Talk:Dérive

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wrong article[edit]

Drifter the person seems to have nothing in common with the subject matter of the article. Drifter(person) should have its own article discussing the drifter character in the movies, TV, pop culture, and in the American psyche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo Basil (talk • contribs) 16:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you attempt to describe the antagonism between your cultural representations and this theoretical framework? I think the link is an effective replacment for "Drifter: one who drifts" Drug warrior (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is this? I agree with Bo Basil, we need an article about the drifter who is almost a hobo, or have it redirected somewhere not here. There may be different varieties of such drifters, but this is not the right page to describe it. Belasted (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge discussion[edit]

Debord himself may rate an article, but he's not influential enough to rate a separate article for every single concept. ----Isaac R 19:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem is more that the article was written in an excruciating, unreadable manner. I rewrote it more simply and readably, and allowing for the fact that it was already a French word for quite some time before Débord came upon it. Some philosophy students may be enraged by my dumbing down. Perhaps this should be on wiktionary since it is basically the definition of a word or concept, I don't know exactly where the line is drawn. Dan Carkner 14:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no, the word and concept is broader than debord, with lyotard and cixous, amongst many others using it too. that said, it could probably use expansion.--Buridan 13:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This could perhaps be merged with the Situationist article, but it certainly shouldn't be attributed solely to Debord. Personally I feel it should be kept seperate and expanded upon. --Mark 11:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it could, but that would be factually misleading, peope used the term before and people use the term after, and those before were not talking about the same thing exactly, and while those after, some may have been influenced... not all were. this terms isn't like a neologism of Derrida. It is broadly used in a variety of contexts and probably should just be expanded. --Buridan 02:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to merge it with the situationist article, as it is not exclusisvely their term. warkk

I agrea with warkk. the term has achived a circumference of its own.

I cut out a bunch of the stuff people have added over time. OK, we must realize that 1) dérive is a pretty common french word with many very day-to-day meanings [1] [2], it wasn't invented or popularised by Debord 2) even as a philosophical concept, it doesn't need a bunch of paragraphs with jargon, it's very straightforward, this is wikipedia and should introduce the topic to someone in plain language. OK, I looked up and linked to the french equivalent, but it doesn't help since it seems to be a sentence-by-sentence translation of an old version of this article. oh well, best wishes, sorry if I seem harsh. Dan Carkner 22:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cut a lot of fat from it and changed the sources to primary translations. Its anglicized usage has a very specific meaning and history, wikipedia is not a french dictionary. Also, architecture professors are not the only people capable of being drifters, the derive is not a recreational activity. I hope that this makes things more clear. Drug warrior (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article, then all the related references including all of the linked articles and the translation of the article that originally defined the dérive, and I still am not sure what it is. Is it a walkabout? Is it taking a year off after college and backpacking about with no goal in mind? Debord's "a technique of rapid passage through varied ambiances" sounds like a bunch of words stuck together. Maybe the article could be dumbed down some more. Xj (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote the article[edit]

I completely wrote up a new article for this page that's cleaner, broader, more organized, and better cited than the previous ones, which should address most of the problems people had discussed earlier. This concept does deserve its own page for several reasons:

This is a unique and significant philosophical concept referenced not only by the Letterist International and Situationist International, but also central to the theory of psychogeography which is recognized, analyzed and implemented by several modern groups and individuals involved with unitary urbanism and urban exploring.
Almost all the aforementioned pages link to this page, and they have nothing to do with anything on the "drifter" page.
If people search for the word "dérive" they are almost certainly not looking for the article for "drifter."

Again, hopefully the quality of this new edit will assuage anyone who had problems with the previous articles. BlindMic (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned about the redirect for the reasons give, but the old article was next to useless. Good to see it rewritten - dérive is a useful term when dealing with the writings of people like Iain Sinclair, and i think it probably justifies an article. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dérive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150102163950/http://www.peterborappmund.name/index.php?%2Fongoing%2Fthe-los-angeles-river%2F to http://peterborappmund.name/index.php?%2Fongoing%2Fthe-los-angeles-river%2F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Section - Notability[edit]

The technology section cites a few apps, but all of the references are self-published, and the importance of the apps in the grand scheme of the derive are questionable. There are a variety of examples with higher notability that could be included (Karen O'Rourke's book Walking and Mapping provides a number of examples. I would recommend adding information with higher quality sources to support this section, or deleting it. In its current state, it doesn't add much to the entry and doesn't reflect the most prominent engagements with derive/technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericxz (talk • contribs) 15:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]