Talk:Deconstruction

Very poor article

This article is piecemeal, poorly written and frequently wrong, lacking structure, clarity, and coherence. It needs to be abandoned and restarted. This, of course, is not possible unless a consensus forms in favour of deleting almost all the material currently included in the article. Until that consensus forms it is not possible to begin to create a worthwhile encyclopedia entry on this topic. Mtevfrog (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is quite poor in its current form (though you don't qualify your assertion that it is "frequently wrong") but I think this reflects the genuine difficulty of communicating the subject matter. I do not believe that it should be abandoned and restarted. Shabby as the page currently is I think it is unnecessarily destructive to arbitrarily delete it when what we should be trying to do is increase the amount of good information on the page and editing out the poor material as it is replaced. Seferin (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This article definitely needs some work, I've read the first third of the article and still have no idea what exactly Deconstruction is. The opening paragraph is incredibly confusing. Maybe you guys should take a look at the Hyperrealism article, I think it does a good job explaining and defining, for what can initially be an esoteric subject. Vechs (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I read the first couple paragraphs and have no clue what Destruction is. I am college educated. 24.16.12.136 (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is that deconstructionist analysis of texts has nothing to do with science, and should be viewed as something on par with creationist analysis of the origins of life, or astrological analysis of the future events. It uses a great lot of made-up words to obscure the embarrassing truth, that it has nothing to say. Obviously, deconstructivists won't ever admit that, and will vandalize any proper description of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.70.129 (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Can one delete the comments of people like User:81.190.70.129, who have simply come here to be unpleasant? Che Gannarelli (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I just found out about this article and either I'm a freak of nature or you guys are trying to create some colossal pun. It's a fairly simple idea. The first paragraph pretty much puts it in terms anyone could understand if they cared to. Keep the article simple. Quote frequently, and CITE! Stop creating subjective comments like "he was a mentor and foil"--that's literary criticism of a historical event. It doesn't apply to an objective medium, and only seeks to further destroy the validity of the article. Just state something generic like "his opinions were supported/contradicted by the works of..." This article is about the idea that you can take any written/word item and use it as a time-capsule for humanity. You look at the basic assumptions present in the writer's mind when he wrote something: i.e. the funny use of imagery to describe technology in Fahrenheit 451 used probably because the writer didn't have better technology to insert, or was strongly influenced by surrounding forces (personal experience of profundidty, cultural norm, other writers pissing him off). Except these highlighted "forefathers" use grander ideas, like "Philosophy" and "Socialism" to try to bring themselves and perhaps others to a point of transcendence and understanding. Deconstruction is something that can only be done "in reading" if you're one of those people who does crossword puzzles all the time. It's a word study, and authors hate it. It debases the whole point of writing as an art. Call it the anti-author. Authors seek to build art out of assumptions and fads, the Deconstructionist seeks to bring everything back to the drawing board. This article demonstrates nicely the point that Wikipedia is not the world's greatest source of knowledge. It's just a site where people post what they want to. And usually the phallus wins. Stop groveling already. The later parts of the article really start to pull everything together. It is unfortunate that citation is badly needed. Please, someone from Yale try to find these guys and bring more examples to the table. The stumbling block is where strict philosophical, sociological, or scientific dogma is challenged for what it is: flawed ideas asserted by flawed human beings. Don't worry. The threads of existence aren't going to pull apart on you. E. Feldt

xkcd

http://xkcd.com/451/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.16.77 (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit storm cometh... --Shay Guy (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

..and the ban hammer ensure Its xkcd, not Xkcd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.185.66 (talk • contribs)

No no edit storm, despite that this aricle still has a "need improvement" tag, first thing that happens (after 10 edits) is a semi protection. Not good for the article, but is userly helps those who kill out the vandals. :07:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the added publicity won't hurt this article -- in fact, nearly any edit to it will have no choice but to improve it. For example, the entire "Logocentrism" section could be replaced by "PENIS PENIS PENIS LOL" and it would greatly improve the overall clarity.

To be more serious: "Describe this universe" doesn't seem to apply to this article so far. Everything is written from within the world of literary criticism. The "Criticism" section doesn't even mention Alan Sokal. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Pages referenced by xkcd in the past have often been locked or protected. I noticed this one still is not. While the comic seems to call for improving the page I am worried weather all of the reader base will see it that way f4hy (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"...I am worried weather all of the reader base..." lrn2english please.

The comic doesn't call for improving the page. The comic points at deconstructionists and laughs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.70.129 (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm an English studies grad student, and I find that strip rather true :) 80.121.49.79 (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The alt-text of the comic claims that the Wikipedia article is hard on deconstruction. (The alt-text is displayed in the properties of the image) --Cheeseball701 (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ironic that the external link to The Onion in this article has remained untouched. I thought the Wiki Community frowned on free publicity (they certainly seem to whenever xkcd is involved). Randall, you're right on the money about this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SentoDude (talk • contribs) 01:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture

The animated picture in the article lead is very distracting, and makes it hard to read the text surrounding it - I'd suggest a non-animated one would be better. --Ozhiker (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The caption of the opening picture seems to this naive reader to be some sort of parody. Perhaps it was added by a jokester? In any case, the reference to "topologically homeomorphic" is ridiculous to anyone who knows anything about mathematics. This leads me to fear that the references to Buddhism might be equally laughable, but that I do not know enough about Buddhism to notice. DWorley (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

How clueless are you? You'd have to be pretty stupid not to realize the picture was a joke. "Perhaps it was added by a jokester?" Do you really need a "perhaps"? If its not obvious to you you're a moron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.165.218 (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The insults are quite helpful, of course. DWorley brings up a valid point: does this text (recently added by a new user with a throwaway-looking name) belong in the article?

Heidegger wrote extensively on the temporal and liguistic components of existence, aspects of Socratic philosophy that were not adequately incorporated in contemporary western philosophies, and a reinterpretation of Nietzschean existentialism through an eastern (particularly Buddhist) lens.

Or is it nonsense? Is there anyone who can tell? Are there other parts of this article that are equally nonsensical? What about the completely unreferenced paragraphs under "Terminology"? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That paragraph looks legitimate - it agrees with Heidegger, anyway. God knows about the rest of the article. - Snookerfran (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this a bad time to point out that if no one can tell if specific parts of the article are nonsense, xkcd's point is rather more than proven?71.81.78.66 (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's like you guys don't even read the talk page which you are editing. The pic is clearly a reference to today's xkcd comic, which is discussed just above this topic.146.243.4.157 (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WTF

You know the edit making the page all black and nonsensical? I can't find it. Anyone know what happened and how? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume it was an unprotected template. It's fixed now. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia and the Zodiac Killer for details. —Sbp (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)