434:; allegations of sock-puppetry. Since any further disruptive editing probably will result in a Request for Arbitration, and since the ArbCom requires posts to be limited to 500 words, each editor should limit their posts to a readable length. I suggest that, in order both to avoid arbitration and to prepare the way for arbitration if all else fails, each editor state, in 500 words or less, what he or she thinks should be done both to improve the article and to improve the collaborative editing environment. Do any of you really want arbitration? If not, state clearly, without personal attacks, what should be done. If you do, state clearly, without personal attacks, what should be done.
1019:, both of which are useful resources, but have not been updated for several years. I would like to at least have What Is Metamodern? included in the external links section of this article, alongside the aforementioned resources, and possibly mentioned in the body itself. I am aware that it's not standard for a person to insert their own stuff into a page, but I feel some flexibility about that standard may be warranted in this case, because the community of people writing about Metamodernism is, as of yet, relatively small. What do people think?
744:
make a link to the prior discussion if there's actually something work discussing. This article is a hivemind for accusations because it's a combination of being something with little concrete RS and is based on public individuals who seem to be watching this page. Editors here either need to accept editing to their work and AGF even if you may be repeating it a dozen times or move to another article. I think discussions that aren't appropriate (general forum-like complaining) should be archived and ignored rather than engaged. --
1610:, I actually am just now seeing this though I already published some substantial revisions and additions to the page recently - hopefully that doesn't undercut what you've been working on. I essentially created the philosophy section and rewrote Storm's content (but kept the quote) and wrote a subsection for Hanzi (also preserving a quote from before). Then at the end, to address what you also noticed about all the art examples I put a Selected Works we could potentially move the examples to.
887:
Requiring sources outside the school of thought to verify aspects of the school of thought is taking our policy of independence to an unreasonable extreme. With regard to categories, I can see your point and agree with you--there is not yet enough in the reliable sources to consider architecture as a defining characteristic of metamodermism. But if there are reliable sources, even by adherents, that discuss application of metamodernism to architecture, they are fair game for this article. --
1061:
included. However, I don't think it justifies restructuring the entire article without further discussion here and a consensus reached. There has been a lot of discussion here on the talk page for all the editors to arrive at the article's current format. I would suggest that the article is best served if the chronological structure is kept, rather than separating it into sections for 'Literary
Fiction' and 'Art', since the existing material spans those categories already.
470:- calm has returned. Since the disruption appears to have nearly all stemmed from this one disruptive user, I hope that in future admins will be able to act quickly to prevent this behavior returning. If this can be achieved, I'm optimistic that a collaborative editing environment will prevail. Although the talk page is currently a mess, I believe that thanks to the efforts of editors such as
223:
947:
architecture is a small category for another young approach to post-postmodernism that could use some cross-seeding. The rest of the articles in the category are narrowly focused on architecture and I'm not sure that I've seen metamodernism explicitly tied to neomodernism in a reputable source, so maybe this article should be left out. However, the category's main article,
258:
1592:
persons medium article are hard to find), I also find the
Metamodernism in the arts section to devolve quickly into just a list of things that have been called metamodern somewhere. I have been working on a more extensive overhaul, for which i will post a link to my sandbox once i feel a bit more confident in its state. Hope we can improve this article together.
963:. These articles do have a few more sentences on architecture than this one does, but that's all. The last category you removed, contemporary art, is mostly unrelated to architecture and includes articles on topics at least as obscure as metamodernism. In the future, please don't treat a quick conversation with an unrelated editor as sign of consensus; see
310:
289:
414:. Maybe that is because this article has attracted more attention, or maybe it is because this article has the attention of advocates for two scholars who have published papers referring to metamodernism by that name. In any case, if the conduct disputes that prevent resolution of content issues are not resolved, this article is likely to end up in
320:
646:, and apology accepted. I know that your comments have always been well-intentioned, and I'm simply glad that you're better acquainted with the facts now, which the disruptive user had tried to obscure. I just hope that we've now seen the last of these disruptive accounts, so that the friendly collaborative atmosphere can return here.
1719:`Metamodernism is understood by many people in different ways. There are “metamodern” thinkers and artists, just as there are metamodern concepts that contribute to “metamodernism” as a whole. At is core, metamodernism attempts to reconcile differences between postmodern and modern ideas to describe contemporary subjects.
959:, does not currently mention metamodernism at all, but Vermeulen and van den Akker do call out remodernism on page seven of their paper. The modernist and postmodern architecture categories are relatively large and focused on architecture, although they do contain articles for larger ideas such as neomodernism and
1434:
Cite all or part of Hanzi/Daniel Görtz's "1) a cultural phase; 2) developmental stage of society; 3) stage of personal development (with different complexly intertwined sub-categories thereof); 4) an abstracted meta-meme; 5) a philosophical paradigm, and 6) a sociopolitical movement." definition from
759:
I'd like to pick at one thing--it's not so much that there's little concrete RS as it is that those sources don't offer much to work with. We have plenty of RSes, just not enough to say with them! The real problem is that the only people who feel like speaking about metamodernism in any great detail
743:
I archived everything else here. Other than this discussion, the last discussion hasn't been commented on in a week and focuses more on the theory of what the other editors want to do with the article rather than its actual content. Prior attempts got reverted but at this stage, I'll ask that people
1591:
I think we are in agreement that the wikipage is currently not up to its potential. I think the structure is still not where it should be, we have a wrong infobox (its the postmodernism infobox just copy pasted over), there is still trouble with a
Criticism section (good sources that are not just a
946:
are needed to fully appreciate metamodernism's context, and as one of the major conceptualizations of life after postmodernism it's important to understanding theirs, as well. Let's go through each of the categories you removed and consider this article's appropriateness for each of them. Neomodern
941:
Vermeulen's and van den Akker's 2010 paper in the
Journal of Aesthetics & Culture, which is the foundation of the academic conversation in question and is featured prominently in this article, focuses on architecture on pages 10 through 12 and mentions the field in a few other places, too. This
819:
Those are no use, they are just three more metamodernists claiming architecture as potential territory. You need to find architects or established architectural critics who have put forward buildings and overtly stated them to be metamodern. To my knowledge, none of the architects mentioned in your
1893:
As another note while I remember it. There is a tendency ina lot of the metamodern authors who are not looking at aesthetics, to take the modernism and post-modernism were of there time, therefore meta-modernism. In fact there are other alternatives, such as New
Materialism which work well with
1613:
I wrote the introduction fairly different than when I first started working on the page but am not too attached to it. I'm also not sure how qualified I am to revise the art section otherwise, but it feels like
Vermeulen and van den Akker are overrepresented, and all the pictures refer to them and
1558:
Integral
Epistemic - attemps to reconcile chiefly the Modern and Postmodern, but also any other epistemes of time and place by emphasizing the importance of integrating their seemingly opposing systems of knowledge into contemporary life. Metamodern philosophy starts here and is applied broadly to
1493:
Cut anything that is only supported by self-published sources that do not meet
Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines for acceptable use of self-published sources (e.g., writing a Medium article is not enough to earn a presence on this page, someone else needs to talk about you, or you need to have put work
1322:
Alternatively, a different and more fine-grained approach than just
Academic vs Cultural? It's not clear to me why a substantial curated discussion (Wager), a fairly major branch of work (Freinacht, with two full books), and a network of podcasts all get mixed in under Cultural Acceptance with a
1105:"the elaboration of the form is functional to the mimesis of a complex and entropic reality, which is less and less scriptable in coherent universes, unitary actions and autoconclusive plots, but rather interceptable, alludable, flowchartable in reticular, digressive, fractal narrative structures"
780:
I don't think we can categorise metamodernism as relevant to architecture unless independent architectural commentators explicitly reference metamodernism. The fact that a couple of metamodernist writers drag architecture into their view is not significant. Can we remove these categories here? (I
1722:
Scholars and practitioners generally split on two definitions of metamodernism (among others). Some view it predominately as a “cultural sensibility” and way to understand certain art, such as
Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker. Others additionally view it as a philosophy or in relation
1060:
An explanation was given in the edit description. The reason it was removed for now was that the notability of the added material on Vittorini is not apparent, given that it has a single primary source. If secondary sources can be found that do demonstrate notability, then the material should be
1833:
Though I agree there should indeed be a criticism section, it is unclear why the opinion of "philosopher and founder of Parallax magazine Tom Amarque" who "criticized Metamodernism on a range of points" is relevant. Also, the citations to Amarque's website include one dead link and two podcast
1797:
Instead of having Vermeulen and Akker as part of a history of the term section, in detail, it makes sense to contextualize their information in its own right. In this way other major contributors to metamodernism like Hanzi and Storm, and anyone in the future, can be placed together as authors
1279:
Similarly, the entire paragraph about "Brent Cooper of The Abs-Tract Organization" (neither the person nor organization have any other reference within wikipedia). I think I have seen Cooper appearing on podcasts with others referenced on this page, so those could be suitable references. But
1780:
After waiting for some time on more collaboration I've decide to rewrite the intro (that someone else still could probably write better) and restructure the article to be more approachable for readers and editers. There are three major changes, but I've kept basically all prior content in the
627:
The editor in question over at ANI seems unwilling to explain their comment to me, nor even whether they agree with your own analysis. I have now read the discussion you link to on your talk page, and I agree that you have suffered misrepresentation on several occasions. Since you were merely
886:
Your example is inappropriate, as a building is not going to fall down if someone declares it metamodernist. I consider metamodernism as a school of thought and like other young schools of thought, it is mostly talked about by the adherents and mostly considered rubbish by the non-adherents.
1392:
Published definitions pretty clearly fall into those that talk prominently about oscillation and those that do not- this is self-evident from quoting the definitions and therefore won't need extensive support from secondary sources that claims that they form "schools" of Metamodernism would
1694:
i don't have any thoughts on the structure of the article; my issue is with the language, which is almost cartoonishly academic and extremely difficult for a layperson to understand. if the article still stands it should be rewritten by someone who is not and has never been a grad student.
1489:
Streamline this section as with "Academic Engagement": notable people and their ares of work/cultural impact, not descriptions of every person's project and lists of every contributor – reference citations should provide enough info for anyone who wants to find out those details to do
951:, is actually in the metamodernism category and links to this article, so it appears that the conceptual link is appreciated on the other side of the fence. The remodernism category is another small post-postmodernist one, and it contains primarily non-architectural articles such as
1806:
Instead of imply a cohesive analysis of art, as before with "Metamodernism in the arts," this approach tries to narrow the scope. The article before simply listed examples with short descriptions that were hard to read together, which now is made somewhat better organized this way.
1810:
Still, I think the second half of the article could use work especially, including a criticism section, and perhaps would be made better by more pictures. Currently all three are attributed to Vermeulen and Akker and only the last one really adds much to the article in my opinion.
1306:
The sections of this page have gotten rather long and dense, and read like a fairly random list of things people have said or written. It's all relevant, but it's hard to get a sense of the major varieties and focuses of Metamodernism. Contrast with the clear organization of the
1275:
One reference to an article by Greg Dember (who seems to have a now-closed account that was used only to edit this page) is on Medium. He is also co-credited with other references which seem suitable, but my impression is that Knowledge (XXG) frowns on open platforms like Medium?
1894:
the aesthetic aspects or ironic realism but not with Hansi et al. Storm at least mentions it, but without any depth and his dismissal of it is one of the weakest aspects of his book. I don't think this is criticism but we do need to address the post-post-modernism space. -----
1314:
Clearly the opening part of the "History of the Term" section is fine, and some part of the "Vermeulen and van den Akker" and "The Metamodernist Manifesto" subsections are part of that story. But other parts of those subsections probably belong separate from the basic history.
530:
Not so much a suggestion, but a plea for personal recognition by the editors remaining that their discussion skills are appalling and that endless repetition of accusatory rants is just as much their own trait as anybody else's and actually harms their case each time they
981:
You don't get it do you? Nobody in the architectural field has validated the claims of Vermeulen's and van den Akker. I take your point about art in general and have restored that Category, though I have removed a few other irrelevant ones while I was at it. — Cheers,
1728:
Although many people disagree “what metamodernism is”, a metamodern viewpoint centrally holds that the optimism associated with modernism is still compatible with popular postmodern critiques of human limitations.` <one or two more sentences what has happened:
716:
You've moved goalposts again, I see. Your initial claim that most of the major editors were SPAs remains patently false, and you refuse to retract it. But it appears that we've moved on, so I'm willing to drop it, even if you don't have the decency to apologize.
1318:
Beyond that, would it be good to organize by schools of thought that are emerging as focus arease.g. Oscillatory Metamodernism (Vermeulen and van den Akker; Turner) vs Developmental Metamodernism (Hanzi Freinacht a.k.a. Görtz and Friis) vs whatever else?
664:
I would like to note that I will not retract my claim until the untruths uttered by the user, out of ignorance or malice, have been adequately retracted and apologized for. Coming out of nowhere with accusations of SPA is blatantly disruptive and trolly.
465:
other editors, obscuring the healthy discussions about the content of the article that have been taking place between the legitimate editors here for some time. Since the latest sock ceased their activity - their exact status pending the findings of a
1542:
Hello, I do not know the conventions of collaborative editting on Knowledge (XXG), but if you are still present I am interested in helping editing here. After learning and becoming interested in this Metamodernism I think this page could use more
1079:
I've tentatively inserted a condensed reference to Vittorini in the 'Cultural Acceptance' section, where this seems to fit with the other authors there expanding on the term. Still lacking secondary sources, so please add if they can be found.
628:
retaliating against confirmed abuse, the persistence of your accusations is understandable. I am redacting my suggestion that it requires apology, and I hope you will accept my apology in turn for piling one distress upon another. — Cheers,
400:
This article talk page is a terrible mess. I won't say that the article is a mess, but the discussion on this talk page has not helped. Knowledge (XXG) depends on collaborative editing, and that has been in short supply on this article.
405:
made some progress in restoring cooperation, but restoring cooperation requires efforts by multiple editors. It isn't clear to me why this particular article attracts so much disruptive editing and hostility, as opposed, for instance, to
526:
Third can come the deletion of long and unproductive rants, possibly by archiving whole sections. I think this has to be done by someone not involved in the discussion, as it is bound to make snap judgements on the material to
609:, has also been kindly assisting me over on my talk page with handling the abuse and disruptive editing that the sock has been causing, if you'd like to read the additional evidence of their clear deception that I have posted
1852:
i like that we are on the same page regarding the need for the criticism section - it would be great to see editors being proactive in finding scholarly sources on critiques of metamodernism. the page suffers without it
1388:
I'm calling this "definitions" and not "schools" because "schools" would require a verifiable secondary source identifying the schools, and the only things I can find that talk about schools of metamodernism are Medium
460:
been cooperative editing on this page by numerous editors. It appears to have been the latest sock's plan to flood the talk page with thousands of words of largely incomprehensible and unsupported PoV comments and to
153:
1004:
I'm checking in here before I make a modification to this page, because I'm aware of possible Conflict of Interest issues, and yet I feel some flexibility may be warranted. I am the co-author of a blog called
1871:
I know that a lot of people in metamodernism as an art movement are concerned by its appropriation for new religious movements and forms of stage theory (that Bateson and others have criticised as eugenic -
1709:
lol fair. I feel like gutting the art section and restructuring could help with that but it also didn't feel right for me or one person to essentially rewrite the whole thing. So have been waiting for some
1283:
To emphasize, I'm not questioning the relevance of either person, just whether the citations and tone are appropriate. If more appropriate citations are available I have no objection to their inclusion.
1552:
Cultural Sensability - predominately focused on post-irony and interpretting or recognizing metamodern qualities within subjects and mediums of art. This is how Vermeulen and van den Akker are using it.
1528:
I'd still like to do this but (obviously since it's been six months) have not had the time to focus on it. I encourage anyone to make use of any/all of the above ideas. I might get to it eventually.
1507:
If there is notable criticism of the movement (e.g. not people complaining about people who are involved, but critical attitudes towards the utility/clarity/etc. of the movement), make a section for it
597:, so this is in no way an unfounded accusation at all. The SPI is simply awaiting a behavioral evaluation to establish the relation between this account and the master. An uninvolved admin over at ANI
834:
I do not understand the reasoning behind your assertion that these sources are of no use. Do we reject sources discussing algebraic geometry because they were written by algebraists, not geometers? --
552:
All the things that matter have now been done, IMHO: material archived, recognition that accusations of bad faith have gone stale, I am content that things are now as good as we will get. — Cheers,
1182:
426:, including allegations of lying (which are serious personal attacks); walls of text that are {{WP:TLDR|too long and difficult to read]] and are in some cases incomprehensible; accusations of
1546:
I support the idea of dividing the content into two main definitions, which is hinted at in the summary, but this hasn't yet been fully implemented. Here is my view of what it could be.
1344:
It's been a week and no one has objected so here's what I am planning to do (probably a week or two from now, barring objections or someone else doing something similar or better):
508:
The first is the deletion of any material which pushes outing and doxing to the fore. At least some has already been removed by an uninvolved editor, but there may still be more.
1713:
Also with the intro, I reworked that and don't know how to be much more casual without it being too much my opinion (and I don't have a grad school or related degree to this).
1375:(probably with less detail on the anthologies than currently present- listing topics should be fine, if people want a list of all contributors they can go look up the books)
1172:
341:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
1614:
their work as well. And unfortunately yea, overall criticism is hard to find so it may be better to try and fit in specific criticisms within the sections than force one.
1214:
1210:
1196:
147:
511:
The second is retractions and apologies for the most outrageous accusations still current. These include, but may not be limited to; accusations of outright lying (by
1814:
If you have other ideas or suggestions to discuss feel free! Just wanted to try and revive the page because its been pretty stagnant for a while and not up to date.
378:
1011:
We catalog and discuss exemplars of the metamodern sensibility in culture and the arts, in non-academic language. We are updating it regularly, in contrast to
79:
1183:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130328061309/http://www.tanjawagner.com/de/exhibitions/details/2012-discussing-metamodernism-galerie/pr-en-metamodern-2012.html
1723:
other subjects, such as Hanzi Freinacht. In metamodern analysis, either perspective still draws on postmodernism and modernism as contextualized in history.
1922:
368:
1101:
because it doesn't seem like coherent English, and I don't have access to the source, or a knowledge of Italian to attempt to reword it in clearer terms:
1497:
Note what podcasts and other forums tend to discuss Metamodernism, but again trim summaries of episodes as Knowledge (XXG) is not for promoting content
1186:
1311:
page. I do not mean to disparage anyone's work, pages grow organically, and this sort of thing is natural. But perhaps some cleanup is in order?
343:
85:
1148:
1034:
I tried to rationalize and update the page with fresh materials, but it was refused. No explanation given. It doesn't seem very democratic.
44:
1917:
1326:
I'm happy to take a shot at reorganizing things but I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Feel free to shoot down this trial balloon :-)
1176:
968:
230:
30:
1173:
https://archive.is/20140619123334/http://de.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/799457/discussing-metamodernism-tanja-wagner-und-tim-vermeulen-im
1636:
added the maintenance template, Qwerfjkl do you have any suggestions how to make the article and its parts less difficult to understand?
1468:
Streamline this, we don't need summaries of every individual person's arguments and theories, just notable people and their areas of work
1876:) but I am not sure if that has been written up in a proper source yet. It is still fairly new so third party is hard to come by. -----
333:
294:
239:
1049:
99:
1280:
supporting inclusion purely on Medium pieces seems a bit suspect, and the wording of this paragraph feels rather promotional to me.
1192:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
760:
are the metamodernists themselves. 3rd party, high-quality sources have been a constant nightmare for this article since its birth.
1404:
Cite "We will call this discourse, oscillating between a modern enthusiasm and a postmodern irony, metamodernism." definition from
422:, draconian restrictions on editing. What I have seen, and what may be considered by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) include:
235:
104:
20:
1416:
Move most of the "Vermeulen and van den Akker" subsection and the first paragraph of "The Metamodernist Manifesto" subsection here
74:
1761:
Great idea. I have tried to implement some of the above suggestions. Further edits/improvements along these lines is welcome.
269:
1789:
I think if the topic gains more popularity a dedicated section would make sense but it was not flowing well in my opinion.
168:
65:
942:
article actually mentions that discussion in its seventh paragraph, although not in much detail. Related movements such as
242:. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about metamodernism at the
135:
1458:
Anything about the temporal and philosophical relationships that doesn't strictly fit in the above sections would go here
1436:
1257:
194:
190:
593:
Your characterization of my edits is incorrect, since the fact of that user's sockpuppetry has already been confirmed
1109:
I've reread this several times, and I'm still not sure what it is trying to say, or to what exactly it is referring?
243:
1597:
185:
1858:
1187:
http://www.tanjawagner.com/de/exhibitions/details/2012-discussing-metamodernism-galerie/pr-en-metamodern-2012.html
109:
1700:
439:
1213:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
203:
1766:
765:
722:
670:
129:
1629:
1607:
1593:
1149:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120323035251/http://www.doubledialogues.com/archive/issue_seven/dumistrescu.html
972:
694:, explicitly clarifying that you were not included. For your part, you are continuing your gross violation of
415:
275:
1854:
1685:
1641:
1619:
1567:
1248:
1140:
1045:
800:
1323:
country music album, a novel, a sentence about a film scholar, an art exhibit, and someone's Medium piece.
1037:
1024:
1136:
690:. I also made clear that not all editors concerned were SPAs. I explained all this and more some time ago
125:
1839:
1762:
55:
1802:
3. Distinguished the art section, as is, to be examples of art with subsections for the type of example.
1681:
1650:
1637:
1615:
1578:
1563:
1232:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1220:
1177:
http://de.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/799457/discussing-metamodernism-tanja-wagner-und-tim-vermeulen-im
987:
931:
906:
892:
877:
839:
825:
810:
786:
707:
633:
594:
557:
541:
467:
1139:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1098:
1041:
70:
1352:
Keep the brief timeline of the existing section prior to the "Vermeulen and van den Akker" subsection.
1152:
1020:
1696:
1677:
1654:
1533:
1519:
1334:
1292:
1272:
I see several paragraphs that seem to have been added by people referencing their own Medium pieces.
749:
500:
451:
435:
175:
1835:
1815:
1730:
257:
1819:
1734:
1443:
Move the Hanzi bit currently in "Cultural Acceptance" up here as it covers the developmental aspect
803:
761:
718:
681:
666:
512:
475:
407:
161:
1486:
The bit about LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner from "The Metamodernist Manifesto" subsection goes here
462:
431:
427:
1665:
1410:
Cite "We recognise oscillation to be the natural order of the world.", the first bullet point of
1308:
1160:
960:
849:
208:
1217:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
797:
419:
1233:
901:
So are we agreed that this article can be removed from any architectural Categories? — Cheers,
606:
325:
51:
602:
1114:
1085:
1066:
983:
927:
902:
888:
873:
835:
821:
806:
782:
703:
651:
643:
629:
618:
588:
553:
537:
487:
471:
456:
Aside from the extensive disruptive editing of one user's sockpuppets, I believe that there
402:
205:
1240:
1166:
964:
856:
doing geometry and is well verifiable as such. Here's a better parallel; Would you allow a
695:
687:
423:
141:
1582:
1529:
1515:
1330:
1288:
869:
745:
479:
1793:
2. Reorganized major sections to be "Metadern authors" and "Examples in metamodern art."
1785:
1. Cut the history of the term section, and consolidated that information in the intro.
1199:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1239:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1206:
1911:
1660:
1633:
1132:
943:
865:
411:
24:
601:
that you stop make unhelpful statements such as this about obvious sockpuppetry, as
517:
and persistent accusations of sockpuppetry before investigations have concluded (by
1895:
1877:
1586:
1396:
Organize subsections as follows (exact subheading names TBD, suggestions invited):
857:
1110:
1081:
1062:
956:
647:
614:
518:
483:
1471:
Keep the symposium list as it is short and demonstrates a community of interest
1205:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
338:
315:
1378:
Probably put the bit about "meta-" referencing Plato's metaxy here somewhere
948:
1849:
this was my edit. acknowledged. i will revert now in light of your points.
952:
207:
1453:
Relationship to Modernism, Postmodernism, and other Post-Postmodernisms
337:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
1900:
1882:
1862:
1843:
1823:
1770:
1738:
1704:
1689:
1670:
1645:
1623:
1601:
1571:
1537:
1523:
1338:
1296:
1262:
1118:
1089:
1070:
1053:
1028:
991:
976:
935:
910:
896:
881:
843:
829:
814:
790:
769:
753:
726:
711:
674:
655:
637:
622:
561:
545:
491:
443:
861:
309:
288:
1153:
http://www.doubledialogues.com/archive/issue_seven/dumistrescu.html
796:
Metamodern architect is talked about in secondary sources, such as
610:
1798:
without pigeonholing their work under more or less vague schools.
1373:
Metamodernism: Historicity, Affect and Depth After Postmodernism
1268:
Information only supported by Medium pieces? Promotional tone?
1007:
251:
234:
for general discussion about metamodernism. Any such comments
217:
209:
15:
864:
just because some of them claimed they could? Would you add
482:, and others, the article itself is in largely good health.
702:
also posted on your talk page by another editor. — Cheers,
1143:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1167:
http://www.berlinartjournal.com/issue/metamodern-mindset
505:
Can I suggest that several kinds of cleanup are needed:
699:
691:
598:
160:
1716:
Let me know what you think about this other go at it.
1355:
Extend the brief timeline noting the publications of
576:
Off-topic or too on-topic but retracted nevertheless
1494:
out through non-self-publishing channels or venues)
1209:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
174:
1097:I've taken out the following sentence inserted by
686:No, there is nothing perjorative about being an
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1195:This message was posted before February 2018.
1776:Revisions and reorganization starting in 2024
605:is sufficient here. Another uninvolved user,
8:
1874:declaration of interest I think that as well
347:about philosophy content on Knowledge (XXG).
860:to be cited as a reliable source on curing
1035:
571:
283:
1676:Oh, ok thank you. Question for you then @
1131:I have just modified 3 external links on
848:That is an inappropriate example because
410:, which appears to be almost the same as
852:is a rich field in which doing algebra
523:(redacted per collapsed apology below).
285:
255:
1124:External links modified (January 2018)
353:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Philosophy
7:
1834:episodes (w/ no time stamps given).
331:This article is within the scope of
1430:I'm not 100% sure what to call this
274:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1923:Low-importance Philosophy articles
872:on that same rationale? — Cheers,
781:tried but got reverted) — Cheers,
14:
1135:. Please take a moment to review
820:sources has done this. — Cheers,
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
318:
308:
287:
256:
221:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1632:Any update on this? I believe @
926:Removal would be fine by me. --
373:This article has been rated as
356:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
770:22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
754:08:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
727:22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
712:10:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
675:04:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
656:00:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
562:09:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
1:
1824:00:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
1090:23:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
1071:22:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
1054:13:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
638:20:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
623:12:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
546:12:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
492:23:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
444:22:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
42:Put new text under old text.
1863:20:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
1562:Let me know what you think.
1455:(or some less clunky title)
1384:Definitions of metamodernism
1263:17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
1918:C-Class Philosophy articles
1901:01:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
1771:15:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
1739:23:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1705:16:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1690:01:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
1671:19:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
1646:13:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
1524:18:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
1412:The Metamodernist Manifesto
1361:The Metamodernist Manifesto
1119:23:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
1031:Greg Dember, April 6, 2017
1017:The Metamodernist Manifesto
1939:
1883:14:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
1844:23:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
1572:02:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
1339:22:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
1297:22:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
1226:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1128:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
992:10:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
977:22:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
936:19:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
911:19:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
897:19:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
882:14:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
844:12:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
830:11:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
815:10:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
791:08:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
379:project's importance scale
1624:04:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
1602:11:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
1538:16:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
1029:22:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
468:sock-puppet investigation
372:
303:
282:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
418:, which could result in
698:and have since ignored
420:discretionary sanctions
1406:Notes on Metamodernism
1357:Notes on Metamodernism
1013:Notes on Metamodernism
334:WikiProject Philosophy
264:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
1369:The Listening Society
1367:issue devoted to MM,
599:has already requested
268:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
100:Neutral point of view
1655:User:Literally Satan
1365:American Book Review
1302:General Organization
1207:regular verification
955:. Its main article,
105:No original research
1829:"Criticism" section
1630:Syntheistic Prophet
1608:Syntheistic Prophet
1594:Syntheistic Prophet
1559:different subjects.
1477:Cultural Acceptance
1464:Academic Engagement
1348:History of the term
1197:After February 2018
1008:What Is Metamodern?
408:post-post-modernism
359:Philosophy articles
1855:Halfoftheotherteam
1481:Cultural Influence
1309:post-postmodernism
1251:InternetArchiveBot
1202:InternetArchiveBot
961:post-postmodernism
850:algebraic geometry
396:Disruptive Editing
344:general discussion
270:content assessment
233:
86:dispute resolution
47:
1653:, it was in fact
1227:
1056:
1040:comment added by
1000:Request to Modify
740:
739:
692:on your talk page
430:, and threats of
393:
392:
389:
388:
385:
384:
326:Philosophy portal
250:
249:
229:
216:
215:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1930:
1673:
1668:
1663:
1590:
1438:Psychology Today
1261:
1252:
1225:
1224:
1203:
1164:
685:
592:
572:
504:
455:
424:personal attacks
403:User:Steelpillow
361:
360:
357:
354:
351:
328:
323:
322:
321:
312:
305:
304:
299:
291:
284:
267:
261:
260:
252:
225:
224:
218:
210:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1938:
1937:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1908:
1907:
1831:
1778:
1697:Literally Satan
1678:Literally Satan
1666:
1661:
1658:
1576:
1304:
1270:
1255:
1250:
1218:
1211:have permission
1201:
1158:
1141:this simple FaQ
1126:
1002:
870:Category:Cancer
778:
741:
679:
586:
577:
501:Robert McClenon
498:
452:Robert McClenon
449:
436:Robert McClenon
398:
358:
355:
352:
349:
348:
324:
319:
317:
297:
265:
222:
212:
211:
206:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1936:
1934:
1926:
1925:
1920:
1910:
1909:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1866:
1865:
1850:
1830:
1827:
1777:
1774:
1763:Snuffleumpagus
1760:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1726:
1724:
1720:
1717:
1714:
1711:
1626:
1611:
1560:
1553:
1547:
1544:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1469:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1441:
1426:Cultural Phase
1419:
1418:
1417:
1414:
1408:
1394:
1390:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1376:
1353:
1303:
1300:
1269:
1266:
1245:
1244:
1237:
1190:
1189:
1181:Added archive
1179:
1171:Added archive
1169:
1155:
1147:Added archive
1125:
1122:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1074:
1073:
1001:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
969:73.230.140.196
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
777:
774:
773:
772:
762:Inanygivenhole
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
719:Inanygivenhole
682:Inanygivenhole
667:Inanygivenhole
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
579:
578:
575:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
534:
533:
532:
528:
524:
513:Inanygivenhole
509:
495:
494:
476:Inanygivenhole
416:WP:arbitration
397:
394:
391:
390:
387:
386:
383:
382:
375:Low-importance
371:
365:
364:
362:
330:
329:
313:
301:
300:
298:Low‑importance
292:
280:
279:
273:
262:
248:
247:
244:Reference desk
236:may be removed
226:
214:
213:
204:
202:
201:
198:
197:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1935:
1924:
1921:
1919:
1916:
1915:
1913:
1902:
1899:
1898:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1884:
1881:
1880:
1875:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1851:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1828:
1826:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1794:
1790:
1787:
1786:
1782:
1775:
1773:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1727:
1725:
1721:
1718:
1715:
1712:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1674:
1672:
1669:
1664:
1656:
1652:
1651:Gibsonfarabow
1649:
1648:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1612:
1609:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1579:Gibsonfarabow
1575:
1574:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1554:
1551:
1548:
1545:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1501:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1485:
1484:
1482:
1478:
1475:
1470:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1462:
1457:
1456:
1454:
1451:
1442:
1440:
1439:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1422:Developmental
1420:
1415:
1413:
1409:
1407:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1398:
1397:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1382:
1377:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1346:
1345:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1327:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1310:
1301:
1299:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1267:
1265:
1264:
1259:
1254:
1253:
1242:
1238:
1235:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1222:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1198:
1193:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1168:
1162:
1156:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1133:Metamodernism
1129:
1123:
1121:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1107:
1106:
1102:
1100:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1032:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1009:
999:
993:
989:
985:
980:
979:
978:
974:
970:
966:
962:
958:
954:
950:
945:
944:postmodernism
940:
939:
938:
937:
933:
929:
912:
908:
904:
900:
899:
898:
894:
890:
885:
884:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
866:Faith healing
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
846:
845:
841:
837:
833:
832:
831:
827:
823:
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
804:
801:
798:
795:
794:
793:
792:
788:
784:
775:
771:
767:
763:
758:
757:
756:
755:
751:
747:
728:
724:
720:
715:
714:
713:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
683:
678:
677:
676:
672:
668:
663:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
640:
639:
635:
631:
626:
625:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
590:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
574:
573:
563:
559:
555:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
543:
539:
535:
529:
525:
522:
520:
514:
510:
507:
506:
502:
497:
496:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
464:
459:
453:
448:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
412:metamodernism
409:
404:
395:
380:
376:
370:
367:
366:
363:
346:
345:
340:
336:
335:
327:
316:
314:
311:
307:
306:
302:
296:
293:
290:
286:
281:
277:
271:
263:
259:
254:
253:
245:
241:
237:
232:
228:This page is
227:
220:
219:
200:
199:
196:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
25:Metamodernism
22:
18:
17:
1896:
1878:
1873:
1832:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1791:
1788:
1784:
1783:
1779:
1759:
1555:
1549:
1502:
1480:
1476:
1463:
1452:
1437:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1411:
1405:
1400:Oscilliatory
1399:
1383:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1347:
1328:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1305:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1271:
1249:
1246:
1221:source check
1200:
1194:
1191:
1130:
1127:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1099:Pickwick2000
1096:
1042:Pickwick2000
1036:— Preceding
1033:
1016:
1012:
1006:
1003:
925:
858:faith healer
853:
779:
776:Architecture
742:
607:Anthonyhcole
516:
457:
399:
374:
342:
332:
276:WikiProjects
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1021:Greg Dember
984:Steelpillow
957:remodernism
928:Mark viking
903:Steelpillow
889:Mark viking
874:Steelpillow
836:Mark viking
822:Steelpillow
807:Mark viking
783:Steelpillow
704:Steelpillow
700:the warning
644:Steelpillow
630:Steelpillow
589:Steelpillow
554:Steelpillow
538:Steelpillow
472:Steelpillow
231:not a forum
148:free images
31:not a forum
1912:Categories
1583:Ixat totep
1543:attention.
1530:Ixat totep
1516:Ixat totep
1479:(or maybe
1331:Ixat totep
1289:Ixat totep
1258:Report bug
799:, p. 563,
746:Ricky81682
642:Thank you
536:— Cheers,
480:Ricky81682
350:Philosophy
339:philosophy
295:Philosophy
240:refactored
1836:TopoiTroy
1781:article.
1503:Criticism
1241:this tool
1234:this tool
1161:dead link
949:neomodern
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1662:Qwerfjkl
1634:Qwerfjkl
1247:Cheers.—
1050:contribs
1038:unsigned
953:Stuckism
531:indulge.
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1897:Snowded
1879:Snowded
1587:Snowded
1585:, and
1393:require
1165:tag to
1137:my edit
603:WP:DUCK
377:on the
266:C-class
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1816:gibson
1731:gibson
1682:gibson
1638:gibson
1616:gibson
1564:gibson
1389:pieces
1371:, and
1363:, the
1157:Added
1111:Esmeme
1082:Esmeme
1063:Esmeme
965:WP:CON
862:cancer
696:WP:AGF
648:Esmeme
615:Esmeme
519:Esmeme
484:Esmeme
463:harass
432:doxing
428:doxing
272:scale.
126:Google
1710:help.
611:there
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1859:talk
1840:talk
1820:talk
1767:talk
1735:talk
1701:talk
1686:talk
1667:talk
1642:talk
1620:talk
1606:Hi @
1598:talk
1568:talk
1534:talk
1520:talk
1335:talk
1293:talk
1115:talk
1086:talk
1067:talk
1046:talk
1025:talk
1015:and
988:Talk
973:talk
932:talk
907:Talk
893:talk
878:Talk
840:talk
826:Talk
811:talk
805:. --
802:and
787:Talk
766:talk
750:talk
723:talk
708:Talk
671:talk
652:talk
634:Talk
619:talk
595:here
558:Talk
542:Talk
488:talk
440:talk
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1729:-->
1215:RfC
1185:to
1175:to
1151:to
868:to
688:SPA
527:go.
515:).
458:has
369:Low
238:or
176:TWL
1914::
1861:)
1842:)
1822:)
1769:)
1737:)
1703:)
1688:)
1680:.
1659:—
1644:)
1622:)
1600:)
1581:,
1570:)
1556:2.
1550:1.
1536:)
1522:)
1514:--
1490:so
1483:)
1428:/
1424:/
1359:,
1337:)
1329:--
1295:)
1287:--
1228:.
1223:}}
1219:{{
1163:}}
1159:{{
1117:)
1088:)
1069:)
1052:)
1048:•
1027:)
990:)
975:)
967:.
934:)
909:)
895:)
880:)
854:is
842:)
828:)
813:)
789:)
768:)
752:)
725:)
710:)
673:)
654:)
636:)
621:)
613:.
560:)
544:)
490:)
478:,
474:,
442:)
193:,
156:)
54:;
1857:(
1838:(
1818:(
1765:(
1733:(
1699:(
1695:-
1684:(
1657:.
1640:(
1628:@
1618:(
1596:(
1589::
1577:@
1566:(
1532:(
1518:(
1333:(
1291:(
1260:)
1256:(
1243:.
1236:.
1113:(
1084:(
1065:(
1044:(
1023:(
986:(
971:(
930:(
905:(
891:(
876:(
838:(
824:(
809:(
785:(
764:(
748:(
721:(
706:(
684::
680:@
669:(
650:(
632:(
617:(
591::
587:@
556:(
540:(
521:)
503::
499:@
486:(
454::
450:@
438:(
381:.
278::
246:.
195:2
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.