Talk:Deconstruction

"Because of things like this, deconstruction argues that books and poems never just mean what they're supposed to." I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. How can something not mean what it's supposed to mean? Do you mean "it doesn't mean what the author meant it to mean" or what? --69.86.151.144 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really bad summary. No one practicing deconstruction would agree with, well, anything in it.

Condescending[change source]

This wiki is supposed to be for "students, children, adults with learning difficulties and people who are trying to learn English," according to WP:Simple English. This does not mean the articles should be condescending. This article sounds like it should be read by someone talking to a complete imbecile, instead of someone who just needs a little help with the language. It needs to be cleaned up. cymru lass ^{(talk to me)}⁄_{(see my edits)} 00:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it a bit. Thank you for your opinion. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 02:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still quite stupid. We lose a layer of the concept in this article. 70.72.160.161 (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is almost as bad as the full article. While that one is overly verbose and confusing, this one is too simplistic to have any sort of meaning. I'm starting to get the impression that no one actually understands what a deconstruction is, because only that which we do not understand do we have such difficulty explaining. Rip-Saw (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Because it questions language and meaning, there is no way to explain what a deconstructionist is or does."[change source]

seriously? 98.7.201.234 (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up; I've removed it. Vermont (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]