Talk:Jacques Derrida/Archive 2

message: In the Discussion of the Derrida article, an article I find very good and neither hagiography nor demonology (graphy versus logy, get it? nyuk nyuk nyuk: we write of saints but let demons speak Pandaemonium), we read the plaint that the article should be in language, ordinary people, can understand.
Language. Ordinary people. Understanding.
The problem is that what is meant by "ordinary" is anti-philosophical. Ordinary people don't turn to philosophy for vernacular concerns, instead they turn to it, in many cases, when they have extraordinary concerns and are indeed rather repelled by the suggestion that they are ordinary.
If I merely report that Derrida believed that systems of thought were undercut by reliance on that which they thought to erase, many Americans (who have a cultural, if buried, memory of psychoanalysis which was very popular in America up until 1980) are , like, details at eleven, and tell me something I don't know. So if I use "ordinary" language, I am reporting dead ideas which don't come to life in the mind of the reader and cause him to say, hey wait a minute, that is nihilism. The report is journalism and not the writing of an encyclopedia unless the writing of an encyclopedia is journalism, that is, the narrative of the Other which by narration keeps it at arm's length.
Things only get interesting when the encyclopedia writer departs from the ordinary and asks if Derrida's views self-apply, and the counterintuitive discovery illuminated in the text is that they do.
I think you can maintain NPOV but not be boring in a philosophical article by winding up the mechanism (or the charm, as in "peace! the charm's wound up" in Macbeth) and setting it to roll across the reader's mind...while adopting a light and almost tongue-in-cheek mode (which literally interpreted undercuts speech as did Demosthenes, who spoke to the sea with pebbles in his mouth according to legend).
Almost anything is preferable to the forced and false neutrality which confuses blind inheritance of "ordinary" language (and its categories) with a NPOV.
It seems to me that Wikipedia is here navigating uncharted waters, similar today to waters to the north of Canada opened up by global warming. Its writers cannot be legislators of an old fashioned POV like Diderot, or the Encyclopedia Britannica, but neither can they claim to speak for the ordinary slob, because such a generalized category is useless today.
In fine, language is a virus from outer space, there are no ordinary people, and understanding is an active verb.
:All well and good; but I prefer to think of WP as standard prose and not playing self-referential or interrogative games. Wikis are dynamic - this is about as interesting as it needs to get. One man's point of view Charles Matthews 08:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a thorough, reliable account of who Derrida was, what he did and wrote, would be a very good thing in the first place. AFAIK the article isn't there yet (does it mention Bachelard and Derrida's formal connection as a student of his - I haven't looked recently?). I can sympathise with anyone who says 'not enough'; but given the debate, a slur-free piece of reporting is a good start. A thorough bibliography would be another part of the picture. I don't think the article has any business tackling the question of whether he lived, or even died, in vain: too soon to tell is the obvious verdict. Attacking NPOV is also not a good ploy. Attempts to write from a NPOV - even if flawed - are a hell of a lot better than not so trying, as looking round WP will surely convince one. Charles Matthews 13:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, fortunately as it seems on your account, I have not studied philosophy in any formal setting; and retain therefore some naive hope that the English language can be used to discuss a philosopher without any of these preconditions. I'd have thought that we could present an argument that philosophy or JD is sui generis, and even an argument of JD why we couldn't, and so on, if that's what we needed. In practice it is about editing a page to produce a better approximation (wikijargon wabisabi), not pretending it's all finished. Which is quite a good counter to some of the infinite regress arguments, amongst other virtues. Charles Matthews 05:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Phrases like 'unacceptable' and 'legislate the overall terms of discourse' are not, well, acceptable on a wiki. They certainly are completely out of focus with the social reality. No one 'legislates' here; the whole online world is entitled to edit as they see fit; and reference to Plato in this fashion seems to me to be fairly simple, old-fashioned intellectual snobbery. Charles Matthews 07:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm not purging anything. I had a look at the contribution posted yesterday, to Talk:Visual Basic, from the IP number used for this page also. I suddenly find myself with plenty of other things to do on the site, which seem to have priority over replying to this kind of editorialising. Just a friendly suggestion: why not log in and introduce yourself? Charles Matthews 09:11, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: You can sign and timestamp by adding four tildes. Charles Matthews 09:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: There is a WP style guide. Since we often aim at a concentric development, with the opening para saying it once, and fuller versions following, the point seems to me not to have great impact. The use of hyperlinks means that the explanation of literary theory, say, can be taken off the page. There is no particular reason why careful expository arrangement and choice of language should dumb down the discussion. Charles Matthews 17:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Language ordinary people can understand" 

message: I'm removing him from :Category:Fascist/Nazi era scholars and writers since the "Fascist/Nazi era" ended when he was not yet 15 years old. --Angr/ 08:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you misunderstand the meaning of the category. The category is for people writing about the Fascist and Nazi era rather than people writing during it. If you're not clear on this, read through the entries in that category. Buffyg 09:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you misunderstand the meaning of Derrida's work if you think he belongs in such a category.  Of course the Nazi era was relevant to his work (as it must be for any philosopher or theorist since then), but to call Derrida a scholar writing about the WWII era seems to me absurd. --csloat 10:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For my own part, I'm not sure how you get from the characterisation of Derrida as someone who has written extensively about issues of the 1930s and 1940s (with particular reference to Heidegger, de Man, and Schmitt) to saying that Derrida's writing about this era is in some sense incidental, perfunctory, or otherwise like that of any other and from there to telling me that I don't understand Derrida's work on account of a small gesture noting it. Buffyg 12:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: The section on the 1990s suggests that derrida's so-called "political turn" would have started with Specters of Marx .... Now I am one of those who believe that there was no real "turn" and that Derrida's work in the 90s and beyond has its roots in older work (certainly his nuclear war essays of the early 80s and even his "ends of man" piece in 1968), and I hesitate to start this discussion because last time I made this claim I was bitterly attacked (even though both Derrida and his best readers agree with my position on this), but I am concerned that for those who do believe in a "political turn" (or "ethical turn" as it was recently called) in the 90s, the correct "turning point" is his influential "Force de Loi" address published in the 1990 Cardozo Law Review from a symposium on "Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice" rather than "Specters of Marx".  Shall we change this?  I suppose that whole section could be rewritten. csloat (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1990s 

message: Some of the writing here is just: Date, sentence, repeat. Is not good style, and makes a poor read.Yobmod (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proseline

message: i don't know if this is feasible, but could someone seperate his bibliogphy in to sections. for exapmle, essay collections, single essays, full works... etc?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.86.127 (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: *If you prefer it might be better to pick through the article, placing fact, verify, and original research tags at appropriate points throughout; if you think this would be more helpful. 
*Also, primary source issues as discussed here: a number of cited passages contain information that is not explicitly supported in the cite. Secondary sources that cover Derrida in a manner adequate for the purposes of wikipedia exist, direct reading of primary text is not required. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read the sources on Derrida in question to actually verify that they are not explicitly supported? Can you suggest the secondary sources that cover Derrida adequately? Or is this speculation on your part?  Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: page numbers would be good for anything not demonstrated to exist in the cited the text. How many secondary sources do you need? The list seems endless, and this is just some of the books, if you want a list of papers we can sift through those also, but I take it youve have read everything written on Derrida; how else could you conclude that such writings are inadequate. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I'm aware of the lengthy body of literature on Derrida - which secondary sources, exactly, do you suggest are preferable to the primary sources used for the specific claims? Please be specific - what claims from primary sources do you find non-obvious in the primary source, and what secondary source do you find preferable for that claim?  Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't care less, simply demonstrating that reliance upon interpretations of primary sources is unjustifiable when copious reliable secondary sources are available. For an editor to say that every book or paper in print is inadequate really is an expression of utmost intellectual arrogance. This attitude does not serve the project. I have nothing more to say on the matter. Cheers Semitransgenic (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you don't actually have any evidence of primary sources that substitute for the claims made, are unwilling to discuss the issue, and are suggesting, among other things, that Derrida for Beginners, a comic book, and a mystery novel might be better sources, I have to say, I don't think you're in much of a place to tag the article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag: improve references 

message: A mention should be made of Jacques Ehrmann who was instrumental in introducing Derrida to Yale U. in 1968. See Texts about Jacques Ehrmann and  footnote in Parages on the above Wiki page ... Yumgui (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Derrida and his peers

message: I believe this article requires a lead. Is there anyone monitoring this page who could write it? I would be willing to give it a go, summarising the information that's currently in the article. I would be more confident in that attempt if I knew there was someone who could back me up, correcting anything mistaken, and making sure it was up to a good standard. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article needs a lead 

message: Obviously, in this context the word "profound" cannot be inserted without further qualificiation--add as a blockquote ref?--Artiquities (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word profound 

message: There seems to be an edit war here between SummerWithMorons and Mtevfrog. I agree with Mtevfrog that the material SummerWithMorons wants to add is badly written. I'd like to encourage both editors to discuss things here (and SummerWithMorons to not refer to Mtevfrog's reverting him as vandalism). UserVOBO (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: I think it is probably a mistake in the editing, regarding critiques of Derrida, that led to a reference to the philosopher W.V.O.Quine as a "Republican" (referencing the Republican Party of the U.S.). The footnote leads to an interesting article, but the speculation in that article that Quine must have been a "good Republican" is not enough to make me believe that Quine had any special connection to any political party. Calling Quine "conservative" also seems somewhat confusing. Even the referenced article notes that Quine's epistemology is perhaps far more radical than that of Derrida. If no one either objects, or can explain why Quine should be referred to as a "Republican," I recommend deleting the reference to Quine altogether. I'll try to look on this discussion page in a few weeks, to see if there is some more information, and maybe I will at that time delete the reference that seems inaccurate. 141.156.216.220 (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. What a stupid claim. I will definitely take it out.Grunge6910 (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a blog [ that has some supporting evidence for the claim that Quine was right-wing, together with a very cogent argument as to why Quine's political views are irrelevant. Such information, if suitably sourced, might be relevant to the Quine article but is completely irrelevant to this article.  --RichardVeryard (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But suitably sourced information may very well be relevant to the claim in this article that Quine was a conservative.Autarch (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: W.V.O.Quine as "Republican Party" Stalwart?

message: Recap of what is required in lead:
*The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.
*It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. 
From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). This is the challenge. --Artiquities  (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The IEP and Stanford articles on Derrida both have good leads. They might be used as models. Grunge6910 (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lead 

message: Here yet again another revert by Mtevfrog. This ownership behaviour is bullying new contributors and disrupting the evolution of the article.--Sum (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Mtevfrog's edit. What the lead really needs (I tagged the article for lead expansion back in March) is a substantive explication of Derrida's life and philosophical work. Adding that he was, e.g., a writer adds nothing whatsoever to our understanding of his career. "French philosopher" does quite nicely and succintly, I think. Grunge6910 (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, since it is I who has been reverted, I naturally agree with Sum. I have no problem being reverted, per se, but in this instance I also feel that Mtevfrog is reverting what is a sound enough addition. Insofar as any reasonable adds to the lead are valid at this point. As regards the point made by Grunge6910: this is not about one edit, it is about the general attitude of a user. E.g., if I were to write a lead, the only thing that I can be sure of, is that Mtevfrog will revert it, on the other hand, I am also sure that the aforementioned is unlikely to prepare a text for the lead--so how to proceed? For the record, the range of Derrida's activities was not limited to the traditional sense of philosopher--as, say, Zizek's, also--and hence broadening out the range of activites is quite reasonable. Anyway, yes, I agree that Mtevfrog appears to be carrying on  ownership behaviour --Artiquities  (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is what is most troublesome, the blanket removals. Pretentious justifications like "This simply is not the right way to introduce Derrida," are mostly ridiculous, but what really hurts the collaborative improvement of the article is recklessly removing new additions. Instead, we should be welcoming and thankful to new contributors, doing only small tweaks/formatting to their additions, if they need any; only in this way the article will capitalize over time of a multitude of contributors.--Sum (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I entirely agree with Mtevfrog's removal of the quote from the lead. UserVOBO (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Mtevfrog should justify in more detail his/her edits on the talk page, but the removed quote was not particularly helpful and was indeed misleading in that it by no means sums up Derrida's work (for one thing, it made him seem like a philosopher whose work had primarily political implications, and it wasn't much more than a randomly selected quote from an obit). See below for my links to two excellent leads from other encyclopedic entries on Derrida. Maybe in the next couple days I'll try a write-up myself. Grunge6910 (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

text: If each interested editor were to add one or two contributons to the lead we will soon get one--it might begin as a patchwork, but it will soon take shape. Add the next line, a qualification perhaps. I think this is the advice HE would have given.--Artiquities  (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

text: It's about Derrida's influence and the way in which his ideas have been used, as the discussion above clearly indicates. Kindly explain in what way, precisely, it is inappropriate. It is cited with a reliable source, and as such, should not be deleted without a clear consensus as to why it is inappropriate. Which, to date, doesn't exist. That's the way Wikipedia works, when reliable sources are provided. Feel free to make a request for comment. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if you want to add something to the article, you must ensure there's consensus in favour of the change, otherwise the material must stay out if it's removed. That's my understanding anyway. UserVOBO (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Then your understanding is incorrect. Consult the policy and guideline articles. Only additions that are unsourced may be treated in the way that you describe. DionysosProteus (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia works by consensus, which means that you don't try to make a change to an article when there's no agreement that it should be made. There's no agreement that the quotation you want to add is an improvement; I'd consider it unnecessary verbiage, since other material in the lead covers the same ground more succinctly. UserVOBO (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

text: That's not the way it works. If you want something that is sourced removed, you need to demonstrate a consensus for it, not the other way around. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Mtevfrog, I've reverted your removal of my edit. You need to explain in more detail your disagreement with additions to the lede. Grunge6910 (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again reverts by Mtevfrog 

message: It's not clear to me from the article in which language Derrida wrote. I presume it was French, but did he ever write in other languages? If you know, please add a line to the article. Thanks! --Brian Fenton (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What language did Derrida write in? 

message: This edit removed a referenced sentence arguing that it is "not really on topic." It's well known that it's a common argument among analytic philosophers to say that Derrida's work is not philosophy.--Sum (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delegitimizing Derrida and Hegel as not philospphy 

message: This statement should be checked by some kind of administrator.
Derrida is one of the most famous scholars of the modern period, and absurd claims such as this need to be checked.
(last sentence before contents...)
Um... this also probably needs checking (funny tho' it is): Derrida was a member of the *Village People*. Although his membership in Class IV, Section 1... [Recognition and Criticism, last sentence]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.200.231 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  His embarrassingly small penis has often been credited for his great intellectual drive and desire to succeed 

message: Congrats to all who've contributed to this article. I'd like to suggest some evolutions to this para, in regard to phenomenology and structure: 
"In that context, in 1959, Derrida asked the question: Must not structure have a genesis, and must not the origin, the point of genesis, be already structured, in order to be the genesis of something?[29] In other words, every structural or "synchronic" phenomenon has a history, and the structure cannot be understood without understanding its genesis.[30] At the same time, in order that there be movement, or potential, the origin cannot be some pure unity or simplicity, but must already be articulated—complex—such that from it a "diachronic" process can emerge. This originary complexity must not be understood as an original positing, but more like a default of origin, which Derrida refers to as iterability, inscription, or textuality.[31] It is this thought of originary complexity that sets Derrida's work in motion, and from which all of its terms are derived, including "deconstruction"."[32]
Although the thrust seems coherent to me, the use of synchronic and diachronic - Saussurean linguistic tools - seems inappropriate in this context. The speech of 1959 was on Husserl, as was the work of 1962 which Derrida began in 1957/8. As far as I am aware, Saussure only made an appearance in the article versions of de la Grammatologie from 1965. I'd suggest this para be re-worked to accommodate the Husserlian framework in which it is set. Any takers or objections?
Dinogaletti (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Husserl in 1959 

message: There is free equivalent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Derrida-by-Pablo-Secca.jpg made and gifted by one Wikipedia editor.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Portrait

message: I noticed that down in the references, a chunk of the footnotes (69-78) are somehow off to the right of the rest of the article so that I have to scroll to the right to view them. Maybe this is just my computer. I don't know enough about formatting these pages to fix it myself.
Hacksaw45501 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same problem with Chrome but not with Firefox.--Sum (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page formatting. 

message: Ok, so I've gone through most of the article and removed chunks of peacock wording and unsourced stuff. However there is a huge forking problem with the 'criticism' section - this should be incude where appropriate in Derrida's chronology and works sections (per NPOV). There are also a few that test WP:UNDUE (African bias) in the amount of weight given to them. These sub-sections need to eb reduced--Cailil  talk 19:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyedits, restructuring and sourcing needed 

message: In this discussion (section above, DP) has been argued otherwise, but according to Template:Criticism section, content should be moved from criticism sections and integrated into the article. But no policy/guideline mandates this, it seems to be argued only in some essays.--Sum (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the liberty of moving this into a separate section, as 'what to do about the criticism material' seems to be a different discussion to the one the IP editor raised above. Yes, I see your thinking behind it now. I don't know, but I'm assuming that the suggestion to integrate on the template is about trying to resolve conflicts by locating criticisms more firmly within a historical/biographical context (hence integrating in the main text). I suggest, though, that a separate criticism section here is quite valid and I think the norm with philosophy articles. Actually, looking more closely at the template's page, I see that it's designed for cases where a "Criticism" section is just a collection of minor details bundled together to look more substantial. I don't think this is the case here (though there are no doubt more substantial criticisms of his thought around). I don't think that anyone is proposing that the article shouldn't have a criticism section. I'm not entirely sure what it is, exactly, that is being objected to with the tag there though. Missing material, hence undue weight given to present material? Biased accounts (NPOV)? I see that the Africa bit is suspect, but the rest? I've just scanned through the archives, but can't find a discussion there. Perhaps it refers to an older version--in which case, the tag should be removed. The concerns ought to be detailed here - if I've missed them, please point me in the direction. Took a quick look through the edit history but it wasn't obvious. What do you think about forking it out to a sub-article and summarising here?  • DP •  {huh?} 21:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Material on criticism of Derrida's work

message: "opening hiw article with:" what???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The REAL Teol (talk • contribs) 23:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Recycled Borges