Talk:Deconstruction

❧

Wikipedia

Recent edits by Byelf2007

1. The article ought to explain what the X is as soon as possible. Currently in the second sentence it says "Although he avoided defining the term directly, he sought to apply..." This is background info on *how* the concept came about by the creator but not *what it is*. Having "Derrida proposed the deconstruction of all texts where..." as the second sentence works much better in this respect.

2. The lede is currently very unprofessional: "On the one hand..." and starting a paragraph with "but" are particularly bad. I think I've cleaned them up pretty well.

3. A bunch of separate sections on what deconstruction is is very weird. I think it's much better to put them under "On deconstruction".

4. "Definitions by other authors" seems unprofessional to me. I prefer "Alternative definitions".

5. "Developments after Derrida" also seems unprofessional to me. I prefer "Post-Derrida development".

6. I believe etymology sections are encouraged. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 June 2012

"DeconstructionIsm" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect DeconstructionIsm has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 1 § DeconstructionIsm until a consensus is reached. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Deconstruir,

deconstrue.what a lame mistranslation! Athanasius V (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

External linkks

Some things just grow during incremental edits and sometimes get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, was expanded to 16 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number, and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a fourth. Consensus needs to determine this. A tag indicates concerns.
However, none is needed for article promotion.
Some links may be included in WP:ELNO, or What Wikipedia is not (policy) such as WP:NOTREPOSITORY or WP:NOTGUIDE.
  • WP:ELDEAD may apply.
  • In some cases ELCITE applies: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. Others, listed below:
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
The External links guideline This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.
Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
    • Please also note:
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. Please do not add back more links without consensus. Simple solution to facilitate career maintenance tag. Move links here for discussion.
Moved links (from bottom up):

Foucault Citation in section 3.3: Différance

The citation alleged to Foucault's Madness & Civilization is incorrect, or it is at the very least obscured by the English edition cited. It's really convoluted, regarding translations, editions, and abridgments, but the version cited in this article does not include the referred to text. Here is some lackluster information on the subject: https://foucault.info/foucault-l/msg05917.html. Ultimately, this article should just cite to the essay, "My Body, This Paper, This Fire" and potentially with some added context on the discrepancies.

A lot of this information used to be in previous versions of this article (16:55, 14 August 2008 was one I found), but I did not really investigate the changes between 2008 and like 2023. I will potentially make the edit another time, but I wanted to acknowledge this before I forget about it. Adamherp (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Clarity overhaul

This topic is notorious for obvious reasons including the writing style of its originator, Derrida. But it has had obvious and wide cultural import, so its ideas are clear enough. I added a helpful Johnson quote in the first section to help get this article to encyclopedia-level clarity. Johnson's introduction to Dissemination is a great starting point. Elsewhere, she has rigorous responses to arguments that denigrate deconstruction. Geoffrey Bennington is another critic who has an obviously deep understanding of deconstruction. i will work on this effort at some point. Quiltlover1997 (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)