Talk:Stanley Fish

message: If we are going to allow a connection here -- which I personally am leaning against doing -- then we need to have a citation to the article and change the wording. Fish as an inspiration for Morris Zapp, while interesting I suppose, is a rumor. To say "Fish is probably the inspiration...", appears random and does not serve any purpose so far as the rest of the article is concerned. If we are to allow it to stay, it needs to be expanded and even then it needs to be cited and proven relevant to the rest of the article. Perhaps it should be moved to a 'trivia' subheading. Or it could be in a subheading that relates Fish to contemporaries and/or critics -- although I don't really think this is necessarily a great idea either. For the moment, I am removing it under the premise of WP:NOT, subheading 1.8. 
*
Ryecatcher773 18:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: David Lodge and Fish

message: How did this dude get to be a law professor? Unless I'm missing something, it isn't covered in the article. Lou Sander 23:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can see that he was a law professor at Duke. But I can't see anything at all that would explain how and why an English teacher would become a law professor, or someone whose "main area of interest" is First Amendment Law. Why not a surgeon? Or a volleyball theorist? Did he get a traffic ticket, go to court, and decided he loved the law? Surely it wasn't just an opening he applied for, was it? One would hope that an encyclopedia might shine a little light on unusual aspects of its subjects' careers. Lou Sander 02:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, as I stated, there is nothing in print to substantiate anything theories or speculations on his move. However, it is hardly a big jump from English to Law. English curricula, at the university level anyway, is not about writing book reports, it's about critical analysis. Studying law is, in effect, not much different in theory. Part of the reason English is one of the majors considered ideal for pre-Law is this critically analytical approach. English is also a name applied to a major that could also be called 'Rhetoric', which is what lawyers (or Rhetoricians as they were called) engaged in during the classical Greek period -- read your Aristotle and Plato, or just ask an English professor. He or she will back my claim on this (incidentally, it isn't just my claim... I'm taking it from the overview section on English as a Major in the UIC catalog... and I'm sure they weren't the first to come up with it either) Cheers! Ryecatcher773 03:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fish and Law 

message: John Skelton (1460-1529) doesn't really count as a Mediaval author. If this is the extent of his work on early English literature, it would be a good idea to remove this characterization.
::Professor Fish isn't a medievalist, but he did start out as one. You are correct, the book on Skelton's poetry isn't necessarily a qualification of his medievalist roots, and I don't see the relation between the two sentences. I think what the contributor was alluding to is that Fish talks about his progression (or perhaps, to not offend medievalists it is better to say 'his change in course') into later periods. I have not personally read this particular work, so I cannot say. Wherever he actually embarked on his academic journey is irrelevant other than as a brief biographical mention' Fish's areas of concentration are mainly Milton, Literary Theory, and First Amendment Law. Ryecatcher773 02:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medievalist? 

message: Not sure if this is allowed here, but if any Fish enthusiasts watch this page and also use facebook, I've just created the first Fish fanclub there. --Ryan Heuser 07:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so much prohibited as irrelevant, but have fun.  I would be wary, however, of any intellectual whose influence is of such a nature that people who like his work consider themselves as "fans". Fandom is a pretty irrational affair. Lexo (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facebook group 

message: This page does not need or warrant a template for WP Chicago. Fish is neither a native Chicagoan nor even a resident of the City of Chicago. He was employed here, yes. But that is the extent of his connection to the city, and he is no longer employed by UIC, nor has he been for a couple of years now (I was in his final class at UIC in Spring of 2005, he left Chicago in July of that year for FIU). Lastly, the article itself only mentions Chicago in passing, and is not otherwise directly related to Chicago in any way. I have removed the template accordingly. Ryecatcher773 18:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bot puts the banner on pages that have appropriate categories, as in this case; UIC faculty. However, he was more than just employed, he was, from 1999 to 2004, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at UIC, where he was paid $230,000 a year, more than the Governor of Illinois. This got him a certain notoriety. Anyway, what harm does it do to have more eyes on the page? Speciate 19:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say he wasn't a resident of Chicago, what did he do, commute in from another state or something? Speciate 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added more on his time in Chicago. Speciate 20:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Any article with at category listed at WP:CHIBOTCATS will get tagged by the bot that checks these cats twice a week for new articles for WP:CHICAGO.  If the category is important enough to the article to belong there our project would like to follow the article.  As I read the current WP:LEAD it says "He is . . . dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago"  Thus, he has a notable lifelong relationship with a Chicago educational institution.  Unless you feel it would harm the talk page to have a Chicago banner there I would appreciate it if you would leave it there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  00:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia created these talk pages for the purpose of improving articles. The various Project banners function as categories, and aid in the tracking of articles related to various subjects. All that is required is that the article is of interest to a WikiProject. There was a lengthy debate over a LGBT studies banner on the Larry Craig talk page, which was resolved by having the banner remain. Speciate 00:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should also add that I have even changed the priority tag on this article to mid because he served in a prominent role as a Chicagoan.  He was already a preeminent scholar in his field when he was affiliated with the local institution and influenced many Chicagoans in his prominent role.  He is a part of the Chicago project without a doubt.  See WP:CHIPRIORITY for an explanation of how our project evaluates the importance of articles to our project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  13:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Chicago 

message: "As both a prominently public intellect and a hard man to pin down politically, Fish has spent considerable time in various public arenas vigorously debunking pieties of both the left and the right — sometimes in the same sentence."
This reads like something from a magazine feature, not like something from an encylopedia article.  (I assume that the writer meant "intellectual" rather than "intellect" - an intellectual talks for a living, but the intellect is a rather nebulous mental faculty.)  This article is in general not very good; some bits of it strike me as being wildly pro-Fish, other bits seem to be very anti-Fish.  I believe that the people least qualified to write a wikipedia article about a thinker are those who agree wholeheartedly with the thinker in question, but the reverse is also true; I do not myself think that Fish's work is non-trivial, so I don't care enough to ensure that an article about him is kept in good order. Lexo (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But apparently you do care enough to write a lengthy paragraph prefacing your non-caring.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.78.126 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it's gone, and obviously its tone called for its removal. I should have liked to add subheadings to the Criticism §:
=== Criticism of his work ===
====Fatalism====
====Hollowness====
====Irrelevance====
====Sophistry====
====Sloppy Reasoning====
But Camille Paglia's "totalitarian tinkerbell" pretty much does it. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate tone 

message: ====Fatalism====
====Hollowness====
====Irrelevance====
====Sophistry====
====Sloppy Reasoning====
But Camille Paglia's "totalitarian tinkerbell" pretty much does it. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of his work 

message: But Camille Paglia's "totalitarian tinkerbell" pretty much does it. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sloppy Reasoning

message: I'm wondering whether we can work this recent quote from Professor Fish into the article. I think it's pretty important? Mardiste (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That douche does need a mental workout because he is a total stranger to a coherent argument.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.185.121 (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stanley Fish on philosophy 

message: Judging from this article, Stanley Fish is apparently a fairly prominent intellectual and important figure, who has also been 'the target of wide-ranging criticism'. But the article devotes more space to that criticism than his views, which are presumably what he is criticised for. There's only one poorly-sourced paragraph about his literary theory, and a brief one on university politics which links to a single New York Times piece by him. If he really is prominent enough to attract this much criticism, it should be possible to say more about the work that makes him famous in the first place. Robofish (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, as a dyed-in-the-wool anti-foundationalist his lack of a defined viewpoint is largely what makes him so prominent: he doesn't do content (meaning opinions/views are exactly what he dismisses as irrelevant when one is speaking on theory -- whetehr it's prose, poetry or law). If you've ever had him as a professor or read anything by him (a good starting point would be: There's No Such Thing As Free Speech, and it's a Good Thing, Too) you'd see what I mean. Or, you could check out his NY Times blog (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/stanley-fish/) if you don't want to expend the energy and/or funds going to the bookstore.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, what are his actual views? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Stanley Fish. 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/20080515235159/http://www.nhinet.org/jb-seat.htm to http://www.nhinet.org/jb-seat.htm/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606043832/http://www.theminnesotareview.org/journal/ns52/fish.htm to http://www.theminnesotareview.org/journal/ns52/fish.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110127192625/http://www.theminnesotareview.org/ to http://www.theminnesotareview.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051110092343/http://news.fiu.edu/releases/2005/06-29_stanleyfish.htm to http://news.fiu.edu/releases/2005/06-29_stanleyfish.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060325151801/http://law.fiu.edu/faculty/faculty_fish.htm to http://law.fiu.edu/faculty/faculty_fish.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Probably, the article should mention this case, as it was pretty big thing in the early 90's - see Wall Street Journal (13 November 1990), New Republic (18 February 1991) Tovarischivanov (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stanley Fish-James David Barber affair