Talk:Judith Butler/Archive 2

message: I've removed the criticism section. Lulu is right. Mots of the analytic philosophy articles have no criticism at all. That's fine, too. Since when has it been a rule on Encyclopedias to include criticms. This is one of the typical, NPOV, Wackipedia strictures. Furthermore, the language should not bowdlerized or dumbed down just becasue ignoramuses are unwilling to deal with complex words or sentences. Philosophy is the most abstract sunject on earth, for god's sake. If you don't underatnd it, you have two choice really: work harder to undertand the backhorund material and the context or don't read it. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hilary Putnam is being crucified for lacking "criticism" and for being too difficult for Wackipedia. Keep up the good work,LU!! Fuck them all. Hang them all. Put emì up against the wall and shoot 'em!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly not opposed to Lacatosias' action.  But as I describe above, I think that with this issue of differences in notions of universality added, there is a minimal point to Nussbaum's criticism.  Some of Nussbaum's stuff was indeed the silly complaints about "too many big words", but there was a sliver of real point (one on which I personally would side with anti-essentialism, but I understand the argument).  I guess as a practical matter though, removing the whole section removes the silly parts, rather than invite their expansion.  Btw. I'll go look at Putnam's article.... I imagine you noticed The New Yorker article in which Putnam was quoted (to his own surprise) as stating that WP's article on him was better than the one in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (it was presented to Putnam before describing the process by which it was created). LotLE×talk 14:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Followup: Oh, I see Lacatosias' himself mentions the New Yorker point in the FAC nomination.  Should have followed the link first. LotLE×talk 14:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would any of you folks like to step in there. I've worked on the thing tirelessly for about 5 days without sleep and there still holding the thing hostage to considersation of wordiness and what not. I don't know what the devil satisfy some of these people, short of my death. What do you think about the article? Can you support it? Stand up for philosophy!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to get some sleep and chill.  That is the best help I (or anyone) can give you.  The nature of wikipedia means you shouldn't maintain your ego in your contributions -- they will assuredly be tweaked, overhauled, revised, vandalized. I feel for you (just look at Kmaguir's unjustified/able deletions of my work in this article) but in this case I think you need to reassess your personal investment in the article.--Agnaramasi 04:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Kmaguir has once again reverted without any attempt at discussion or justification back to the previous version which included the criticism section.  Not only did he reinstate the criticims, he also thought that he could, without any group agreement, remove Butler from various philosophy/philosopher categories, as well as restore his version of the Excitable Speech section, which I had taken time to clarify, restructure, and shorten.  I am reverting back to Lulu's last edit to undo this rediculous damage.  I also think we should consider finding a way of preventing Kmaguir's continued vandalism of this article. He has disrespected this community enough.--Agnaramasi 07:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may want to get off your soapbox. Look, lacatosias deleted the criticism section with no explanation as he did it, and no one complained. So people do things that they have to explain later, but I'm not going to add a note on a talk page every time I want to make a change that doesn't fundamentally restructure the article, just to appease those out there who may find it unfortunate with respect to their own political agenda or see the article as there's, and not as the community's. First matter: the Excitable Speech section. You worked on a whole lot, only to get it a whole lot like the previous section (before my revising). I cut out the Delgado reference, a bunch of the gobblty-gook academic language that can be simplified. I just noticed tonight that you worked the article back to your own idea of what it should be, and in fact did not work to make it more simple, and clearer. You deleted my work, I deleted yours. Get over it. Second matter: criticism section. You have yet to raise ONE single solid wikipedia concern with the criticism section. Claim it's not NPOV. Back it up. Claim whatever you want, but show me a wikipedia policy, and not the pseudo-academic simplistic arguments of "Well, some articles have such sections, and some don't, but the ones that do, their sections SUCK"--well, then edit them to make them better. And you've yet to offer better with respect to the criticism section. Criticism of a philosopher does not have to be internal, as in from his or her communities (LGBT or feminist, probably among others, in this case), nor does it have to have to be highly specialized or journal-ready. It's just what people have criticized the philosopher about, which is prominent and has been noticed or, in the case of an academic criticism such as this, published. This is what is done here, with Nussbaum, in an undisputedly popular article that deserves mention as a criticism (I am certainly welcome to other additions of criticism from inside Butler's communities or from outside them). About the categories, no one seems willing to enter into a fundamental debate about what makes a philosopher in the category:philosophers page, or here. There, what it came down to was some people saying that they wanted some specific companies to call people philosophers--and that of course begs the question, why not other companies. This is why the introduction of conservative Christian philosophy, or the like, is particularly apt, and should not be excluded if indeed Butler is included. I do not believe she does philosophy, and is thus not a philosopher, for reasons I have discussed on both pages in quite a bit of detail. My opinion is there. We can continue to talk, we can have edit skirmishes. Or, as some on this page seem particularly fond, we can talk, come to some rational consensus, then abandon it time and time again when the wind blows a particular way. The criticism section STAYS, the Excitable Speech original rewrite STAYS. If you don't like it, join the community for once and talk about it. Here. You will either lose the debate or give ground in it, but I will not continue to let you persist in repeatedly thwarting a rational debate, in which, unlike in Butler's system, one side is wrong, and the other side is right, whether or not we can agree absolutely who is which. -Kmaguir1 08:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm.... did you look a few lines higher on this talk page.  Lacatosias provided a perfectly fine explanation above.  And I didn't exactly complain, but expressed my tentative agreement with a couple caveats.  Sure looks like discussion to me; especially since it represents a shift in Lacatosias' initial position on the question (which is explained). LotLE×talk 11:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's really quite simple: Good articles do not have spurious and personalistic criticism sections.  Occassionally (but not usually), good academic bios have substantial theoretical criticisms (e.g. Popper).  If you can find something of substance where a "universalist" thinker makes a substantative criticism of Butler qua anti-essentialist, that's wonderful.  I tried to tease out that concept from the Nussbaum thing, but it took some effort to strip out the mostly "Yo mama so ugly" tone of Nussbaum's popular article.  Moreover, even better would be explanations of disagreements within the actual field Butler works in: say from Zizek (or in a different direction, Donna Haraway or our recently departed Iris Young).  My impression is that Kmaguir1 does not strive to make this a good article, but simply one that diss'es Butler—which is while not precisely the opposite goal, but is certainly a very different goal. LotLE×talk 11:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I said this above, maybe you weren't reading. I do not have to go find an essentialist, I don't have to find a criticism of Butler from within her specific field of feminist philosophy. I can go outside to the Nussbaum critique which is outside her field. And you've yet to show me, again, one wikipedia statement that says that this criticism is out of place, one wikipedia criticism you have with respect to it. And do not break up my comments please. -Kmaguir1 16:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at what the wiki-etiquette says about what you did: "Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow." -Kmaguir1 00:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If there is debate as to when to apply :category:philosophers, it might be worthwhile to bring the community at wikiproject:Philosophy in on the discussion.  Maybe together we can come up with some overall guidelines for when to apply the category (for example - was said person, if fairly contemporary, published in philosophy journals?  Have other philosophers responded to their arguments?).  As for criticisms, I'm more inclined to see them on philosophy pages than on philosopher pages (that is, put criticisms of Butler on queer studies or gender studies along with a section on her writing, not on her bio page), but maybe this would be something to involve wikiproject:Philosophy, wikiproject:Gender studies (I think that's the one), wikiproject:Sociology, and, if there is one, a wikiproject involved in biography in on to discuss.  The more positions brought in to the discussion, the more likely we are to find something that works for everyone, I think.  -Smahoney 16:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted critism

message: Background: Kmaguir1 had revised the original long and unwieldly version of that section.  He has admitted to not having actually read the book.  His revision was mostly simply substituting certain words for others and deleting what he saw as superfluous sentences. The original text remains mostly unchanged. I then revised and substantially rewrote the section.  I made it shorter, more graceful, and in my opinion, easier to read and more adequate to Butler's text.  I reorganized the section to have a simpler language lead-in paragraph that introdcuces the text, followed by three more technical paragraphis describing Butler's specific arguments.  It is better linked up with other articles in Wikipedia and more completely and succinctly fleshes out Butler's ideas.  No where in my revision is there "gobblty-gook academic language" as Kmaguir alleges, even though consistently refusing to actually point to the specific sentences he feels are too technical.  In fact, in my view, my rewrite is shorter, punchier, and less "academic" than Kmaguir's, which remains quite faithful to the convoluded and awkward original.  
Can we please decide as a group which we prefer and point to specific parts of my version that remain too technical so I can change them?--Agnaramasi 15:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excitable Speech section 

message: Some major edits and some additions coming. Edit as you wish, be respectful of me, do not blank me out. There ya go. -Kmaguir1 07:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, saying she made "major" contributions is EXTRAORDINARILY POV. She made contributions. Leave it at that. It isn't like a campaign chest, where someone gave Bush/Cheney MAJOR contributions--that's subjective, but can be agreed on. You can't say with any degree of certainty, or certainly any sources, whether or not her contributions are "major"--if you can, show the source. Secondly, I deleted the Judy! stuff because it was not sourced and was irrelevant. And yes, I added back the Nussbaum as you continue to not engage in meaningful conversation on that section. You can't deny my edits based on your predictions. Isn't it funny, that for one minute, approximately one minute, the world was deprived of knowing about Judith Butler's Undoing Gender just because you were judgmental, slothful and not paying attention? -Kmaguir1 07:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was paying quite a bit of attention to trying to fix the mess you created in the article.  You're right that it took me over a minute to fix it. In fact, I've wasted quite a lot of time if you count the many destructive edits by you I've had to try to correct. LotLE×talk 14:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Care to fill us in on your plans?  This is supposedly a group effort.--Agnaramasi 14:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major edits coming, major edits!

message: I'm worried about some of the sentences in the second paragraph. I hope to get group input to remove or improve the following sentences:
*"In other sections, Butler claims that identity is an often-overlooked question."  This seems just idiotic, given that Butler's whole career has been based on the relentless problematization of identity categories.  Is there a specific part in Undoing Gender where she actually says that identity is "often-overlooked"?
*"She wants people to understand how the self is constructed, and by this, bring the self to a renewed understanding of itself, aware of its own vulnerability as an effect of Foucaultian discursive power." This seems vague, obvious, and kind of redundent given that it has already been elaborated at length in the sections on Gender Trouble, Giving an Account of Oneself, and Excitable Speech, in the context of her specic claims and arguments to which she applies this Foucaultian insight in those books.  In what specific context, section, or argument in Undoing Gender does she invoke the "subject as an effect of discourse" line? If this is just a general point, its redundant.
*"Following sociologist Pierre Macheray, Butler claims that "action is the site of social intervention," in that reality or action is not for the individual subject to confer, but is socially conferred upon the individual subject (in the very constitution of the subject)." I find this sentence exceedingly unclear (despite my efforts to clean it up).  What does "action is the site of social intervention" mean in the context of the argument in which Butler deploys it?  Why does "action" become "reality or action" in the subsequent clause? How does this relate to the previous sentence? Perhaps we should break this up into a few sentences to flesh out what Butler might be arguing?
*"She writes that "sex outside of marriage may open us up to a ... [better] idea of community," thus showing her support for open marriage." This is just totally out of context, doesn't add anything. I doubt Butler "supports" marriage of any kind, let alone "open marriage." If this is to be included, it must absolutely be anchored within the context of the larger section in which it appears. Perhaps the section on queer kinship?  Also--this quote must be accompanied by a page citation.
*"Drawing from Hegel and Nietzsche, Butler recasts being as becoming, and deploying Levinas, as 'becoming the other.'" This is not only unclear, but also philosophically specious.  It doesn't make any sense on its own (or rather it can be taken to mean almost anything), and shuold be elaborated. Otherwise its too general and unclear to be useful here.
*"These explorations, intertwined with the political presuppositions and nature of the book itself, constitute Butler's main aims." I already deleted this because Kmaguir1's analysis of her "political presuppositions" counts as original research that isn't relevent here.--Agnaramasi 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for not having chimed in on this.  Your comments all seem sensible, Agnoramasi; unfortunately, I have not read Undoing Gender, so can't say what it actually says. LotLE×talk 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It really isn't our responsibility to improve Kmaguir1's unclear and dubious edits.  I asked him how he might improve those sentences based on my feedback, and he hasn't responded. Until then, it should be removed because it doesn't add to the article at all.--Agnaramasi 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The text that you are referring to was originally written by Kmaguir1 and later made comprehensible and readable by me.  But I haven't read the book its supposedly referring to.   This is obviously Kmaguir1's mistake, not Butler's.  Perhaps we should consider removing the paragraph because it doesn't seem very accurate or credible.--Agnaramasi 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's a mistake I made in writing it. It could have been solved simply by substracting the words "at birth". I don't know if that was done. I merely want to present the controversy on "his" sex. Clearly, the anti-essentialist Butlerites do not want to say that sex is natural, so he/she was never a male, except by his/her autonomous choice to be so according to Butler, the autonomous choice he/she doesn't get to make because of politics and scientific power determining his/her choice. You can see that Miss Butler is a MISTRESS of logic. -Kmaguir1 00:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously don't read Butler carefully enough to be trusted writing summaries of her ideas on wikipedia if you are reading Butler's theory of performativity as claiming "the subject constructs its sex/gender through autonomous choice". There is no radical will driving performativity.  The subject is formed in and throuhgh the performance: this is the sense in Gender Trouble, in which Butler appropriates Nietzsche's insight from On the Genealogy of Morality that "there is no doer behind the deed" and "the deed is all there is".  I also advise you to read this article more closely too.  If you did, you might see in the Gender Trouble section a few sentences about regulative discourse that coerces through discpline the bodily enactments that constitute subjects as essentially sexed/gendered.  I also refer you to the section on Bodies that Matter, especially the quotation from Butler herself, which directly dispels (and responds to) your "autonomous choice" misreading.--Agnaramasi 00:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Kmaguir1, three questions: (1) if you got that wrong, what else did you get wrong in your summary? Was it neglect or wilful misrepresentation on your part? I am increasingly less willing to assume good faith, but am still trying. (2) How do you know what Butlerites want to say about Reimer? and (3) Why would that be relevant to a summary of what Butler actually says about Reimer? This is an encyclopedia. I'm going to do something I rarely do (perhaps have never done) on wikipedia, and use the command form: This is an encyclopedia. Start acting like an editor of one.--Anthony Krupp 03:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am still waiting for an answer to these three questions.--Anthony Krupp 15:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look like answers are forthcoming.--Anthony Krupp 20:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess some of us need to read that book then. Meanwhile, here's the text I just cut from the article:
In Undoing Gender, Butler clarifies previous positions while moving her critique of gender, sex, and sexuality in new directions. More topical in approach than her previous books, Undoing Gender collects Butler's thoughts on issues ranging from the incest taboo to queer kinship structures, and from the the issue of intersex to the limits of being human.
In her discussion of intersex, Butler comments on the case of David Reimer, a person whose sex was reassigned from male to female after a botched circumcision at eight months. Reimer was "made" female by doctors, but later in life identified as "really" male, and ultimately committed suicide. Butler refers to Reimer with the pronoun ‘he’, out of respect for Reimer's self-identification as male and in opposition to the doctors’ determination of Reimer's sex/gender as female. Butler attacks Reimer's doctors, John Money and Milton Diamond, for what she views as their financial and medical exploitation of Reimer's condition.  She also criticizes the intentions of journalist and author John Colapinto, who wrote a book on Reimer, despite the fact that he received no financial benefit from his work. She posits that the determination of Reimer's sex/gender as an infant -- the intervention in which Reimer's "penis was ablated" -- was carried out by a medical discourse enforcing binary sex/gender on Reimer as a prerequisite for recognizing Reimer as human.  Butler argues that the solution to Reimer's "problem" did not lie in medicine trying to "fix" Reimer, but rather in the formation of Reimer's identity through cultural processes which would recognize Reimer as a person who was neither “male” nor “female,” outside of binary sex/gender entirely.  This connects with Butler's larger project of "undoing" those "frameworks of intelligibility" that violently decide in advance who counts as human, in a bid to do justice to those whom they exclude, such as Reimer. Butler also addressed the Reimer case in relation to questions of the intelligibility of the human in previous articles. See .
--Anthony Krupp 20:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Undoing Gender'' section

message: First, has anyone read and thought about this title: Butler Matters: Judith Butler's Impact on Feminist and Queer Studies eds. Margaret Sonser Breen and Warren J. Blumenfeld (Ashgate 2005)?
Second, does anyone want to start a section on articles she's published? That would be a good thing to follow the section listing her published books.
To avoid duplication, I retitled so that the list is called "Books" while the first section, with summaries and such, is called "Major Works." I'm not wedded to that particular solution, if someone has a better one, but not duplicating section titles seemed like a good idea. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 21:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two questions/suggestions

message: It's good that the Nussbaum article is linked here (so that we don't have to take one editor's word for it). I've just read through it and attempted a rewrite of the paragraph. I would invite others to read the Nussbaum article and tweak it. Keep in mind that this should be one short paragraph in one "criticism" section in an article about Judith Butler. That is, please don't try to approach the length of Nussbaum's actual article in the summary thereof... I've tried to list the most salient points without getting bogged down in details (She reads Austin wrong because...). The main point of Nussbaum's critique, I think after reading it once, is that Butler's take on power and subversion leads to quietism and merely symbolic resistance rather than real resistance. This makes more sense when understood as part of a general critique on third-wave feminism, French postmodernism, and what in the 80s was called "theory."--Anthony Krupp 12:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has Butler commented on this Nussbaum piece? If so, mention could be made at the end of the paragraph.--Anthony Krupp 12:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your attempts are definitely an improvement over the purely ad hominem material that Kmaguir1 repeatedly inserts (despite having already been blocked once, short term, for this exact 3RR edit).  As well as not understanding Butler at all, Kmaguir1 also doesn't actually understand Nussbaum, but simply tries to extract disconnected clauses that seem insulting to Butler.  Nonetheless the length of even Anthony Krupp's improvement was still strongly undue weight.  I've trimmed it down again, keeping some of Anthony Krupp's good wording; I think shortening further would be better though. LotLE×talk 13:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I approve of the edits to my revision. It's interesting: once I read the Nussbaum piece, I actually saw several things there that I thought worth discussion. Although her pathos of realism seems to call her own academic work into question, with the possible exception of the two weeks she spends in India each year. (How many women are fed from her book sales?) Mostly, though, she seemed to be asking a third-wave feminist why she isn't first- or second-wave. Not much room for debate there.--Anthony Krupp 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... Nussbaum's points, where they are actually philosophical, seem remarkably non-specific to Butler in particular.  Word-for-word, pretty much everything Nussbaum suggests as criticism applies equally to pretty much anything pomo-ish. I've tried to provide that context with an adjective or two in my modification. LotLE×talk 15:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism/Nussbaum

message: This is taken from WP:CONSENSUS:
"Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. (e.g. insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus...)
It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Nearly every editor believes that his (or her) position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may also be reasonable. But Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. ...
The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of well-meaning editors with a knowledge of Wikipedia's basic policies to the issue by one of the methods of dispute resolution, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. Enlarging the pool will prevent the railroading of articles by a dedicated few. Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken."
Several of us recently worked to improve the Nussbaum criticism paragraph, and that was a sign of consensus at work. But when the same poorly written paragraph gets reinserted over and over again by one editor (in one edit in addition to the other paragraph!!!), this shows total disregard for consensus and profound disrespect for the persons who are trying to work together here. It demonstrates a profound lack of charity, by the way, which was a Christian virtue, last time I checked. In any case: does someone think we should proceed with formal dispute resolution? If anyone knows how, please institute it.--Anthony Krupp 13:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I'm currently tied up with Derrida.  My next tasks for this article, though, are to reference my summary of Giving an Account of Oneself, to better explain Butler's normative claims about social critique in relation to Adorno's Minima Moralia, and to read Excitable Speech and clean up and reference its section here.--Agnaramasi 17:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Playing well with others

message: I indeed also do not trust Kmaguir1's summary.  But I do think it's better to give readers something rather than nothing.  In pursuit of that, here's what the publisher's blurb says:
Undoing Gender constitutes Judith Butler's recent reflections on gender and sexuality, focusing on new kinship, psychoanalysis and the incest taboo, transgender, intersex, diagnostic categories, social violence, and the tasks of social transformation. In terms that draw from feminist and queer theory, Butler considers the norms that govern--and fail to govern--gender and sexuality as they relate to the constraints on recognizable personhood. The book constitutes a reconsideration of her earlier view on gender performativity from Gender Trouble. In this work, the critique of gender norms is clearly situated within the framework of human persistence and survival. And to "do" one's gender in certain ways sometimes implies "undoing" dominant notions of personhood. She writes about the "New Gender Politics" that has emerged in recent years, a combination of movements concerned with transgender, transsexuality, intersex, and their complex relations to feminist and queer theory.
A number of Amazon reviews mention that she discusses Reimer.  The top few claim Butler simplifies and distorts the case, which I'm actually rather willing to believe given its widespread misreporting.  But in any case, the fact Reimer is discussed seems clear enough.  I think something that sticks to a paraphrase of what the publisher says isn't too bad, pending a knowledgeable editor giving a better description. LotLE×talk 03:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you drunk?--Agnaramasi 03:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's slander. I have not had anything to drink. First of all, I don't have to be an academic to edit on Wikipedia--although I am a Masters student in philosophy--that's (a Masters) better than the vast portion of the world. So, the criticism that I have to be an academic to edit this article, well frankly, you my Marxist friends, it's bourgeois. Uneducated people, even if I were that, should be able to make edits, and more educated people fix their edits--but not fix as in delete their perspective or cut out their work, like my perfectly fine Undoing Gender stuff. It's snobbery, really. But I want to avoid personal attacks here, as you just called me a drunk, which is an ultimate personal attack. Let's just stick to the rules of Wikipedia, and I'm not going anywhere. If you want to go above and beyondd the rules to address all of my concerns with this profoundly POV and Butler-o-phile article, then we again, can open discussions. However, like all postmoderns, you don't want to debate, because you can lose--you just want to spread the messages you are politically vested in. Don't use Wikipedia for that. -Kmaguir1 04:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh, nicely put.  I often feel the same way.  -Smahoney 04:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safe summary of ''Undoing Gender'' 

message: It looks like young Mr. Maguire indeed does claim to be at U.Memphis, despite its grad student page not showing him.  See: http://profiles.yahoo.com/saufque.  I suppose one way (if it mattered) for the young Messrs to show their non-identity would be to tell us that "Truthseekers" was likewise some individual Google likes to tell us about.  Of course, Meat Puppets, while certainly a most-excellent band, are not allowed here on the internets either. LotLE×talk 19:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no. You accused sockpuppetry. Prove those charges. No discussion of meatpuppetry is merited until we've disposed of the sockpuppetry charge. So talk about how you think he's a sockpuppet, and prove that, or give up on it. You can't backslide as you have already begun to. Y ou said sockpuppet, hold to sockpuppet, and show that. You won't be able to show it, because it's not true, but you have to do that, or the investigation into sockpuppetry should be dropped, and you should be forced to apologize for labelling another user as a sockpuppet, which he most certainly is not. You can't just keep back sliding, or slip-slidin', if you're a Paul Simon fan. You have to be held acccountable. You said sockpuppet. So prove sockpuppet. Keep talking about it, show it. Or drop it, and hopefully, you face consequences for false accusations. -Kmaguir1 19:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done.  The evidence on the sock puppet report page is pretty conclusory, IMO. LotLE×talk 19:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meat and potatoe 

message: "At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus." From WP:CONSENSUS. -Kmaguir1 20:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You and your friend may constitute just such a group.--Anthony Krupp 20:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You and yours as well. -Kmaguir1 20:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: More importantly here, all the editors who think Kmaguir1's semi-vandalism is utter rubbish have been on Wikipedia a long time, with little or no prior contact among us.  Before trying to combat the disruption, I've never previously worked with Commodore Sloat, or DanB DanD, or Agnaramasi, or Lacatosias; I think I've vaguely encountered Anthony Krupp elsewhere.  I have happened to work with Jossi a good bit in completely unrelated areas; but it wasn't me who requested his input here.  I've also worked with Sethmahoney productively on some different topics, but again, I did not solicit his input here.  In contrast, even supposing Truthseekers to be a distinct human being from Kmaguir1, the former was by his description a close friend who was asked to create an account to edit specific pages with specific content.  When everyone else thinks you're dead wrong, supposing a cabal is not the only, nor the most parsimonious, explanation. LotLE×talk 22:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know the admin--I don't know any admins. Wherefore art thou, politburo? -Kmaguir1 03:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Kmaguir1, but please note that WP:CONSENSUS also says that "insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus". ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 20:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, we can get Talmudic with this--it's not insignificant, as I explain above: the bio opens the door. You do a bio of Hitler, you're going to get criticism, you do a bio of George W. Bush, you're going to get criticism. I would argue that I could not, all things being equal, insert a similar comment on the Butler page--that is, I could not say those same things, because there is no bio there on the Butler page, and thus, its presence would constitute an insignificant factoid. But on the Foucault page, they open the door to a fair treatment of his life with a well-written bio. -Kmaguir1 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have to go to work now, so remarks will be very delayed from now on. -Kmaguir1 20:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "the door is open" argument is not useful. The issue at hand should be focused solely on this: Is it encyclopedic? And to answer that question we shall use WP content policies and not our ideas about what is encyclopedic: Is it verifiable? Was it published by a reliable source (or better, more than oine source? Is the viewpoint significant? Can it be attributed to a notable/reliable author? Is it a sigificant aspect of this person's life and pertinent to his notability? etc. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 22:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no. You wanted me to answer the four questions--it should go on the page regardless, but now these other standards are coming up. I don't think the viewpoint of Judith Butler herself is significant, and by that logic, there shouldn't even be an article--so those you cite here, they're flexible. I think I will try to stick with your previous framework. -Kmaguir1 03:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction. Kmaguir1 states: "I don't think the viewpoint of Judith Butler herself is significant, and by that logic". This statement fails to understand the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It is not whether Kmaguir1 thinks X, it is whether verifiable notable sources think so.--Anthony Krupp 12:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine.  Start an AfD and see how it goes for you.--csloat 03:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A "fair treatment of his life with a well-written bio" is not what you are advocating, Kmaguir1.  You are advocating insignificant third- and fourth-hand smears from a source with no expertise on this issue.  I've specifically refuted the significance of both points you want included here on the Talk:Foucault page, and you have not responded to those points.  The case is closed.  The only issue left is your meatpuppetry, which is also to be discouraged here.--csloat 22:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: I think the issue of vandalism should be more fully addressed.  I think I can demonstrate instances where Kmaguir1 actually vandalized the article.  As I wrote before, Kmaguir randomly "inserted nonsensical sentences with homophobic and anti-feminist undertones parodying what he understands to be Butler's 'impenetrable' style" here and here.  His defense from this charge is that these "contributions" were really (1) " things I honestly believe are either true theoretical statements about the philosophy (in Butler’s jargon), or more practical applications" and also (2) "an attempt to exegete logical conclusions of Judith Butler’s work, either by adding more common language, or putting the complexity of it into context." Even if we accept Kmaguir1's claim that these "contributions" were the result of his meditations on the "logical conclusions" and "practical applications" of Butler's work, no matter how misguided and silly, they would still constitute original research and are inappropriate. But, even further, I doubt very much that his intentions were good at all, and that his "contributions" were actually in bad faith and constitute vandalism. I want to try to demonstrate this by calling Kmaguir1 to account for some of his statements in terms of his above defense.  In what ways then are the following additions either "logical conclusions" or "practical applications" of Butler's ideas and not a (malicious) attempt to parody her style to make a (malicious) point? 
*"Undeterminedness as to-be-determinedness draws on Heidegger's Mitsein concept of Being-in-the-world as a function of the world itself, determined not as of yet but to be determined as uncontrolling to the marginalized individual who cannot manage autonomousness."
*"[Discursive] control being analogous to domestic abuse analogies of feminist theories in the late 20th century" -->anti-feminist wierdness coming through here
*"This [illocutionary] force is very similar to a Newtonian speech claim, one of absolute space in which relative space is not possible"
*"Hate speech is performativity as the performative-in-the-world: the Erfahrung over the Erlebnis as lived-experience--thus its form of discourse remains primitive."
*"Intelligibility is only intelligible to the masses--an individual's intelligibility is determined by the framing discourse, which mandates frameworks of power in which intelligibility is rationally given to those of the same intelligence."
*"My 'I' is not 'I' when I am abstracted from the 'I' by the 'I' who is not me but who becomes me."
*"The opacity is not opaqueness, but remains in the open space of the scene."
I doubt very much that Kmaguir1 can make sense of his own "contributions" -- precisely becuase they were nonsensical vandalism in bad-faith all along.--Agnaramasi 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Butler herself advocates that we make parodic gestures, and thus, even if it were parody, it is line with the way we should interpret the entire world, and that would presumably include wikipedia. As for your larger allegations, I believe these assessments, again, to be in line with natural conclusions from the work, and thus are not vandalism. I have been accused of being a "Sokal". The problem with that is two-fold: 1) My actions are completely different from Sokal's in that his were designed to make the actual jargon conflatable with the pretend jargon, and 2) Sokal was very, very right to do what he did--almost one might say, heroic. Of course, he wasn't writing for an encyclopedia, and so it is not my role to make nonsense look like nonsense--it already looks enough like that without me. I believe my comments added to the porphyry, and are not vandalism at all--they're in fact evident conclusions I drew, and I may have been mistaken, and I'm glad if I was, that someone was there to correct me. I have no interest in adding them back if they're objectively wrong, which it looks, the community thinks they are (and they are objective claims). I only want to revert material that is being kept from the world as a result of a subjective political framework, where there is no other possible conclusion about what is right and true. -Kmaguir1 03:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine.  These are not nonsense, they are "evident conclusions" you drew.  Now explain them.  Just a list, one by one, explain in plain English what the hell you're talking about.  Seriously.  Start with #1, "Undeterminedness as to-be-determinedness draws on Heidegger's Mitsein concept of Being-in-the-world as a function of the world itself, determined not as of yet but to be determined as uncontrolling to the marginalized individual who cannot manage autonomousness."  Have you read Heidegger?  I hope so, because some of us have.  Having read Austin several times myself I am especially interested in your explanation of #3, "This [illocutionary] force is very similar to a Newtonian speech claim, one of absolute space in which relative space is not possible".--csloat 03:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't explain a priori conclusions (and yes, these are logical conclusions, that is, of logic, and fit Hume's standards as a relation of ideas)--do you want me to try to explain why 2+2=4? Oh, I forgot, y'all continental people only paid enough attention to analytic philosophy to Quineanly dump the a priori/a posteriori dichotomy.-Kmaguir1 04:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A simple interpretation of each conclusion would be fine.  Extra points if you explain the logic that got you to that conclusion if you insist, but I just want to see some evidence that you even have a clue what you are talking about.--csloat 04:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no. Big error. It is not the role of a wikipedia user to interpret! Merely to present facts! I believe these things to be factual, a priori, and as such, true by virtue of themselves. -Kmaguir1 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing more to say here; it's clear this user is trolling.--csloat 08:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Kmaguir1 now has ten days to think about things, as he's been blocked for that long. Two other accounts have been blocked indefinitely. About Nussbaum: I would be willing to discuss the term 'essentialist' with any reasonable editor. Kmaguir1 has lost credit in my eyes. If after the 10-day block he shows himself to understand the process of consensus, I will be willing to discuss things with him again. Evidence that I once was willing to do so: my editing of his Nussbaum paragraph, which I inserted into the Butler page on a few occasions (rather than just deleting it). My suggestion to Kmaguir1 was to list a short "edit summary" when an edit is made. It's common courtesy here.--Anthony Krupp 16:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "How about I revert all of your simple, minor edits to the page, or all pages on Wikipedia..." Doing so will get a user blocked for a long time.--Anthony Krupp 17:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that she believes in universal normative principles is enough. We don't need to say essentialist per se. Essentialism is implicit in any claims of universality.--Agnaramasi 18:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Charge of vandalism

message: Bearcat's new addition highlighted what a mess this article's categories are getting to be.  I think part of the problem is the unwieldy category system, with dozens of just barely semanticly distinct categories to cover the same topics.  This seem particularly grevious in regards to LGBT-ish stuff, though issues of profession and nationality come close.  So as of right now, Butler is:
* 20th century philosophers 
* 21st century philosophers 
* LGBT philosophers 
* Lesbian writers 
* Queer writers 
* LGBT writers from the United States
* Jewish philosophers 
* American philosophers 
* Jewish American writers 
Am I the only one who finds this overlap a bit redundant, and to repeat itself, and to contain the same concepts multiple times, and to express overlap redundantly, and also to contain redundancy? :-). 
This even leaves out the bits about "philosophy of sexuality" and "queer theory".  Those two are probably a bit redundant with each other, but in principle there is no particular connection between whether someone is queer, and whether they do queer theory... so I don't think the theoretical focus is redundant with the identity. LotLE×talk 07:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category stew