Talk:Paul de Man

message: Lots to be said.  Not a lot of information on the kind of thing most people want to know about from de Man: the wartime journalism.  I reckon a reading of "The Resistance to Theory" would be a reasonable start.  Buffyg 13:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say this is obscurantism that results in POV pushing and unsupportable inference. There is evidence. That's it, whoever said it or put it to whatever use is a distinct problem, and you end up pushing far more POV by insisting that someone pointing out this or that bit of evidence is doing to so to advocate or defend this or that cause. If I say that de Man helped out Jews shortly after penning an antisemitic literary review, which is backed up by evidence, am really I trying to advocate some cause that might be called his? If I have to include all of that here, I'd have to disagree that that implies that I am defending him, as that would be the responsible task of anyone trying to report on these matters. Conversely, if someone were to exclude such information in characterising de Man, that would not necessarily mean that such a person were "criticising" or "attacking" him, but it certainly would mean try to provide an account that would be partial in some sense that would need to be accounted for. I'd say there's a lot more POV being pushed when someone removes a reasonable characterisation of "Like the Sound of the Sea Deep Within a Shell" and claims that its form could just as easily be employed to declare Mein Kampf rehabilitated, which is plainly untrue and an exercise in the very thing to which one claims to object. If it's POV to say that someone said what they said, wikipedia's a doomed enterprise. The fact that others do not accept certain facts that are not matters of interpretation does not mean that Derrida did not say this and did not cease to restate that point throughout his career, as the matter was raised with some regularity. That being said, it's reasonable to say that articles appeared in The Nation and The National Review which made contrary insistences, even if one can readily ascertain that truth is manifestly and immediately given absurdly relativist treatment in advancing those articles. To that end I'm more than happy to make the revisions and cite the sources. Perhaps Professor Wiener might be willing to make an opportunity of this article to issue some long-overdue corrections. Buffyg 01:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: from 2004

message: As wikipedia's verifiability policy states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The point is that verifiability is not simply that someone said such and such but whether the claims that one reproduces are themselves verifiable and are untrue by implication. To be excluded from the article, one needn't evaluate the second claim, as the first suffices. Credulous treatment of sources is not NPOV, particularly where the result is to introduce claims and a tone that strongly favours a particular point of view. In particular: "Notable among those essays was Derrida's attempt to deconstruct de Man's anti-semitic writing to suggest an alternative interpretation that was not anti-semitic; that effort was derided by many critics, some suggesting that it showed how "Mein Kampf" could be rehabilitated with the same approach." As well as: "His defenders replied that secrecy was not the same as deceit." I see a lot of claims that I view as POV pushing because the attribution is imprecise and makes characterisations about the motives of the sources that are not themselves given to verifiability. I have added tags accordingly and brought the matter to the attention of the editor who made these changes. I'm away from home for another two weeks and therefore can't pull sources myself, but it is the responsibility of those who have introduced these edits to show that their claims can be verified and to present them in a genuinely neutral voice. Buffyg 03:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I disagree with the tagging, but I think the main problem with this passage is not bias but citation of sources on either side of the argument.  There werew only a few unattributed statements of opinion that seemed to me to run afoul of WP:NPOV, and so I have removed them and, provisionally, removed the NPOV tag.  Also, it would be nice if possible to cite more authoritative sources than the Wall Street Journal (hardly a literary-critical or European-history review).  -- Rbellin|Talk 04:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You lost me on NPOV in revising the claim to state that Derrida was "suggesting an alternative interpretation that was not anti-semitic", which goes so far beyond verifiability that's counterfactual POV pushing. As this requires Derrida to say the opposite of what he wrote, I don't see how the edit can pull the claim out of a nosedive. How does one can maintain NPOV by attributing any claim that offers any indication of nuance to "defenders" and the like? Buffyg 04:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If you object to that sentence, remove it.  I was trying to reword the existing sentence away from simple self-contradiction (it claimed that Derrida interpreted anti-Semitic writing as not anti-Semitic), not claiming that it adequately summarized Derrida's piece in Memoires.  And in this case, since opinions do legitimately vary (even some critics who are big fans of his "nuance" elsewhere see no room for moral ambiguity in de Man's wartime writing), the best way to proceed is not to make any absolute claims but to find specific citations to replace the (currently unacceptably weasel-worded, I agree) statements about "opponents" and "defenders."  Think of the weasel words as mere placeholders until specific citations can be found, and if that doesn't happen after a few months, we can revisit the issue of whether they should remain in the article. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough on needing to weed out the weaseling. I would not for a moment dispute that a number of people who had associated themselves with Derrida and de Man decided to contribute to the Responses volume with comments critical of de Manian deconstruction and thereafter dissociate themselves with deconstruction tout court. It would probably be useful to note that a great deal of attention has focused on de Man's reading of Rousseau's Confessions in "The Purloined Ribbon", collected as "Confession (Excuses)" in Allegories of Reading, as well as his comments on autobiographical writing in "Autobiography as De-Facement" (forgive me, but the cites are mostly from memory). Derrida had some sharper words to say about de Manian deconstruction much later (in life.after.theory, again, if memory serves) and indicated that he felt it necessary to defer elaboration and articulation of certain differences with de Man regarding deconstruction until much later, as to do so in 1986 would have been "disastrous" (again from memory) to the reception of de Man's work, which Derrida nevertheless continued to see as valuable.  Buffyg 13:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Why is it that the only statements tagged by BuffyG as requiring citations concern criticism of de Man's antisemitic writings -- nothing else in the essay?  That itself seems to be a kind of violation of NPOV.  I'm willing to add the citations-- virtually all will be either to the "Responses" volume, the Lehman book, or the special issue of Critical Inquiry -- all of which are cited in "Secondary Works" bibliography in the article, and well-known to those who followed the controversy--including, presumably, BuffyG.Jonwiener 06:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wartime writing

message: The "Territorial Solution to the Jewish Question" was the Nazi scheme to deport the European Jews to some colony, like Madagascar -- not in the hopes of their thriving or even surviving, but a step shy of genocide per se.
I've edited the article to remove the false claim that de Man "endorsed" such a program in "The Jews in Contemporary Literature."  What he actually said was this:
Furthermore, one sees that a solution of the Jewish problem that would aim at the creation of a Jewish colony isolated from Europe would not entail, for the literary life of the west, deplorable consequences.
(Martin McQuillan transl., in McQuillan, Paul de Man (Routledge 2001).
The actual statement is obnoxious enough without exaggerating it into an "endorsement" when it's no such thing.  Depending on the syntax, one could even argue that de Man concedes "deplorable consequences" for the Jews themselves, though that is a stretch. ----Andersonblog 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did de Man "endorse" a territorial solution? 

message: Specifically, do you drop the 'n'?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Critic9328 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean "the man" in American English? I think it is more like the German "man," or maybe like the last name "Mann" (as in Thomas Mann).130.132.174.35 (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the official answer:
Choor monster (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you pronounce his last name? 

message: There was an interesting article by Geoffrey Hartman on de Man at the time, I think in the New Yorker, somewhat similar to Derrida's defense.  It might be appropriate to mention it here.  Tkuvho (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geoffrey Hartman 

message: The overall tone of this article is harsh, at moments either ironical or using a literary style that evokes that of a tabloid (e.g. the comment about money vanishing like de Man himself). De Man's status as a public figure rests primarily upon a decades of scholarship that had a major impact on North American and European literay studies and philosophy. Following his death his stature lead to the discovery of wartime writings complicit with WW2 occupations to provoke a scandal, and in turn a re-investigation of his work and history. This is an important point -- the stature generated the extreme interest in his wartime writings, and while his influence in literary studies and philosophy abided, a number of re-evaluations were mapped unto his work, which sometimes altered the interpretation of his scholarship, but more often created a set of addendums that exists alongside (or independent of) his schorlarship proper. However, this article focuses largely on the scandals and controversies (much of it based on decades-old allegations, e.g. accusations of theft at Bard). For example, his private life is reduced to a series of excerpts concerning would-be scandals. The larger currents of his life and scholarship are overshadowed almost entirely by these scandals, which today have proven less significant or influential than the scholarship they commented upon. Although the scandals have a place in this article, there should be more balance.
Likewise, an entire section on "criminal history" is bracketed out, singling out, for example, issues surrounding his marriage and re-marriage. If we made a section on criminal history for every individual who somehow violated marriage laws (e.g. adultery, sodomy, bigamy) and/or had financial judgments against them, Wikipedia would look very different. 
In its current form, the entry reads like article from a tabloid. Obviously, scandal generates attention and Wikipedia is sometimes at the intersections of science and public interest -- hence, more attention to scandals, etc. Even so, the current composition of this article concentrates on scandals -- many of which remain contentious and debated, not at all settled as "criminal" or otherwise -- while neglecting the substance of the subject's life, research, etc. A substantial revision is in order.  Betweenfloors (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Followup. Most of the above concerns have since been addressed in one way or another through revisions. Betweenfloors (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Followup on the followup: Someone anonymously made some new and outrageous revisions. For example, the current conclusion reading "Now it is the rabbis who are tossing the SS into the crematoria" is really bizarre. It undermine serious criticism and discussion. I'm going to revert them for the time being.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betweenfloors (talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone and Tendentiousness

message: I think that the most significant repercussion of the de Man affair was the consequent fall in prestige suffered by Deconstruction, which then tended to be replaced by the so-called "New Historicism" and various feminist and other identity forms of academic criticism. (Not that these were necessarily an improvement, at least in making the profession attractive to outsiders and undergraduates). I don't think this was due only to de Man's purported anti-Semitism (or even the manifest a-morality of his financial and private life). Deconstructionism aroused a lot of hostility. James Sosnoski's Modern Skeletons in Postmodern Closets: A Cultural Studies Alternative (Knowledge : Disciplinarity and Beyond). 1995, notes how deconstruction was in some ways a but continuation of the New Criticism, in that it purported to be uniquely "scientific" and therefore the only possible valid "professional" academic approach to literary criticism. Sosnoski analyzes at some length the derogatory and even contemptuous language of the deconstructionist toward those who were outside their charmed circle, who were routinely stigmatized and sneered at as passé -- deluded amateurs/or philologists. Sosnoski identifies this phenomenon as a continuation of the authoritarian and totalizing attitude of the New Critics, who likewise acted as though they were supermen at the apex of intellectual evolution and were similarly scornful of their predecessors. Very interesting, if someone wants to pursue it. I will say this, de Man was indeed a close reader with an impressive knowledge of his subject. I don't believe this, at any rate, was fraudulent (so far). 173.77.12.210 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence 

message: The tag above the lede is self-explanatory, when viewed alongside the two added section tags, and the queries added in-line.  Many of the citations currently in place appear to have been written sandbox style, by an editor or editor, to remind themselves of source (rather than being complete enough to allow another to followup with the material via the source). 
In many cases, there is no way to tell what parts of what paragraphs are taken from a later indicated source—even if there is an indicated source, and if that source contains a fully specified citation (with page numbers, publisher, date of web access, etc.).
I have marked up the lede and first section to make clear how unverifiable the existing text is; in addition to noting the inline queries, ask yourself as you review, from which reference was this non-common-knowledge factual statement drawn?  In most cases, no answer is possible. One simply cannot be expected to do forensic referencing on such a text. To do so would be intellectually sloppy guesswork; the original editors must return to finish the job they began, or the whole of the blocks of unreferenced or partially referenced text are largely a wash.
Note, the "unreferenced" tag was chosen for the first section, instead of the "add references", because of the references appearing, one uses a book review (tertiary source) to provide critical biographic material, and the others are lacking critical information (such as page numbers), preventing the sources from being used to verify content. (I am willing to put in significant work to clean-up another's text, but not when, in toto, the time it would take makes the job more daunting than starting from scratch.)
Besides trying unsuccessfully to verify the information in the lede and opening section, I re-formatted the multiple appearances of Peter Brooks 2014 citation so that they would appear as a single line in the reflist, and I removed red text (broken Wiki links).
Bottom line, this article is "not ready for prime time" until significant work is done to clearly provide the actual sources of the vast troves of currently unverifiable text.  Le Prof  71.239.82.39 (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find this explanation very confusing and unhelpful. I don't think editor Le Prof understands that the article is the result of many editors with different viewpoints and levels of experience with wikipedia editing protocol, not of a single student writing a first draft. It seems to me that if an editor sincerely wanted to improve the article he or she should take one or two examples of what he /she considers errors and provide a clear example to other editors of how to correct those particular issues, rather than engaging in lengthy and self-serving ranting.  173.77.14.159 (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, some of the edits seem trivial and pointless tinkering. What is the justification, for example, for changing all the words "attempt" to "try"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.14.159 (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

text: And inserting needless and pedantic "which" everywhere. Sorry, forgot to sign above. 173.77.14.159 (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of multiple issues tag, and steps taken to date

message: I did some reformatting of these secondary sources, to further complete them (adding some, but not all publishers, publisher locations, ISBNs, and URLs), and make them consistent with one another and with other appearances of the same citations elsewhere in the article.  
At the same time, I made the editorial choice to move the list to the more modern given name-surname ordering (because the list was not presented alphabetically, so there is no need to reorder the first, and only the first name). At the same time, the year of publication was moved to the alternate position of second in order (because that was the basis of the list order I found appearing). Finally, the "inverse chronological order" was simply chosen because that was the specific ordering the list was in already (or nearly so).  
The list of primary sources should be made similar, or this list should be reordered in regular chronological order (and the section heading changed).  Le Prof.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.82.39 (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary source list minor edits