If you think that's bad, take a look at Beyond Postmodernism.

And the author of it said to go ahead and delete it, as he now agrees it would be more appropriate on his blog.

While there are worse articles about, can anyone beat Post-post-modernism for the most incomprehensible article that checks all the Wikipedia tick-boxes (references, sections etc)? As far as I can tell, at no point in this 13k of gibberish does it actually say what P-P-M is...

An article's unwillingness to commit to a description of the very thing it purports to describe might just be the ultimate expression of post-post-modernism.

Postmodernism is defined in relation to what it comes after: modernism.

Perhaps post-postmodernism is defined in relation to what it comes after: postmodernism.

While there are worse articles about, can anyone beat Post-post-modernism for the most incomprehensible article that checks all the Wikipedia tick-boxes (references, sections, etc)? As far as I can tell, at no point in this 13k of gibberish does it actually say what P-P-M is …

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergy is still my pick for the most incomprehensible "legit" article. "Various authors have struggled to clarify their usage, and ambiguity seems to continue in the literature to this day..."

Postmodernism was something I had to study for my history degree. It made no sense then and it makes no sense now.

I prefer the definition of postmodernism by The Simpsons: "Weird for the sake of being weird."

The Joy

Humanities and WP just don't mix.

Postmodern is a term originating from architecture, literally 'after the modern', denoting a style that is more ornamental than modernism, and which borrows from previous architectural styles, often in a playful or ironic fashion.

Postmodernism is problematically constrained by definitions, as it involves the very perspectives that rupture claims of the imputed or imposed foundations of knowledge-production through its critical, deconstructive, and liberatory considerations. Therefore, scholars of [[critical theory]], [[philosophy]], [[architecture]], [[art]], [[literature]], and [[culture]], and other disciplines, can have no authoritative stance from which to define it completely or with more or less accuracy, unless invoking a ontological difference to some aspect of modernism or modernity. The following representations of postmodernism in their historical, cultural, artistic, and philosophical discourses, are thus necessarily tentative, fragmentary and, as befits the project of postmodernism, time-bound and inherently ‘open’ to contestation."

Thank you for some of your edits to Postmodernism. They're improvements. I haven't looked at them all, however.

I also notice that you appear desperate for attention via Jimmy Wales's talk page. That's rather silly. Just concentrate on making intelligent edits, with intelligent edit summaries, OK? -- Hoary (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Whiling away a Sunday morning. Why aren't you banning or blocking me? I am a troll from the Wikipedia Review. Look:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=96600

I am a BANNED USER. You can't allow edits by banned users, even if they are improvements. 86.133.180.53 (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page follow-up
I wasn't paying much attention; I just patrol recent changes a lot and came across your edits, and then looked at your contribs after the fact. I have no idea what the circumstances of your initial ban were, but why not knock off the 'advertisements' that you've been banned under another name, register a new account, and keep fixing up articles? If you can withhold the abrasive comments in your edit summaries, you'd be a very good editor. WP takes civility pretty seriously. Fogster (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Mebbe you could re-register under the name BannedMeansBanned.