Talk:Postmodernity/Archive 1

message: The opening paragraph is not very good. I find it incomprehensible, impenetrable. The opening paragraph should be a high-level overview that most people can understand without too many facts or buzzwords; and then you have a section in the body of the article called "What is Postmodernism?", or simply "Definition", that expounds and educates the reader on the principals. If there are multiple valid definitions, they should all be layed out, instead of one all encompasing monolithic definition in the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph should provide a sentence or two on the significance and place of the term (What people use this term and why?), again, in simple high-level language that any one can understand. The opening paragraph should be a high-level summary of what will follow in the article (see the Wikipedia manual of style). It should not be a place where the term is defined, much too complicated to fit it into the introduction paragraph. Stbalbach 20:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read the Wikipedia Manual of Style? For example, "postmodernism" is mentioned 4 times in the opening paragraph, but not at all in the article body. If it's so important that it be in the introduction paragraph 4 times, why is it not mentioned at all in the article? The opening paragraph is a place to introduce the reader to what is contained in the article body. It is a progressive layer of detail. Please read the Wikipedia manual of style on how articles should be layed out. Stbalbach 21:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some other problems now I look at it more closely. It says Postmodernity is related to postmodernism (a diffrent article). Then in later sentences, it implies they are the same thing. Very confusing. I am just someone who would like to understand the history of the term, what people use it, why, it's definition, how it is typically used, and it's overall significance. If I knew these things, I would contribute to the article. Stbalbach 22:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Stbalbach's criticism of Newberry's Opening paragraph

message: :I was bold yesterday when I rewrote the introduction, but my rewrite was reverted. Maybe the rewrite wasn't perfect, but I think it was significantly better than the present one, which confuses postmodernity with postmodernism, which are two wholly different things. I replaced my original introduction, but left the other one essentially intact, though I don't think it's accurate. Note that my intro is generally NPOV, because it uses phrases such as "it is said (by critical theorists) that...", etc. COGDENtalk 23:08, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
First, your edit was not "reverted" but moved into the definition section. Second the current intro does not confuse post-modernity (which it describes as a condition) with post-modernism (which it describes as a reaction). It's POV (namely the POV of critical theory) and not introductory. Since there seems to be interest in improving this article (which is laudable), then it seems like a good time to really work on it. Post-modernity is the response or the conditions which create the response which post-modernism is the self-conscious expression of. All of the other definitions flow from this, either in their definition of what the fundamental driving condition is - late capitalism, dissemination, mass production etc - or what shapes the response to them.
I'm sure we can come up with something that is better than what is here currently.
Stirling Newberry 23:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking objectively I would appreciate it if Sterling Newberry actually read what was written. If he can't see that COGDEN stated that his edit was buried, not burned, then what hope have we that he's actually reading the edits on the main page? Martin TB 13:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: COGDEN's criticism of Newberry's Opening Statement 

message: Changes:
Removed the definition from the opening paragraph. Added some context on what the term is about. Added some headlines to break up any different usages of the term. Keept consistent spelling of the term based on article title (postmodernity versus post-modernity).
--Stbalbach 04:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: General discussion of Opening Statement

message: Stirling, excellent additions of late. I believe I understand what postmodernity is now (assuming it is correct!). I have a question. It seems postmodernity is a term, or concept, with pejorative meaning, as an expression of disfavour with the current condition -- in which case application of the term postmodernity implicity implies favour for a new period. Is it post-modernism? Or, is postmodernity the result of post-modernism? And if so, what is seen as the answer to the postmodernity condition? Stbalbach 12:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest revisions 

message: Stirling, first I want to say that I think the new first paragraph is very good, and I appreciate the way you have managed to keep some of my work in the article (I am being sincere, not sarcastic).  But there is a problem with the "sociological" section you have been working on.  I want to give you a chance to fix it yourself, because I imagine you are still working on this and I don't want to make a change you will just revert.  Here is the problem: David Harvey is not a philosopher, he is a geographer and very firmly established within the field of geography.  He shouldn't be in a section called "sociology."  I see a variety of solutions: retitle the whole section "Geography" if Harvey is the main source, or retitle it "Social Sciences" if it draws on both sociologists and geographers like Harvey, or just cut the passage about Harvey and move it to another section.  I also have a problem with the section "critical theory" because it doesn't seem to reflect the views of the main critical theorists, Horkheimer and Habermas.  Here is a suggestion for organization: put "critical theory" as a subsection of "philosophy" which would allow us to divide the philosophy into two sections, pro-postmodernist (Lyotard) and anti-postmodernist (critical theorists like Habermas).  What do you think? Slrubenstein 17:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a problem with current version 

message: I've created a  template feel free to add other important examples of postmodernism - broadly defined - in this template so that readers can gain a better understanding of the terms involved by comparing and contrasting their use over several articles. Stirling Newberry 17:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postmodernism series 

message: Moved to Postmodernity/to-merge. -- Beland 03:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placing this here for merge 

message: I removed this from the article:
:Postmodernity can be said to have gone through two relatively distinct phases: the first phase beginning in the 1950's and running through the end of the Cold War, where analog dissemination of information produced sharp limits on the width of channels, and encouraged a few authoritative media channels, and the second beginning with the explosion of cable television, internetworking and the end of the Cold War. 
The phrase "can be said" is poor style -- who has actually said this?  In its current form, the implication is that this is the view of one of the editors, that is, original research (and a violation of our policy).  If the person who has said this can be named and cited, then it should go back into the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  21:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research? 

message: One must conclude that the relationship between modernity and postmodernity is a contentious one. At one extreme, postmodernity is seen as a phase or continuation of modernism. In the alternative, postmodernity is seen as a fundamental break with modernity. If one accepts the proposition that works can be continually reclassified, the distinction is one of semantics. However, if the distinction is based upon distinct historical periods there is a clear differentiation. The works examined illustrate the debate — there is no consensus view and one must accept that all points of view are to some extent valid, although Jameson's view is preferred because although his detractors see the features of postmodernity in modernity, the predominance of certain features has clearly changed —in other words the cultural dominant in the postmodernity era is different to that of the modernisty era.
Conclusion - Somone needs to read the rules before adding huge amounts of original research personal essay POV out of proportion badly researched material to the page. Stirling Newberry  05:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see no OR nor POV there. All assertions are appropiately attributed to their sources, except for the probably uncontroversial one that the nature of postmodernity is controversial in itself. And I take a very strong objection to your choice of language, which is in flagrant violation of Wikiquette. You are welcome to edit and trim down these admittedly verbose additions, but removing them in toto is way over the top. Taragüí @ 11:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then go back and read the policies again. It is flagrant violation - including statements such as "one must conclude" which is almost a direct violation of NPOV all by itself. If this had been pasted into its own article it would have been deleted, that's how bad it is. Stirling Newberry  12:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Appeals to mysterious authority ("one must conclude") are sometimes a sign of copyvio, text pasted in verbatum. A search of a9.com (books) or copyscape.com (web) may help. --Stbalbach 15:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stirling and Stbalbach are of course correct.  "one must" and "If not" are clearly argumentative.  We should present other people's arguments and cite them, not just argue. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion 

message: This is the English Wikipedia. If there is a notable reason why a non-english entry should be included in the bibliography it should be noted (in english) in the article as to why this is  important - otherwise there is no way to "vet" the entry .. it could be a self-promo link for all we know. Also we have language links built-in to other versions of the article. -Stbalbach 20:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-english language biblio entries 

message: "Wikipedia generates noise, not knowledge. Previous encyclopedias were well-researched and contained precise information that could be trusted to be correct. Wikipedia, on the other hand, contains a large amount of errors, omissions and superfluous trivia." -unnamed critic
----
The above criticism is heard over and over again. Isn't this an example of a modern view vs. a post-modern view ? the critic (a modern person) sees "universal knowledge" and "capital-t-Truth", while wikipedians (post-modern persons) see "point of view" and "neutral point of view". 
:Please tell me if i just misunderstood the concept! :) -- ExpImptalkcon 00:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  common criticism of wikipedia as MODERN vs. POSTMODERN 

message: The opening statement states:
Postmodernity (also called post-modernity or the pejorative postmodern condition) describes the present social, cultural, and economical state, using the term of the art movement postmodernism. Postmodernity does not yet have a simple, general definition on its own account.
This seems to be a bold claim, in sociological terms it is debateable whether we are living in a post modern society.  It is unclear whether society is still modern, late modern/reflexive modern or post modern. I suggest either backing the claim with a qoute or using less deterministic language.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.232.226 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 4 May 2007
:I agree, have changed that. --FlammingoHey 10:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shaun's Criticism