Talk:Judith Butler/Archive 1

message: I added the article to :Category:Jewish Americans based on her statement "I signed a petition framed in these terms, an 'Open Letter from American Jews', ..." found here. —Ashley Y 19:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this self-identification is OK for category membership, without going into exactly what the "Jewish" means in her case.  This seems on better grounds than the neo-Nazi editors who go around adding "Jewish" to the first sentence of lots of articles (of people who may or may not be Jewish), as happened to the Butler article.  Nonetheless, we need to get the fact evidenced in the article itself to obey WP:V ... but without assigning undue weight to it.  Readers cannot be expected to read talk pages for support of facts (let alone archives and edit histories of talk pages).  I'll try to put in something discrete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish-American category 

message: Is there any reason certain books are picked and others not? It seems capricious. Also, the language of the descriptions of the book should probably be more encyclopedic in origin, and not borrow so heavily from the author's own terms--this would be more neutral and accessible for a reader. They don't have to contain criticism--but they should contain what the works are really about. If that can be determined.
:This thing about "certain books" is just silly.  Editors presumably don't try to summarize books they haven't read, so those discussed in more detail are those about which some editor(s) are knowledgeable.  Very few thinkers, and even fewer contemporary thinkers have completely uniform coverage of their works on WP.  If you want discussion of a book not yet discussed, read it, understand it, and summarize it.  Griping deosn't add anything.  It might be possible though to add a placeholder blurb on any missing books: even just the dust jacket blurb on what a given work is about reminds editors that there is something that needs fleshing out, without being unencyclopedic until such time. LotLE×talk 16:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you just unilaterally gutted all of our work on her books.  What gives you this right to destroy the hard work of others because you deem it "unencyclopedic," especially if you admit you don't understand the first thing about "meaningless leftist propaganda"?  I think we should revert to the former version and have a full discussion before we take out exegeses of Butler's most crucial ideas.  Instead of completely deleting our work, tell us what you don't understand specifcially, and we can spend time to clarify it. --Agnaramasi 14:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agnaramasi is entirely correct here.  If you want more description of other works, add it.  Destrorying the summaries editors have provided is completely counter-productive. LotLE×talk 16:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, excuse me... NOW who's acting unilaterally! You deleted the sentence plus the explanation, which was not the last version, and was not what we were even talking about working towards. This action was not discussed or debated, and I'm reverting. You're biased on your page--you want to "get rid of categories" and yet join the Marxist group. This needs an edit that is NOT political, specifically from someone (unlike one of Butler's drones) who believes that humans can actually BE NOT political. -Kmaguir1 18:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sections on the individual books & npov 

message: On the original complaint about the unevenness of the sections on the books:  I think the sections on Gender Trouble and Giving an Account of Oneself are generally fine.  The section on Excitable Speech is a bit long, and could probably be more concise.  This, unfortunately, is a book I haven't yet read closely or completely enough to be confortable taking that on.  I think the section on Bodies that Matter ought to be expanded, especially in its relation to Gender Trouble, but again I don't feel comfortable right now doing that myself.  Two of her most significant books that are notably missing are The Psychic Life of Power and Undoing Gender; it would be great if someone familiar with those texts could do up a few short paragraphs on them.--Agnaramasi 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on all these points.  The Excitable Speech description is too long, and sort of digresses into minor concerns.  And obviously, Bodies that Matter needs expansion (maybe I can get to that), but probably not this week.  Some of the rest could probably be made slightly more concise, and also slightly more accessible to non-technical readers.  Unfortunately, I've only skimmed Psychic Life and Undoing Gender (can you tell when I finished my Ph.D. in this stuff :-)).  Maybe someone can at least put in a one-sentence blurb on each of the missing books, even if only paraphrased from the publisher blurbs on them, or from some review. LotLE×talk 19:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balancing books 

message: I further object to the presence of this article in the Philosophy Wikiproject, as I dispute that she actually is a philosopher, as does Nussbaum. How would one go about detaching this article from that project? -Kmaguir1 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just put on your red shoes, click your heals three times, and repeat "there's no place like home." LotLE×talk 21:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Futher to Lulu, both your and Nussbaum's opinions of Butler's status as a philosopher have absolutely nothing to do with the FACT she is one (just look in the top corner of the back cover of her books).  Stop messing around.--132.206.59.241 22:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, maybe of Nussbaum, but definitely not of the writing contest.  Calling that "criticism" isn't even close. LotLE×talk 03:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nussbaum is a virtue ethicist, not a Kantian. -Kmaguir1 03:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And I talk about the Nussbaum article in a section above (new comment). -Kmaguir1 03:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to inclusion 

message: Obviously, Nussbaum engages in a bit of sophistry herself in the quoted article, which is disappointing.  Martha should know better.  Without throwing in the word-stew of casual insults that Kmaguir1 does (sloppily quoting Nussbaum, and definitely not at Nussbaum's best), I do think it's reasonable to leave in the general thrust of Nussbaum's critique.  The obscurantism thing is OK to mention, but is a bit forgettable as criticism.  Of some minor significance is this notion of universalizable values.  While that's more a question of different traditions than of these two individual thinkers, it is a difference of philosophical interest.  Kantians like Nussbaum obviously have an actual philosophical beef with anti-essentialists like Butler; and that fact is somewhat illuminating in explaining to readers the general school or tradition that Butler falls in. Of course, none of this is worth belaboring—this is an article on Butler, not one on Nussbaum, so the overwhelming focus should remain Butler's own thought (Nussbaum has her own article, a perfectly good one... though actually it could use some more concretes on Nussbaum's thought, not simply on her life history). LotLE×talk 01:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nussbaum is a virtue ethicist, not a Kantian. -Kmaguir1 03:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And I talk about the Nussbaum article in a section above (new comment). -Kmaguir1 03:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nussbaum