Talk:Metamodernism/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:59, 4 July 2014

Coinage of the word

The term metamodernism was not, in fact, introduced by the hacks mentioned in the article ("Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker") and the date ("2009") is wrong also. Any search of the term in Google Books will reveal that it was coined in the 1970s and already in use -in the academy- in the 1980s. I cannot help but wonder if Timotheus Vermeulen, Robin van den Akker, or one of their students wrote this inaccurate rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oulipal (talk • contribs) 16:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article should be rewritten. User: Yogiwallah

I am aware of at least two earlier, coined in the academic and in the socio-political world, definitions of the term. The article, as it is, is bias1ed towards one definition of MM, the one by Vermeulen and van der Akker. It should be rewritten to give all uses and definitions a proper representation, and list then chronologically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.100.38 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable metamodernists

All of the entries to the 'notable metamodernists' list are sourced to confirm that the individuals are metamodernists, and WP notability guidelines establish these people as notable. By definition if WP:NOT establishes the person as notable, and independent sourcing confirms them to be metamodernists, they belong on the list. If anyone should wish to add to that list or remove those who do not meet the WP:NOT guidelines (for instance names in red), I understand that and it can be worked out somehow. But anonymous IP addresses blanking the entire section using an unproven claim of 'bias' whilst questioning the notability of those who have already met the WP:NOT standard is inappropriate and a vandalism of the entry.Festal82 (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On followup, I want to be clear that the anonymous user's section blanking edits will be reverted by me every day, or more than one time a day, until this user explains the bizarre claim of 'bias' and how a list of 'notable metamodernists' is 'subjective' when nearly all entries meet the WP standard of both notability and being metamodernists by virtue of WP:NOT (they have their own WP entries) and full sourcing and attribution of the claims they are metamodernists in practice or by avowal. So we can continue to do this for the next year, which I will, or we can have a discussion about it here, as WP guidelines demand. Festal82 (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list of 'notable metamodernists' appears to be self-promotion by Seth Abramson and Jesse Damiani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.223.4 (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked an entire section of an article, one containing 23 names and counting--19 of which are Wikipedia entries with fully sourced connections to metamodernism--because you were speculating that two of those names don't believe there? Can I ask why you didn't just remove those names? This list will ultimately be 100 and more names long, it is not going to be removed because you don't like two entries. That's balderdash. Festal82 (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I have removed those names from the list to have us figure out separately whether they should be there. The list is what matters. I added Abramson myself, and an unknown user (108.198.114.42?) added Damiani, and I am happy to hear your objections. All I care about is the list itself, with 100+ entries coming the addition or removal of any particular names should not determine the fate of the list. Festal82 (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to the list

As everyone who frequents Notes on Metamodernism can see, the list is largely compiled using names that have appeared on that site. The references box for many entries include links to NoM, though I understandably wanted to vary the citations so where non-NoM sources could readily be found, they were used. I hope the user who added Jesse Damiani will write in here to explain that inclusion, I saw that name mentioned in the reference link provided for Seth Abramson but do not have independent sourcing presently to justify its inclusion. As for Abramson, I found many links and chose one. If anyone wants to sound off on that inclusion, happy to discuss it. I don't feel wedded to any one inclusion to the list, only the list itself. Festal82 (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To 64.134.223.4: You say 'most' of those on the list are not notable, yet 18 of 21 are notable according to WP:NOT. If you dislike the remaining three names, remove them and we will discuss them in talk. If you think there are too few names here, add names. Do not blank the section. Festal82 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Abramson

It appears that Festal82 is either Seth Abramson or one of his associates. The repeated edits to position his name in the same league as Foster Wallace, Franzen and Murakami seems to be a clear example of self promotion. In addition, the whole idea of a list seems to serve this purpose, since the names that were added (that were not previously in the metamodernism entry) are all names that solely Abramson has introduced in his writing, and which have not appeared anywhere else in the metamodern discourse. Abramson is known for his compulsion to make lists that include and exclude certain artists, ultimately for certain individuals' gain. I suggest that the list of 'Notable metamodernists' be removed completely from this page, as it arguably serves little purpose beyond these cynical motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.47.151.94 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you realize how insane the above sounds. You clearly have never used WP before; alleging that an editor is "either Seth Abramson or one of his associates" is itself a violation of WP guidelines, made worse here by the fact that the claim is unsubstantiated beyond some paranoia I don't understand because I don't know the background of this issue and don't care. Whatever your personal beef is with Seth Abramson, deal with it in some other way than this. The standard for a poet's inclusion in a list of artists in many genres is not that he or she be as widely read as three of the most important novelists of the last century. Moreover, this list is based largely on names that previously appeared in this article and were also written about on Notes on Metamodernism. That's why the links are to that website, obviously. Your comments here make clear that your edits are being made based on some motive that has nothing to do with WP. This name will stay on the list, as will all others that are WP:NOT people who self-describe as metamodernists. That's a simple and verifiable standard--your "because I think so" based on personal animus is not a standard we can use to create this list--exactly the sort of list that would appear in a WP article of this sort. Festal82 (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General Wikipedia notability alone is not grounds for inclusion on this list. Seth Abramson has been removed from the list of notable literary figures due to a plain lack of widespread significance as a poet. The persistent attempts by Festal82 to include his name makes a mockery of the whole list. (Probable attempt at self-positioning?) Esmeme (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Hodgman

If anyone finds an article linking the comedian Hodgman with metamodernism, please note it here. Would like to add him and am looking for sources. Festal82 (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shia LaBeouf

I've removed Shia LaBeouf from the "In Cinema" list of metamodernists. His metamodern theory is vastly different from what is defined by the wikipedia article. His theory merely borrows the name 'metamodernism.' You can read his manifesto at http://www.metamodernism.org/ if you believe I am in error. Until a decision is made, I believe it's best for LaBeouf to be left out--citing him as a metamodernist on the wiki page may confuse those who have not had the time to review his dense manifesto. Calleguas (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't edit him back in just yet, but I couldn't disagree more. Metamodernism is a cultural paradigm with endless iterations, and Shia's take on the reality/unreality, knowledge/ignorance, and authorship/free-floating information polar spectra are well within its purview. There's a reason that his primary collaborator is Luke Turner, who literally wrote the Manifesto for metamodernism. I think if we start this micro-policing of the metamodern philosophy now, there's no end to it--we fall into madness. Shia LaBeouf is only the second American to publicly self-describe as a metamodernist, he collaborates with metamodernists, and his recent public performances create exactly the sort of oscillation between poles Vermeulen and van den Akker have written about. If you want more references added to the entry (e.g. regarding LaBeouf's current L.A. exhibit, co-developed with metamodernist scion Turner), I'll happily do that. Festal82 (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putting Shia back in now; there seems to be no argument forthcoming for his exclusion. Festal82 (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable. Editors can debate whether he fits the definition of a metamodernist, but there are secondary RS such as Time, the Chicago Tribune and Huff Post that cover his claim to be a metamodernist, so that claim is verifiable and is worth a mention here. --Mark viking (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previous use

The following sentence doesn't make sense: "The term metamodernism was previously adopted by literary theorist Alexandra Dumitrescu to describe the contemporary paradigm, the poetry of William Blake,[10] the fiction of Arundhati Roy,[11] and Michel Tournier."[12]

Something has been left out. Rwood128 (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it to make some sense. Also changed the section to "Usage" Bhny (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Turner

This page appears to have been taken over by Luke Turner or his associates. All sources used on the page are from Turner's website (which is why someone, and not me, posted six warning messages at the top of the article!), and every link that was previously here (including links from credible, WP:NOT media sources like The Huffington Post and Indiewire) have been systematically removed--apparently because Turner doesn't control their content. Any persons on the "Notable Metamodernists" list--at this point, 12 different individuals with WP:NOT pages and WP:NOT media sourcing--who were not written about on Turner's website have been removed, and even when they are replaced they get removed again by the same WP user handle. All of these edits have been made by someone under the handle "Esme". Worst of all, the most high-profile event in the U.S. in terms of metamodernism--the publishing, by actor Shia LaBeouf, of the Metamodernist Manifesto this year (2014)--has likewise been coopted by Turner or his associates. I'm just wondering at what point this handle gets blocked for its persistent vandalism. I'll keep combating this attack on the page--including by regularly sourcing my edits with WP:NOT sources like The Huffington Post, Indiewire, The Guardian, Newsday, and The Telegraph, to establish, consistent with WP guidelines, that all this info regarding "Luke Turner" is bogus--but I'd appreciate some help from other editors.24.159.240.246 (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the manifesto was first published by Turner in 2011, and was republished in the European Scientific Journal in 2013[1] , the above is clearly incorrect. Esmeme (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LaBeouf published the Manifesto in December of 2013 via links on his Twitter account; the link you've provided here is likewise from December of 2013, and therefore isn't of any value to the conversation probatively. If anything, it suggests that LaBeouf was passing around his Manifesto in the fall of 2013 and then published it on Twitter and in the ESJ during the same month. Luke Turner has been claiming this spring, as you have (conveniently) also this spring, that he wrote the Manifesto "in 2011", but there are no WP:NOT media sources to prove it besides his own website. Moreover, why would you insist on a link here that takes us to a website that says it's authored by Shia LaBeouf, and then claim it's proof that Luke Turner wrote it? Think for a moment: You are claiming the proof of Turner's authorship is a website that claims LaBeouf's authorship (www.metamodernism.org); why would Turner allow LaBeouf to take credit for his (Turner's) work? And even if he had a reason, we can't know it and he gives up the right to claim authorship of that page in any case. Meanwhile, you are deleting copious WP:NOT links proving that LaBeouf was the author of the Manifesto--without ever, oddly, contesting their truth except to delete them wholesale. This is ridiculous behavior. Luke Turner is an editor for a website that is trying to take over this article, yes; that he is anything more than that you have no proof whatsoever. And your continued attempts to eliminate any U.S. metamodernists from this article, and eliminate any U.S. media sources from this article, suggests a European bias that conveniently aligns with Luke Turner's own, though unlike you I won't make spurious claims about the likely identities of other WP editors, which as you know is against WP policy (WP:AGF among others). 24.159.240.246 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The European Scientific Journal isn't that reliable of a source. Jeffrey Beall lists it (or will, soon) in his list of predatory open access publishers. ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 00:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Crazytales, I wasn't aware of this. However, it would seem that the overwhelming evidence from a large number of sources prior to 2013 confirms that Turner authored the manifesto in 2011. Esmeme (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OP (i.e. Crazytales), thank you for this. I went to the site also and found it a very strange "academic" article, so hearing that it is a known predatory open access publisher (intended, I presume, to further scams of the sort "Esmeme" is running right now on the metamodernism article) is not too surprising, actually. In any case, its relevance, reliability, and notability in no way compares to the WP:NOT sources that "Esmeme" has been systematically erasing: The Guardian, The Telegraph, Indiewire, The Huffington Post, Gawker, and many, many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festal82 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 27 May 2014‎

Metamodernist Manifesto (Website)

Okay, everyone calm down. Can't we just agree that every single person who visits the home page of the Manifesto--http://www.metamodernism.org/ --sees that it says "by Shia LaBeouf" at the top? We don't even need the twenty-five or whatever WP:NOT U.S. and U.K. media outlets that confirm this, and/or the zero that say Luke Turner wrote the Manifesto: the very link some others are claiming should be in the article establishes LaBeouf, umambiguously, as the author of the Manifesto. Festal82 (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See these additional sources that confirm the manifesto was authored by Turner in 2011 [2][3][4]. There are numerous other sources out there. The above editor is seemingly unaware of Turner and LaBeouf's ongoing, and widely publicised [5][6][7] artistic collaboration. Esmeme (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, how does any of that explain how or why the primary page that the section of the metamodernism article we're discussing links to (http://www.metamodernism.org) calls Shia LaBeouf the author of the Manifesto, and that the major media websites whose links you've been systematically erasing from the article--all websites that are WP:NOT, whereas none of yours are--say that LaBeouf is the author? And what does any of this have to do with you blanking from the article the name of any metamodernist who is discussed in any media outlet that is _not_ Luke Turner's personal website, Notes on Metamodernism? Festal82 (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The links cited above, especially [8] addresses the authorship of the manifesto. Also, Luke Turner is but one of six current editors of the Notes on Metamodernism website, so it is hardly his personal website. The dubious notability of certain names on the list has been addressed above at length. Esmeme (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we're very close to getting your handle blocked, so all of this is probably moot, but the only "dubious notability" you have established is your own personal animus toward every U.S. metamodernist and every metamodernist referenced in U.S. media. You are erasing everything that's not tied to your own non-WP:NOT website, the blog "Notes on Metamodernism." It's outrageous that you continue to conclusively state your own opinions as more important than those of Wikipedia itself: i.e., by erasing the names of 12 individuals who are WP:NOT and who publish metamodern work and essays on metamodernism in WP:NOT American media. As for authorship of the Manifesto, the probable reason you attempted to blank the header of this section of the "Talk" on metamodernism is that it draws attention to the fact that the primary link you're pushing (http://www.metamodernism.org) _calls Shia LaBeouf the author of the Manifesto_. And that's putting aside the fact that every source I've offered is a WP:NOT source, and none of yours are. The trend (for any WP administrators reading this) is that this user deletes WP:NOT names and WP:NOT sources time and time again, and in every single case--bar none--replaces them with either links to a non-WP:NOT blog, "Notes on Metamodernism," or to sources that are not WP:NOT and which claim, without proof, that "Luke Turner" authored a Manifesto _whose text itself_ says it was authored by someone else. Give me a break! Festal82 (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That the manifesto [9] bears Turner's name in the copyright notice at the bottom (marked 2011), is perhaps the clearest indicator that the text was written by Turner in 2011 as he claims, not to mention all the additional sources I have linked to here. Esmeme (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the "Dispute Resolution" tab, below. FWIW, in fact the copyright notice you reference only confirms that Luke Turner controls the _page_--which in turn confirms my assertion that he has identified the author as Shia LaBeouf (in the usual way: by putting "by Shia LaBeouf" at the top of the Manifesto). And actually, as far as I can tell there's not a single source online in which Turner himself says, "I wrote this." All I've seen is him referring to it as Shia LeBeouf's Manifesto. So I'm not sure what the phrase "as he claims" means here. All of this being separate from the countless times I've pointed out to you that _all_ WP:NOT sources we can find on this identify--unambiguously--LaBeouf as the author of the Manifesto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festal82 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is inaccurate. As user 24.159.240.246 states above, Turner has said many times publicly that he is the author of the manifesto. See examples here [10][11][12]. Further up this talk page, even Festal82 writes that Turner wrote the manifesto, and so the sudden about-face is most confusing. Esmeme (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have unceremoniously deleted, without explanation, five WP:NOT sources establishing Shia LaBeouf as the author of the Manifesto, replaced them with two non-WP:NOT sources calling Luke Turner the author, and appear totally at peace about it. You either have intimate knowledge of the authorship of the Manifesto, and that's what's guiding your otherwise inexplicable recalcitrance--in which case you're violating WP:OR by engaging in original research--or you have a bias against Shia LaBeouf that causes you to weigh two non-WP:NOT sources as more important than five WP:NOT sources. Look at it this way: Who are you going to trust on this authorship question, a man whose claim of authorship is entirely self-aggrandizing and directly contracts what it says on the document itself, or The Guardian and twenty-five other major news outlets (and the document itself)? Honestly, give me a break. Leave this section of the article alone, or the terms of the dispute resolution proposed below are null and void and we're back to where we started. I wouldn't advise snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, however. Festal82 (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do have knowledge, since I researched Turner's manifesto at art school more than two years ago. The text is an artist manifesto by Turner, which now seems to form part of a wider artwork with LaBeouf. You are apparently entirely ignoring the fact that it has been cited on this Wiki article since 2011, and also the additional sources I have provided, which highlight the error of those mainstream news websites. Esmeme (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is a clear violation of WP:OR ("No Original Research")--and you can't use non-WP:NOT sources that are (as noted above) known predatory publishing scams. Have you _read_ the link you posted? It refers to the most famous novelist of the late twentieth century as "David Roster Waellace." _This_ is the news source that should replace The Guardian and other major media on this article? Really? In any case, I didn't remove the Manifesto--I argued against removing it--so you can have it out with that other editor as to that. As I said before, I'm willing to stand down on this ridiculous usurpation of LaBeouf's authorship if the sections of the article I consider actually constructive are either left intact or built upon. But beyond that, re: the Manifesto's appearance in the article, you're on your own. Festal82 (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

If Esmeme is willing to leave alone the "Notable Metamodernists" list--in other words, cease removing U.S. metamodernists who are already WP:NOT, and cease removing U.S. media sources that identify different metamodernists than does the OP's blog ("Notes on Metamodernism")--we can resolve this dispute. I already removed from the list, many weeks ago, any metamodernist on the list who wasn't already WP:NOT (though many will soon be), so the list should only be growing at this point--not contracting. I know that Shia LaBeouf wrote the Manifesto, as does anyone who reads major media in the U.S., but as the "Notable Metamodernists" list is my primary project on this page, as I've said previously, the OP can mis-identify the author of the Manifesto if s/he wishes. The content is what matters anyway. But I monitor this page, and of course the moment the attack on the "Notable Metamodernists" begins again, any dispute resolution agreed to here is null and void in my view. Festal82 (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New to this debate. Wanted to add some painters to the Notable Metamodernists section, but they were deleted by Esmeme. Richard T. Scott, though, is a noted post-postmodernist painter, outspoken on kitsch, reconstructivist philosophy, etc. Open to discussion. Snuffleumpagus (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Snuffleumpagus! I'm sorry you've had this experience, and we will fix it. Esmeme is an editor for the non-WP:NOT European blog "Notes on Metamodernism," which is used as a citation for most of the content on this Wikipedia article despite the fact that it violates WP:RS. For months now Esmeme has been deleting any links on this page that direct anywhere but his blog, and deleting the names of any persons not mentioned on his blog. So far I've been one of the only users combating this vandalism of the page, but I'm happy to work with you to ensure that you can add names to the "Notable Metamodernists" list. The only requirement is their discussion in a WP:NOT media source as being connected to metamodern art. This idea that we can't _possibly_ identify metamodernists is of course absurd; no one in the U.S. struggles to name the major Modernist poets, nor do scholars familiar with poststructuralist lit theory struggle to identify poets associated with postmodernism. Naming the names of artists who are working through a cultural paradigm or structure of feeling is a necessary historical task and perfect for a basic research tool like Wikipedia; Esmeme opposes this effort--despite the fact that he previously added twenty names to the main section of the article, all people mentioned on his blog--only because he is trying to control all content on the page. That will not happen. So please return your painters to the "Notable Metamodernists" list, and provided you have WP:NOT sources discussing their work as coming "through" the metamodern paradigm, they will stay. I will see to it. If Esmeme gives you any difficulty, ALL LINKS and ALL NAMES in this article associated with the non-WP:NOT blog "Notes on Metamodernism" will immediately be deleted, and will be re-deleted (as necessary) every 48 hours for the rest of recorded Time. So please don't be put off by this vandal, and welcome to the group of editors attempting to productively edit the article! Festal82 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viability of list of notable metamodernists

If we started to amass a list of all the painters the are WP:NOT whose work is metamodern, the entry would quickly become enormously long, since by definition a large proportion of artists working today fit into the paradigm of the contemporary age that metamodernism describes. Aside from this, there is no evidence that Richard T. Scott's work has been discussed in the wider metamodern discourse, and it appears to have little in common with those artists whose names are discussed at length, such as Peter Doig, Olafur Eliasson, etc, who might be deemed primary candidates for any future list.

However, all this is moot, since the academics who introduced the term metamodernism were adamant that the term was not intended "to group, categorize and pigeonhole the creative work of this or that architect or artist", but rather "to chart, after Jameson, the ‘cultural dominant’ of a specific stage in the development of modernity."[13] The logic of having a list of 'Notable metamodernists' on this Wiki page seems incredibly dubious, and in practice only functions to subjectively position certain artists above others who haven't been included (as evidenced by the list's current bias towards the taste of a sole outspoken and little-supported voice, that of Seth Abramson). This is clearly missing the point of describing a cultural shift that applies to all artists. Esmeme (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that Festal82 was the editor that introduced the list of notable metamodernists to the article [14], and that the original selection of names was hugely biased towards those championed by Seth Abramson in his Huffington Post / Indiewire articles. Festal82 also appears to be the only editor who has any desire for there to be a list. This speaks volumes. Esmeme (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've been previously warned (see the "Dispute Resolution" section) about what will happen if you continue deleting all names in this article not associated with your non-WP:NOT, non-WP:RS blog. If you want to have this out, you should prepare to have vandalizing this page become a major part of your life activities for the next five years--as you will need to be constantly re-vandalizing it in order to have things your way for even a few moments every few hours. Or--crazy alternative--you could simply move the names you yourself already put into the article (in the main section, i.e. a level of hubris no other editor here would have imagined) into the "Notable Metamodernists" list, as I've already started to do, and then permit other editors to do what Modernist and postmodernist scholars have been doing _for a century_ in that list (provided they have a WP:NOT media source to link each entry to). But given your previous conduct here, and your obvious motivations, I don't think you'll take that path. So I really, really hope you like spending a _lot_ of time on Wikipedia, and will remind you that I already have a dozen WP:NOT sources proving Shia LaBeouf wrote the Metamodernist Manifesto ready to go. I can promise you that every _scintilla_ of information from your non-WP:NOT, non-WP:RS blog will be removed from this article _on the regular_ if you touch the "Notable Metamodernists" list one more time (unless you're adding to it). Festal82 (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My friends (if I may be so bold--as we all here seem to share a common passion, namely, metamodernism), I have a proposal. I admit I was myself frustrated to have had my additions deleted, but, upon retrospect, Esmeme's comment on 16:16 31 May makes good sense. Indeed, in addition to the theoretical issues posed by such a list, this dispute itself offers ample evidence that now may not be the best time for such a thing. I agree with Festal82 that, someday, such a list is inevitable (it's what cultural historians do). But that day is probably still some time in the future--when the truly notable figures of this present cultural era have unquestionably shown themselves. At present, however, it is proving too dubious, controversial, divisive, and too easily prone to abuse/self-promotion. Perhaps we might accept an armistice on this affair, then; allow history to take its course, and, with greater perspective, recuse ourselves from this task (at least until a more fitting time)? The paradigm shift is real; the term is but a tool--a useful rallying point which allows us better insight into the times. I fear that, if we who embrace this term and its theoretical framework fall too much into discord, we are only doing a disservice to ourselves and cultural history by muddying the waters. As ever, open to everyone's thoughts. Snuffleumpagus (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've gone past that point, unfortunately. The main body of this article already contains _thirty-one_ names of metamodernists added by "Esmeme": Georges Lentz, Peter Doig, Olafur Eliasson, Ragnar Kjartansson, Šejla Kamerić, Paula Doepfner, Haruki Murakami, Roberto Bolaño, David Foster Wallace, Jonathan Franzen, Mariechen Danz, Issa Sant, Angelika Trojnarski, Mona Hatoum, Monica Bonvicini, Andy Holden, David Thorpe, Luke Turner, Kris Lemsalu, Guido van der Werve, Pilvi Takala, Ulf Aminde, Niels van Poecke, Reina Marie Loader, Leonhard Herrman, Nadine Feßler, James MacDowell, Hanka van der Voet, Luke Butcher, David Lau, and Ankit Love. All of these people are listed here only because their names appeared once on a non-WP:NOT, non-WP:RS blog run by "Esmeme." This same editor, "Esmeme," has deleted _twenty-five_ other names from this article, all of which are mentioned in WP:NOT, WP:RS media outlets. You are confusing the opposition "Esmeme" claims he has with the real issue--he opposes _your_ list. _His_ list he will restore to this article within five minutes, should you remove it. And if we were taking the time in this article to note important sites tracking metamodernism--as "Esmeme" has dedicated a whole paragraph here to the founding of his non-WP:NOT, non-WP:RS blog as though it were an historic event--we might also note that there is presently an entire column devoted to metamodernism on a WP:NOT, WP:RS media outlet in the United States, Indiewire. But "Esmeme" has attempted to delete all references to that source, as it's not under the control of him and his. Either all names are removed from this article except that of the two theorists who coined the term "metamodernism" as we now understand it and Shia LaBeouf--who wrote the "Manifesto" for metamodernism--or the list stays and can be added to by any person who meets a very, very simple standard: Produce an article in a WP:NOT, WP:RS media outlet (not a blog) that mentions that artist in the context of metamodern Art. Festal82 (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Snuffleumpagus. I'm glad that there is some consensus building that the list is simply too divisive at this stage. And Festal82, your above statement is completely false and beyond ludicrous. I have not added 31 names. I have no idea where you plucked that from. Those names you quote were on the page years before I began editing. I have added perhaps 3 or 4 (the article edit history will show this), but regret this now, for it was adding to a list that I now see is a bad idea. I don't know how you can make such ridiculous and false accusations. I have absolutely no affiliation with the Notes on metamodernism website to which you keep referring, let alone "run" it as you claim. I also object to you referring to me as male, for obvious reasons! As is evident from the majority of comments on this talk page, Festal82 is using bullying tactics to try to get their own way, at the expense of accurate information and sources. Please cease your hostile and improper behaviour, which is in clear violation of WP guidelines, otherwise I will have to report you once again. Esmeme (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I can take from the above that you agree to 1) removal of all names from the article except Vermeulen and van den Akker (i.e., all 31 above, and all in the "Notable Metamodernists" list); 2) removal of all sources in the article that are not WP:RS, given your sudden stringent adherence to all WP policies; and 3) citation of Shia LaBeouf as the author of the Metamodernist Manifesto, given that the only WP:NOT sources discussing authorship of the Manifesto cite him as the author? If I am frustrated it is because your double-speak has become intolerable. I offered you a dispute resolution--I don't alter the main body, you don't alter the "Notable Metamodernists" list except to add to it--and you refused to respond. Now I will offer you a second dispute resolution--adherence with the three terms I laid out above--which I suspect you will also ignore. Or, you will do what you've done in the past, and slip back into the article in the dead of night to undo any changes you've agreed to but don't actually favor. I have reported you as a vandal once, and will report you again if I have to; the "tactics" you refer to are nothing than my firm public commitment to not allow you to vandalize this page further. Every time I confront you with WP policies, you ignore them--in fact you have not once responded to allegations that your sources are non-WP:NOT and non-WP:RS--so your reliance on WP policies now is especially insulting. Be confident that my commitment to aggressively block your vandalism hasn't wavered in the slightest. Festal82 (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above makes no sense at all. Especially since Snuffleumpagus agreed that the list is a bad idea. I will leave it to others to decide who the vandal is here. Esmeme (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You really are remarkable. Not 72 hours ago you objected to the deletion, from the article's list of links, of a self-published website you wrote (the site that hosts The Metamodernist Manifesto) on the grounds that "it had been in the article since 2011," and then, just hours later, you deleted within minutes a link posted by Snuffleumpagus to a website of exactly the same vintage. You violate WP:NOT and WP:RS repeatedly and offer no reply when it's pointed out that you've done so, then cry "WP policies!" when you don't like the tone of another editor. You repeatedly demand the removal of about 20 names from the article because they don't link to your website, then fight to maintain 31 other names in the article because they _do_ link to your website (all the while claiming the shelter of a "principle" that says scholars can't compile lists of notable artists working within a discrete cultural paradigm). It is no violation of WP policy to point out that your edits to this article exhibit no adherence to principle or fidelity to the truth whatsoever. I am watching this article and will return the moment you seek to vandalize it further. Given that all of my edits have been consistent with WP:NOT and WP:RS, and that all of my observations on how the article can be improved have been consistent over time--meaning, I don't give preference to certain links over others for byzantine reasons involving personal animus or profit--I have no fear that future readers will see exactly where the vandalism was here. Festal82 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider's point of view

Came here via Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#metamodernism. I don't believe I've ever edited this page and admittedly lack expertise on the subject of metamodernist art. I do know Wikipedia, though, and after looking through the article's edit history and talk page I'm finding some things troubling.

First and foremost, edit warring is not a good solution. Both Festal82 and Esmeme were in blatant violation of WP:3RR on May 26 (and probably other days, but that one was the most egregious). Wikipedia operates according to consensus. If you find that another editor is being unreasonable, take it to one of the noticeboards or to an administrator directly. Do not repeatedly revert even if you know you're right.

Second, the standard for inclusion on the list -- as with any such list on Wikipedia -- is not whether an artist's work can be interpreted as metamodernist, which would be original research but whether reliable sources explicitly characterize the artist or his/her work that way. If the list becomes unwieldy, but is entirely populated by people with Wikipedia articles (notable people) and citations connecting them to metamodernism, the solution is not to say "well I don't think this one is as important as that one and therefore the less important one should be removed." The answer is to split the list off to a stand-alone list article. We don't want to get into who is better known or who is more metamodernist, because it'll inevitably get into WP:NPOV and WP:NOR issues.

Third, as to the reliability of metamodernism.com. This is a little trickier. It is not ideal -- that much is certain. In general, Wikipedia prefers better sources with a reputation for accuracy/fact-checking, etc. For some subjects blogs are acceptable, but certainly should never take precedent over better sources. While I see plenty of evidence that Esmeme has removed sources, I have not seen sufficient evidence to suggest his/her motivation is to replace said sources with links to metamodernism.com. The question, in the end, is whether a person should be added if the only source is metamodernism.com, which I would leave up to the regular editors of this page to determine. If consensus cannot be determined or if an editor will not respect consensus, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard.

Fourth, both Esmeme and Festal82 have made comments that hover between WP:OUTING and personal attacks, with accusations of off-wiki identities and assumptions of bad faith. Looking at edit summaries, I see that one of Esmeme's first reverts suggested the addition of Abramson was a "probable qattempt at self-positioning." Esmeme's later reverts mischaracterized multiple other users' edits in edit summaries by simply saying "undid vandalism," which is inappropriate. At the same time, Festal82 has accused Esmeme of promoting his/her blog/interests at the expense of the article. None of these accusations appear to be founded.

--— Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rhododendrites, this seems like a largely fair assessment, although my feelings of possible conflicts of interest were based on the nature and inconsistency of historical edits, the previous comments of other editors, and the user's assumption of bad faith towards others, which I was responding to. I hope that this has now stopped, and the factual integrity of the article will be preserved, as has always been my intent. Esmeme (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, Rhododendrites. I agree this is a largely fair assessment. As I noted several weeks ago under the "Dispute Resolution" sub-header, I think things can be amiable going forward if/as all parties honor WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and also (as you noted, Rhododendrites) WP:OUTING. My sense is that Esmeme is willing to do this going forward, and provided future actions match present words, all is well on my end. Thanks again for your help. Festal82 (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on recent changes

I was asked at my talk page to comment on recent edits.

Changes I see:

Maintenance tags at the top removed
- This is fine so long as they were indeed resolved, but if others feel the issues stand one or more can be restored pending a talk page discussion.
Lead reduced in size considerably. In general I think this is a good idea. Too much of what metamodernism is was up in the lead before which is really just supposed to summarize the rest of the article.
- I think the lead needs work, though. In its current state it simply reads "In philosophy and aesthetics, metamodernism is a recent reaction to postmodernism informed by elements of both modernism and postmodernism."
  - Regarding style: change "recent" to be more specific (assume nobody will update it later).
  - Regarding content: I should be able to get the gist of what the subject is by just reading the lead (since it summarizes the rest of the article), so while concise is good, I frankly have no idea what to make of this subject based on this one sentence -- and I probably have more background knowledge of postmodernism and modernism than most readers.
  - Also, and this is much more minor, because of the order of the words it sounds like you're setting up some other definition of metamodernism that applies to fields other than philosophy and aesthetics.
File:Bjarke ingels group, BIG JDS PLOT, mountain dwellings, copenhagen 2005-2008 detail.jpg removed
- I have no comment on this. It lacked context, for sure, but I don't know enough to say whether it should be returned.
Usage section expanded, moved up.
- Ok, so this isn't necessarily inappropriate stuff to get into, but it shouldn't substitute for a thorough explanation of what the subject is (which should come first on the page and in priority). Ultimately, Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, which means it's not about the term but about what it means. Often the term is important to understand what it means, yes, but it's about the idea(s) metamodernism, not different usage of the term. I'd add that not every single usage of the term will be about the same metamodernism that this article is about. If I used "metamodernism" to mean "extremely modern" or something, that wouldn't fit and shouldn't be included. What's the notable subject? (because it's not the word that's notable)
- This may be why Esmeme mentioned on my talk page that it seemed refocused -- because Vermeulen and van den Akker are moved down, although they do still receive a little more space than the others. I personally don't know what the body of metamodernist literature looks like, but it's important to present things in proportion to their coverage in literature (e.g. if one person used the term but nobody else picked up on it, that version should be covered to a lesser degree than another person's ideas that have been demonstrably influential). From the way the article appeared before the recent edits, it looked like Vermeulen and van den Akker were by far the most influential figures here. Now they're a little less so. Remember that the important thing for determining significance is what other people say about someone's ideas, not what the originators say (which is important to include, but not for determining significance/weighting).
- To be clear, this is not a judgment of this or that sentence/source/person/idea but a general guideline for the article.
Shia LaBeouf is again credited with the manifesto.
- I wish I had saved my sources on this. I'll just say that I did some pretty diligent investigating on the matter previously and felt completely confident it was Turner. I would strongly encourage the article reflect as much, but I don't have the sources or the inclination to re-find them at the moment.
Notes on Metamodernism expanded to a paragraph.
- Currently this is entirely primary sourced and so WP:UNDUE (we can't just report on everything people associated with metamodernism do/publish just by virtue of it being done/published; sources need to talk about it first). Doesn't necessarily mean it has to be removed, but I would bet there are sources talking about this, which would make it a non-issue.
Galerie Tanja Wagner paragraph removed. This, too, appears to have been entirely primary sourced. While that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be removed, it, like the Notes on Modernism paragraph, is certainly not ideal.

Phew. Hope that's helpful rather adding confusion. In general I hope you'll take these comments not as an opinion that recent edits should or should not be reverted but on general comments about the article and its treatment of the subject. There's some good and some that needs improvement, as is typical. One final thing that I would personally find helpful to have in the article: a clearer distinction/comparison made to/between the various -isms, especially post-postmodernism which I know is connected but is barely mentioned. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your hard work here Rhododendrites. I agree with all your points. I have rearranged the "Usage" section and presented things in proportion to their coverage/significance, and added a "Previous uses" section which I think improves the coherence of page dramatically. I have also reinstated your sources for the manifesto. I hope that these changes improve the overall quality of the page as per your recommendations, and we should all look at further improvements going forward. Esmeme (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coinage of the word (Redux)

It does Vermeulen and van den Akker no service to claim--without evidence one way or another--that they had never ever heard the terms "metamodern" or "metamodernism" prior to 2010, when in fact those terms could have been located using any of the search engines all scholars internationally employ to conduct their research. Unless there is an interview with either man in which he says the terms "metamodern" and "metamodernism" were wholly unfamiliar to him in (say) 2009, I think the aim in this article should be to credit the two men--rightly!--with a reintroduction of the term, with new connotations, in 2010. That said, any first-year PhD. student researching metamodernism can quickly see that even the 2010 usage was very much aligned with many prior usages (including the first-ever one in 1975), so any positing here of a "radical break" with prior uses is going to be reverted by the swarm of future scholar-editors who will arrive here just as soon as the term as used by Vermeulen and van den Akker picks up steam. Better to address these issues _now_ rather than try to vainly stave off the inevitable. I have no doubt Rhododendrites would agree, especially as the "coinage" issue is such an old one re: this article that it was the very _first_ item on the "Talk" page, whether or not later editors like Esmeme chose to ignore (or even obscure, by moving around sections and changing section headers in the article) the coinage issue. Festal82 (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on the disagreement on this? They weren't the first to use it, but their use seems to be the best known, right? As long as the other uses were talking about basically the same idea, they should be talked about in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. If they're talking about different things, it may be appropriate to say, briefly, something like "It was first used by x and y to mean such and such, but it was Vermeulen and van den Akker who developed the idea and whose concept is best known today." Maybe I'm misunderstanding the disagreement or the history of the term, though. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be home to respond until tonight, but though the present editing appears to be ultimately productive I'd really urge both of you to take a breather from editing the article until you can come to some agreements on the talk page. In my experience changing the article back and forth rather than discussing first can make things more combat-oriented. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Actually, I think the problem is more complicated than that, as the history here is more of an evolution rather than a single coinage or radical break. As the "Origins" section now details, there was no radical break following the 1975 coinage of the term, but rather a current usage that is very much related to previous usages. I think the argument here is over the historical development of the term--just as everyone would like to be the one who coined the term postmodernism, the same is true with metamodernism. The problem is that we can't interrogate primary sources and ask them their influences, we can only look at uses of the term, and as the "Origins" section details, current usage is not so different from past usage. Frankly, the most common (as in ubiquitous) usage of the term in contemporary American major media is the usage we find in The Huffington Post and Indiewire, which "Esmeme" says is distinct from the Vermeulen/van den Akker usage, and one could argue is more associated with the original usage by Zavarzadeh in 1975; meanwhile, the most common (as in ubiquitous) usage in Europe is the idea as posited by Vermeulen and van den Akker, though, again, both are intimately related to prior usages. What's the problem with simply having a chronological narrative of the development of the term, noting all relevant interventions without being obsessed with coinages and radical breaks? That's simply not how philosophy works. Different views on a philosophy do not denote different coinages, but interventions in an ongoing dialogue. Festal82 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re dialoging with "Esmeme," that's simply not possible--he refuses to address me directly. Festal82 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Per the above on dictionary vs. encyclopedia and WP:REFERS, the first sentence is problematic. What is metamodernism? Because it's not a term. It's also a little too acad-speak ("describes mediations between", "rapid oscillation", "synagmatic paradigm"), which is fine for a journal/magazine article, but to me should be plainer for an encyclopedia (at least the lead).

What about something like this:

Metamodernism is an art movement and philosophical perspective characterized by an alternation between the values and techniques of modernism and those of postmodernism. It was first described in the late 20th century and has become closely associated with the work of Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker.

Just trying to give a very general gist of the most important parts. Still not ideal, probably, but I would recommend something pretty general like that until you can work out the rest of the article -- after which is a better point to work on the lead. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an excellent lead Rhododendrites, and I think we should adopt it. I agree that the terms in the current first sentence are very hard to understand, and make the introduction too complex and confusing as to what the main topic of the article is. Esmeme (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I like this lead. It may need further edits, but it's a very good start. I will add it with the inclusion of a specific timeline (the "1970s") for its first introduction, as any reader of the article would want to know that. Festal82 (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 175: / Line 175: @@
 :I think this is an excellent lead [[User:Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]], and I think we should adopt it. I agree that the terms in the current first sentence are very hard to understand, and make the introduction too complex and confusing as to what the main topic of the article is.  [[User:Esmeme|Esmeme]] ([[User talk:Esmeme|talk]]) 17:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 ::Yes, I agree. I like this lead. It may need further edits, but it's a very good start. I will add it with the inclusion of a specific timeline (the "1970s") for its first introduction, as any reader of the article would want to know that. [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 17:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
-== Removal of tables ==
-Why the removal? This is good material, think of the reader. -  [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 16:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
-:Couldn't agree more, [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]]! Not only is the material critical, the sources--[[The Independent]], [[The Huffington Post]], [[The Poetry Foundation]]--are largely if not entirely WP:RS, making their removal on grounds of "WP:RS" doubly erroneous. Thanks for the reversion! [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 17:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
-::As the remover of those, I would like to comment that I had kept the info referenced by HuffPo, Independent, etc. Most of what I removed used metamodernism.com as a source; the rest was cited by related blogs. Not only do these obviously fail WP:RS, but, seeing as the website in question was founded by the same pair who coined the "metamodernism" terminology, seems to also be a violation of [[WP:NOTADVERTISING]]. [[User:Felt friend|<span style="color:#ff0000;font-size:15px;">felt</span>]][[User talk:Felt friend|<span style="color:#960000;font-size:15px;"><nowiki>_</nowiki></span>]][[Special:Contributions/Felt friend|<span style="color:#590000;font-size:15px;">friend</span>]] 20:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
-:The removal seems to be of one source only: metamodernism.com, which [http://www.metamodernism.com/about-2/ is described] as a "webzine". This one might actually fall under [[WP:SYNTH|synthesized sourcing]]. [[User:Perfect for you|Perfect for you]] ([[User talk:Perfect for you|talk]]) 20:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
-{{ping|Felt friend}} Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation. Metamodernism.com is a site maintained by the same academics we cite in the article as the foremost authorities on this topic, right? And it's indeed ''their'' version of the topic that's the predominantly the subject of this article? Why then would what/who they describe as "metamodernist" be unreliable or, more oddly, advertising? If it were one of them who added the source to Wikipedia, I could understand a [[WP:COI]] claim, but certainly the same claims wouldn't be made about using a Lyotard quote on the postmodernism article, assuming it was verifiably his statement, even if made in a self-published source. I understand that's quite a comparison to make -- just trying to understand the problem. --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> |&nbsp; 21:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
-:: [[WP:SYNTH]] has nothing to do with this issue. There is absolutely no harm in using self-published sources providing these are sources by subject matter experts and no unduly self-serving. -  [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 21:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::SYNTH has everything to do with it. The issue is that most of the information for these tables comes from an unreliable source, namely metamodernism.com. All those citations amount to is metamodernism.com claiming that various movies, books, etc. are "metamodernist". It's unreliable and self-aggragandizing. This entire article needs to be seriously reevaluated IMO. [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 23:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
-{{ping|Rhododendrites}} Ok so to be clear, the issue is that the article uses their "webzine" to establish fact. For instance, all the information I removed had used their website to state several people and their respective works as objectively confirming to the terminology they themselves invented. Had the information been worded as "<nowiki>[so and so]</nowiki> identifies <nowiki>[so and so]</nowiki> as having these features of <nowiki>[blah blah blah]</nowiki>", then I don't think it would have been an issue. The COI issue comes up when reviewing the edit history. Most of the page was authored by a handful the same editors, [[WP:NOTHERE|most of which edit very few or no other pages on the site]]. What it seems like is going on is that the inventors of the "metamodernism" term, who also maintain metamodernism.com, are using Wikipedia as a [[WP:SOAP|soapbox to promote their own publications]]. [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/metamodernism.com The extremely low alexa ranking of the site] leads me to believe the authors/editors/bloggers themselves are adding this information as opposed to unrelated site readers/enthusiasts. {{ping|Cwobeel}}, I didn't think of the [[WP:SYNTH]] issue until {{ping|Perfect for you}} had brought it up, but it also seems like a bit of that is going on by the page editors mixing in information cited on non-notable blogs with small bits from established sources such as HuffPo. [[User:Felt friend|<span style="color:#ff0000;font-size:15px;">felt</span>]][[User talk:Felt friend|<span style="color:#960000;font-size:15px;"><nowiki>_</nowiki></span>]][[Special:Contributions/Felt friend|<span style="color:#590000;font-size:15px;">friend</span>]] 22:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
-:Before the introduction of the list of notable metamodernists, the article instead stated those that van den Akker and Vermeulen considered metamodern--a useful inclusion to help readers better understand the theories and identify the practitioners that are the topic of the article. This was included in the main body of the article as: "artists and cultural practices they consider metamodern include…" This seemed sensible. As I wrote in the ''Viability of list of notable metamodernists'' section above, I tend to agree that the list as it stands is too contentious and open to abuse. [[User:Esmeme|Esmeme]] ([[User talk:Esmeme|talk]]) 22:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
-::{{ec}} {{ping|Felt friend}} Well, first thing: You may or may not be right about COI, but all of that is circumstantial evidence and not, to me, enough to bypass [[WP:AGF]]. Most pages on little-known topics like this are written by very few editors with niche knowledge/perspectives, but it doesn't mean there's some ulterior motive necessarily.
-::More on point, though: In the eyes of Wikipedia, nobody is "objectively" or "factually" anything at all except insofar as reliable sources say they are. As a subject that not a whole lot has been written about, what reliable texts ''do'' exist out there are going to get more play than they would elsewhere. I gave a Lyotard example above, but postmodernism is such a well-developed, if messy, subject that a blog post even by an expert probably wouldn't go all that far unless supported by other sources. By that I mean there are plenty of sources to say Warhol or Koons are postmodern artists, so one source saying a relative newcomer is postmodern wouldn't likely be [[WP:DUE|due]] to include in the article on postmodernism. With metamodernism, there's less work to draw from so, again, what reliable sources are there will likely be included. Even if a self-published "webzine," it's written by the foremost among the few researchers in this nascent field, which makes them a pretty good source for what counts as metamodern.
-::Maybe a compromise could be found in the style of presentation used. There's the section heading, which could be changed from "Notable metamodernists" to something akin to "Artists whose work has been characterized as metamodern" (but preferably with fewer words than that). The use of tables also makes it so the lists occupy a great deal of real estate. What if we took the same names and sources, cut down descriptions, and formatted it as a two- or three-column list (sans table)? --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> |&nbsp; 23:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::<small>I had written the above before seeing {{u|Esmeme}} also proposed something in the same neighborhood. --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> |&nbsp; 23:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)</small>
-::::I think we're muddling a number of issues here. First, there's the "cosmetic" question, which seems to come down to whether the list of people considered metamodern has prime real estate in the article or not. What {{u|Esmeme}} is suggesting, i.e. putting that information in the main body of the very first section of the article, gives the list prime real estate, i.e. what is _not_ wanted, whereas what is presently the state of things, and what I've suggested, which is that the information be contained in a separate section towards the bottom of the article, meets everyone's goals. I am confused by this idea that moving all this information up in the article makes it _less_ dominant rather than more; clearly, it should stay as it is. The second issue is sourcing, and once again the recommendation made by {{u|Esmeme}} is exactly the opposite of what other editors are suggesting. One editor, for instance, wants no citations from the non-WP:RS blog "Notes on Metamodernism"; in response, strangely, {{u|Esmeme}} proposes that we return the article to a prior state in which the _only_ citations were from that non-WP:RS blog, _and_ (moreover) says we should make that single-sourcing situation (which previously led to this article getting five warnings from the Wikiproject:Philosophy Work Group) _more_ evident by moving up all the "Notes on Metamodernism" names to the head of the article. Meanwhile, [[User:Felt friend]] is saying that s/he "only" removed information from "Notes on Metamodernism" but that's clearly not the case--as information from [[Indiewire]], ''As It Ought to Be'', ''The American Reader'', and ''The Journal of 21st Century Writing'' was also removed. None of those independent, non-self-published sources are, as the OP claimed, in any way related to "Notes on Metamodernism." So given that we want the list not to have prime real estate, and want to allow Notes on Metamodernism as a source but in no way the _only_ source, why in the world don't we leave things exactly as they are? [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 23:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::{{ping|Rhododendrites}} To be more clear (again), the issue is that it seems as though using metamodernism.com as a source outside of (as per suggested) clarifying the founders' views would be a violation of [[WP:SOAP]] as the website, as pointed out, is founded and maintained by the creators of "metamodernism" as a terminology, which would be akin to Gabriel Marcel editing the entry for existentialism and using ''Mystery of Being'' as the page's primary source. I do agree that whether or not the article is being edited by the owners of metamodernism.com or not is irrelevant for the time being, so long as [[WP:RS]] is adequately observed. Additionally, the section in question provided no actual material aiding explanation of the subject as it never rationalized why any of the list entries were relevant to "metamodernism". Ultimately, the page, as it stands now, seems to be no more than a rehash of metamodernism.com. [[User:Felt friend|<span style="color:#ff0000;font-size:15px;">felt</span>]][[User talk:Felt friend|<span style="color:#960000;font-size:15px;"><nowiki>_</nowiki></span>]][[Special:Contributions/Felt friend|<span style="color:#590000;font-size:15px;">friend</span>]] 23:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
-::::I think {{u|Rhododendrites}}'s suggestion for reformatting and renaming the list is an excellent one. I think {{u|Festal82}} has misunderstood my last comment, as I was simply stating how the information was previously listed in an effort to arrive at a better solution, but I agree with the need for giving the list less real estate. I also agree with {{u|Felt friend}} that it would be good if there were rationalization as to why these artists are relevant to metamodernism, which was not so much a problem for the pre-list layout that I referred to in my last comment. [[User:Esmeme|Esmeme]] ([[User talk:Esmeme|talk]]) 00:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::::@Felt_friend, I think that if the only sources that can appear in the article are WP:N sources, yes, we'd have to remove everything from Notes on Metamodernism, in fact everything but content sourced to places like ''[[Indiewire]]'', ''[[The Huffington Post]]'', ''[[The Independent]]'', and so on. If the question is simply whether the information contained in the article is generally reliable, I think that right now all of it is, and therefore there'd be no need to amend the article in the ways you're suggesting. What simply makes no sense to me is re-inserting a list of 32 people identified as "metamodernists" in the main body of the first section of the article, with the only justification being that we can append the phrase "Vermeulen and van den Akker think..." before it. That's simply nonsense on its face, but more importantly it's also untrue--the articles on Notes on Metamodernism identifying those 32 people as "metamodernists" were _not_ written by Vermeulen _or_ Van den Akker, simply freelance writers who had work published on Notes on Metamodernism, so the suggestion by [[User:Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]] that this information somehow clarifies the views of Vermeulen and van den Akker simply isn't correct factually (and when [[User:Esmeme|Esmeme]] says, "the article instead [previously] stated those that van den Akker and Vermeulen considered metamodern," that is manifestly untrue). Meanwhile, the position taken by [[User:Esmeme|Esmeme]] now is the same he has taken for months now: Drop all names from the article except those sanctioned by the non-WP:N blog Notes on Metamodernism. But we're not going back down that road. [[User:Rhododendrites|User_talk:Rhododendrites]], can you explain more why making "Notable Metamodernists" a list rather than a table substantively changes the article for the better? It seems to me it would simply be harder to read, and less organized. That's especially so if we randomly pick half the names from the list and put them in another section they a) don't belong in, and b) using a justification from [[User:Esmeme|Esmeme]] (that those names were supplied by Vermeulen and van den Akker) that is simply inaccurate. [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 00:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-{{od}}
-{{ec}} {{ping|Felt Friend}} It's not even a little bit like the Marcel example. It's like if someone ''else'' said "Marcel is a reliable source" and then cited Marcel. You're still operating under the assumption that other editors have a COI.
-{{ping|Festal82}} sources don't have to be [[WP:N|notable]], only [[WP:RS|reliable]]. But more to the point, I haven't said having a list clarifies their views, only that if we are to have a list, they seem to be a reliable source. In a previous discussion I had said it did seem to make sense to give examples so long as they're reliably sourced, but I'm not saying a list is necessarily the best way to do that (nor am I saying the opposite :) ). To your point about turning the tables into lists, I didn't intend to make things more complicated; only that it seemed like there was griping that [not only were there such-and-such problems with the lists but also] they're too prominent. I may have misunderstood. Now that people see what I mean (i.e. not moving it up, just cleaning it up and reducing its size), if you don't feel it's an improvement you can go ahead and revert. --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> |&nbsp; 00:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-===This article is in SERIOUS need of help===
-Oh come now, you don't actually buy this hogwash do you? The fact that the metamodernists claim William Blake as one of their own, despite being described as "characterized by an alternation between the values and techniques of modernism and those of postmodernism", and despite the fact that Blake not only predated those eras by a century, but belonged staunchly to the Romantic era, *combined* with the fact that most of the people in those list aren't even aware that the word "metamodernist" exists, let alone that it apparently applies to their work, combined with the fact that much of the citations are unreliable and come from metamodernism.com lead me to believe that the section is not only worthless, but purely masturbatory. Do you want to know the truth? After reading the article and looking over its contribution history, it sounds like der Akker and Vermeulen are a couple of professors who decided to make a Wikipedia article so that more people read their blog. To make matters worse, it sounds like they decided to go about that by writing about their own work in the article to make it seem more important than it really is. Where's the meat? If metamodernism is so notable (and not just a vague mishmash of meaningless babble), then where's the meat? It sure isn't in this article.
-tl;dr: The vast majority of the article is somehow more masturbatory than it is vague (and it's pretty darn vague). This article is in desperate need of being gutted, deleted, or reviewed by many editors. Anyone who looks at this article and sees anything other than what would happen if [[WP:FRINGE]] and blogspam had a baby is severely deluding themselves. The fact that Blake is being labeled a metamodernist should show anyone that this article is absolute nonsense. [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 00:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:{{ping|Inanygivenhole}} I agree with quite a bit of your stance. I was a bit afraid to put it so bluntly, but this article does seem like something written by der Akker and Vermeulen to drum up support/notability for their blog. Whether or not William Blake could be considered "metamodern" (a question which I would have to reply "no" to) is irrelevant to the stance of the article on WP. It does however help demonstrate the [[WP:SYNTH]] issue: all the information pulled from the reliable sources mentioned is being mixed in with der Akker and Vermeulen's personal blog's opinions to aid in promoting their vanity website. After reviewing more of metamodernism.com, I have changed my stance on the issue at hand. I now agree that the website should be excluded as a source completely as it fails to meet [[WP:WEB]] and the background of the blog authors is completely irrelevant to the notability status of metamodernism.com. Sorry guys, but if you want your thoughts taken seriously, try publishing them in a serious manner. [[User:Felt friend|<span style="color:#ff0000;font-size:15px;">felt</span>]][[User talk:Felt friend|<span style="color:#960000;font-size:15px;"><nowiki>_</nowiki></span>]][[Special:Contributions/Felt friend|<span style="color:#590000;font-size:15px;">friend</span>]] 00:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-::I probably should have been clearer: I was only using the Blake claim as an example of how ridiculous and arbitrary the subject of the article is. And while I agree with most of the rest of what you say, I would have to add that they ''have'' published in more serious formats and even '''that''' isn't enough. We need ''third party sources'' reporting on their work, and showing that it's notable enough to be reported on. We need to know that their claims are being taken seriously, too. If we were able to treat every journal article or book like a notable source, we'd be forced to say that Christianity is a shroom-fueled fertility cult because of Allegro's [[The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross]]. They need to do more than publish in reputable places: they need to be taken seriously! [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 00:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:{{u|Inanygivenhole}}, the mention of William Blake is in a section that I have now retitled "Previous uses of the term" to avoid confusion. This seems unrelated to the metamodernist theory of Vermeulen and van den Akker, but seems to be included in the article for thoroughness. Obviously, Blake's work does not fit within the early 21st century cultural theory that is the topic of this article, and it is not referenced by those theorists. If there is consensus, then perhaps these seemingly unrelated uses of the term should be given less prominence or removed, as they are potentially confusing. [[User:Esmeme|Esmeme]] ([[User talk:Esmeme|talk]]) 00:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-::This just exacerbates the issue, in my opinion. Now we have a large portion of the article which is about a (at least one!) separate thing, and now the lede makes no mention of this. Even if we were to add this to the lede the question remains, why not make two separate articles since the two have little (if anything) in common? Yet it's not at all clear (I'd go as far to say they aren't) that the older uses form a coherent whole. So now we have the article split into many different subjects, no single one being very notable by itself. In short, this article appears to be an incoherent mishmash of several different meanings of a [[buzzword]], mixed in with der Akker and Vermeulen's self-promotion of their own work. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm starting to think that this article should just be deleted. [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 01:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::{{ping|Inanygivenhole}}, I agree that the older uses do not form a coherent whole, as they appear unrelated to one another. However, the current use of the term is demonstrably notable, coherent and has reliable sources. I have restored the lead in the meantime, while we build consensus about how to address the issue of previous uses of the term. [[User:Esmeme|Esmeme]] ([[User talk:Esmeme|talk]]) 01:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-::::[[User talk:Esmeme]], you can say the Dumitrescu usage is divergent and I agree. If it goes, I'm fine with that; if it gets its own section entitled "Previous uses of the term," I'm fine with that. But your claim that Mas'ud Zavarzadeh used the term differently than Vermeulen and van den Akker, rather than that the latter men (inadvertently or otherwise) built on that existing usage, is _killing_ this article's chance of survival because it plays into every single claim the OPs are making about this really being a fight for one blog-zine to get its views codified on Wikipedia. If, in contrast, we say that this term has been around for 40 years and NoM and its editors have made a valuable--in fact indispensible--contribution to an ongoing dialogue, we can see _why_ this article is so important and needs to stay. Don't jeopardize the existence of the article for the sake of your pro-NoM agenda. [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 01:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::::If they built on its previous usage, that needs to be cited. If not, it can't be included. It doesn't matter if that "kills" the article. That's how Wikipedia works, we cite things. [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 02:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-::::::[[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]], I don't know what your agenda is, but I'm reasonably certain that you have not read the "History" section of the Wikipedia article entitled [[postmodernism]]. Because the project afoot here, to tell the sequential history of uses of the term "metamodernism"--a history now in its fortieth year--is identical, yet you object to it so strenuously. [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 02:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::::::If you had read what I said a little slower, you would have noticed that it meant that I looked at the history of ''this'' article. Why are you begging the question (a logical fallacy I should remind you) and raising the irrelevant histories of other articles here? I was concerned about the contributors to this page because it looked masturbatory and self-referrential, and the history only further added to my suspicions. Please assume good faith in the future, as well. This is a community, not a court of law.
-:::::::I would also like to point out that the term only has a history older than 2010 because of the generic nature of the name (which further leads me to suspect that, because the term's been used in so many different ways, that it's a nonsense buzzword). Unless you'd like to provide a source which links the two (doubtful--they're used pretty differently)? Until then, that claim is at worst false, and at best weaselly. [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 04:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-::::::::In two comments whose foundational premise is "WP:AGF," you call the prior contributions of WP editors on this page "nonsense," "masturbatory," and "self-referential" (an unproven claim of conflict-of-interest), and then go on to call my own statements either "false" or "weasel[-like]." No, this isn't a court of law--it's also not an elementary school playground, so please act like it. Go, as I suggested, to the Wikipedia page for [[postmodernism]], and tell me if, at every single stage in the history of that term, every single person who's used it has begun their usage with something like, "Building upon the statements made by my predecessors _______ and _______..." You see, that's nonsense. A term is developed by somebody, and then it gets talked about by many others without direct reference to any/all previous references. Sometimes a dialogue gets started, sometimes everyone is writing about the term on their own. If Metamodernist A called metamodernism a spaceship, and Metamodernist B called metamodernism a piece of broccoli, any editor of good faith would do well to say these people are speaking of two separate ideas. But when you read--as you claim to have read--_this_ article, you see a continuity of thought and rhetoric and argument between Mas'ud Zavarzadeh and Vermeulen and van den Akker that makes clear that this is not (say) one person describing [[postmodernism]] as an Oldsmobile, and another describing it as a new iteration of the tango. Your bias here is clear and loudly announced: You think the term means nothing. Great. You are of course entitled to your opinion. Scholars, artists, and major media outlets by the scores disagree with you. So again, your presence on this page to further (yes, I'll say it) your own clearly articulated agenda is confounding to me. [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]])  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned"> — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 05:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-{{calm}}
-::::::::::Your own statements ''are'' false. The usages of the term "metamodernism" predating 2010 are precisely ''because'' the word is generic. You are attempting to tie previous uses of a word together inappropriately. That would be like claiming that the word for the bark of a tree is just an extension of the word for the bark of a dog: you're conflating different meanings. You continue to beg the question, how is the way I treat the article for postmodernism, a well-established and well-known movement at all relevant to the way I treat an article about a tiny, unimportant fringe movement? Why do you continue to beg the question? Besides, the matter which ''is'' at hand, namely the insertion of unreliable blogs as sources, would be treated the same in both instances: immediate removal.
-::::::::::Irrelevant hypotheticals aside, you continue to accuse me of bias. Since you provide to provide ''any'' evidence whatsoever (beyond the nonsensical implication that finding a word which isn't used consistently to be meaningless means that I have bias), I don't see any need to stoop to your level and sling mud. I think my templates have spoken for themselves: you need to calm down. You're so angry that you aren't even signing your comments! Why are you so invested in this article? You really need to sit back and take a breather. This might not be a playground, but I think you could learn something from that analogy: don't take dumb things so seriously. [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 05:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::::::::::On the talk page of @felt_friend I've detailed how uncivil you've been since you arrived here; please do not lecture me. Most of your comments here are either ad hominem, factually false, or violate WP:AGF, WP:OUTING, or WP:NOR. You've also twice deleted my comments from this Talk page, for which (among all the other things) I could report you. All that said, I'm happy to interface with you about this topic because I've been working on this article for months and happen to have a background in its subject; meanwhile, you admit to having no background and yet are lecturing me. The word "metamodernism" is not a "generic" word under any definition of that term, and I accuse you of an agenda for a very simple reason: You admit to knowing nothing about metamodernism in the same breath as saying that it is "a tiny, unimportant fringe movement." It doesn't take original research, or even an assumption of bad faith, to see that you are contradicting yourself--i.e., you feel strongly about a subject you claim to know nothing about, which suggests an unrevealed bias. And I'm not angry, I'm annoyed; also, the person not signing their comments is your friend, @felt_friend. My "unsigned" comments are the ones you removed, which were then put back in by another editor without my signature. As for the "fringe" thing, "metamodernism" was (for starters) covered this year in nearly every single major media outlet in the U.S. and England--just look up "Shia LaBeouf" and you'll find it. [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 07:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-{{outdent}}And I, too, have responded to your comment on that talk page. In your comment, you demonstrated immense ignorance as to what an "ad homenim" actually is, and managed to straw-man or otherwise confuse each and every point I made. I will let that comment speak for itself. Otherwise, you've managed to continuously escalate this discussion by throwing out accusations of bias and ad homenim, and I'm going to remove myself from conversing with you before you manage to somehow escalate it even more (by threatening or otherwise abusing me, I fear). Coverage says nothing about [[WP:FRINGE]]. Hell, [[Ancient Aliens]] exists... [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 07:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:I never have, and never would, threaten you, nor have I ever threatened anyone on Wikipedia; the thought would not occur to me. I feel you've acted rudely, and I've said so; you and @Felt_friend, who I suspect are the same person, asked for examples of that, and I gave some. Your comments here cross so quickly from ad hominem attacks to other forms of fallacious argument that I'm certain at times I muddled which comments I was describing with which term--but my feeling stands, that you've acted poorly here and have evinced no real interest in, or understanding of, the topic you're trying to edit. Or--now, suddenly--see deleted. But I'm happy to have us not interact; I see "Rhododendrites" as adding a great deal to this conversation, and I disagree with "Esmeme" on nearly everything but nevertheless believe him committed to improving this article (in his own way), but you and @Felt_friend are late arrivers who seem to want nothing more than to make the uneasy peace between the editors here fall apart. In any case, good luck to you. [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 07:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-::You don't know what an ad homenim attack is. It is very clear from the way you use it. Your repeated baseless accusations, and straw-mannings of what I say are getting tired. Don't bother responding to me until you can respond to what I've actually said (read: have a conversation) with something that actually makes sense. My response on felt_friend's talkpage still speaks for itself: your responses are confused and incoherent, and I would strongly suggest that you take a break from Wikipedia until you can learn to edit it calmly. [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 07:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-== 5 Questions ==
-As far as I can tell there are 5 questions getting all jumbled up that maybe it would be best to take separately. Hopefully I'm not just further confusing things -- it just seems like the thread above is spiraling.
-#First and foremost: What is the subject of the article? Keeping in mind this is an encyclopedia, and so a collection of utterances of a certain word is not appropriate, what is the concept of metamodernism? Is it most prominently understood in Vermeulen and van Akker's terms? Irrespective to how prolific they may be, when ''other'' people talk about metamodernism, are they most often talking about Vermeulen and van Akker's version of it? Are there other versions that are also prominently talked about? It doesn't seem like this conversation has been thoroughly fleshed out.
-#If the subject is unclear or if the article exists as an exaggeration of the significance of a particular set of ideas, should it be nominated for deletion? (The key to this will be how many sources talk about it as a particular concept, regardless of whose it is). Note: That you feel editors may have a COI does not mean it should be deleted, because COI edits to an article can be fixed and deletion would mean it cannot be fixed.
-#Is metamodernism.com a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]? I.e. are its authors considered a reliable source in this area such that they could be cited as authorities despite being a self-published source? Is it reliable for somethings but not others? If so, which? This question is not at all based on who is adding it to Wikipedia.
-#Should there be a list of metamodernists (or artists whose work has been described as metamodern)? I don't think there's disagreement that at least ''some'' examples should go ''somewhere'', but should there be a list apart from the rest of the article as there is now? (Assume ''ideal'' standards for reliable sourcing).
-#If there's a separate list of metamodernists, how should it be displayed on the page? This is a question I maybe thought was more important than it actually is, but I'm including it nonetheless. --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> |&nbsp; 01:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-*note: if you feel this is a useful way to structure the discussion and choose to participate, I think it would be most productive to hold off on arguing over any specific example and really emphasize [[WP:AGF]]. let's stick with the big ideas for now. Once we get this stuff established arguing about this or that example or this or that source will be more straightforward, I think. --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> |&nbsp; 01:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::To address point by point: (1) The history shows that, whether there was causation or influence or foreknowledge or not, the Vermeulen/van den Akker usage is _consistent_ with the origins of the term as laid out in the "origin" section, so both need to be in the article. And as I've said before, that first section should be chronological and include both the original and evolved uses of the term, as they are _inextricably_ intertwined--frankly, it's hard to see much difference at all. Now, having said that, the _Dumitrescu_ usage the OP complains so much about (cf. Blake) is a significant divergence, and should either be removed or put in its own section (which I've done). I think it's fine to say, for the information of readers, that this term has on occasion been used in other ways. But the origin story of the term that begins with Mas'ud Zavarzadeh _includes_ Vermeulen and van den Akker--these are _not_ two different uses of the term. Those who claim otherwise may, as some claim, have some specific allegiance to placing certain persons in a particular historical position with respect to the coinage of the term. (2) No--the subject has been covered by major media on two continents, there have been conferences on it, it is a real and observable phenomenon in the arts. It must not be deleted. But certainly the sourcing can be improved, and can be expanded to ensure that the Notes on Metamodernism blog is only one of 50 sources here rather than (as at present) one of 10. (3) Notes on Metamodernism is a reliable source, yes--but it becomes unreliable when, as "Esmeme" demands, it is used as the _only_ source in the article. (4) Everyone agrees we need names here to assist readers in locating themselves and the idea; I think all the names should be in one section, as a table, as otherwise it is (a) too scattered, and (b) too disorganized. (5) See previous. [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 01:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-::::{{ping|Festal82}} Please could you stop misrepresenting me. I have never demanded anything of the sort. Please could you cease your hostility and assume good faith. I would like to see sources that give credence to "the origin story of the term that begins with Mas'ud Zavarzadeh", because it doesn't seem to make sense that a post-postmodern theory based around an early 21st century reaction to 80s and 90s postmodernism should have been written about even before such postmodern culture existed. Thank you [[User:Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]] for laying out these points and hopefully we can arrive at a consensus. [[User:Esmeme|Esmeme]] ([[User talk:Esmeme|talk]]) 01:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::::[[User:Esmeme|Esmeme]], I am glad you've dropped your campaign to remove every single source from this article that does not originate at the blog "Notes on Metamodernism." I'm happy to move on from that sad period in the history of this article if you are. But you are now engaged in a new misrepresentation: The claim that Vermeulen and van den Akker (a) specifically wrote of metamodernism "as a reaction to 80s and 90s postmodernism", coupled with (b), your presumption, a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR, that Vermeulen and van den Akker did not know of the term "metamodernism" prior to 2010. Here's the reality: The two men discussed metamodernism as a reaction to "postmodernism," a term coined in the 1870s (check Wikipedia), not the postmodernism of one specific decade exclusively; second, any claim on the topic one way or the other would be self-serving in any case, i.e. we don't credit someone with coining a term anew simply because they say they did. Looking at the history of the term we find no significant divergence between its uses throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s and the usage discussed on NoM. It is your job to prove the divergence with sources, not anyone else's job to disprove a negative. The Dumitrescu usage is clearly divergent because Zavarzadeh called the metamodern a response to technological advancements that clearly did not exist in Blake's day. [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 02:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-#It seems as though there is no clear definition as to what "metamodernism' actually is seeing as it had (allegedly) originated in 1975, been touched on a few times from 75-2000ish, then completely revamped by Akker and Vermeulen in the interested in creating their art blog. The issue is that there is no real documented history on the evolution of this terminology aside from that on metamodernism.com, which I will touch on in a minute.
-#I'm going to have to say that yes, this page should be nominated for deletion as, after looking much farther into the subject, I have found no reliable source establishing "metamodernism" as a legitimate scope of works. The few reliable sources in the page only passingly mention "metamodernism".
-#Absolutely not. A blog that fails to meet [[WP:WEB]], no matter who it is run by, is in no way a reliable source. Additionally, after attempting to look into the authors of the blog, I could hardly find any information regarding them outside of metamodernism.com and their personal social media accounts. Definitely non-notable.
-#Assuming the article will be kept, no, there should not be an actual list. Examples? Certainly. These must however be worded carefully so that the article does not objectively state that any of these people listed are "metamodernists" because, as mentioned earlier, I doubt anyone referenced in that section (aside from Franco and LaBeouf) knows that "metamodernism" exists.
-#See: last point
-::[[User:Felt friend|<span style="color:#ff0000;font-size:15px;">felt</span>]][[User talk:Felt friend|<span style="color:#960000;font-size:15px;"><nowiki>_</nowiki></span>]][[Special:Contributions/Felt friend|<span style="color:#590000;font-size:15px;">friend</span>]], these comments do not make sense to me. Yes, I can agree that the "Origins" section needs to be expanded, but for you to simply read the article and say that there's no history there because the very history you're demanding is _still being added to the article_ is deeply unfair. You are proposing for deletion an article whose weak points (as you see them) are in the process of being shored up, and then using the fact that they're not shored up _yet_ as a grounds for deletion. It makes it very hard for me to adhere to WP:AGF. What makes that even harder is that your statements here have repeatedly been factually wrong. "I doubt anyone referenced in that section knows that 'metamodernism' exists?" Putting aside LaBeouf and Franco, the former of whom has used the term publicly repeatedly, you have people in that section who author columns _about_ metamodernism, who have appeared in exhibits billed as metamodern exhibits, &c. So you're simply off there. More importantly, you, like the OP "inanygivenhole," are imposing a standard on [[metamodernism]] that you would never impose on [[postmodernism]]. Was Charles Olson not a postmodern poet because he didn't use the term himself? Of course not. It has always been the case that scholars and theorists apply these terms to individuals who don't themselves use them. Yet now, _now_, we need Spike Jonze to "know that metamodernism exists" via proof from public interviews in order for a scholar or theorist to denominate him a metamodernist. Where are you getting these ideas? [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 05:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-Additional concern: [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] seems to be ''extremely'' familiar with Akker and Vermeulen, citing information on this talk page not mentioned in the article and that I couldn't locate elsewhere. That combined with the fact that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Festal82&offset=&limit=500&target=Festal82 this is clearly the only page he is here to edit] and he has a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=612117997#metamodernism documented history] of attempting to [[WP:OWN|own]] the page leads me to believe he is either Akker or Vermeulen attempting to control this article and use it as a personal advertisement. [[User:Felt friend|<span style="color:#ff0000;font-size:15px;">felt</span>]][[User talk:Felt friend|<span style="color:#960000;font-size:15px;"><nowiki>_</nowiki></span>]][[Special:Contributions/Felt friend|<span style="color:#590000;font-size:15px;">friend</span>]] 04:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-::Besides violating WP:OUTING, the above is a great piece of circular logic: Because [[metamodernism]] seems stupid and unimportant to _you_, it must be stupid and unimportant to _everyone_, and therefore if someone has extensive knowledge about it, that person must be the only person _you_ think cares about [[metamodernism]]: Timotheus Vermeulen (or Robin van den Akker). But if you'd ever _read_ the article you're trying to have deleted, you'd know that metamodernism is the subject of many articles, much research, and significant interest in both the U.S. and on the European Continent. If you use a search tool called "Google" or a scholarly tool called "JSTOR" you will find all the information that I--and any other serious scholar of metamodernism--is familiar with. If you don't know even a fraction of what I do about metamodernism, and clearly you don't and have no desire to learn, why in the _world_ are you editing this page? And P.S., Jesus, do I sound _Dutch_ to you? I'd think it's obvious from everything I've ever written on this Talk page that I'm American. [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 04:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::Nowhere did ''I'' say I found it completely "stupid and unimportant". Though to clarify, I do find the concept somewhat stupid, but that doesn't inherently mean I find it "unimportant". I think 1984 is a stupid novel, but it clearly has had a large impact on American culture, thus rendering it "important". Within the scope of Wikipedia however, I do find "metamodernism" unimportant, at least for the time being. I have done quite a bit of research already (re: Google remark), and if it helps in any way, seven of the ten results I get on Google's first page of results for "metamodernism" are on metamodernism.com or its family sites (the first result being this Wikipedia entry). Many of the "articles" I have found pertaining to "metamodernism" are simply blog posts on wordpress or tumblr sites. Though "metamodernism" may someday take off, for the time being, it is far from notable. [[User:Felt friend|<span style="color:#ff0000;font-size:15px;">felt</span>]][[User talk:Felt friend|<span style="color:#960000;font-size:15px;"><nowiki>_</nowiki></span>]][[Special:Contributions/Felt friend|<span style="color:#590000;font-size:15px;">friend</span>]] 05:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-::::That's strange, [[User:Felt friend|Felt friend]], because when I search for "metamodern" on Google Search and Google News, and look at more than the first ten results (hardly "research" to do otherwise), I find mentions in ''[[The Huffington Post]]'' (multiple authors), ''[[The Austin Chronicle]]'', ''[[USA Today]]'', ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', ''[[The Globe and Mail]]'', ''[[Los Angeles Daily News]]'', ''[[Rolling Stone]]'', ''[[Pitchfork]]'', [[National Public Radio]], ''[[The New York Times]]'', [[Metacritic]], ''[[McSweeney's]]'', ''Detroit Weekly'', ''[[Indiewire]]'', ''[[The Cleveland Plain Dealer]]'', [[YouTube]], [[Vimeo]], ''Metamodern Magazine'' (not affiliated with "Notes on Metamodernism"), [[JSTOR]], [[Amazon]], and many other places. I also see that the the Wikipedia article for [[metamodernism]] is viewed many hundreds of times per month. But hey, I will WP:AGF even as you tell me that these searches I just did _actually_ only netted "blog posts on wordpress or tumblr sites." [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 07:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-::::And P.S., if I go back further, to when [[Shia LaBeouf]] was announcing himself to be a metamodernist and making national and international news for it--this was all the way back in February, so, about 120 days ago--I find articles in ''[[The Guardian]]'', ''[[The Independent]]'', ''[[Gawker]]'', ''[[The Huffington Post]]'', ''[[Medium]]'', ''[[Indiewire]]'', and dozens of other U.S. and American media outlets. All this took seconds to discover. [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 07:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:Just one minor point regarding the above, since it's something several people have done through this discussion: sources do not themselves have to pass any kind of [[WP:N|notability guideline]] like [[WP:WEB]]. Notability is to gauge whether a subject should be covered on Wikipedia (''by'' reliable sources). The relevant sourcing guidelines/policies are [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:SPS]]. Basically, to quote the latter, it's best to avoid self-published sources in most cases, but {{tq|Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.}} While that seems likely to apply here, that same guideline goes on to say {{tq|Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.}} And also, the reliability of a source depends on the context. And also also, there are [[WP:NPOV]] elements in play here. So just a clarification, not a judgment. --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> |&nbsp; 04:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-== Protected ==
-I've protected the article for a week to give all of you a chance to settle the various points in dispute. If you find a consensus on any given issue, feel free to make an [[WP:PER|edit request]] for that issue so that the article can be updated. And if you resolve all of the issues, leave me a note on my talk page and I'll unprotect the article. Let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them - but make sure you {{tl|ping}} me if you reply on this page, as I won't have it on my watchlist. Best — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 09:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-== ANI ==
-FYI there is now a [[WP:ANI#Lots of issues at Talk:Metamodernism that could use admin attention|thread at ANI about this page]]. As far as the article content goes, I can't tell who's right, but the talk page has gone off the rails. It doesn't seem like any thread can stay focused on content rather than veer off into ad hominems, unsubstantiated accusations, and other completely inappropriate and counter-productive territory. --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> |&nbsp; 07:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:{{ping|Rhododendrites}} The conversation already ''has'' veered off into ad hominems! [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 08:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
-==Sound advice==
-Hey guys, please calm down and avoid making personal attacks. This is an Encyclopedia, every one is welcome to contribute no matter from where he/she belongs. First of all the whole dispute seems to be due to [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] of many editors regarding subject, please avoid it and consider [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] which says that all of the significant views that have been published by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] on a topic and must be [[WP:V|verifiable]]  and it is most important than to prove yourself right one here. [[User:A.Minkowiski|'''A.''Minkowiski''''']]<sup>[[User talk:A.Minkowiski| _Lets t@lk]]</sup> 08:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-==The current edit is fine==
-FWIW, I am basically fine with the article in its current "locked" form. I think [[User: Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]] has done a great job mediating this dispute as much as possible. We've reached the point where the disagreements between [[User: Esmeme|Esmeme]] and myself are resolvable, in large part because (a) we've now seen how damaging it would be to the integrity and survival of the article if the attempts by [[User: Esmeme|Esmeme]] to make the non-WP:N blog "Notes on Metamodernism" the only source on the page had been successful (i.e., because there are those who question whether it is WP:RS, it can be a source here but by no means the primary one), and (b) the main two things [[User: Esmeme|Esmeme]] wanted, (i) for Luke Turner to be acknowledged as the author of the Metamodernist Manifesto, and (ii) for a list of names that include Luke Turner to be given privileged status in the "Popularity" section of the article rather than being relegated (as it were) to the "Notable Metamodernists" section, are both edits I'm not contesting at this point. In fact, if we could simply agree to leave the "Notable Metamodernists" table at the base of the article (thus, not obtrusive) and add to it periodically using its current table form, and if we could agree (as I know [[User: Esmeme|Esmeme]] would) to remove the Alexandra Dumitrescu content from the article--just that one sentence--because it is confusing readers about the evolution of the term as it is now used, I think we'd be in great shape. I hope [[User: Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]], [[User: Esmeme|Esmeme]], and [[User:Cwobeel|Cwobeel]] will agree that the only problem we have now, really, are two editors--"inanygivenhole" and "felt_friend"--who are either sock puppets for one another (given that they arrived here at the same moment and with the same arguments against the page and with the same desire to see it deleted) or simply untutored in metamodernism and therefore (for that reason or some other) dead-set against it, trying to wreak havoc here. I don't see there being any chance of this article going to (let alone losing) in AfD, so hopefully those editors here who are constructively working on the page can come to some sort of truce--not the word I want, but it'll do--so that we can move past the events of the last 24 hours. [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 16:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:Please stop repeatedly misrepresenting me [[User: Festal82|Festal82]]. I have not "wanted" the things you state, as if I have some ulterior motive as you seem to suggest. My additions to the page have been extremely minimal, and I have merely sought to clean up and undo edits that are evidently factually incorrect, and have sought consensus on the talk page as to the layout or existence of a list. My edit history and the talk page show this. [[User:Esmeme|Esmeme]] ([[User talk:Esmeme|talk]]) 16:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-::Please see my note on the administrators' board, [[User:Esmeme|Esmeme]]. I am happy to move on from the past without me categorizing your past edits or you categorizing mine, provided we can work with [[User: Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]] to find a way forward that preserves the integrity of the article. Disagreements we have had about things like the use of the term "origins" instead of "previous uses"--the former being consistent with my view that Vermeulen and van den Akker are part of a lineage the article must establish in detail--can be navigated by the solutions we've already found, e.g. giving van den Akker and Vermeulen primary placement in the article, as you've insisted, with references to origins further down and (I hope) the Dumitrescu material removed. Can we at least attempt to come to a consensus on these things in an effort to keep this article not just alive but vibrant and growing, as I know we (and many others) both want? [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 16:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::Seriously, STOP misrepresenting other editors. It's rude, obnoxious, and counterproductive. Either you're incapable of correctly representing those you disagree with (in which case fine, avoid doing it), or you're doing it on purpose. Either way, your consistent and obvious misrepresentation of other users needs to stop. It is becoming increasingly difficult to even speak with you, since you're so consistently oblivious to what the other side is saying! For the tenth time: slow down and read what others say!!! [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 19:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::One thing I forgot to add re: "I am happy to move on from the past without me categorizing your past edits or you categorizing mine": Frankly, ''your'' categorizations of others are the only ones that anyone is having problems with. People seem to be representing what you say just fine. This isn't a "both or none" situation, they don't need to stop properly representing you, you just need to stop misrepresenting them! [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 19:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:The current edit really ''isn't'' fine, though, as both felt friend and I have pointed out. As it stands, a significant portion of the article amounts to der Akker or Vermeulen claiming that various people are "metamodernists" on their blog. We need reliable sources for these claims, not self-aggragandizing, self-published, unreliable ones. Not to mention the fact that the article itself is a mishmash of differing usages combined with der Akker and Vermeulen's newer sense of the word, nor the fact that the lede says nothing about this confused mishmash of concepts, nor the fact that laBeouf's association with der Akker and Vermeulen's sense isn't given enough weight. Your straw-manning and confused summaries of Esmeme's and my own views aside, these issues need to be addressed before anything else can be addressed: it doesn't even depict a coherent whole! All three of these issues were raised above, and you've done nothing but ignore them and claim that the newer use is consistent with the old (not providing ''any'' sources, let alone reliable ones, for that claim, might I remind you). It needs to be shown, with reliable sources, that ''each'' of the previous usages worth mentioning form some kind of coherent whole. Otherwise, I'd have to suggest removing them or demoting them to an "other uses" heading.
-: I raised the issue above of Blake being labeled a "metamodernist" to show how absurd and confused the picture painted by the article is. I think that (and the abundance of original and unreliable sources) says more about the current state of this article than anything else. [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 23:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-:There's an essay about this [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version], but it isn't very useful. At the risk of throwing Wikipedia's alphabet soup around, IMO this article is in opposition to [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day|the notion that Wikipedia is not for shit made up in a frat house]], [[WP:SYNTH|the aversion to sources which have been "cooked up"]], and [[WP:NEO|Wikipedia's hesitance to perpetuate "neologisms"]]. That this made it to ANI shows that this has gone too far. [[User:Perfect for you|Perfect for you]] ([[User talk:Perfect for you|talk]]) 00:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
-:{{U|Festal82}} implies that I have strong feelings about whether or not this article should exist, to the point where he only wishes to speak with me to the exclusion of other editors here, and resorts to ad hominem attacks on the other participants here instead of addressing their concerns, so perhaps it was not premature to take this to ANI. When I look at this article, it seems that the term has been used here and there by people of varying notability since 1975, but the notion that this has been some sort of movement that dates back to 1975 is laughable. In addition, the statement in the lead paragraph that "since 2010 it has become closely associated with the work of Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker" is supported by three sources, not one of them supporting that claim. The first two sources are dated 1975 and 1997, and the third source is by Vermeulen and den Akker themselves, so it can't be used to support that claim. This whole thing smells kinda fishy and I regret stating that it should not have gone to ANI. [[User:Perfect for you|Perfect for you]] ([[User talk:Perfect for you|talk]]) 02:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
-==What one hour of research on some "shit made up in a frat house" reveals==
-[[User:Perfect for you|Perfect for you]] has made three objections to the article (quoting from the WP policies s/he cited): (1) metamodernism is "something invented in [a] school...[that] has not yet been featured in WP:RS (Reliable Sources)"; (2) metamodernism only coheres as a concept if you "combine material from multiple sources," as no individual source describes a coherent concept; and (3) Wikipedia cannot "support an article about a particular term or concept...[unless] we can cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and [scholarly] papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers" that simply use the term with no further discussion. The implication being made here, by [[User:Perfect for you|Perfect for you]], is that one wouldn't be able to find books or scholarly papers that talk about metamodernism rather than simply use the term with no explanation of it.
-Having made, presumably, extensive research on metamodernism, [[User:Perfect for you|Perfect for you]] finds that it fails each and all of these three standards and that therefore the work of '''three and a half years and 82 Wikipedia editors''' (count for yourself) should be deleted.
-An alternative: The below. Which took me an hour to find. There's loads more where this came from. And to be clear: Van den Akker and Vermeulen's 2010 article on this subject described metamodernism in a manner consistent with the scores, if not hundreds of journals, scholarly papers, and book chapters citing metamodernism between 1975 and 2010, so while many (though not nearly every) article after 2010 cites Vermeulen and van den Akker by name, the notion that metamodernism is an idea cooked up by two Dutchmen rather than an ongoing dialogue now in its fortieth year (Mas'ud Zavarzadeh having coined the term in 1975) that these two men happen to have participated in simply isn't supported by any of the facts. Here's the "Origins" section of the current article, plus sixty minutes of research that anyone here could have done instead of claiming that metamodernism is only referenced by "blogs and tumblr sites" or was "made up in a frat house" and "has not yet been featured in WP:RS sources." Note how many WP:N persons, WP:N scholarly journals, and university press-published books have mentioned the term in an identical way: '''as a commingling of the first principles of modernism and those of postmodernism in a way that lets the contemporary subject retrieve a sense of unity and direction, an affect typically achieved through the juxtaposition of multiple realities in social science research, the arts, or scholarly criticism.''' (''NB: Mind you, I find this obsession with a single definition preposterous, as no one here or anywhere else would be able to provide a succinct definition of either "modernism" or "postmodernism," neither of which were just some "shit made up in a frat house" that editors with no background in the terms are trying to remove from Wikipedia.'')
-The term metamodern was coined by University of Oregon professor Mas'ud Zavarzadeh in the ''[[Journal of American Studies]]'' in April 1975. In an article entitled "The Apocalyptic Fact and the Eclipse of Fiction in Recent American Prose Narratives," Zavarzadeh described the metamodern as a "response to the emerging realities of a technetronic culture," specifically the "overwhelming actualities of contemporary America, which render all interpretations of 'reality' arbitrary and therefore simultaneously accurate and absurd." Zavarzadeh, quoting [[Alain Robbe-Grillet]], posited a body of literature in which daily experience was rendered as "neither significant nor absurd. It is, quite simply." According to Zavarzadeh, this rendering required such a rapid movement between the poles of fact and fiction, meaning and meaninglessness, reality and appearance, and the known and the unknown that such poles would quickly become "ridiculously naive," and therefore beside the point.
-Writing in 1992 for ''[[Critical Review (journal)|Critical Review]]'', [[Deirdre McCloskey|Donald N. McCloskey]], in an article entitled "Minimal Statism and Metamodernism," called metamodernism "necessary for serious empirical work on the role of state," noting that it constituted a brand of "common sense" that lay beyond both the conventional empiricism of modernism and the formulaic linguistic analyses derived in Europe and ultimately central to postmodernism. This view was echoed in 2014 by Stephen Knudsen, who, writing for ''ArtPulse'', called endemic to metamodernism the idea that "any kind of information--not just scientific information--can lead to knowledge, and the artistic endeavor is no exception."
-<ref>http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08913819208443256#.U69N95RdX84</ref><ref>http://artpulsemagazine.com/beyond-postmodernism-putting-a-face-on-metamodernism-without-the-easy-cliches</ref>
-In 1995, Hank Slager, in his book ''The Archeology of Art Theory'', described the "metamodern attitude" as "a growing awareness of a multiple view on reality and a conscious striving for expressing this awareness." <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=eZSq2QHa1sEC&pg=SL20-PA33&dq=metamodern&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OGKwU-qmC9iuyASz9oKwDA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=metamodern&f=false</ref>
-In 1996, Annette W. Balkema and Henk Slager wrote, in ''The Intellectual Conscience of Art'', that metamodernism "account[s] for the moral meaning of art for human life...while emphasiz[ing] that that same concept of 'art' has been subject to intellectual reflection. It is not an exclusive emphasis, as in the modern or the postmodern, yet a recognition of the value of both."<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=RTYnIBnBJaQC&pg=PA98&dq=metamodern&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IFmwU4gljKjIBLLZgPAH&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=metamodern&f=false</ref>
-The term metamodernism was again employed as a syntagmatic paradigm in 1997. Bruce Tucker incorporated this usage into his article "Narrative, Extramusical Form, and the Metamodernism of the Art Ensemble of Chicago," published in ''Lenox Avenue: A Journal of Interarts Inquiry''.
-In a 2000 article in ''[[The International Journal of African Historical Studies]]'', Moyo Okediji again discussed the connotations of the term metamodern to position it as a mediation between modernity and postmodernity. Okediji identified as metamodern a coterie of black American artists who expanded existing definitions of form while also aiming to "transcend, fracture, subvert, circumvent, interrogate and disrupt, hijack and appropriate modernity and postmodernity at nearly every available point." He summarized the metamodern as a "extension of and challenge to modernism and postmodernism."
-The term metamodernism was employed as an intervention in the post-postmodernism debate in 2003, when Andre Furlani, writing in ''[[Contemporary Literature]]'', discussed the concept in his article "Postmodern and After." Furlani, relying on the meaning of the Greek preposition and prefix "meta-", described metamodernism as an aesthetic paradigm in art that is "after yet by means of modernism...a departure as well as a perpetuation."
-In 2005, [[University of Wyoming]] professor Stephen Matthew Feldman published "Problem of Critique: Triangulating Habermas, Derrida, and Gadamer within Metamodernism" in ''[[Contemporary Political Theory]]'', referring to metamodernism as "a philosophical paradigm opposed to both modernism and radical forms of postmodernism," and describing it as an intersection of philosophical hermeneutics, communication theory, and deconstruction. Whereas in [[modernism]], wrote Feldman, the self or subject stands apart from the objective world, thereby enabling a correspondence theory of truth and a referential theory of language, metamodernism, per Feldman, "tends to emphasize the operation and orientation of power, particularly in language...without accepting subject-object metaphysics."
-While positioning metamodernism as more circumspect of objectivity than modernism, Feldman also held metamodernism to be less circumspect of it than postmodernism, which brand of antimodernism, wrote Feldman, treats reason as merely a series of "rhetorical moves that assert the dominance of one's own cultural standpoint. There is no way to adjudicate among competing claims to truth and knowledge." Feldman therefore positioned metamodernism between modernism and postmodernism and, like Zavarzadeh, situated metamodernism as a means to "use reason, have knowledge, and discuss truth...without invoking the firm epistemological foundations of subject-object metaphysics." As an artistic and scientific practice, Feldman located metamodernism in works, hermeneutics, and methodologies that encapsulated the idea that humans are "always and already interpreting" and therefore cannot separate themselves from the objective world, rendering all accounts of the latter equally plausible and irrelevant. Most controversially, Feldman argued that "prejudices enable or empower us," as without the foundation of individuated perspective, the process
-of interpretation would be impossible to initiate. All data-processing events are therefore, according to Feldman, mere conversations or dialogues between data and interpreter. Through these conversations and dialogues a "consensus over meaning" or "fusion of horizons" occurs, thereby distinguishing metamodernist thought from deconstructive literary theory, which stands both temperamentally and philosophically in opposition of the notion that consensuses over meaning are possible or even desirable. <ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1522251</ref>
-In 2007, [[Jean Paul Van Bendegem]] described the "metamodern artist" as one who merges the grand, constructive, means-conscious ambitions of the engineer with "the heterogeneity and the flexibility, contingency and irony, of society"--and doing so with a cognizance of, among other things, "globalization...and technoculture". He thus viewed the metamodern artist as one who combines the role of the engineer with that of the postmodern "bricoleur," who is "limited to small actions by those materials he has...[by] what is pre-constrained."<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=A5zvFf7ib_gC&pg=PA80&dq=metamodern&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q12wU9fRJY2kyATX-IG4Dw&ved=0CBsQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=metamodern&f=false</ref>
-[[Jean Paul Van Bendegem|Bendegem]] further wrote, of the metamodern, that it acknowledges paradoxes in contemporary life, notably that "until recently, relatively stable conditions sustained an image of identity that, even if it was too essentialist, offered a sense of belonging somewhere, of being somebody. The technological changes, the shifting status of knowledge and the multiplicity of 'knowledge,' the loss of 'truth' and the assault on longstanding narratives, are blurring every well-constructed image of the self....[yet] cultural identity and self-knowledge seem to be the only antidotes..."<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=A5zvFf7ib_gC&pg=PA80&dq=metamodern&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q12wU9fRJY2kyATX-IG4Dw&ved=0CBsQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=metamodern&f=false</ref>
-In June of 2010, John Bittinger Klompt described American hyperrealist painter [[Denis Peterson]] as a metamodernist, terming metamodernism, per Vermeulen and van den Akker, as a post-postmodern theory pursuant to which "people are viewed (once again) as individuals, though caught in the overwhelming commodification of everything, some so completely lost that they are no longer individuals." He noted that metamodern photography, form instance, simultaneously "go[es] beyond...and refer[s] back to" realist modes such as photography.<ref>http://www.denispeterson.com/Pressexp.html</ref>
-In November of 2010, the ''Journal of Aesthetics and Culture'' published Vermeulen and van den Akker's article "Notes on Metamodernism," which was consistent with the discussion of metamodernism before it and did much to inform nearly every conversation that came after it.<ref>http://www.aestheticsandculture.net/index.php/jac/article/view/5677
-</ref>
-Late in 2010, ''[[Jacket (magazine)|Jacket]]'' described metamodern literature as "a literature whose immanent unease and expression of the major convulsions that subjectivity enjoys...[has] a philosophical function." <ref>http://jacketmagazine.com/40/middleton-long-poem.shtml#fn30</ref>
-In December of 2010, ''[[Die Zeit]]'' described metamodernism as the "contrast between overt materiality and the fleeting idea," noting that by placing such conventional notions as objectivity in conversation with the transience of dialogic exchange, "the process of realization [becomes]....the leitmotif."<ref>http://blog.zeit.de/filter/2010/12/17/beyondwithbetweenmetamodernism/</ref>
-In mid-2011, writing in the ''[[Journal of Zhejiang University]]'', Shandong Unuiversity professor Chen Hou-Liang "an important representative of post-postmodern theories."<ref>http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-ZSDB201106010.htm</ref>
-In October of 2011, poet [[John Gallaher]] approvingly termed metamodernism "a version of a repopulated center, which is what everyone's been doing (or trying to do) for a great long while now."<ref>http://jjgallaher.blogspot.com/2011/10/metamodernist-manifesto.html</ref>
-In 2012, the [[Museum of Arts and Design]], in the description for its program "No More Modern," called metamodernism a "skeptical, but hopeful, turn in critical theory and cultural production" that "oscillates between a proclamation of earnest desire to break from the history of modernism while also acknowledging the irony in the impossibility of such a quest."<ref>http://madmuseum.org/events/no-more-modern-notes-metamodernism</ref>
-In October of 2012, ''Vivid Scribe'', in describing [[Belle and Sebastian]] as a metamodern band par excellence, observed that "metamodern studies and music have become a particularly popular topic."
-In his 2013 book ''Beyond the Aesthetic and the Anti-Aesthetic'' ([[Penn State University Press]]), [[James Elkins (art historian)|James Elkins]], citing the work of Vermeulen and van den Akker, called metamodernism a direction in contemporary art theory that "stress[es] ideas such as synesthesic and immersive environments and Neoromanticism, which are compatible with strands of affect theory...and emphasize[ ] affective values."<ref>http://www.psupress.org/books/SampleChapters/978-0-271-06072-9sc.html</ref>
-In December of 2013, the Finnish webzine ''Nine'' declared that "the future...is a metamodern visionary world, where we are resisting superficiality, yet want everything hyper- simplified and high-tech," and labelled it one of the "top five trends that will affect the future."<ref>http://www.billerud.com/Media/News/2013/Meta-Modernism-reality-and-Reggie-Watts/</ref>
-In January of 2014, actor [[Shia LaBeouf]] publicly declared himself a "metamodernist," and his subsequent public stunts calling into question the dividing line between reality and artifice were covered by ''[[The Guardian]]'', ''[[The Independent]]'', ''[[Gawker]]'', and dozens of other media outlets.
-In April of 2014, [[Sturgill Simpson]] released his album "Metamodern Sounds in Country Music," which, according to ''[[Pitchfork]]'', [[Country Music Television]], other media outlets, and Simpson himself was inspired by writings on metamodernism by [[Seth Abramson]] published in ''[[The Huffington Post]]''. "Metamodern Sounds in Country Music" has now been nominated for the 2014 [[Americana Music Honors & Awards]].
-''[[Indiewire]]'' now runs a regular column called "Metamericana" that focuses on metamodernism.<ref>http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/metamericana-the-lego-movie-metamodernism-for-kids</ref> ''[[The Huffington Post]]'' has featured regular columns by both of the Series Editors of ''Best American Experimental Writing'' ([[Wesleyan University Press]]) on metamodernism.<ref>July 20, 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/on-literary-metamodernism_b_3629021.html</ref><ref>June 13, 2014 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-damiani/because-the-internet-chil_b_5485075.html</ref>
-Again, '''I put almost no effort into finding this information, which calls into question just what the heck others are talking about''' when they say that "metamodernism" is not discussed in popular and scholarly media, was simply made up out of whole cloth in 2010 by two dudes, and has not exhibited consistent contours for '''four decades now.''' If you want thirty more WP:N citations on metamodernism, give me 60 more minutes; if you want thirty more than that, another 60 minutes. And so on. [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 19:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
-:Most of those links have nothing to do with the subject of the article. We've been over this already. You can't just randomly mishmash sources together: they have to depict a coherent whole. Your sources depict several. Only the last few are of any use to us. I've said this like four times now and you still don't seem to understand. I'm not going to bother responding to this in more detail until you have the common courtesy to NOT POST A WALL OF TEXT. You've made it impossible for anyone to respond to you. At least use bullet points, Jesus Christ. [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 19:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
-:Posting a speculative essay to this talk page isn't going to establish notability, especially when said post gets off on dropping the names of assorted nobodies allegedly within the sphere of academia. I could say that George McFartface said blah blah blah at University of Ugandastan and [[WP:SYNTH|throw in some vaguely related articles]] to give off the impression that this is legit, but it is still meaningless buzzword soup. As I've stated, whether or not "metamodernism" is developing and may some day be taken seriously within academic circles, at this moment, it remains an irrelevant terminology coined to describe a vague mash-up of postmodernism offshoots. [[User:Felt friend|<span style="color:#ff0000;font-size:15px;">felt</span>]][[User talk:Felt friend|<span style="color:#960000;font-size:15px;"><nowiki>_</nowiki></span>]][[Special:Contributions/Felt friend|<span style="color:#590000;font-size:15px;">friend</span>]] 20:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
-::[[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]], [[User:Felt friend|Felt friend]], apologies, I should have made myself clearer: That text was in no way whatsoever for you. You are snarks and vandals acting in bad faith--I'll have nothing more to do with you. The above text was for those working on improving the article or those still unsure of what metamodernism is. Feel free to respond to this or not, I'm done with you two sock-puppets. [[User:Festal82|Festal82]] ([[User talk:Festal82|talk]]) 21:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::I'll be here when you want to contribute to the article instead of spitting venom. Please come back when you've managed to calm down. [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 21:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
-::::I agree that you need to calm yourself before reentering this. Just accept that not everybody will share the same opinions as you, and thus expect to be challenged on a site such as Wikipedia. Additionally, you have provided no rebuttal to any argument made against your stance, you merely continue to reiterate that you feel the metamodernism blog is a notable source, but continuously provide no reason as to why other than it's the only source of information on "metamodernism". You have been lobbying this cause for what seems to be months now without the actual notability of the topic being put into question. It is quite possible, you know, that "metamodernism" might not meet WP's notability standards as it currently stands. I would also like to ask as to why you instantly chastise or attempt to marginalize anyone who expresses different views on this issue than you do. [[User:Felt friend|<span style="color:#ff0000;font-size:15px;">felt</span>]][[User talk:Felt friend|<span style="color:#960000;font-size:15px;"><nowiki>_</nowiki></span>]][[Special:Contributions/Felt friend|<span style="color:#590000;font-size:15px;">friend</span>]] 01:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::::What I'm most concerned about is Festal's blind insistance that the previous usages of the word are consistent with der Akker & co's usage, despite his inability to back that claim up. In the above post, Festal merely presupposes their linkage in most of the links given. I brought this up with Esmeme before, and Festal has yet to provide a response to the issues that were raised there. Until he does, there's not really much I can do except repeat myself. I'm not even going to address the other content issues that the page has, since I've spoken about those to death above. [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 01:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
-<div style="margin: auto 2em; border: 1px dashed #AAAAAA; padding: 4px; background-color: white; padding-left: 1em;"><b>References</b>
-{{reflist||refs=|group=}}</div>
-There is a problem when the lead paragraph asserts that since 2010 this movement has become closely associated with two people, and cites three sources, none of which support the assertion, one was written by the two men themselves, and the other two pre-date 2010. If I didn't AGF, this would look "cooked up", so thank goodness for AGF. The cites from Festal82 should now be visible with the addition of [[:template:reflist-talk|the reflist template for talkpages]] above. In addition to the question of whether metamodernism.com is usable, I don't see the utility of sortable tables with such short lists. It's a lot of extra code, for no real purpose, when simpler bullet point lists would be easier for new (and new-ish) editors to add (well sourced) entries onto that list of notables. In any case, there's a hell of a lot of reading to do from that list provided by Festal82. Anyone want to help look those over? I've got a lot going on IRL. [[User:Perfect for you|Perfect for you]] ([[User talk:Perfect for you|talk]]) 04:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
-:I wouldn't mind looking them over some time later. I think for now we should focus on the content which the article does have and see if any of this can supplement it, or perhaps even replace some of the lower-quality citations which need to be reevaluated. I, too, am busy IRL but might be able to look over them in some detail some time in the near future. [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 22:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
-== Protected edit request on 30 June 2014 ==
-{{edit protected|Metamodernism|answered=yes}}
-<!-- Begin request -->
-I am surprised there is discussion about the validity of this concept. There have been numerous academic and journalistic debates about metamodernism the past years, amongst others in The American Book Review (which devoted a special issue to the concept), the Huffington Post, Art News, and Art Pulse. The sudden burst of editing the past month seems to have discredited the concept for all the wrong reasons. The concept is out there; whether people like it or not is another question and should not matter. Could wikipedia administrators have a look at this?
-<!-- End request -->
-[[User:Jojojomamama|Jojojomamama]] ([[User talk:Jojojomamama|talk]]) 14:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
-:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.<!-- Template:EP --> — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 14:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
-::More [[WP:SPA|SPAs]]? Just what this farce of a discussion was missing! [[User:Inanygivenhole|Inanygivenhole]] ([[User talk:Inanygivenhole|talk]]) 17:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)