb into the merge category though, rather than leave them as floating stubs. But that's just me. I support the proposal. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I finally figured it out.
I'm a materialist, anti-humanist empiricist!

Is the reason that I cannot really understand what post-modernism is from reading this article, is that it cannot be explained? The whole idea here, is that no definitions are concrete? That every definition/opinion of what post-modernism is, is as valid as any other? So looking for a definition of something which denies any definitions as being 'correct' is a pointless exercise on my part?

Jacobitten (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be possible to explain it - so either it's because its not well written or because you're too stupid. I lean to the first option, and will consider doing something about it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe the problem does not lay in post-modernism, but rather in the definition of modernism itself. If there are multi-definitions and problems of clarity within a term, these issues are generally increased in derived terms... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 10:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It can be explained: There's nothing to it. Wjastle (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Major Issues!!
This article has major issues. It reads as though it was written by someone who was doing surface research on the subject, picking up bits and pieces here and there and stringing them together. No critic/theorist on postmodernism would turn to a dictionary definition of the word: that is freshman/sophomore level research.

There are problems with citations that do not give evidence (as with the one citing Spivak as orienting deconstruction within the post-modern). There are problems with basic rhetoric (like the sentence beginning "In contrast to modernism," which is an empty sentence seeing that modernism is nowhere defined or described. Even the modernism article (which I also have major issues with) does offer a statement that serves to create or fill out the contrast offered here.

I do not know how you can have an article about post-modernism that dates the idea through by looking at the use of the term in history. The idea of post-modernism as a critical/theoretic idea does not date back to the late 19th century. In fact, it is greatly arguable that it begins with Lyotard's _The Postmodern Condition_ -- or, at least, Lyotard offers the first coherent statement of Postmodernism. Either way, any article about postmodernism that (1) does not include _The Postmodern Condition_ and (2) does not anchor itself in that text is on its face weak and problematic. There is a huge issue in any study of postmodernism in that it is an overly broad idea: it is as though every theorist/critic on postmodernism wrote without writing out of those who wrote before them, creating each for themselves their own definitions. Lyotard's text, however, is undeniably foundational: every theorist/critic of postmodernism must address Lyotard. So must this article.

Finally, there is an unbelievably huge issue in that this article does not sufficiently distinguish postmodernism and post-structuralism, and, similarly postmodernism and modernism. There is a huge, unfootnoted discussion on post-structuralism, but there is zero tying in of post-structuralism and postmodernism: it is, essentially, assumed that the two are somehow directly related if not equatable. Perhaps they are implying that post-structuralism is a postmodern movement? That is tacitly untrue. Also, that whole section is written as though the writer has never read Derrida's _Of Grammatology_, which is the cornerstone text of post-structuralism. In fact, it reads like it was written by someone who was reading tertiary sources, explications of post-structuralism themselves written out of explications of post-structuralism. Many of the statements/phrases in the section (like "all philosophies they rejected") show a complete lack of understanding of post-structuralism (Derrida never would have used that phrase, for he was not "rejecting" philosophies, he was moving outside of them, showing the nature of their applicability to reality). Also, deconstruction is NOT a postmodern technique: that is flatly incorrect. Deconstruction is a post-structural technique. It is not surprising that there is not a single footnote.

Also, while postmodernism can be understood through post-structural theory, I would not at all say that postmodernism is the center of post-structuralism. In fact, I would say post-structuralism would critique as negative the works that are created under the idea of postmodernism (in that postmodernism is centrism). Similarly, the discussion of the arts makes show the same confusions: most people would say Becket is one of the last modernists, as with Borges. (That is, every argument I have seen trying to make them post-modernists failed, primarily through not understanding what modernism and postmodernism was). Also relatedly, there is a huge confusion as to what modernism is: in fact, what is written here screams out that the writer(s) had little understanding of what modernism is/was. To offer a simple contrast that is completely lost here: modernism is an artistic philosophy; post-modernism is a analysis of culture. They can not be easily equated.

Anyway, this is a terrifically bad article. In the least there needs to be much more warning to the reader that much of it is easily called into question as incorrect, argumentatively weak, or grossly misunderstanding of the issues at hand. A.E.M. Baumann (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review your concerns in the near future (this article is not a top priority for me). Byelf2007 (talk) July 23 2012


 * As a social theorist who engagages with post-structuralist and post-modernist thinkers, I agree with most of Baumann's objections. In particular: Heidegger, Kuhn, Derrida, and Foucault are *not* postmodernist philosophers. They do not identify as postmodernists, nor do they use 'modernity' or 'postmodernity' as analytic concepts to any significant degree. Heidegger was an existentialist, Kuhn a constructionist, Derrida and Foucault post-structuralists. Their ideas are highly influential for postmodernists, but at most they are precursors to postmodernism, not part of it. Christopher Powell (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Kuhn
Since when is Kuhn a post-modernist? His "paradigm shift" concept can exist quite comfortably without any ties to post-modernism. RFP 70.168.103.138 (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed him. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Definition
I assume this statement from the lead (apparently the definition of postmodernism) is supposed to mean something: "postmodernism is based on the position that reality is not mirrored in human understanding of it, but is rather constructed as the mind tries to understand its own personal reality." This is circular; it is describing reality in terms of reality. Perhaps the second occurrence of the word (in "personal reality") is supposed to be "personal experience" or something like that? But then, I thought that "personal reality" is what postmodernism is supposed to be about, so maybe a specific definition of "personal reality" is in order?

As a related comment, I think a description of what exactly is meant by "constructed" would also be helpful, as this isn't described anywhere in the article. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposals to contemplate
"Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles..." - from the introduction.

With all due respect, I have no idea how this concept holds any validity whatsoever. Sure, as the sentence leads on to explain, central to post-modernist ideology is the outright rejection or at least subversive questioning of the notion of universality, but how the hell can any internationally renowned scholar, let alone writer of this article attempt to claim that what they advocate is based in practical experience with "reality" and think people will take them seriously? I'm afraid that postmodernism has instead acquired a fairly obvious notoriety for transforming academia into a sometimes preposterously absurd barrage of meaningless jargon that could only justify its conceptions about the nature of reality by reference to abstract "Theory"- note the capital "T", it was Postmodernism that instigated the whole formal Critical Theory movement in the humanities, particularly literary criticism. In any case, it was my understanding that, with the formulation of Baudrillard's "Death of the Real", Derrida's methodology of Deconstruction and Lyotard's suspicion toward "metanarratives" that the very notion of reality itself was dismissed as a meaningless cultural construct, capable of being undermined only by theorectical philosophizing.

On a seperate note, I really think that Ken Wilber's all-encompassing Theory of "Integralism", as now practiced and advocated by the Integral Institute, has a compelling case to be considered as an addition to the section "Post-postmodernism". This is because it truly does offer a transcendental wisdom that does not attempt to merely reject or even transgress Postmodernism, but to realise the enlightening aspects of its teachings and thereby integrate them with the best of prior philosophical movements to elevate humanity to a state of higher consciousness about life, reality and the universe. Elliottfalzon (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC) elliottfalzon

subjective template wording
These tags are embarrassing – on reading the article, there are no "weasel words" and "shows little understanding of subject; is rhetorically fallacious and error filled" is itself unsubstantiated and reads like a POV blast from one who doesn't have much knowledge of PoMo or can't be bothered. The prose is well-developed, considered, as clear as possible and the references are good and many; the article deserves better consideration. If no-one objects I'll remove them.

Second point, Thomas Kuhn should have stayed. When someone objects, especially with just an IP address, their point needs to be better substantiated, or it's a reaction without question ("I removed him"). Like Nietzsche who was co-opted by Martin Heidegger, Kuhn was also co-opted by PoMo philosophy because he proposed an alternative to the exisitng "arboreal model" – more like the rhizome model that Deleuze developed. PoMo itself was a "paradigm shift" in philosophy and sociology. These forbears do exist comfortably in their zone and don't have to be "in the movement" as such, but can be accessed in order to usefully amplify its views. Postmodernism was all about putting forward alternative models to bring critical awareness to the status quo and stimulate change.Manytexts (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why should it have been a "reaction without question"? Nobody objected; at least one editor in the section before expressed the same opinion; and I agreed as well. As far as I know, Kuhn didn't hold most of the views which are now associated with postmodernism; but if you claim a closer familiarity to the subject I will defer to you.


 * I didn't add the "rhetorically fallacious" tag; however, I've restored the W2W tag until that issue is fixed. You might want to check the edit summary I made at the time and/or WP:W2W; I can explain further if necessary, and maybe we could work together on fixing it. The dmy template should also have stayed; see Template:Use_dmy_dates. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Photos
Seriously needs photos... ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

New essay-type edits
has added a whole bunch of content which strikes me as essay-like, not encyclopedic. Its tone is inappropriate, using first person and sounding argumentative. In addition, the citations are not up to par: titles are cited incorrectly, page numbers are missing, etc. They revert my (explained) reverts without a word of explanation. They're new, so I don't want them blocked for edit warring--but I do want this content reverted and not reinstated without significant changes. Mindy Dirt (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

you continually just delete content that is a good faith attempt to explicate some of the important historical antecedents to post modernism, your objections are not accurate in my opinion, you did not initially raise the concern about page numbers when you deleted my content that i'd spent a great deal of time and effort on. when i added the page numbers you just deleted my efforts again. your comment about the name Zuckert not having a hyphen in it makes no sense to me. i find it very rude to simply delete someone's hard work, simply because it doesn't fit your idea of "proper style." how is that acting in good faith? i'm not going to keep re-posting because it appears you've issued some sort of warning against me that could result in not being able to post again, apparently....i have withdrawn my yearly financial contributions to wikipedia (which was scheduled to be transmitted this week, glad i caught it in time!) and will no longer encourage friends or colleagues to contribute. this experience has been quite educational. thank you. Dilequeno (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I stated my objection from the beginning. I wasn't the one to make another revert to your edit. And I did not threaten anything. If you want to improve the article, you have a few pointers now. The contribution stuff, that's neither here nor there. I'm sorry, but I'm not expressing some personal opinion on style: I am, however, giving you an evaluation of encyclopedic style, which is different from "regular" academic style. Mindy Dirt (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

in fact, your objections were not at all clear to me, your messages were not displayed in full, and so all i saw were your mocking comments about me writing something for a class or something like that. i can tell you that my efforts were presented in good faith to help explicate a portion of the discussion i felt was lacking. i believe you deleted me in bad faith, because you didn't like the tone of my writing, for some reason. when i was able to read your message in full, i responded by adding the page numbers you requested, though i was confused about your comment about the hyphen in zuckert's name. i was then again deleted, even though i was trying in good faith to respond to what you'd said. you then again made a snide remark about me not speaking or responding, when in fact i wasn't aware that this page existed, for discussion, until you sent the link to me. is this really how this community wants to treat new-comers and people who are making good faith efforts to contribute and participate? by sending the message that unless you are letter perfect from the get go, you will fall victim to the choping block of someone else's ability to summarily delete what you've worked hard to present to the greater community? certainly, i have no power to change how wikipedia is set up, i can only take this as a lesson well learned: that this is not a community that rewards participation from well meaning new-comers. that this is only a forum for those who can convince the rest of the members that what they have to say is "worthwhile," and that people without the proper skills, expertise, connections, or credentials need not bother trying to express themselves or contribute to topics they consider important for everyone to be educated about. Dilequeno (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, i consider it quite ironic that this is happening in the context of a discussion of derrida and post-modernism. kinda proves his point, i suspect. Dilequeno (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. Derrida was a very careful reader. I mentioned something about "encyclopedic". Sorry I hurt your feelings. Mindy Dirt (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Can the first paragraph please explain what postmodernism is so us engineering majors ca understand its usage in a conversation. No history or biographies needed. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.6.125 (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

'Primitive'
Primitive is an outdated reference to non-state level societies, such as small scale horticulturalists and hunter-gathers. As such the term needs to be replaced, however, I cannot think of a good replacement term at this time that wouldn't be a mouthful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.52.22 (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Explanation
There doesn't seem to be a part that explains what post modernism is or how to identify it. It doesn't have any examples which could help with this. Sdmitch16 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Postmodern terminology
This category is to be deleted shortly. Please would interested editors review the current members in case any should be moved into a sibling category such as Category:Postmodern theory? – Fayenatic  L ondon 06:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism Section
I thought that for a page on an important philosophical and cultural movement the reader would be spared the argument that it 'is complex so therefore does not exist'. Do articles on Existentialism or Structuralism have criticism sections that present such base and nonsubstantive arguments? I think not. KingHiggins (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As a lay person, I could not glean from the summery here what the basic premise of the idea of post-modernism is. Th summery seems to only include information about the history of the concept. Can the article be changed to include an explanation of the idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.74.123 (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Post-structuralism?
I've done some "light" reading on the subject and I have never seen post-structuralism referred to as existing within postmodernism from any reputable source, and the only source used to reference this section is a third party wiki. I'm going to remove it for now, and also look a little closer at structuralism when I have the time, as this section also seems a bit "iffy". 47.54.207.107 (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Nihilism
Postmodernism is similar to nihilism because "incredulity towards meta-narratives" is very similar to a "disbelief in everything"; maybe this similarity should be mentioned without citations because that fact is more of common knowledge. Postmodernism would also rejects this similarity in a neither a negating nor affirming manner though. And the previous sentence and what ever other clause, etc. —User 000 name 19:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not sure that this rises to the level of saying "the sky is WP:BLUE", which we would nee to include without referencing. If the comparison is commonly made, it should be easy to find a noteworthy example of it. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Postmodern music
The music section does not mention many artists that could be considered postmodern.Boston333200 (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Portland Building?
The Portland building is hardly an iconic example of postmodernist architecture. Not only is it essentially a cube, but even its decorative elements are modular. It is transitionally postmodernist at best and is going to be quite confusing for the intended audience of this article. I intend to replace it with something much more iconic and undebatably Postmodernist: Frank Gehry's Guggenheim.

It's so undebatable, apparently, that the word "post-modern" can't be found in the article about the Guggenheim Bilbao. --Calton | Talk 03:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Postmodernism. 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/20151008211951/http://www.language-and-psychoanalysis.com/Mura%202012.pdf to https://www.language-and-psychoanalysis.com/Mura%202012.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151008211951/http://www.language-and-psychoanalysis.com/Mura%202012.pdf to https://www.language-and-psychoanalysis.com/Mura%202012.pdf

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) 18:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

What?
Of course, it is entirely appropriate, and pseudo-ironic, that so much of this article is gibbering nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.176.208 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No what's ironic, is that rational discourse can be turned to something that is in fact, as you say gibbering nonsense. The richesse is that dolts can't distinguish between rational discourse about gibbering nonsense and gibbering nonsense itself. Which is probably why this is even a thing. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Also Heidegger doesn't belong here, an early gibbering nonsense, but solidly in the continental philosophical tradition. PM is supposed to be post that as well as analytic. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It is inevitable that gibberish be spawned from a nonsensical term. The word "modern" means "relating to the present", or "contemporary". "Post-" means "later than". How can something existing in the present be "post-present" or "post-contemporary"? It can't! The day that writers adopted the oxymoronic (and moronic) term "Postmodern", with a straight face, is the day that philosophy went off the rails. Since "modern" means "of the present", the only sane usage of "Postmodernism" would be as a synonym for Futurism, but the idea that the future is something that is happening now, and receding into the past, is patently absurd. It is eternally true that the postmodern reality has not yet happened, and so any discussion about what it IS can only be gibberish.77Mike77 (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Modern in this context, as in modernism, does not mean the present. It's a specific historical moment. At the time, starting in the 19th century, it meant the present, yes, but it was about specific changes in society at that time. Postmodernism is merely a reaction to modernism, not the generic present day. Futurism means something else entirely.  freshacconci  (✉) 20:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, remember the talk page is not a forum for discussing the topic but a place to talk about the article. Whether or not you like the term, it exists.  freshacconci  (✉) 20:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I was pointing out that the label "Postmodernism" was a blunder. I wasn't discussing the topic. The article would be improved if there were more explanation. I get that there was "Modernism", but to call the next thing "Postmodernism" was silly. I suppose it could be justified along the lines of, e.g., referring to music styles that followed "New Wave" as "Post-New-Wave".77Mike77 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Paring down the "Further Reading" section
This section has grown really, really massive, which doesn't jibe with the standard set by MOS:FURTHER. Additionally, I'm concerned that such an extensive listing won't have excellent quality control. For example, I've just removed from the list Stephen Hicks' Explaining Postmodernism, which has received some pretty harsh reviews as to its neutrality and reliability:

I don't really have much familiarity with this subject, so it's hard for me to look through the list and make judgments about what's worth keeping. What would be a good way to proceed? Lord Mondegreen (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Postmodernism. 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/20051029142944/http://www.tasc.ac.uk/depart/media/staff/ls/Modules/Theory/PoMoDis.htm to http://www.tasc.ac.uk/depart/media/staff/ls/Modules/Theory/PoMoDis.htm
 * Added tag to http://acheret.co.il/en/?cmd=articles.326

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) 16:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Graphic Design Section
I made some edits/contributions to the graphic design subsection on this page. Nothing was particularly wrong but there is just more to say on this front than what was already there. Please let me know if there are any issues with these edits! --Jmm252 (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The edits seems reasonable, though the second paragraph in the section does not have any citations. Can you add a couple to support the claims there, Jmm252? --- FULBERT (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-Protection?
Is it possible that this page ought to be semi-protected from anonymous editors? Multiple edits have been made, mostly concerning Dr Jordan Peterson's perspective, which seem to mostly aim to either discredit a criticism, or in the case of the last edit on him, to vandalise. Letsgoraiding (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Some Fundamental Issues
"However, most scholars today would agree that postmodernism began to compete with modernism in the late 1950s and gained ascendancy over it in the 1960s. Since then, postmodernism has been a dominant, though not undisputed, force in art, literature, film, music, drama, architecture, history, and continental philosophy."

No, they absolutely would not. I find it very interesting that postmodernism gained ascendancy over modernism in the 1960's when the term didn't enter the philosophical lexicon until 1979. Literally, there was no 'postmodernism' in philosophy until 1979. Derrida doesn't publish his three foundational works on deconstructionism until 1967, which were in French mind you with the English versions not being published until the early 1970's. It's an extra special touch that these sentiments in the History section directly contradict the introduction. And by the way, the footnoted source doesn't even state what's claimed about it here.

" These developments—re-evaluation of the entire Western value system (love, marriage, popular culture, shift from industrial to service economy) that took place since the 1950s and 1960s, with a peak in the Social Revolution of 1968—are described with the term "postmodernity""

Really, the 1950's and 1960's? Wrong. When you click on the link for 'postmodernity' it says the shift happened in the 1980's and 1990's. And the footnote? Well let's quote it. " The postmodern discourse had its highpoint in the Western world during the 70s and 80s." Also. "In retrospect, we may consider the three decades from approximately 1965 to 1995 as the era of postmodernism." The source footnoted source directly contradicts what was claimed, based on the footnote.

Maxxx12345 (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Why isn't anyone doing something about this article? This is Wikipedia, yes?
This article needs major work done on it, it has been sabotaged by "original research"/propaganda & cryptic propaganda. If this article isn't ought to be shut down, I encourage any professional scholar to look this mess over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.63.194 (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutral point of view required
I have tagged this article with pov because this article blatantly breaks the policy of neutral point of view: while postmodernism has been strongly disputed by many philosopher, the single fact that this philosophical theory has been contested is totally lacking in the article. D.Lazard (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the tag as unnecessary -- the article has a criticism section, so it is clearly not "lacking" in critiques of postmodernism. WP:NPOV doesn't mean 50% pro/50% con, nor does it mean the kind of (alleged) balance of journalism. It's an encyclopedic article introducing the subject to readers. We aren't required to provide dissenting views (especially given WP:UNDUE) but rather we should show the range of scholarly and general reactions to postmodernism. We also don't create a false dichotomy based on a notion of "two sides". There are many sides, some complimentary, some opposite. A contrived 1:1 ratio of pro and con is not being neutral. Neutrality has nothing to do with that. It's mainly about the language used and the sources cited to support those words. Sometimes, an article will have little or no "negative" content and that's acceptable. We don't force it.


 * Instead of tagging and (essentially) running, it would be more productive (and will yield actual results) if you indicate what you feel is not neutral in the article -- what sections, what wording, etc.  freshacconci  (✉) 15:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * -- I obviously did see the talk page, as I wrote the above. It seems like you didn't see the talk page, nor have you read WP:BRD. I have no desire to engage in an edit war, but your revert was inappropriate per BRD and due to any lack of response here on the talk page. Templates in major articles are not appropriate for the most part, and tagging a whole article without being specific about the problem is unproductive.  freshacconci  (✉) 16:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The section criticism appears at the end of the article, after a very long section "Influence on arts", and not where it should be, that is after the section "Influential postmodern thinkers". Also, the critics by Chomsky and Sokal should have a place similar to that devoted to influential thinkers. The name of Sokal is not even cited, and there is only one line on his critics, which does not contain any of his arguments. Thus the non-neutral point of view is clear, and I will restore the tag. D.Lazard (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed pov tag

The argument for the tag appears to be "the single fact that this philosophical theory has been contested is totally lacking in the article" -- this is entirely not the case, as demonstrated by the substantial Criticism section, headed by a link to the Criticism of postmodernism article.

As a reader, I came to the article just now for information. Finding a POV tag immediately undermined its credibility (although, as a regular Wikipedia user, I'm personally skeptical of tags until I've looked into them). I'm just coming to grips with an understanding of postmodernism, so far have an unfavorable overall view, and from this already negatively biased perspective, I don't find a slant that seriously favors it. I want to read about the who and what, and then engage the critical view, all of which the article provides.

As an editor, I wholly agree with Freshacconci's comments above. There are numerous internal tags to work on (more citations, definitely), and anything that may be glaringly absent, adding them is the obvious remedy -- that starts with as little as a single sentence. --Tsavage (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: Added a criticism summary to the article intro, and expanded the Sokal mention in the Criticism section. --Tsavage (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)