User talk:Rbellin/Archive 2

Foucault

Thanks for your clean up of the Discipline and Punish section on the Foucault page and adding the Panopticon image. That section is now much better! --Panopticon 01:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ditto - that's some nice work--XmarkX 05:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! It's a very good article, and I hope to see it featured. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Cantos

Hi. Glad to see that you think the recent additions improve the article. I may add some more on the critical tradition, but the article is already so long that I'm reluctant to expand it too much. If you have the time, you might look at List of cultural references in The Cantos. Filiocht 09:05, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Lukacs

Thanks for the thanks! I think the troll is likely to be back with more anti-Lukacs NPOV. The persecution of Bibo needs to be written up, but Lukacs was very clearly under discipline during that period. Its like saying that Trotsky was responsible for the Great Purge, just because you hate Trotsky for his real failings. Fifelfoo 00:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revertion of Behavioural sciences

Give academic reasons (not personal opinion of academic boosterism) for revertion of behavioural sciences else accept with honour that your conception of the categories of sciences is not accurate. Listing appropriate categories of sciences is not academic boosterism. Besides if you think otherwise then give references and quotations from journals that state otherwise. Robin klein 05:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:List of academic disciplines. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notpolicy

There was no discussion held on this template, it was simply inserted by what's-his-name on grounds of being bold. It does have some point, because, for instance, some user has been falsely claiming Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/schools to be policy. But that doesn't necessarily mean those four templates are a good idea. Radiant_* 21:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

why are you editing my talk page? --Lantog 05:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

thank you for the advice --Lantog 05:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Newton: Nice Copy, Editorial Overreach

The "unsourced rumor" you presumptuously removed from the Newton page is no less "unsourced" than the rest of the section - as if that matters. Just because it relates to interpersonal politics does not make it less interesting or useful. Indeed, the very human foibles behind the "technical" decisions are illuminating and part of our shared history. The elliptical style is intended to preserve people's feelings and reputations; the actual event was more closely perceived by the author and, yes, names could be named. I wonder what gives you such authoritative editorial command over events you were not close to? Or were you?

I'll leave it to you to replace the knowledge you saw fit to obliterate. But thanks for the good copy pass.

(message left by anonymous user at IP 4.65.147.115, presumably in reference to this edit)

I appreciate that you contributed what I found an interesting story, and possibly an insider's account, of the death of the Newton project; however, Wikipedia's policies on citation and against original research prohibit us from publishing "new" knowledge or accounts of this sort, however interesting they may be. In fact, what remains of that section still strikes me as inappropriately unsourced, as you note. I'd very much encourage anyone with such interesting inside knowledge of computing history to publish their stories through other channels, in order that Wikipedia can cite them. Apologies if this seemed "presumptuous," but then that's how Wikipedia works: we are all editors of each other's work. -- Rbellin|Talk 06:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Imagism

Thanks for your FAC vote and kind comments. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:01, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

VFD

Just letting you know about Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYP (universities) 2. If you have an opinion, please vote. —Lowellian (talk) 23:46, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/College admissions and ranking shorthands in the United States

In the discussion you wrote of the article that it seemed to you "that there's a need for it to exist in some form". It now exists, having been split in twain, in a different form. Please re-visit the discussion. Uncle G 04:44, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Obey Giant edit

I don't quite understand why you removed the Obey Giant link I put in the phenomenology article. It is relevant to the article as it is an example of it. I believe people might be interested to read about some examples or experiments in phenomenology. Please respond in some way otherwise I will revert your change in 7 days. Bubbleboys 03:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. However, I put the link in the See Also section as the Obey Giant campaign, if you can call it that, is an experiment in phenomenology. Albeit, it's up in the air how closely related phenomenology is to Obey Giant, I felt that people might be interested to know that Obey Giant was an experiment in phenomenology. I really feel that putting the link in the See Also section is a good course of action. I think I'd be pretty interested to read more on "Obey Giant", a link in the See Also section. Response? Bubbleboys 03:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the support on Restoration literature. If you want to grab any of the big sections of English literature, by all means do. Rest. lit. liked to kill me, and now Augustan literature is even more daunting for me. I'm an Augustan specialist, whereas my dissertation field was a Restoration poet, so I had a better ability to summarize an area like Restoration, about which I know some, than I do now to summarize Augustan, about which I know too much. (How on earth does Obey Giant end up in phenomenology? Never mind. "Phenomenology" is one of those terms that seems to mean everything from Hegel to Heidegger, and my head already hurts enough without trying to get that topic straight.) Geogre 18:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt

I saw the work you did with user:buffyg on Derrida, which is now a fine article and I would like to develop something similar on Arendt in the autumn and am looking for help, guidance, co-operation. My reading of her suggests that her work was centrally based upon the relationship with Heidegger, the issues raised for her about philosophy by his memebership of the Nazi Party and his Rectorship. This led to her emphasis on the 'vita activa,' her rejection of Plato and her emphasis on 'people' rather than the individual, which I see as a particularly gendered and important contribution. That summary excludes her extensive knowledge of and reference to, Greek philosophy, where I have no competence (and I haven't mentioned Kant, either, though there I feel more comfortable) and the centrality of holocaust/shoah (which term is now used?) which, inter-connecting with Heidegger, was at the centre of her life and work, demonstrated most obviously by her reporting of the trial of Eichmann. Any suggestions welcomed. Is the convention that you comment on my page or here on yours? Thanks Jeffrey Newman 06:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Just added a 'references' section on Continental Philosophy with one entry - which I found to be extremely good. Thanks for the comment on my page about Arendt - and your warning. 'Organising principles,' however, are necessary in any entry, especially philosophy and cannot be counted as 'original research.' Jeffrey Newman 14:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Dpbsmith/Boosterdampers

Take a look... what do you think? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Bread and Puppet Theater

In case you are not watching the above article, I wanted to inform you that I tagged it is needing NPOV clean up, stating my reasons on its talk page. Out of courtesy, I didn't want it hanging out there with the tag and no one knowing about it, considering the effort you have made on the article. Also, I retitled it and fixed all wikilins site-wide, again for reasons stated in my notes. Regards, paul klenk 20:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Deconstruction article comment

rbellin, I've sporadically followed the evolution of the Deconstruction article for several years-- so I know you are a major contributer. I have a minor complaint about the article--over those years there is constant mention of something along these lines....

“there is a cottage industry of writers of variably explicit sympathy or antipathy to DECONSTRUCTION as they understand it who offer what they believe are programmatic characterizations in an effort to help those reluctant to read DECONSTRUCTION texts understand it.... “

Question: How does this statement add value to the article?

Answer: I don't believe it does. Every notable subject in the human experience gets subsequent critique and very often misrepresented and misquoted. Despite Deconstruction's take on this “effect” – it is no exception and holds no special status in that regard. To demonstrate my point of unnecessary text-- imagine we substituted “communism” or “laissez faire capitalism” instead DECONSTRUCTION in quoted text above.

I think the reason why “cottage industry” type comments keep creeping into the article is because of personal biases of some recurring contributor (probably just intellectual snobbery). It has no place in the article and unnecessarily alienates readers.

Be clear I am not implying that it's you. I honestly don't have a clue. The reason I came here first is because you have shown interest in maintaining the article as I remember you from quite a long time ago. If coincidentally that it IS your doing--this is not intended as an indictment of the entire entity called “rbellin”. I'm just pointing out a single area that (I believe) needs "permanent" fixing in the article.

Aloof comments of this sort always do a disservice to any subject matter as it belittles the people that explore the concepts--or even think they do. The article should not be a critique or indictment of people that write about Deconstruction (or even a skewed perception of it). This is especially forgivable considering the subject matter and the nature of Derrida himself. What really irks me about sophomoric comments like this is that Derrida's own books are the definitive (lol) authority for his views-- not a Wikipedia article written by “cottage industry” writers.

Therefore I propose that the criticism section is adequate for describing general alternate viewpoints/complaints with regards to Deconstuction--and any references of this sort be removed from the article unless empirical academically reviewed evidence can be offered that demonstrates Deconstruction somehow has more quacks than other subjects (something the comment implies)

btw – if you feel I'm in some way inaccurate in my statements—you will need to respond here. Using the usertalk for this IP is pointless since I generally surf via multiple proxies to (somewhat) maintain my anonymity. I am not going to perform the edit myself for now-- but if it doesn't happen soon-- I will do so (only once) to figure out the culprit. (Oct 29 /2005)

Well, the best place to discuss this issue is certainly not my Talk page but Talk:Deconstruction. You're not the first reader to find fault with statements of this kind in that article, and to some extent I am sympathetic; it is true that most subjects of sufficient complexity attract their share of ill-informed commentators, and being talked nonsense about is ultimately not a special property of deconstruction. However, I think the statement may still belong in the article for the time being, for several reasons: first, it is indisputably true. Second, consensus on its truth serves a useful function in the editing process, because (and here is the reason it was probably initially included) many Wikipedia editors are all too inclined to insert dubious, nonsensical, or false claims about deconstruction -- derived from ill-informed commentators -- into the article without properly assessing them. If we can agree that deconstruction is often mischaracterized and misapprehended, then this makes it easier to work towards a better-informed article. (Further discussion should be moved to Talk:Deconstruction). -- Rbellin|Talk 18:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The point of putting my beef here is exactly as I said-- you are one of the "guardians" of this article. Perhaps this doesn't meet some subtle Wikipedia convention you perceive but I'm not interesting in making an edit that will endure for two seconds- nor wasting my time in edit wars.

However, you've made your position known and it seems we will need to dispute your "indisputable truths". You appear well read. It should prove interesting to see what peer reviewed sources you will use to garner facts for this case. The onus is clearly on you to provide this information- not me to disprove it. I will do as you ask and move this discussion to the Deconstruction article as speaking here serves no purpose now. (Nov. 7 /2005)

Take a look at Babson College...

... when you're feeling calm. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

   Thanks.  When you have some spare time, look at User:Cognition's user page! Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism

Thank you for drafting that. Recently I've been trying to tone down some of the worst excesses, and I've been finding that citing it is quite useful. I believe it really does codify a consensus view, and at least sometimes discussions over particular items have taken the form of whether or not it fits "boosterism" as defined by the guideline. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"hasn't the boosterism problem been getting steadily worse since we discussed it the first time, or is that simply my imagination?" I don't think so, but it seems to come in spurts. I have in idea there's a "September effect," i.e. there's a burst of boosterism in the Fall. Although there may also be some trolling going on.

The worst problem is contagion. Ever since someone inserted a remark about MIT placing first in the Washington Monthly rankings (!), it's now become de rigeur for boosters to mention Washington Monthly rankings.

My favorite encounter in recent days was a response to my removal of the phrase "and older than the country itself" in a sentence about Harvard that said "It was founded on September 8, 1636, by a vote of the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, making it the oldest institution of higher education in the United States and older than the country itself." An anon reinserted it with the true but irrelevant edit comment "23:52, 29 December 2005 140.247.10.150 (The Declaration of Independence was in 1776, making Harvard older than the US. See the article on the United States for more information.)" I responded with a detailed explanation on the talk page and deleted it again; so far it hasn't come back.

Oh yeah, and a few weeks ago someone breezed through adding comments to many articles, probably every one in the category, that the institution was "a member of the prestigious Association of American Universities." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Response

Rbellin, I have response to your post at Alternative school. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 17:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Continental Philosophy

revert last edit, since the phrase "Anglo-American" is key to explaining what "Continental" is defined against." What is that supposed to mean? Continental means originating from continental Europe. That has been said in the article. I don't see anglo-american as a key concept for explaining continental. I must say, I'm quite puzzled. (Kikl 19:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

Response at Talk:Continental philosophy. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

F. R. Leavis

Oh Christ, sorry about that. Thanks for fixing! Gabriel Roth 02:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Tran Duc Thao, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 05:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

deconstruction article redux

Hi Rbellin -- I'm new to wikipedia but eager to get involved. I've left comments on various talk pages about doing some work on the deconstruction article, which I know you've contributed to. Do you have any interest in doing some more work on it with my help? Maybe knocking off a few of those To-Do bullet points on the Talk page, or even, more immediately, cleaning up some of the prose for clarity? (The prose is actually fine in my opinion, but I think it can be toned down a little as many have complained about its complexity). Please let me know. Thanks. --M. Maas 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ivy League

I'm watching the article, too, and will revert inappropriate edits if you don't.

I've asked User:Jdoorjam to take a look and keep an eye on the article. I think I'm too involved in editing this article to block the anon myself. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

P. S. I noted in talk that, amusingly enough, the Harper's article actually makes a very strong and explicit statement about Penn being nonsectarian. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Tenure

If you think there are "weasel" words present, that's the wrong tag. Which in the section are "weasel" words, and why? MSTCrow 21:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply at Talk:Tenure. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

LPU

Good stuff, thanks. Pete.Hurd 18:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Deconstruction

I was just trying to add a language and when I saved part of the text was erased. It was some bug, not vandalism.

Cease putting threats on my page, thank you

Literary criticism is fundamentally gay.

Area studies

thanks for the rv on Latin America Studies. I thought about doing what you did when I was fixing the links... Guess I should have thought a bit more about it. VikÞor | Talk 18:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 19 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward Palmer (socialist), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Andrew Levine 19:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Emily Dickinson "Vandalism"?

The link added to Emily Dickinson was not vandalism - you clearly need to realise what vandalism is on Wikipedia:

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

The link is relevant, not only that, is highly appropriate since it is selected poems of Emily Dickinson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evianboy (talk • contribs)

I never claimed the link was vandalism, but it looks a lot like spam. Reply on your Talk page. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Derrida

Thanks for the qualified support about revising the Derrida entry. I beg to differ about the salvageability. Some things aren't worth salvaging. That section "Motions away from nihilism" didn't sound like anything I've ever read in any other encyclopedia (even the title was pretty crazy!)! A lot of the entry is written paragraph against paragraph or line against line in a backwards and forwards way by supporters and critics that is just silly and indefensible as an entry about an important person. Sorry if I have not replied to your comment in the right format, and for not signing my original comment on the Derrida talk page (I'm still learning). Mtevfrog 17:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

I am a freelance writer working on an article about the subculture of people who use Wikipedia the way the rest of us use MySpace. So I’m looking to interview several Wikipedia “addicts” as well as people who, while they don’t consider themselves addicted, do spend a good amount of time on the site editing articles, patrolling for errors, seeking out false articles, fighting for changes they made to be kept in, and otherwise contributing to the site. If you are interested please email me at brianrhodges@gmail.com.

This offer is open to anybody else reading this, not just this particular user. But please, don’t come to me with if you’re hoping I’ll be exposing conspiracies or censorship issues amongst the wikipedia higher-ups. That’s not really what this article is about.

Thanks,

Brian68.39.158.205 22:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Undeconstructibility

My problem with your comments is that you set yourself up as some sort of neutral arbiter who is himself not subject to an imperfect understanding of deconstrution. The idea of undeconstructibility is not my own; you charged me inventing it with no justification. Scholars such as Simon Critchley, Slavoj Zizek, and John D. Caputo all agree that undecontructibility is a major theme in Derrida's work. Moreover, many academic journal articles from lesser known scholars also deal with the idea of undeconstructibility. A simple google search will confirm this. Hay4 00:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to assume, with Lucas, that I am making up this principle of undeconstructibility. Lucas' position is that Derrida was actually "deconstructing" justice. I think that is patently wrong and so would Derrida: "If anything is undeconstructable, it is justice. The law is deconstructable, fortunately: it is infinitely perfectible. I am tempted to regard justice as the best word, today, for what refuses to yield to deconstruction, that is to say for what sets deconstruction in motion, what justifies it. It is an affirmative experience of the coming of the other as other: better that this should happen than the opposite (an experience of the event that cannot be expressed simply as an ontology: that anything should exist, that there should be something rather than nothing). The openness of the future is worth more than this: that is the axiom of deconstruction--the basis on which it has always set itself in motion, and which links it, like the future itself, to otherness, to the priceless dignity of otherness, that is to say to justice. ("The Deconstruction of Actuality" in Radical Phlosophy 68, page 36)" If you are some sort of moderator, I hope that you reconsider your position that I am presenting some sort of new theory on deconstruction. Hay4 01:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hermetic vs hermitic?

Hermetic means tightly sealed or closed. Figuratively this could apply to ED's life.

Hermitic means solitary or like a hermit. To my mind this is perhaps more directly applicable.

In any event I think the characterization of 'hermitic' as a misspelling is unwarranted.

Best regards for a happy New Year.

Tex 03:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

(presumably referring to this edit) I'm fine with changing the word to something else, but it's not a misspelling of "hermitic" to be corrected, and it doesn't mean "tightly sealed." It's clearly being used in what the OED gives as the broad sense transferred from Hermes Trismegistus "...unaffected by external influences, recondite." In this sense "hermetic" is actually a fairly commonly used adjective in descriptions of Dickinson. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)