text:
John Whitelocke

John Whitelocke (1757 – 23 October 1833) was a British Army officer. He is known for leading the failed invasion of Buenos Aires and the forfeit of Montevideo to the Spanish by way of treaty.

Military career
Educated at Marlborough Grammar School and at Lewis Lochée's military academy in Chelsea, Whitelocke entered the army in 1778 and served in Jamaica and in San Domingo. He was appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Portsmouth and General Officer Commanding South-West District on 25 June 1799, commanding the garrison during the height of invasion scares in Britain. On 10 November 1804 he was made a lieutenant-general and inspector-general of recruiting, during a period of significant expansion of the British Army. In 1807 he was appointed to command an expedition to seize Buenos Aires from the Spanish Empire, which was in disarray due to events in Europe. The attack failed and the British surrendered after suffering "the lamentable loss of a great proportion of the gallant army engaged in it." Whitelocke undertook negotiations with the opposing general, Santiago de Liniers, and having decided that the British position was untenable, signed the surrender and ordered the British forces to abandon Montevideo and return home later that year.

This proceeding was regarded with great disfavour by many under his command and the British Army and public, and its author was brought before a court-martial convened at The Royal Hospital in London in 1808. According to the judge-advocate presiding over the case, Whitelocke not only failed his objective of "the reduction of the province of Buenos Ayres," but also defeated the British hopes of "discovering new markets..., of giving a wider scope to the spirit and enterprise of our merchants, of opening new sources of treasure, and new fields for exertion in supplying either the rude wants of countries emerging from barbarism, or the artificial and increasing demands of luxury and refinement, in those remote quarters of the globe." On all the charges, except one, he was found guilty and he was dismissed from the service. He lived in retirement until his death at Hall Barn Park, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire on 23 October 1833.

title: John Whitelocke


text:
Alex Herrera

Alexander José Herrera (November 5, 1979 – February 16, 2023) was a Venezuelan relief pitcher who played from 2002 to 2003 for the Cleveland Indians of Major League Baseball. Listed at 5' 11" (1.80 m), 190 lb. (86 k), Herrera batted and threw left handed.

Career
Herrera was born in Maracaibo, Zulia. He was signed by Cleveland as an amateur free agent in 1997. He started his professional career in 1998 with the Caribes de Oriente club of the Venezuelan Professional Baseball League and pitched in the Indians Minor League system from 2000 through the 2002 midseason, reaching Triple-A level with the Buffalo Bisons before joining the big team in 15 Major League games as a left-handed specialist. He allowed seven runs on 10 hits and eight walks, striking out 11 batters and did not have a decision for the Indians, while recording a 9.00 ERA in $12 1/3$ innings of work.

Following his four-year stint in the Cleveland organization, Herrera pitched from 2004 to 2006 for the Colorado Springs Sky Sox, Richmond Braves and Toledo Mud Hens, Triple-A affiliate teams of Colorado, Atlanta and Detroit, respectively. His most productive season came in 2001, when he posted a combined 7–0 record with five saves and a 1.32 ERA for A+ Kinston Indians and Double-A Akron Aeros.

Besides, Herrera has pitched in the Can-Am League, Italian League and Mexican League, as well as for several teams in the Venezuelan winter league through the present.

In addition, Herrera earned an All-Star Futures Game selection in its inaugural 2001 edition and also has appeared in numerous Caribbean Series.

In a 15-year career, Herrera has compiled a 57–54 record with a 4.09 ERA and 27 saves in 447 pitching appearances, including 877 strikeouts, 510 walks, 101 starts, two shutouts, and four complete games.

Personal life and death
Herrera died in Maracaibo on 16 February 2023, at the age of 43.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Alex Herrera


text:
Talk:Deconstruction/Archive 1

Untitled
Re: NPOV Dispute. Although I find myself agreeing with critics of D, I must also agree that this article, as written, is quite anti-D. Would the user who added the NPOV dispute like to add some text about D, or alert someone who can to do so? --- Williamv1138

I saw the article (this version), and it looked not only POV but also rather unorganized. Here are some of the thoughts I had, and what I did:
 * The term was defined in many parts of the article, partly due to the merging of previously separate two articles, and partly due to bad edits, inserting some texts without paying attention to the overall structure.
 * I tried to correct it.
 * The explanations about literary criticism existed in two different parts of the article.
 * I merged them under one section. Yet it needs edit.
 * There were two parts (early and later parts of the article) which offered the same critique essentially saying that deconstruction is difficult to understand, if not non-sense.
 * I personally wonder if that kind of critique is really that important, but at least some of Derrida's text is known to be weird, even among scholars specializing in Derrida. So I tried to preserve both criticisms, with some change in place (context in the article) and wording.
 * There was a part which said "major criticism" of deconstructionists was that they allowed only they could be excluded from receiving the deconstruction.
 * I think that is probably not major criticism, and mischaracterization. So I removed it. A closer claim is made by Habermas, that post-structuralists are in a state of perfomative contradiction (:means roughly "they are relativists, but they behave as if their relativism is absolutely true"). And including that criticism somewhere is not a bad idea, I think.
 * "Deconstructionist tenets" section looked a bit too strong and simplified characterization of deconstructionists.
 * I didn't change what's already there. I gave a different context and changed the section title. Probably this section could offer a favorable and unfavorable characterization of epistemological and other claims of deconstructionists jaxtaposed with each other.

I haven't even read the later sections seriously. But I would possibly have some opinions how it could be improved once I read them.

In any case, I am not an expert on this, so help from cooperative people would be greatly appreciated. Tomos 14:33, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Upon reading the Deconstructionism & Deconstruction in literary criticism sections of the current version, here are the my questions & opinions.
 * Is the set of claims listed as those of deconstructionist accurate and fair? I personally think it would be nice if there is an explanation of why deconstructionists believe in these points.
 * In general, the criticism article provides tends to be like "I don't understand it. It sounds just too strange and extreme." Characterization without explanation. I would try not to delete these criticisms much, since it may be the case that many think Derrida and others in that way, but I would try what I can do to give better explanations. Hopefully, criticisms of different kind, too. If someone can help on these, that would be great.
 * deconstruction is said to be "several related schools of thought" at the beginning of the literary criticism section. This statement was actually in the introductory part of the article before I edited. But there is no identifications of those several schools in the article, as I read it. And it seems "deconstructionism" is a better term for a school of thought, rather than "deconstruction."
 * There are paragraphs about deconstructionism applied to science and history. For one, that should belong to somewhere else. Also, the one which begins with "Most deconstructionists believe" seem to be a bit simplistic characterization to me.
 * Even for deconstructionists, not every interpretation is equally convincing, or not every meaning can be equally easily drawn from a given text.
 * Some deconstructionists would seriously try to be radical, extreme critics of history or science, I think. And it is not very surprising that some of the beliefs they hold are fundamentally against the whole field of history or a science. But the article seems to be characterizing deconstructionism simply as something unacceptable, rather than some potentially valid criticism. Or I may be interpreting the text only in one way and blind to other connotaitions or possible interpretations... This is a subtle point, and I would think once more before making change.
 * literary criticism section needs rearrangements of paragraphs in general. Tomos 02:01, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Re: NPOV edit: Sorry, I didn't mean it; at least I don't think I did. Do you think I meant it? Take my edits back out if you think I meant it and you are sure you have understood me correctly --- Williamv1138 A moment of clarity: The NPOV statement is a uniquely appropriate place to address what D means --- Williamv1138

 * I find your contributions to the beginning of this text-article-message-anti-message most hyberbolic, and tangential to the usual colonialist Euclidean meanings intended by other "authors". Bravo! Indeed, the very fact that other "authors" purport to be able to explain what deconstructionism is, does violence to the non-Euclidean freedom that deconstructionists should depend on, that is, if they could be said to depend on anything. The author is dead, long live the author! :) RK 02:06, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I guess I'm going to be violent to deconstructionists. So now you play the role of defending their freedom? :-) Tomos 02:12, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Re: Relation to philosophy section

Just some tentative notes on my tentative findings.

 * Is deconstruction a philosophy?
 * There are perhaps two questions. Does deconstruction have to do anything with philosophy? Is deconstruction a philosophy, or philosophical position?
 * I have just checked several philosophical encyclopedias published during the 90's. They all had entries on deconstruction. They also explained deconstruction not as a philosophy, but as a technique or method, or in something that should not be clearly formulated and formalized. (This is b/c of Derrida's such remark in Grammatology). So, yes, it is perhaps a well-recognized term in philosophy, but no, perhaps not a position.
 * But it would probably be a fair characterization that many scholars (deconstructionists) form their philosophical position based on what deconstruction as a technique implies about the nature of meaning, text, reality, power, and interpretation.
 * Do Derrida propose that reality does not exist?
 * The current version of this article does not say Derrida holds the position, but "some deconstructionists" do.
 * I'm not very sure about Derrida's position yet, but there is this famous phrase "there is nothing outside text" (il n'ya pas d'or texte). One encyclopedia entry specifically discussed the meaning of the phrase and suggested that what Derrida meant was quite different from what other people think he meant. So it may be that Derrida's position is not much anti-realist, while deconstructionists' are.

Tomos 02:12, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I just remembered that Walter Ong's Orality and literacy contained a critique of Derrida in the last chapter or so. Just a reminder to myself, and/or an invitation for other to check it out. Tomos 02:20, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So, I am a knowledgeable person in the field, and I am eager to contribute to the Wikipedia philosophy space, but I find it difficult to know where to begin, other than creating new articles and fleshing out stubs. Many existing pages seem quite slanted, and appear to be written from a passing familiarity at best with the field -- this Deconstruction page in particular is quite explicitly anti-deconstructive (and what's worse, factually incorrect in numerous places). Should I be bold and simply make the change, which might involve deleting long passages of this text? I fear this would invite flamewars in which I have no interest. What is the polite way to proceed? Rbellin 02:40, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Politeness is a worthy goal, but not so worthy as getting things right. If you think you understand the topic better than the article, then it's probably best to make your changes, and participate in the ensuing discussion. Some people around here are flamers, but a number of people at least attempt to be reasonable at least some of the time. =) See. Be bold in updating pages. --Ryguasu 05:38, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Rbellin --- I wrote some parts of this article, I acknowledge it is far from neutral. I want it to be neutral. I welcome your changes. You won't get flamed by me. Don't swing the other way, of course. The landscape of the pro/anti rhetoric about D is as much a part of describing it as describing its tenets, so keep or write some text about that controversy, and about what critics think of D. Be bold in updating pages. Williamv1138 15:12, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

-

I've undertaken a major rewrite of this article, and removed the NPOV dispute (though I expect someone belligerent may replace it until more "criticism of deconstruction" is added). I had to scrap a lot of text: the article contained very little information specific to deconstruction, and used a lot of hostile sources and "criticism" that were really about post-modernism. Some of that text might belong in another article (maybe Sokal affair, post-modernism, or some other page devoted to the "science wars"?), but none of it belonged here, since none of it discussed deconstruction specifically.

 * I strongly disagree. You are using a very limited definition of the word "deconstruction". Deconstructionist themselves make no such limitation. The criticism you want to remove do refer to what many deconstructionists refer to as deconstructionism. I think you are narrowing the field to such a narrow area that you miss most of the field! RK 15:44, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As I've explained in the article, many critics (who I assume haven't read much, or any, Derrida) conflate deconstruction with varying stripes of post-modernism, which is incorrect. I've tried to point the "criticism" paragraphs away from the usual poorly informed diatribes and toward real, substantial philosophical disagreements with deconstruction, of which there are many. (For some reason, most of the criticisms were basically about literary interpretation rather than other philosophical questions.) Other informed users will probably be able to augment these if they see a need, hopefully by beginning with actual claims made by Derrida or other deconstructive writers (quote! cite!) rather than straw men.

And before anyone leaps in to start an argument by calling me a "deconstructionist," I should note that I disagree with Derrida and deconstruction about lots of things. I'm by no means entirely pro-deconstruction. But I have read a lot of Derrida's work and I understand it. And an article about philosophy that cited newspaper articles for sources was patently subpar.

A few sentences of other text which dealt with the broadening of literary criticism into cultural studies was removed as well. This would make a good subject for articles on the history of literary criticism, literary theory, or cultural studies. Again, it didn't belong here. There wasn't much more than a stub there anyway.

Rbellin 04:04, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I thought about simply including some of the criticisms from the earlier article along with correct responses, but decided it didn't direct the article toward a better understanding of the subject. Just for fun, here are my replies. Rbellin 04:04, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * "No one can know the truth about the intentions of an author. Many deconstructionists hold that authors themselves are unconscious of their own intentions."

 * (This is the opinion of Sigmund Freud and many psychoanalytic writers, and also of the classic essay "The [Intentional Fallacy]" by the seminal New Critics Wimsatt and Beardsley. While this claim is common to psychoanalysis, the New Criticism, and deconstruction, it is not uniquely of characteristically deconstructive.  Indeed, nearly all non-biographical twentieth-century literary criticism is based on this principle, or a weaker version which holds that the author's intention is not the only, or the most interesting, goal of a text's interpretation.  Note also that the seminal essays "The Death of the Author" and "What Is an Author?", against which some of the previous Talk page's criticism appears to be directed, are by Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault respectively.  Neither thinker is associated with deconstruction.) Rbellin 04:04, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Just because non-deconstructionists hold this point of view doesn't mean anything. The question is this: What do many deconstructionist believe as a part of their program (deconstructionism), and are their mainstream criticisms of these positions that exist.  I have seen many critics of deconstructionists make these same points. RK 15:44, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * "No one can know anything about the true nature of reality. Some deconstructionists write that there is no objective reality "out there", and that reality is a social construct."

 * (This is a simplification of Immanuel Kant, who held that things-in-themselves, as separate from their phenomenal aspect, are in principle unknowable. While deconstruction is informed by Kant's work, this is not a distinguishing feature: so is all modern philosophy. Rbellin 04:04, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * You missed the point. While Kant did hold such a view, we are not talking about Kant at all. We are talking about a mainstream deconstructionit tenet, which is explicitly stated in many articles by deconstructionist authors. The fact of the matter is that there is a common criticism of this D position, which I summarized. You can't just delete this common criticism. RK 15:51, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * "No claim of knowledge is privileged; no method of learning provides authoritative information."

 * (This is an accurate paraphrase of a common deconstructive position, though it should not be mistaken for an absolute relativism. Deconstruction is often concerned with undermining claims of privileged knowledge -- the desire for which is known as logocentrism -- and indeed with scrutinizing privilege and power in all their forms.  Several of Derrida's best-known works, influential in feminist theory, associate logocentrism with patricarchal male privilege.  To describe this overlap between the search for absolute truth and the masculinist need for domination, Derrida and other authors use the word phallogocentrism.)

 * The criticism exists nonetheless; it is quite common, and should be represented in this entry. RK 15:51, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * "Language is only a system of arbitrary symbols. Books, essays, etc., all have no meaning outside of the meaning given to them by the reader."

 * (The position that language's signifying function is predominantly arbitrary is a common theme of all structuralist and post-structuralist continental philosophy, including deconstruction, and is also held by nearly all modern Chomskyan linguists. The second sentence appears to advocate a kind of reader-response criticism, which is very different from deconstructive literary interpretation.  Note that social constructivism, a version of which is compatible with deconstruction, is different from the radical subjectivism advocated here.) Rbellin 04:04, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * "A common rebuttal to all deconstructionist dogma is that deconstructionists effectively claim a privileged position for their own writings. They write letters and books which expect that readers understand their own intent, yet deny that this is possible for anyone else."

 * (In fact, reflexivity is one of the strongest points of deconstruction. Derrida's texts, though they inevitably have blind spots, are for the most part ceaselessly self-interpreting.  Often, the form of a deconstructive text and the development of its argument's content are so tightly coupled that the two are inseparable.)

 * I have no idea what this means. It doesn't appear to address the point. RK 15:51, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Deconstruction in architecture is an unrelated topic (and one well worth writing about!) Deconstructionist methods of reading a book are not really related to how an architect builds and designs apartment buildings, homes and monuments. This topic is already discussed in the article entitled Deconstructivism. That entry discusses both Deconstructivism and Deconstruction. I am thinking that perhaps the name of that architecture article is not enough for some people to find it in their Web search engines; maybe we should create Deconstruction (architecture) as an article, and turn it into a redirect to the deconstructivism article? Or maybe we should do this the other way around, and turn the Deconstructivism article into a redirect to Deconstruction (architecture). Thoughts?

Scylla (?) Charybdis
I've tried to deal with the problems regarding the "Criticisms of Deconstruction" section of the article in a new way. After several of the criticisms in this section, I've inserted short replies of the sort that a deconstructor might give. To emphasize this attempt to replace mutual recrimination with respectful dialogue, and also to give the article a more "deconstrution-friendly" feel by whimsically pointing out the unresolved tensions within the article itself, I've labeled each criticism "PROSECUTION" and each reply "DEFENSE." Hopefully the readers will be the jury. I hope this doesn't constitute a violation of NPOV, but I thought it was better to approximate NPOV by having multiple points of view explicitly present than to use NPOV as an excuse to curtail discussion. I hope nobody on either side of this debate is offended by the role in which I have cast her or him. Any thoughts?

 * Your additions are most welcome; I think they are in perfect accord with our NPOV policy. Although I do not agree much with Decon. viewpoint, I do agree that this article is the place to state it! Glad to have you on board. RK 20:15, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)~

 * As the article now stands, things look Ok. We should keep in mind the structure of how to present points and counterpoint. It could get very convoluted if we have Point, counterpoint, counter-counterpoint, counter-counter-counter-point, etc.  It looks Ok for now, but if the issue grows any further, we will need to rewrite this section in paragraph form. RK 20:15, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Because I think this issue is interesting for Wikipedia as a whole, not just a personal complaint, I want to state my opinion of the return of the "Criticisms" text that I deleted. I want to be clear: I'm not trying to start an argument (which I correctly predicted was likely before I edited the page), it's not my intention to flame, and I don't intend to re-edit the page again. I just want to air an opinion and solicit comment on it from the user community.

The text reintroduced to this page (from the fourth paragraph to the end of the Criticism section) was a major motivation for my rewrite. In my opinion, this text is factually inaccurate as well as philosophically naive. (Inaccurate because the philosophical beliefs which it attributes to "deconstructionists" are not, in fact, important ideas specific to deconstruction; naive because of the question-begging arguments it presents as "obvious" refutations.) Either of these alone would be enough to justify its removal from a philosophy encyclopedia article, to my mind. The Chomsky quotation is not a "criticism" of anything, but a famous scholar saying that he doesn't understand. (And not that he doesn't understand deconstruction, by the way. The word appears nowhere in the quotation: Chomsky is really talking about "poststructuralism and postmodernism", as he explicitly says, not deconstruction.  Again, this quotation doesn't belong in this article, because it's (a) not a real criticism and (b) not about deconstruction.)

In my opinion, a scholar reading this portion of the article would not consider Wikipedia a reliable or intelligent source. The article's point-of-view balance is improved since the new text was added, but I still consider this section subpar.

I think all the content of the deleted text is summarized more coherently, more literately, and more correctly by the first paragraph of the Criticism section that I posted (which simply calls the positions attributed to deconstruction by the deleted texts by their proper philosophical names, and then correctly points out that none of them is really a meaningful tenet of deconstruction, and that the criticisms are really about some form of postmodernism). At least one user evidently disagrees, though without providing any citations or evidence why.

The interesting thing here, as a broader topic for discussion, is that Wikipedia claims that expert and scholarly contributions are solicited. Yet in certain cases (like that of this page) I perceive an active will to ignorace among a segment of the user community: here a relatively well-informed rewrite (with citations and documentation of sources), from a newbie author who's knowledgeable about the subject, was immediately (though just partially) reverted to its previous state of ignorance. The problem, in my opinion, is that the Wikipedian motto "Write about what you know about" fails in the not-so-uncommon case that a contributor doesn't know what he or she knows and, more importantly, doesn't know about. And, as Hegel said, not everyone assumes they can be a shoemaker given leather and a last, but everyone thinks they can be a philosopher.

Furthermore, most experts and scholars, even if they decide to contribute to the Wikipedia, are not going to have the energy or inclination to engage in long discussions with non-experts defending the changes they make. Does Wikipedia have a way to deal with this problem, given that for some topics not all Wikipedians will recognize the difference between a well-informed page and an amateurish one? I know that I won't be participating in any more back-and-forth in Talk pages here, because I have other work to do.

My personal response to this is to become very wary of re-editing existing articles, even those that I know -- from my own scholarly work in the field -- to be inaccurate (or just bad). My contribution to Wikipedia in the future will probably be restricted to creating new articles, so I don't have to worry about stepping on anyone's toes.

Rbellin 01:59, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, whatever I say, you may never come back to this article. :( I think Wikipedia has its own limits, like you pointed out, but there are things you can do without being involved in the time-consuming discussion.
 * Wikipedia is based on the premise that the overall effect of having more people reading & editing an article is refinement of the article, and the premise could be wrong when a vast majority has a "wrong" understanding on the topic. Having such a premiose also means, however, that when someone claims "I am an expert on this, believe me. And please don't change what I write," (there are all kinds of people who says something like this, you know...) other people at Wikipedia can still be bold in editing. After all, Wikipedia is not based on qualifications, but mostly on peer review.
 * At the same time, though, I think there are some contributions you can make to others' articles. (And I would love to see those..)

 * Explain more sophisticated criticisms to deconstruction, prefereably by some noted critics.
 * Explain that some of the common criticisms are naive or incorrect to experts' eyes, citing some sources.
 * I am not an expert on deconstruction, but some of the criticisms in the current version of the article do seem rather naive blanket statements to me. I still think those things deserve to remain, though, to the extent they are popular. Rather than removing those stuff, adding explanations of more sophisticated criticisms would make the article better (more informative), I think. Tomos 16:02, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I removed a very biased "disclaimer" from a deconstructionist apologist. He wrote in this article "This article's discussion of deconstructive thought should be considered a gross oversimplification. Deconstruction is vulnerable to misunderstanding even when carefully and sympathetically summarized, perhaps more than other philosophy, because of its emphasis on irreducible complexity and its texts' often difficult style."

One hardly knows where to begin criticising such a claim. Is deconstructionist so much harder to understand than nuclear physics and quantum mechanics, or any other complicated topic? I highly doubt it. No other Wikipedia article has such grandiose personal disclaimers, and there is good reason for it. Secondly, most historians, literature professors and scientists are critical of deconstructionism precisely because of such disclaimers. Deconstructinist authors often make incredible statements, then publicly attack their critics as too stupid or naive to understand their real meaning. Over and over deconstructionist literature contains numerous examples of special pleading, in which deconstructionists demand the right to comment on any subject, but reject the right of anyone to examine or reject their own views. This is not NPOV. It isn't even rational. RK 00:30, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following NPOV violations. It is not acceptable on Wikipedia to promote one's personal views as fact. '''Critics of deconstruction often believe it to advocate irrationalism, absolute relativism, radical social constructivism, opposition to science or history, anti-realism, subjectivism, and/or solipsism. None of these claims is supported by a careful reading of Derrida's work (or any other eminent texts of deconstruction)....''' I think that most long-time Wikipedia contributors will understand why such grandiose claims are unacceptable and a violation of our NPOV policy.

This renoval is especially appropriate, since the vast majority of philosophers, literary scholars, historians and scientists reject deconstructionism. These people do make the above criticisms of deconstructionism, and they explain why in great detail. The above deleted statement is clearly calling all of these people too stupid to understand what they are reading. I propose that instead this article simply follow standard policy: Explain who holds point of view "A", and why; then explain who holds point of view "B", and why. RK

-

I see that any view other than outright attack on deconstruction has little hope of remaining on this page for long. Since I do not have the tenacity or the desire to engage in an argument, much less an edit war, with RK, I surrender, and will likely never re-edit the page, or any other page he seems interested in. You win, pal -- enjoy. But you're actively driving away a contributor who wants to help the Wikipedia, with a strong background in fields underrepresented here. And, for the record, I don't think this page should serve as a debate forum about mistaken claims based on cursory/poor readings of complex and lengthy texts.

 * What edit war? I made one change today, and others are free to edit this change. Please stop presenting yourself as a martyr that is under attack. You aren't.  If you took the time to read the new material, you'd note that I actually included much of your own text, often word for word, along with my own. As for the above deleted paragraphs, they were gross violations of NPOV policy, that pushed deconstructionist beliefs as indisputable fact. Such belief pushing is unacceptable in all Wikipedia articles, not just this one. RK 22:13, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I will limit myself to a few remarks en passant. First: I have read and understood several thousand pages, from at least three dozen books, on deconstruction. I have been in graduate seminars with many experts who publish books on the topic. I have what I, and a prestigious university, think is a decent background in the topic. I hate to speculate on the background of other contributors, but RK's edits certainly don't display any familiarity with the material that I can see. (I know, I'm just asserting this without documentation, and I'm honestly not trying to pull rank or justify my previous edits on this basis alone, but it puts what I'm saying about the changes in some perspective.)

 * And many Muslims, and Orthodox Jews, and Ayn Rand objectivists, each have thousands of pages of their own preferred ideology! What does this prove?  Nothing at all.  You can read a million pages of Ayn Rand's objectivists belief system...but that still won't give anyone the right to use Wikipedia as a platform to push her ideology as a fact. We have to follow our NPOV policy. The same is true of those who would push the philosophy and belief system of other points of view as factual.  We do not allow proponents of process theology to push their views as factual, no matter how many books they read and how sincere they are. We do not allow proponents of Judaism, Christianity or Islam to push their views as factual, no matter how many books they read and how sincere they are.  The same is true here.  So, to be blunt, stop your claim of special privilege. RK 22:13, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Second: As I wrote above (right near where I predicted I'd be assumed to be an "apologist," though being assumed to be "he" I couldn't have predicted!), I think (personal opinion) this page is an example of a very general failing in Wikipedia's community process (or lack of it), in which a single aggressive user is forcing ill-informed changes that worsen an article.

 * I didn't touch any of the article...except for the egregious sections in which you pushed your personal beliefs as irrefutable facts. That kind of bias and advocacy is forbidden in all Wikipedia articles. RK 22:13, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Third: A fairly large proportion of RK's assertions on the topic are factually incorrect (most egregiously "the vast majority of..." assertions above), not that I'd waste my time trying, since RK will evidently not be convinced by documentation or citation of sources.

 * That is totally untrue, and shows your total ignorance of the subject. You obviously need to do a lot more reading if you are so totally unfamiliar with the vast literature that I am repeatedly referring to. The existence of thousands of critics of deconstructionism is not controversial, except apparently in your own private little world. RK 22:13, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I will observe that no documentation for any of RK's text is apparently forthcoming (and as I noted above, the Chomsky citation is completely off-topic; it says nothing about deconstruction). Wikipedia ought have a real process to deal with this kind of problem.

 * Chomsky's quote is clearly and obviously what we are talking about. Your denial of this fact is silly.

Fourth, because I think the "disclaimer" is an interesting issue: Presumably it's obvious, at least to the non-simple-minded, that there are topics too complex to cover in adequate depth in a Wikipedia article. Presumably it's also obvious that there are ideas and arguments too subtle to summarize effectively in a short article. So what's the problem with the disclaimer (which is of a sort that's common in pedagogical introductions to all kinds of topics)? Is it that Wikipedia articles on complex or subtle subjects should all implicitly be treated as oversimplifications? That might be a bitter pill for some Wikipedia boosters to swallow. Rbellin 04:37, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Your defense of special pleading is not a valid defense. The above criticisms still stand. This article is no different than any other Wikipedia article. RK

It seems like this article needs to be deeply cut to even approach NPOV. Like about 1-2 paragraphs each side. I don't want to swing the machete though. Williamv1138 14:22, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Some critique
I just came back and have just read the article. It looks a lot better than before - when I first read it and decided to do something with it.

Here are some other, more specific comments.

 * 1) Regarding the POV stuff RK removed. I think some part of it is POV like RK suggested - namely, the claim that none of those characterizations is supported by the careful reading. But other parts, it seems, are not. The very first sentence seems to be agreed to be a fair characterization by both sides.
 * 2) In the section for differance, there is a paragraph starting with "In simple terms.." I don't think the part is in as simple as it could be. So I might try to come up with something better, if no one else does.
 * 3) Criticism regarding "author's intention." I think it is fair to say that many literary critics rely on their own way of reading the text, and that can be different from the auther's. Psychoanalysis, structuralism, marxism, feminism and perhaps some other ways to read a text would lead one to conclude that author is not fully aware of what s/he has written. There are "hidden" "alternative" and/or sometimes "true" meaning of the text revealed through these special methods. So, I think it is not good to say that vast majority of literary critics believe that author's words clarify or fix the meaning of the text.
 * 4) Regarding the same point, I think a better characterization would be something like this: deconstructionists general claim (explicit or otherwise) that text is open to many different readings, would not be applicable to all texts equally - some are not as open to revealing alternative readings as deconstructionists may claim.
 * 5) Criticism regarding "reality" I think this is weak. It ends with "this view is rejected by vast majority of..." But it seems that quite many (influential) philosophers, including Kant, Quine, reject that we can have a direct knowledge of the reality. And think about science ... one of the most popular definition of a scientific theory is that it is something falsifiable (Popper). According to that, scientists do not "prove" that reality is as described in a theory; they merely "reject" the possibility that data does not match the theory. when the mismatch does not happen, it means the theory survived the test of falsification. It does not mean the theory is "proven." So, I doubt if it is fair to say that vast majority of philosophers and scientists reject the idea that reality is unreachable.

Hope it helps. Tomos 05:10, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Tomos writes "In the section for differance, there is a paragraph starting with "In simple terms.." I don't think the part is in as simple as it could be. So I might try to come up with something better, if no one else does."

 * Sounds fine. RK

Tomos writes "Criticism regarding "author's intention." I think it is fair to say that many literary critics rely on their own way of reading the text, and that can be different from the auther's. Psychoanalysis, structuralism, marxism, feminism and perhaps some other ways to read a text would lead one to conclude that author is not fully aware of what s/he has written. There are "hidden" "alternative" and/or sometimes "true" meaning of the text revealed through these special methods. So, I think it is not good to say that vast majority of literary critics believe that author's words clarify or fix the meaning of the text."

 * Sounds fine, and worth noting! Just to clarify, I was trying to present a rebuttal to a slightly different position. Many people are claiming that the author's intention of a text literally does not exist, or can never be found or understood, and that any "reading" of a text produces an interpretation that is just as valid as the text itself...despite howls of protests from authors themselves who are usually clear in saying that their words really were intended to have a meaning. Saying that an author also could have nothave been fully aware of what they are writing, as far as I can see, is a different and lesser claim, and one much more justifiable.  In any case, I have no problem with you noting what you write above. I also have no problem with much of this article presenting a deconstructionist argument denying that any text has an intended meaning; I just want to make sure that this article also presents the point of view of people who disagree; most literary scholars accept that authors do intend for their texts to have meanings, and that such meanings (unless poorly written) are not hard to discern. RK

Tmos writes "Regarding the same point, I think a better characterization would be something like this: deconstructionists general claim (explicit or otherwise) that text is open to many different readings, would not be applicable to all texts equally - some are not as open to revealing alternative readings as deconstructionists may claim."

 * Could you expand on this point? I want to make sure I understand your position. RK

Tomos writes "Criticism regarding "reality" I think this is weak. It ends with "this view is rejected by vast majority of..." But it seems that quite many (influential) philosophers, including Kant, Quine, reject that we can have a direct knowledge of the reality. And think about science ... one of the most popular definition of a scientific theory is that it is something falsifiable (Popper). According to that, scientists do not "prove" that reality is as described in a theory; they merely "reject" the possibility that data does not match the theory. when the mismatch does not happen, it means the theory survived the test of falsification. It does not mean the theory is "proven." So, I doubt if it is fair to say that vast majority of philosophers and scientists reject the idea that reality is unreachable."

 * For scientists and historians, they do not deny that reality is unreachable. The ideas you mention are related to a different concept: They generally deny that we can precisely and exactly describe reality with total certainty and total comprehension. But they do say that we can say some things about the real world! Historians and scientists claim no omniscience, and their fields are a testament to their admission that they do not know a lot of things. Yet the core axiom of these fields is that actual historical events take place that we can learn about and describe; that actual physical events take place in this universe that we can observe and measure, and that our descriptions and measurements correlate with reality. Any position to the contrary, while popular in deconstructionist circles, is an abdication of the entire process of history and science. RK 02:24, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that most philosophers do not deny that reality exists, or that our experiences are related to reality. My admitted limited reading on this issue indicates that the problem for most of them is that they do not agree on if we can come up with a convincing, formal philosophical proof for the existence of reality outside of our minds. (Indeed, philosophy has not come up with such proofs for many things that are discussed in the field.) The reason that so many philosophers work on this issue is that they do believe that reality exists, and they believe it is fascinating that it is so hard for humans to talk about such issues. Anyway, that's my two cents. RK 02:30, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

RK, thanks for your detailed responce! I am slow, and I have just two things to write.

First, the clarification you asked regarding author's intention. What I wanted to say is that not every text is eaually easy to deconstruct. Some texts clearly seem to have a rather straightforward meaning. Other texts have apparent ambiguity and are open to many readings - some readings may be found through the act of deconstruction. So, for some texts, deconstruction may be effective to overturn the "dominant" or "privileged" reading and find alternative reading of the text. But many would think that not all texts could be effectively dealt with in that way.

Second, regarding reality issue. Now I think of it, I was confusing two things - like you suggested, many do not doubt that reality exists out there, while some deconstructionists do. Many, at least, take that idea of external, objective reality as a workable assumption, something they want to prove, etc. That's one thing. To the extent that deconstructionists refute that idea and says things like "there is nothing outside texts", many historians, scientists, and even some philosophers would disagree. Another thing is the idea of social construction versus "knowledge about reality." Deconstructionsts are often social constructivists, but I guess they are hardly alone. Not that social constructivists of that type is not criticized. Those who reject social construction would not be the majority. In short, "while many would agree that our knowledge of reality is shaped by social factors, few would join deconstructionists in regarding external objective reality as non-existent." Would that sound better than what currently is there? Tomos 07:26, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Like "differance," somebody should add information concerning such words as "ecriture", "trace", "supplement", "hymen", "pharmakon", "marge", "entame", and "parergon", etc. COGDEN 07:48, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Note at meta about this article
Someone left a note at meta about this article. I have no idea whether it's a valid concern: Dori | Talk 19:01, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * That was me (sorry, no meta account). EB's article really is comical by comparison with this one.  The last few months of intelligent edits by other users have convinced me that it is possible to work on this article again without creating hostility, so I might try to address the "method" concern  in a while if no one else takes it on.  -- Rbellin 19:19, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Glad to see you come back! Tomos 12:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

''This is an old talk page. For the current version, please go: talk:Deconstruction''

I'm going to change the title to "Deconstruction," on the grounds that (in my experience) "deconstructionism" is a description used solely by journalists or hostile critics. "Deconstruction," I believe, is the neutral term. (JRB) The Derrida/Lévi-Strauss example is interesting, but is there nothing more straightforward? I, for one, have a lot of trouble swollowing a definition of writing as communication with the intent to enslave. Are there no examples of deconstruction based on more everyday definitions, that would make more sense to the uninitiated? As for

 * Derrida was not making fun of Lévi-Strauss. He was using his deconstruction of Lévi-Strauss to question a common belief in Western culture, dating back at least to Plato: that interpersonal communication is somehow more natural and better than other forms of communication.

By "interpersonal communication" do we mean speech? Also, I doubt that "interpersonal communication" is Plato's preferred form of speech. It seems he would be more excited by, say, the sound, logical proposition. He might not gave been quite as obsessed by the proposition as Aristotle, or as modern semanticists, but I still bet expressing and conveying propositions was his favorite use of language.

We currently have this article, "Deconstruction", in addition to Deconstruction. Although there may be some disagreement about which is the best name for this area of inquiry, can we agree that we don't need to have two separate articles? If nobody objects, I'm going to merge the two. I think it will be most natural to merge "Deconstruction" into "Deconstructionism", since the latter article is longer. If there are lingering disagreements about which should be the "true" name, we can settle them after the merge. Ok? --Ryguasu 03:44 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

 * How about dividing deconstruction (as a method) and deconstructionism (as a trend/ influence in philosophy and literary criticism)?

Tomos 22:25 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

 * Merge completed. RK 12:52 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

As I remember, Heidegger is the one who coined the term. Derrida adopted and popularized. Could someone verify that point? How about this account, for example? http://www.louisville.edu/a-s/english/babo/raia/deconstruction.html Tomos 22:25 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

 * I verified about the claim with more reliable sources, and changed the article accordingly. --Tomos 04:51 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Hilary Putnam's "Irrealism and Deconstruction" is a good, quick comment on how Derrida's work relates to what I am tempted to call real philosophy. He does a sort of compare-and-contrast with Nelson Goodman.--amt --- there are lots of unfortunate code-isms in the text (August 10, 2001). I don't care enough FOR deconstruction to do the work to make them legible. -- Is there a link between desconstructionism and critical theory? I was under the impression that critical theorists use some of the methods of deconstructionism to expose that what is claimed to be objectivity contains implicit power relationships,

 * It depends on how you define "critical theory." If you use the term narrowly, to refer to the Frankfurt school (which developed and coined the term), then the answer is no.  In fact, the heir to the Frankfurt School, Jurgen Habermas, is (I think) opposed to deconstruction.  There are two key issues: first, critical theory's own claims to objectivity; second, their interest in specific forms of power that are material rather than discursive.  But if you define the term very very loosely to refer to include all sorts of post-structuralist critiques of capitalist society, there are many who draw together both "critical theory" and "deconstructionism"  SR

 * critical theory, as the term is generally understood in western academia, has been profoundly influenced by deconstruction -- I can't imagine saying anything relevant about contemporary critical theory without at least mentioning deconstruction. Also -- not sure what one could mean by "opposed" to deconstruction -- deconstruction is a method of textual analysis/interpretation, not a school of thought. In my experience, those who consider themselves EITHER "opposed to" OR "aligned with" deconstuction generally fail to make this distinction.  Carried out properly (there are, in my opinion, few but Derrida who are capable of it -- and even Derrida doesn't always succeed), the deconstruction of any text is a profoundly delicate and complex operation -- and a decent critique/interpretation must therefore also approach the operation with delicacy, sensitivity, and care.

-- Please don't use "deconstructionISM". It's a method, an activity. . . NOT a school of thought or a doctrine. The term "deconstructionism" makes no more sense than, say, "philosophISM" or "sciencISM".

 * "Deconstructionists tend to insist that the proper term is deconstruction, not deconstructionism. That is, they do not want to be treated as an ism. They hate being deconstructed." - John Ralston Saul, The Doubter's Companion
 * - Montréalais

 * In common use, deconstruction is a faddish synonym for criticism, analysis, debunking, or commentary. The usage often has a somewhat hostile tone but even that color of specific thought seems to be vanishing as the word pops up in advertising, political commentary, and movie reviews; like other verbal fashions -- "growing" a business, "reinventing" oneself -- it's all connotation, no reference.

Removed. This is not NPOV; it's unnecessarily hostile towards common usage, not only regarding "deconstruction", but also regarding the other examples mentioned. -- Ryguasu

What about deconstructionism and relativism? Particularly in history. --Ed Poor

We currently have this article, "Deconstructionism", in addition to Deconstruction. Although there may be some disagreement about which is the best name for this area of inquiry, can we agree that we don't need to have two separate articles? If nobody objects, I'm going to merge the two. I think it will be most natural to merge "Deconstruction" into "Deconstructionism", since the latter article is longer. If there are lingering disagreements about which should be the "true" name, we can settle them after the merge. Ok? --Ryguasu 03:44 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

 * It seems as though the proper name is "Deconstruction." I don't think the length of two competing/overlapping articles should choose which one is the 'mergee' and which the 'merger.'

This sentence:

 * This attempt to revive the process of thinking by violating customary ideas of relevance and coherence is what he calls deconstruction.

Makes no sense to me. What is the "process of thinking?" And when did it need to be revived? Or, as it was before, "revivified?" I can't tell if the statement could be something like "process of criticism," but unless Derrida himself said this, could we change it? Atorpen 04:48 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

There should be a section on deconstructionists and science. In recent years a number of prominent literary deconstructionist, French philosophers, and some radical feminists have written essays attacking the scientific method, science in general, as well as the entire field of mathematics and logic. These essays claim that any form of logical thinking is "colonianlist" or "masculinist", and prevents people from gaining knowledge through "other ways of knowing", including feminine intuition and mysticism. (These views are generally rejected by the majority of philosophers, and have little support in the mainstream feminist community.) Scientists hold that these claims are baseless. They point out that it is science alone that has provided information on the mysteries of the atom, the cell, the solar system, and the observable universe. It is science alone that has provided knowledge to develop thousands of technological advances in medicine, engineering, communications, computers, synthetic fabrics and beyond.

 * Some scientists do, and some scientists don't. There is much more diversity in how scientists view science than one would imagine.  Most scientists view science as having privileged point of view, but that is by no means universal, especially once you get out of physics and the "hard sciences."

 * Ironically, the fact that scientists have such diverse views on the philosophy of science and *still* managed to come up with a more or less standard view of the universe suggests that there is something objective.

They hold that no other system which claims to compete with science has ever actually succeeded in actually producing useful information about the physical world in which we live, or has produced actual technologies. Left-wing deconstructionism has led to some very bizarre claims, that have only gained in popularity in recent years. (e.g. the works of Sandra Harding, Helen Longino, and Stanley Aronowitz, among others.) They write that science is only a set of male, Western cultural conventions, and not a body of knowledge about the real world. they claim that science teaches us nothing about the world, but only exposes the belief systems of male capitalists. Obviously, these positions false, and harmful...but they exist, and they are popular in certain populations. RK 02:05 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

People who wish to write on this topic should read Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science by Gross, P. R. and N. Levitt. 1994, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. To make myself clear, I am not claiming that these radical deconstructionist views are representative of all social studies professors; note that they are usually only held by certain English majors, radical feminist, and Derrida-influences philosophy students. Some web resources follow: RK 02:05 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

A Review of Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science

Another Review of Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science

Professor Sokol's library of essays on radical deconstructionist views of science, and the famous Sokol hoax

Why I wrote it - about the Sokol hoax which debunked the deconstructionists

A Plea for Reason, Evidence and Logic

Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism

The academic left makes many gross errors when it attempts to apply deconstructionism to science. A review of their papers reveals that many in the academic left often confuse and/or conflates all of the following issues, described by physicist Alan Sokol. RK 16:19 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * 1) Ontology. What objects exist in the world? What statements about these objects are true?

 * 1) Epistemology. How can human beings obtain knowledge of truths about the world? How can they assess the reliability of that knowledge?

 * 1) Sociology of knowledge. To what extent are the truths known (or knowable) by humans in any given society influenced (or determined) by social, economic, political, cultural and ideological factors? Same question for the false statements erroneously believed to be true.

 * 1) Individual ethics. What types of research ought a scientist (or technologist) to undertake (or refuse to undertake)?

 * 1) Social ethics. What types of research ought society to encourage, subsidize or publicly fund (or alternatively to discourage, tax or forbid)?

Dr. Sokol writes:

 * For example, Harding (citing Forman 1987) points out that American research in the 1940s and 50s on quantum electronics was motivated in large part by potential military applications. True enough. Now, quantum mechanics made possible solid-state physics, which in turn made possible quantum electronics (e.g. the transistor), which made possible nearly all of modern technology (e.g. the computer). And the computer has had applications that are beneficial to society (e.g. in allowing the postmodern cultural critic to produce her articles more efficiently) as well as applications that are harmful (e.g. in allowing the U.S. military to kill human beings more efficiently). This raises a host of social and individual ethical questions: Ought society to forbid (or discourage) certain applications of computers? Forbid (or discourage) research on computers per se? Forbid (or discourage) research on quantum electronics? On solid-state physics? On quantum mechanics? And likewise for individual scientists and technologists. (Clearly, an affirmative answer to these questions becomes harder to justify as one goes down the list; but I do not want to declare any of these questions a priori illegitimate.) Likewise, sociological questions arise, for example: To what extent is our (true) knowledge of computer science, quantum electronics, solid-state physics and quantum mechanics--and our lack of knowledge about other scientific subjects, e.g. the global climate --a result of public-policy choices favoring militarism? To what extent have the erroneous theories (if any) in computer science, quantum electronics, solid-state physics and quantum mechanics been the result (in whole or in part) of social, economic, political, cultural and ideological factors, in particular the culture of militarism?

 * These are all serious questions, which deserve careful investigation adhering to the highest standards of scientific and historical evidence. But they have no effect whatsoever on the underlying scientific questions: whether atoms (and silicon crystals, transistors and computers) really do behave according to the laws of quantum mechanics (and solid-state physics, quantum electronics and computer science). The militaristic orientation of American science has quite simply no bearing whatsoever on the ontological question, and only under a wildly implausible scenario could it have any bearing on the epistemological question. (E.g. if the worldwide community of solid-state physicists, following what they believe to be the conventional standards of scientific evidence, were to hastily accept an erroneous theory of semiconductor behavior because of their enthusiasm for the breakthrough in military technology that this theory would make possible.)

 * ...(when deconstructionsist) deny that non-context-dependent assertions can be true, and you don't just throw out quantum mechanics and molecular biology: you also throw out the Nazi gas chambers, the American enslavement of Africans, and the fact that today in New York it's raining. Hobsbawm is right: facts do matter, and some facts (like the first two cited here) matter a great deal. RK 16:19 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Stanley Aronowitz, post-modern critic of science, irrationally claims "The point is that neither logic nor mathematics escapes the contamination." (Source: Aronowitz, ''Science as Power, p.326, Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1988)

Totally misunderstanding Albert Einstein's theory of relativity and the development of Quantum Mechanics, sociologist Harvie Ferguson writes the frighteningly serious claim that "The inner collapse of the bourgeois ego signalled an end to fixity and systematic structure of the bourgeois cosmos. One privileged point of observation was replaced by a complex interaction of viewpoints. The new relativistic viewpoint was not itself a product of scientific 'advances' but was part, rather, of a general cultural and social transformation which expressed itself in a variety of 'modern' movements. It was no longer conceivable that nature could be reconstructed as a logical whole. The incompleteness, indeterminacy, and arbitrariness of the subject now reappeared in the natural world. Nature, that is, like personal existence, makes itself known only in fragmented images." (Source: Ferguson, The Science of Pleasure, Routledge, 1990) In a quasi-Marxist rant, Ferguson goes onto to claim throughout his book that developments in physics are not actual knowledge gained about the real world, but rather are only ideas generated by "bourgeois consciousness".

French post-modernist Bruno Latour claims "Reality is the consequence rather than the cause of the social construction of facts."

I have temporarily removed this paragraph, only because it needs some clarification:
 * The approach within the field has been to formalize logic, construct alternate systems, and test their implications. Two sorts of tests might be mentioned: the specialized efforts to provide foundations for coherent bodies of thought like mathematics and the more common-sense examination of how a formal statement fits with what ordinary people say and do.

Could the person who wrote this please explain it? What does mean? It sounds interesting. RK

-

Removed line about strong social constructivism being rejected by virtually all scientists and historians. Change virtual all to most, there are quite a few scientists (particularly social scientists) I know that wouldn't be that averese to strong social constructivism. User:Roadrunner

 * I agree. When I write "scientist", what comes to mind is the hard sciences (Physics, biology, chemistry, geology, etc.) If we include the wider definition of the sciences (which I agree is valid) then of course you are correct. RK 21:01 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * No true scotsman....

 * Huh? This is not an example of the No-True-Scottsman fallacy. I am using a very specific definition of the word philosopher, and I am speaking about western philosophy. I have made this very clear. In contrast, you keep redefining the word "philosopher" to include pretty much anyone who uses the word "philosophy". Being a French literary critic is not what I am talking about.  Holding Buddhist and Daoist mystical and religious beliefs also is not what I am talking about. RK 15:03 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Removed "emotional". Most physicists are extremely passionate people and are very emotional about their work. There is a popular belief that emotion and passion are incompatible with objectivity and rationality, which is *not* the case with most of the physicists I know. Most of them do believe the theories that they do for emotional reasons, but those emotions are based on facts and objectivity, and the strong emotions involved actually tends to make people more open minded not less. Now that I think about it, I'm curious where this stereotype of a physicist as an objective unfeeling machine comes from. -- User:Roadrunner

 * I dunno, and I have the same question. I also want to know: where does the idea come from that scientists try to follow some mathematical-like scientific method, always in a linear fashion?  They don't, nor do they claim to. (As discussed in the article on that topic.)  This misconception causes many people to imagine they have discovered something profound (i.e. that all scientists don't always rigidly follow the method! Imagine that!) when in fact most scientists never held this position to begin with. RK 21:01 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm temporarily removing this paragraph:

 * All philosophers disagree with him, holding that Derrida totally misunderstands the very meaning of the law of excluded middle. All the law points out is that a claim cannot be simultaneously true and false at the same time. For instance, a person can be under 150 pounds, or over 150 pounds. If a person weighs less than 150 pounds, then logically one we know that this person does not weigh more than 150 pounds at the same time. One cannot simultaneously say that both claims. Such a claim would amount a logical contradiction, what in regular English philosophers literally refer to as "nonsense".

 * This statement is incorrect. The law of the excluded middle is *very* different from the law of non-contradiction.  The law of the excluded middle states that all statements must be either true or false, which is very different than saying that a statement cannot be both true and false.

There are several problems here: First, the word "all" is dangerous. There are many people who are arguably philosophers and yet who are not dead-set on the veracity and/or importance of the law of the excluded middle. This includes followers of Derrida as well as the "duality is bad" philosophical traditions of Asia.

 * Can you name even one respected philosopher who denies the law of the excluded middle? I can't. I am not talking about literature majors who consider themselves philosophers, but actually philosophers who have a degree in philosophy and work as a philosopher. I agree with you that there are many Derrida-inspired armchair philosophers who whold such a view. I am trying to point out that their views are totally rejected by mainstream philosophers, as well as mathematicians, scientists, etc. RK 12:59 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Buddhist and Taoist philosophers certainly do not hold to the law of the excluded middle. The first lines of Tao-Te-Jing kill the law of the excluded middle.  You might want to argue that Buddhist and Taoist philosophers aren't real philosophers, and I would argue that in this case you are subscribing to the no true Scotsman fallacy.  Roadrunner

 * This is incorrect. Buddhists and Taoists who have studied Westerm philosophy and who are philosophers do hold by this law of logic. All you are left with are their religious and mystical claims, and one of that has anything to do with the subject called philosophy.  Please read this carefully, because I emphatically am not using the No-True-Scottsman fallacy on you!  For some reason you don't understand that I am using a specific definition of a word: I am talking about what you call "western philosophers". yet although I have always made this clear, you end up assuming that I am speaking about the classical religious and mystical beliefs of many Asians, which you are calling "philosophy".  Isn't it clear that I am not talking about them? RK 15:30 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

(I assume there are better examples, but these are enough to show that "all" is inadequate. The phrase "Western philosophers" would be better, although still problematic. Perhaps "analytic philosophers" would be best of all?)

 * No, very bad. No school of philosophy denies the law of the excluded middle. (Derrida's deconstructionism is not considered philosophy, except of course by him and his followers.) RK 12:59 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Taoism and most Buddhist schools of philosophy denies the law of the excluded middle.

 * Again, see above. You are confused as to who I am speaking about. RK

Second, aside from philosophers, hard-nosed mathematicians have thought it worthwhile to explore logics that reject the law of the excluded middle. Law of excluded middle seems to be a starting point for further information.

 * This is in error. No mathematicians have ever proposed anything like this. You may be confusing the concept of the badly named fuzzy logic with the law of the excluded middle. They have nothing to do with each other. In fact, there is nothing "fuxxy" about fuzzy logic; fuzzy logic obeys all the laws of logic. RK 12:59 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I think you misunderstand the position of mathematicians. It's trivial to come up with a set of axioms which violate the law of the excluded middle.  The trouble with those axioms is that they are useless since you can then logically prove anything.

Third, the paragraph as I just found it in the article gave more time to a refutation of Derrida's take on the law than to his original presentation. This hardly seems fair, given that the refutation is basically "trust your common sense", whereas Derrida's take, supposing it to be coherent, is more difficult to understand. Ryguasu 00:31 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * All I did is give a one paragraph example of what the law means. It is necessary to do so, because someone not familiar with this law of logic would not be able to understand what the entire subject is about. I agree that the refutation makes Derria look stupid, but the mainstream point of view is that Derrida's argument is irrational and incoherent. RK 12:59 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

--

Just for reference, the *very first line* of the Dao De Jing is "The dao is dao, but it is not dao. A name is a name, but it is not a name."

The whole philosophical school is based on rejecting the law of the excluded middle. Unless you want to exclude Daoism and Zen Buddhism from the term philosophy, then you *can't* make the statement that all philosophers accept the law of the excluded middle. This is incidental why people who are interested in deconstructionism tend also to be interested in Eastern religion. Roadrunner

 * You are confusing two different things. I have been very clear that when I mention philosophy, I am referring to what you call "Western Philosophy". (Itself a gross misnomer.)  I am not talking about the mystical and religious beliefs of Daoists, Buddhists, Shintoists, or anyone else. If you wish to call these beliefs "philosophy", you must be extremely specific when you mention this.  Do you see why your statements are not applicable to my original statements?  You are talking about a different group, and so inadvertently refute claims that are not being made.  Look, perhaps Buddhists, Daoists and others do agree with Derrida-style deconstructionsim. (I have no idea, nor do I care.) RK 15:11 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

-

 * Philosophers (i.e. those who study the discipline sometimes referred to as western philosophy) disagree with him, holding that Derrida misunderstands the very meaning of the law of excluded middle. All the law points out is that a claim cannot be simultaneously true and false at the same time. For instance, a person can be under 150 pounds, or over 150 pounds. If a person weighs less than 150 pounds, then logically one we know that this person does not weigh more than 150 pounds at the same time. One cannot simultaneously say that both claims. Such a claim would amount a logical contradiction, what in regular English philosophers literally refer to as "nonsense".

This statement is an incorrect summary of the law of the excluded middle and confuses it with the law of non-contradiction. The law of the excluded middle says that a statement *must* be either true or false. This is different from the law of non-contradiction which says that a statement cannot *both* be true or false. In particular, the law of the excluded middle excludes the possiblity that a statement is *neither* true nor false, and its perfectly possible to create a system of logic which is allows for statements that are neither true or false.

References:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExcludedMiddleLaw.html http://www.austinlinks.com/Fuzzy/tutorial.html http://www.cs.panam.edu/fox/CSCI6175/fuzzy.ppt http://www.math.fau.edu/Richman/html/construc.htm http://www.columbia.edu/~av72/non_classical_logics/LectureNotes/Lecture_11.pdf http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~petera/Padua_Lectures/lect2.html http://www.supschool-logic.com/files/file4.pdf

My point here is that Derrida might be nutty, but he isn't nutty because he denies the law of the excluded middle. I've just given seven references to mathematicians and mathematical philosophers who also deny the universiality of the law of the excluded middle. My point is also that the summary of the law of the excluded middle in the paragraph is just wrong. Also to take up your challenge. Michael Dummett denies the law of the excluded middle. Michael Dummet on the law of the excluded middle

More on Dummet's views on this law

That's one. I can come up with about five more easily. Satisfied? Also, do a google search on the term paraconsistent. There is a very active area of research in creating logical systems that don't collapse if you have an inconsistency. Its actually useful in artificial intelligence. -Roadrunner

 * Hmm, it looks like I was conflating the law of non-contradiction with the law of the excluded middle. But it also seems as if Derrida is making the same mistake? The current version of the Wikipedia articles on this topic fails to make a clear distinction.  Would you mind taking a whack at our articles on Law of excluded middle and Law of non-contradiction?  In particular, how could we give an example showing how the these are similar, and how they are diferent. RK 20:12 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Deconstruction/Archive 1


text:
Maison de la chimie

The Maison de la Chimie ("the House of Chemistry") is an international conference center in Paris, France, located near the National Assembly.

The house is managed by a nonprofit association, La Fondation de la Maison de la Chimie. Its primary objective is to assist and help scientists and engineers working in the field of chemistry, through the organization of meetings, colloquia and conferences.

The house provides office space to various associations involved in scientific and technological fields. The headquarters of the Société Astronomique de France was located in the house from 1966 to 1974.

Halls and rooms are also rented for meetings whose topics lie outside the field of chemistry; these other usages actually represent 75% to 80% of the activity. Because of its central location in Paris, near the National Assembly and several ministries, the house is particularly sought for meetings with elected officials.

title: Maison de la chimie


text:
Larry Munson

Lawrence Harry Munson (September 28, 1922 – November 20, 2011) was an American sports announcer and talk-show host based out of the U.S. city of Athens, Georgia. He was best known for handling radio play-by-play of University of Georgia Bulldogs football games from 1966 to 2008. He also handled the play-by-play for UGA basketball and Atlanta Falcons radio broadcasts and hosted sports-related talk shows.

Early life and career
Originally from Minneapolis, Minnesota, Munson attended Roosevelt High School in Minneapolis and Minnesota State University Moorhead. While at MSUM, he played basketball as a center and guard and football as an end and tackle.

Munson served as a United States Army medic in an Army Hospital during World War II. Upon leaving the military, he spent all $200 of his mustering-out pay to enroll in a Minneapolis radio broadcasting school. His first job was at a Minneapolis arena announcing the names of boxers and wrestlers for $15 a week.

After an on-air job at the KDLR AM radio station in Devils Lake, North Dakota, Munson moved on to AM radio station KFBC in Cheyenne, Wyoming, as a sports reporter in 1946. At KFBC, Munson met and became friends with co-worker Curt Gowdy. At that time, Gowdy was also the football announcer for the Wyoming Cowboys. On January 1, 1946, Munson called the Sun Bowl between the University of Denver and the University of New Mexico for the Associated Broadcasting System. Later in 1946, Gowdy took a job in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, as the announcer for a minor league baseball team and successfully recommended Munson as his replacement for the Wyoming Cowboys job. When Gowdy became a New York Yankees announcer in 1948, he recommended Munson again to replace him in Oklahoma City. Gowdy would later become a national sportscaster for NBC and CBS.

Munson broadcast in Oklahoma until 1952 when he moved to Nashville, Tennessee, for an announcing job with the Nashville Vols minor league baseball team on AM radio station WKDA. During the baseball off-season, Munson convinced local Nashville radio station WSM (AM) to broadcast Vanderbilt Commodores men's basketball games with himself as the announcer. The basketball broadcasts were immediately successful, and WSM added Vanderbilt Commodores football games to its schedule as well with Munson as the broadcaster. Munson, along with local sportsman Herman Waddell, created a local television show about hunting and fishing called The Rod & Gun Club on NBC affiliate WSM-TV (now WSMV), a local Nashville station.

In 1966, the Atlanta Braves Major League Baseball team hired Munson as part of their first broadcast team, after moving from Milwaukee to Atlanta.

The first year the Braves were in Atlanta, the television broadcasts were on WSB-TV. An occasional guest color commentator was former major leaguer Dizzy Dean. One memorable Friday night during a rain delay, Dean warbled several verses of the Wabash Cannonball and purchased peanuts from a vendor in the stands, much to Munson's on-air amusement.

In March 1966, Munson was in West Palm Beach, Florida, for the Braves' spring training and read in the Atlanta Journal that Georgia Bulldogs football radio announcer Ed Thilenius was resigning to become a broadcaster for the new Atlanta Falcons National Football League franchise. The next day, Munson called Georgia athletics director Joel Eaves to express his interest in the Georgia job, and Munson was hired shortly thereafter. Athens radio station WRFC held the broadcast contract and was the parent station for the Georgia Bulldogs. After announcing Braves games for the first two months of the baseball season, Munson returned to Nashville in June 1966 to continue The Rod & Gun Club for Nashville's WSM-TV, and prepare for his new role with the Bulldogs. For many years after joining the University of Georgia broadcasts, Munson would make the commute to Athens, Georgia for the weekend football games from his home in Nashville so that he could continue producing The Rod & Gun Club during the week. During 1973, Munson was for a brief period news anchor for a rival Nashville TV station, WSIX-TV, now WKRN. His engineer for many years was L.H. Christian, the owner of WRFC radio, who ran the audio board out of personal interest and for fun; Christian was sometimes joined by Larry Melear or Everett Langford as engineer for the sports broadcasts. Munson continued to live in Nashville until 1978 when he moved to metro Atlanta, Georgia, after joining the Georgia Radio Network as a reporter. Munson moved to Athens in 1997. On September 22, 2008, Larry announced his retirement from being the play-by-play announcer for the University of Georgia Bulldogs.

Awards and recognition
Munson has received numerous awards honoring his accomplishments. In 2003, he received the Chris Schenkel Award presented by the National Football Foundation and College Football Hall of Fame. Munson was inducted into the Georgia-Florida Hall of Fame in 2004 and the Georgia Sports Hall of Fame in 2005. The National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association awarded Munson its state-based Sportscaster of the Year Award on multiple occasions: 1960 (WSM, Nashville), 1963 (WSM), 1964 (WSM), 1965 (WSM) and 1969 (WSIX, Nashville) as the Tennessee Sportscaster of the year; 1967 (WSB, Atlanta), 1971 (WRFC, Athens), 1982 (Georgia Network, Atlanta), 2002 (WSB) as the Georgia Sportscaster of the year. In 2007, Munson was presented with an honorary varsity letter from the University of Georgia for his contributions to Bulldog football.

Voice of the Bulldogs
Munson's gravelly voice was one of the most distinctive in all of U.S. sports announcing and was regarded as endearing by Georgia Bulldog fans. Unlike many of his peers, Munson avoided any pretense of journalistic objectivity or accuracy during his broadcasts. He was an unabashed Bulldog fan who almost always referred to the Bulldogs as "we." However, despite his open and unashamed homerism, he generally espoused a dour or pessimistic view of the team. For that reason, his broadcasts were considered among the modern generation of sportscasters as not only acceptable, but sometimes even more authentic than contemporary sportscasting. His unique turns of phrase – which were virtually always made offhand – became a part of Bulldog fan vernacular.

Later years
Approaching his 85th birthday in 2007, Munson was in failing health and planned to call only UGA home games that season. Prior to the 2007 season, Munson had missed only one game as announcer, a 34–3 loss to Clemson on October 6, 1990: he was recuperating from back surgery and Dave O'Brien substituted. Munson also called the Georgia-Georgia Tech game which was at Georgia Tech in 2007.

In the spring of 2008, Munson suffered a subdural hematoma and required emergency surgery. After undergoing rehabilitation at the Shepherd Center in Atlanta, his family announced that he would be returning to call the home games in the fall of 2008. However, on September 22, 2008, Munson and his family announced that he would be retiring from the booth effective immediately. The road crew of Scott Howard and former UGA quarterback Eric Zeier finished out the season calling all games on the Georgia Bulldogs Radio Network.

Munson also provided the voice of God in an episode of the Adult Swim original series Squidbillies.

Munson died in Athens on November 20, 2011, after complications from pneumonia. Some 3,500 fans attended a tribute ceremony at Sanford Stadium on December 10, 2011.

Famous calls
Some of Munson's well known calls include:
 * "Appleby! The end around! Just stopped, planted his feet and threw it! And Washington caught it. Thinking of Montreal and the Olympics, and ran out of his shoes down the middle - 80 yards! Gator Bowl! Rocking! Stunned! The girders are bending now! Look at the score!"---calling Bulldog tight end Richard Appleby's 80-yard touchdown pass to wide receiver Gene Washington against Florida in 1975.
 * "Touchdown! My God, a touchdown! We threw it to Haynes! We just stuffed them with five seconds left! My God Almighty, did you see what he did? David Greene just straightened up and we snuck the fullback over! … we just stepped on their face with a hobnailed boot and broke their nose! We just crushed their face!"—calling Bulldog quarterback David Greene's game-winning touchdown pass to Verron Haynes against Tennessee in 2001.
 * "Florida in a stand-up five, they may or may not blitz, they won't. Buck back. Third down on the 8.  In trouble.  Got a block behind him.  Going to throw on the run.  Complete to the 25, to the 30.  Lindsay Scott 35, 40.  Lindsay Scott 45, 50, 45, 40.  Run Lindsay!  Twenty-five, 20, 15, 10, 5.  Lindsay Scott!  Lindsay Scott!  Lindsay Scott! ... Well, I can't believe it.  92 yards and Lindsay really got in a footrace, I broke my chair, I came right through a chair, a metal STEEL chair with about a five inch cushion ... Do you know what is gonna happen here tonight?  And up at St. Simons and Jekyll Island and all those places where all those Dawg people have got those condominiums for four days? MAN, is there gonna be some property destroyed tonight!  26 to 21, Dawgs on top!  We were gone. I gave up, you did too. We were out of it and gone.  Miracle!"---calling wide receiver Lindsay Scott's 92-yard touchdown reception from quarterback Buck Belue against Florida in 1980.
 * "Hunker down, you guys! If you didn't hear me, you guys, hunker down!...I know I'm asking a lot, you guys, but hunker it down one more time!"---calling a defensive series late in the game against Auburn in 1982, which clinched the SEC title for Georgia.
 * "We hand it off to Herschel, there's a hole....5....10...12, he's running over people! Oh, you Herschel Walker!...My God Almighty, he ran right through two men! Herschel ran right over two men! They had him dead away inside the 9. Herschel Walker went 16 yards. He drove right over those orange shirts and is just driving and running with those big thighs. My God, a freshman!"---calling Herschel Walker's first touchdown run against the Tennessee Volunteers in 1980.
 * "Look at the sugar falling out of the sky!"---calling the end of the Auburn game in 1982, after seeing the Georgia fans who had brought sugar packets into the stadium and were throwing sugar into the air at the end of the game symbolic of the SEC Title and Sugar Bowl bid that UGA had just secured with that victory.
 * "So we'll try to kick one a hundred thousand miles. We're holding it on our own 49-and-a-half ... gonna try to kick it sixty yards plus a foot-and-a-half ... and Butler kicked a long one ... a long one ... Oh my God!  Oh my God!  ... The stadium is worse than bonkers!  Eleven seconds, I can't believe what he did!  This is ungodly!"---calling Kevin Butler's field goal in the final seconds to beat Clemson in 1984..
 * "Man, we've had some shots, haven't we? Snap to David Greene, there he goes again in the corner and we jump up....Touchdown! Oh, God, a touchdown! In the corner with 85 seconds..."---calling David Greene's touchdown pass to Michael Johnson as Georgia defeated Auburn in 2002, clinching the Bulldogs' first-ever SEC Eastern Division championship.
 * "Our hearts they was torn out and bleeding, we picked it up and we stuck it back inside. I can't believe this. We won 27-24, and at the end we had no business winning this game."---calling the last minute UGA win over Ga Tech in 1997.

Related pages

 * Georgia Bulldogs

title: Larry Munson


text:
James Whitelocke

Sir James Whitelocke SL (28 November 1570 – 22 June 1632) was an English judge and politician who sat in the House of Commons between 1610 and 1622.

Early life
Whitelocke was the younger of posthumous twin sons of Richard Whitelocke, a London merchant, by Joan Brockhurst, widow, daughter of John Colte of Little Munden, Hertfordshire. He was educated from 1575 at Merchant Taylors' School, and on 11 June 1588, he was elected probationer at St. John's College, Oxford. He matriculated on 12 July 1588, and was elected fellow of his college in November 1589. His tutors were Rowland Searchfield, in classics and logic, and Alberico Gentile in the civil law. He also studied Hebrew and other Semitic languages. He graduated bachelor in civil law on 1 July 1594. Among the contemporaries at Oxford with whom he formed lasting friendships were William Laud, Humphrey May, and Ralph Winwood. In London he moved in the circle of Sir Robert Bruce Cotton, and about in 1600 he joined the Society of Antiquaries. He pursued his professional studies first at New Inn, afterwards at the Middle Temple, where he was admitted on 2 March 1593, called to the bar in August 1600, elected bencher in Hilary term 1618–19, and reader in the following August.

Under James I
Whitelocke was appointed steward of the St. John's College estates in 1601. He became recorder of Woodstock on 1 August 1606, steward of and counsel for Eton College on 6 December 1609, and joint steward of the Westminster College estates on 7 May 1610.

In 1610 Whitelocke was elected in a by-election as Member of Parliament for Woodstock. He took part in the debates on impositions in 1610. He also acted as the mouthpiece of the Commons on the presentation (24 May) of the remonstrance against the royal inhibition which terminated the discussion. The subsequent proceedings drew from him (2 July) a defence of the rights of the subject and delimitation of the royal prerogative which was long attributed to Henry Yelverton.

In 1613 Whitelocke's opposition to the prerogative brought him into sharp collision with the crown. The administration of the navy stood in urgent need of reform, and in the winter of 1612–13 a preliminary step was taken by the issue of a commission investing the lord high admiral (Charles Howard, 1st Earl of Nottingham), Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, the lord privy seal and lord chamberlain with extraordinary powers for the investigation of abuses and the trial of offenders. As legal adviser to Sir Robert Mansell, who was interested in defeating the investigation, Whitelocke drew up a series of 'exceptions' to the commission, in which he very strictly circumscribed the prerogative. A copy of the exceptions came into the hands of the crown lawyers, who at once suspected that they were Whitelocke's. Evidence was wanting; but his contemporaneous opposition to the transfer of a cause in which he was retained from the chancery to the court of the Earl Marshal furnished a pretext for his committal to Fleet Prison (18 May); and he was not released until he had made full submission in writing (13 June).

In 1614 Whitelocke was re-elected MP for Woodstock in the Addled Parliament. He was nominated with Sir Thomas Crew and others to represent the Commons in the projected conference with the Lords. Because of the sudden dissolution on 7 June the conference never met and on the following day Whitelocke and his colleagues were summoned to the council chamber, and told to destroy the notes of their intended speeches. In disfavour at court, Whitelocke was compelled to surrender (18 November 1616) the reversion of the king's bench enrolments' office which he held jointly with Robert Heath, by whom he was also defeated in the contest for the recordership of London in November 1618.

Meanwhile, however, his professional reputation and gains increased. In 1616 he purchased the estate of Fawley Court, Buckinghamshire. He was placed on the commission of the peace for Buckinghamshire on 27 November 1617, and for Oxfordshire on 7 May 1618. On 12 January 1619 he was appointed deputy custos rotulorum for the liberties of Westminster and St. Martin's-le-Grand.

Whitelocke stood, on the whole, well with Francis Bacon, to whom he owed his investiture as serjeant-at-law on 29 June 1620 and subsequent advancement on 29 October. He was given in 1620 the then important position of chief justice of the court of session of the County Palatine of Chester and the great sessions of the counties of Montgomery, Denbigh, and Flint. He was knighted on 4 October 1620. Shortly afterwards he was elected recorder by each of the four boroughs of Bewdley in Worcestershire, Ludlow and Bishop's Castle in Shropshire, and Poole, Cheshire. Differences with the president of the council in the Welsh marches (the Earl of Northampton) led to Whitelocke's transfer from the Chester court to the king's bench, where he was sworn in as justice on 18 October 1624. He had also a commission to hear causes in chancery, and sat once in the star-chamber. He was re-elected MP for Woodstock in 1621.

Under Charles I
He was continued in office by Charles I, and in the following autumn it fell to him, as junior judge in his court, to discharge the hazardous duty of adjourning term during the plague outbreak of 1625. To escape from the contagion he drove, halting only at Hyde Park Corner to dine, in his coach from Horton, near Colnbrook, Buckinghamshire, to Westminster Hall, and, after hurrying through the necessary forms, re-entered his coach and drove back to Horton.

In November 1626 Whitelocke concurred with Sir Ranulph Crew in declining to certify the legality of forced loans. In Darnell's Case, however, he supported the Crown. The remand was not allowed to pass without the citation of the judges to the House of Lords to answer for their conduct. They obeyed, and through Whitelocke's mouth glossed their order by representing it as only intended to allow time for further consideration.

In February 1629 the House of Commons enquired into the release of the supposed Jesuits recently discovered in Clerkenwell. Whitelocke, as one of the judges who had examined them, was cited to justify the release, which he did on the ground that there was no evidence that the prisoners were in priest's orders. The stormy scenes which preceded the dissolution of this parliament (10 March) and the subsequent committal of Sir John Eliot and his friends to the Tower of London brought the judges once more into delicate relations both with the Crown and Parliament. The evasion by the three common-law chiefs of the issues submitted to them by the king (Whitelocke, Heath and John Walter) was followed by the reference of substantially the same questions to the entire common-law bench (25 April). The points of law were again evaded, but eleven out of the twelve judges sanctioned proceedings in the star-chamber; of the eleven, Whitelocke was one. He also concurred in the course taken after the argument upon the writs of habeas corpus, the application by letter to the king for directions, and the remand of the prisoners pending his answer (June). At a private audience with the king at Hampton Court on Michaelmas day he obtained consent to the release of the prisoners on security given for their good behaviour, a concession which they unanimously rejected. On the trial Whitelocke concurred in the judgment.

Whitelocke was greatly interested in antiquarian studies, and was the author of several papers which are printed in Thomas Hearne's Collection of Discourses (1771); his journal, or Liber famelicus, was edited by John Bruce and published by the Camden Society in 1858.

Whitelocke died at Fawley Court on 22 June 1632. His remains were interred in Fawley churchyard, with a marble monument. His estates were later exempted by the Long Parliament from liability to contribute to the fund for making reparation to Eliot and his fellow-sufferers.

Family
In 1602 Whitelocke married Elizabeth Bulstrode (1575-1631), a daughter of Edward Bulstrode of Hedgerley Bulstrode, Buckinghamshire. Two of her sisters, Dorothy and Cecily Bulstrode were gentlewomen in the bedchamber of Anne of Denmark Dorothy married Sir John Eyre in 1611 without her family's consent, Eyre was a "vicious reprobate" according to Whitelocke. Another sister Anne Bulstrode (d. 1611) married the lawyer John Searl in 1609.

Whitelocke's eldest son was the parliamentarian Sir Bulstrode Whitelocke (b. 1605). His son James was born in 1612. His daughter Elizabeth, born in 1603, married Thomas Mostyn in 1623, the others were; Mary (1606-1611); Cecilia born in March 1607; Joan in 1609 and died in 1610; Dorothy born and died in 1610.

Whitelocke's twin brother, William, served under Francis Drake, and fell at sea in an engagement with the Spaniards. Of two other brothers, the elder, Edmund, was a courtier who was implicated in the Gunpowder Plot.

title: James Whitelocke


text:
Talk:Ministry

I don't think that the term "Minister" in political usage has much to do with religion and having a state church. Does anybody have any indication to the contrary? David.Monniaux 20:36, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Searching for gangreen
Searching for gangreen resulted in this page. I'm not sure how to fix this, but I don't think this is wanted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EphexDesign (talk • contribs) 18:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

mulins, mike
what the do you think you are doing to this country and why are you doing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.123.108.198 (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

title: Talk:Ministry


text:
Edmund Whitelocke

Edmund Whitelocke (1565–1608) was an English soldier, royal courtier and suspected conspirator.

Life
He was born in the parish of St. Gabriel, Fenchurch Street, London, on 10 February 1565, the eldest son of Richard Whitelocke, a merchant. The judge Sir James Whitelocke was a younger brother. After being educated at Merchant Taylors' School under Richard Mulcaster, he was sent to Christ's College, Cambridge, where he matriculated as a pensioner in November 1581, and graduated B.A. in 1585. His brother attests that he studied law at Lincoln's Inn.

At Whitsuntide 1587 Whitelocke left London on foreign tour. He visited universities in Germany, Italy, and France. Subsequently, he obtained a commission as captain of a troop of infantry from the governor of Provence (M. Desguieres), and was stationed successively at Marseilles and Grenoble; he saw some active service during the civil wars in France. He returned to England in 1599, was in attendance at Elizabeth's court, and won a reputation for profuse display and dissolute living.

He was on terms of close intimacy with many of the younger nobility, including Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland, and other followers of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex. Rutland invited him to visit Essex's house in London on 30 Jan. 1601, the day fixed for the Earl of Essex's insurrection. He remained in the house only a few minutes, but he incurred a suspicion of disloyalty. He was arrested as an abettor of Essex's rebellion, and was indicted of high treason, but, though brought before the court of king's bench, was not tried, but allowed to go on parole before he obtained a final discharge. Subsequently, he came to know Henry Percy, 9th Earl of Northumberland, whom he supported in his quarrel with Sir Francis Vere in 1602. A challenge which Whitelocke carried from the earl to Sir Francis led to the issue of a warrant by the privy council for his arrest; but Whitelocke went into hiding, and escaped capture for the time.

He happened, however, to dine with the Earl of Northumberland and his kinsman Thomas Percy on 4 November 1605, the day before the Gunpowder Plot. Suspicion again fell on Whitelocke, and, with his host, suffered a long imprisonment in the Tower of London. No evidence was produced against him, and he was released without trial. While a prisoner in the Tower he spent much time with Northumberland, who granted him a pension. Another of Whitelocke's friends was Robert Radcliffe, 5th Earl of Sussex. John Manningham the diarist attributes to Whitelocke's influence Radcliffe's neglect of his wife. Whitelocke was on a visit to the Earl of Sussex at Newhall, Essex in the autumn of 1608 when he was taken ill and died. He was buried in the family tomb of his host at Boreham.

title: Edmund Whitelocke