Talk:Judith Butler/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Excitable Speech

This is tricky. Austin doesn't think that words have locutionary or illocutionary force i.e. 'bull' doesn't do a darn thing by itself. It's only by being embedded in an utterance that it can start to have illocutionary force. If Butler has advanced the thesis that words apart from utterances have these properties then either she is departing from Austin (radically I might add) or she is citing in error. Or, more plausibly, whoever wrote that section just overlooked that bit.

Philosopher Bio

So, I tried to make a philosopher bio thing for her and it didn't post, but when I go into the history and click on the most recent one, then it shows it to me. What's going on? Does someone not like the philosopher bio thing? 66.102.80.219 13:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, now it shows up. Does anyone have any idea of what people (if any) have been influenced by Judith Butler? 66.102.80.219 13:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

One controversy about Butler is her personal/political stance as it relates to feminism. She has criticized mainstream feminism for overemphasizing sexual behavior--making issues of personal choice political. She herself has quite openly pursued sexual relationships with students--a violation of both academic ethics and most university policies. She has been defended by her prominence, and her sexuality, whereas a less-famous male colleague who engaged in similar pursuits would not be tolerated. The whole issue is dealt with, in a sort of code, in her book Gender Trouble but she has not succesfully shown how violations of such public codes are anything other than an exercise of her class/cultural priviledge.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by user 66.65.116.205 (talk • contribs) 1 February 2007, 13:08 (UTC).

That's too funny. I guess one might argue that the mores themselves are flawed and just because she escapes persecution doesn't make it wrong for her to violate them. I'm just throwing that out there.

I see no evidence such a "controversy" exists. Can either of you point to published articles about this alleged "controversy"? csloat 18:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is your proof that she indeed engaged in sexual affairs with students? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.115.136 (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Influences

I removed several names because I don't think they are important or crucial influences, and the list as it stands is very long and not very useful as a quick summary. I also reordered the names from most to least important influences on her work (i.e. Foucualt first, then the French Feminists, etc.). Here are the names I removed and why:

• Laplanche -- She discusses him in Giving an Account of Oneself, but he is neither crucial to her own position in that book and completely absent in her early work
• Levinas -- Again, she discusses him in Giving an Account but he is not central to her argument nor present in her other works.
• Benjamin, Kripke, Kierkegaard - As far as I know she doesn't really discuss these thinkers except very periperally.

If you can please demonstrate why these are substantial influences for reasons I have maybe overlooked, I would appreciate it... Becuase we really do need to trim this list down...--Agnaramasi 13:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Butler is moving away from the focus on gender that was her earlier work to turn to questions of ethics and violence. This is where thinkers such as Levinas, Laplanche, and others are becoming crucial. I agree you'll only see the influence of Benjamin in talks and seminars she's giving now, not in books she's published (yet). Whether Laplanche is a crucial ongoing influence could be debated, but he is important to her argument in Giving an Account of Oneself to frame the question of responsibility with which she concludes the book. The one thinker who must be on this list is Levinas. His thinking is crucial to her argument in Precarious Life and returns again with great importance in Giving an Account of Oneself and will be an ongoing influence in her thinking. -- Rebecca Kennison 15:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well until there is published work indicating that Benjamin is a pivotal influence, I will remove him. Laplanche, in relation to her work as a whole, is only peripheral, and so I will remove him as well (she really focuses on Foucault and Adorno in formulating her concluding argument about responsibility and critique at the end of Giving an Account). I will also remove Kripke and Kierkegaard as they are also either entirely or mostly absent from her published work. Please keep in mind that this is supposed to be a short list of obvious, predominent influences... so in removing these names I am not saying they have no interesting or relevent connections to Butler, but that for the purposes of this summary box they are just not major enough to be included. --Agnaramasi 16:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Levinas must be included in this list. His name has become more and more influential for those in phenomenology and especially for those in ethics. While he is on the periphery of Butler's work in Giving an Account, his work is seminal in C20 ethics and is considered a predominant influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asras55 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Longest sentence

There is a bit in the article that states that she apparently has the longest english sentence. "She has been noted for writing the longest sentence in the English language" Is there reference or link to what the sentence is? Is anyone able to source it and contribute it to wikiquote so that it can be linked? (Washboardplayer 03:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

I have my doubts about this. Has anyone ever read Dummett's Philosophy of language. He has sentences that exceed a page and a half of printed page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.138.191 (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

It would be inappropriate to include Nussbaum's criticisms of Butler without including the flood of responses to Nussbuam's article (including those from Gayatri Spivak, Drucilla Cornell, and Seyla Benhabib, among others). I'm sure this is just an oversight, but it deserves to be remedied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asras55 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, please, please add these! This will be a great contribution to the article. The problem is simply that none of the regular editors know much about this controversy. A one sentence summary of each critic's response to Nussbaum with a proper references will be improve the dubious "criticisms" section enormously.--Agnaramasi (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that the criticism section needs both criticism and responses to criticism. If we include that, why not responses to the responses to criticism, and so on? In this article, we should prevent Butler's views, and then present alternative (that is, opposing) views. What you're suggesting is to present Butler's views, and then opposing views, and opposing views to the opposing views. That strikes me as obviously superfluous, and generally atypical of encyclopedia articles of this sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaikhanh (talk • contribs) 03:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Butler on Crews

I am considering adding a mention of how Butler found one of Frederick Crews's comments homophobic, and what Crews said about that. I think this is both interesting and relevant. However, I anticipate that, if I do add it, someone is immediately going to delete it. So maybe this would be a good moment for someone to say why this incident should not be mentioned in the article. Skoojal (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it being mentioned so long as it is demonstrably WP:Notable.--Agnaramasi (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's notable. That exchange received quite widespread notice. Since no one is objecting, I'll probably add it soon. Skoojal (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just restored Crews's comment about Butler, following its deletion. The reason given for the deletion - that this is not an article about Crews - was absurd. If that argument was correct, then every reference to the criticism that Butler has received would have to be deleted. As for it not being clear what the comment was, I will fix that shortly (the person who complained about that could have done it him or herself). Skoojal (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What reliable source states that this name-calling with Crews is notable? You asserted the exchange received "widespread notice" but I've never heard of it before and you haven't offered any evidence of that. I don't see the relevance of this point, and we still don't know from what you wrote anything new about Butler -- what did she actually say? Where is the quotation? All you have is a link to a summary of the discussion that provides little detail (and it's not clear to me who authored the summary or whether it is published in any reliable source). That there might have been an argument between two people in 1998 is not notable, even if the people involved (or at least one of them) are notable. All that you've added is some soapboxing by Crews without much real context. This stuff does not belong here. csloat (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, the fact that you have not heard of something before does not mean that it is not notable. If you want evidence that it received widespread notice, try an internet search. Your suggestion that Frederick Crews is not a reliable source is surprising to me. Are you accusing him of making the whole thing up? I strongly doubt that he would do that. As for your other points, your suggestion that one of these two people (which one?) is not notable is mistaken; they are both very notable, and the fact that they made criticial comments about each other, in 1998 or any other year, makes a difference. Skoojal (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said Crews wasn't notable; I said this alleged exchange of insults is not notable. You imply that reliable secondary sources attesting to notability can be found with an "internet search," yet you yourself are unable to come up with a single reliable source. All you have is a self-published summary of a conference panel from ten years ago. csloat (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There does not appear to have been any 'exchange of insults' per se. Crews may have found Butler's remarks about him insulting, but I don't believe that he said so in as many words. Crews probably did not intend his remarks about Butler as an insult. Surely it doesn't need to be explaned why one well known writer suggesting that another well known writer's comments are homophobic is notable? Skoojal (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely it does. csloat (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case, it is notable because it was an incident that 'has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject', to quote the page on notability. Skoojal (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, let's see evidence of the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education focused on "The Great Butler-Crews Smackdown of 1998" should do the trick. csloat (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with its inclusion, so long as it is indeed notable. Notability should be demonstrated in the reference itself. I suggest finding a secondary source which attests to the notability of the incident and gives some background and analysis showing its significance.--Agnaramasi (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is more information about what happened here: http://www-english.tamu.edu/pers/fac/myers/bad_writing.html Skoojal (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A blog entry does not establish notability or verifiability. See WP:V. csloat (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That was not a blog entry. It was re-published from a widely read magazine. Skoojal (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the link doesn't establish notability. The Weekly Standard is a neoconservative magazine with its own agenda. The notability of the event is not demonstrated merely by this magazine's attempt to use it to attack and discredit Butler.--Agnaramasi (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that neoconservative magazines can never be used to establish notability? Why not? I'm not aware that wikipedia has a policy specifically about neoconservative magazines - if it does, could you please direct me to it? The page on reliable sources notes that, 'Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed.' It does caution against sources widely acknowledged as extremist. To my knowledge, that does not include The Weekly Standard. Skoojal (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly I am not suggesting that. In this case, however, I do not think that the mention by a single editorial specifically aimed at attacking and discrediting Butler in a neoconservative magazine sufficiently establishes notability. The article seems to be trying to take advantage of an obscure incident to condemn Butler and her work more generally. If this event was reported as news by the Weekly Standard, and not merely in an opinion piece, perhaps that could establish notability. Other sources are needed though, IMO.--Agnaramasi (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's criteria for notability are rather loose. 'A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject' potentially makes many things notable. Especially since 'These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles.' 'IMO' stands for in my opinion, and if it is a matter of opinion, I don't see how that settles anything. Skoojal (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't notice it was a reprint; in any case if we do use magazines they should be linked directly, not a reprint on somebody's blog. But there is no way we can use Weekly Standard on this issue, especially since the attack on butler is not the main focus of this article at all. csloat (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What difference does it make that it is not the main focus of the article? It is significant that the Standard found the incident important enough to mention. Skoojal (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. Not everything that rag happens to mention in an offhanded way like this deserves encyclopedic attention. This is an article about an academic and you're trying to add a pretty vague summary of a verbal exchange that took place ten years ago. Should every random argument Butler ever got into in every conference she attended be mentioned here? The fact that her and Crews apparently misinterpreted each other (or not, I really can't tell from the summary) is just not that important or significant. The fact that the Weekly Standard saw fit to mention it as a way of attacking academics is not that important. The only reason you seem to want to include it here is the vague whiff of homophobia-related scandal, much like your attempts at editing the Foucault page. Why not read some Judith Butler (or her critics) and discuss the actual points made in published literature and talked about by other academics? csloat (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat, if, as you have hinted, you do not find Judith Butler herself to be notable, I'm not sure why you should care what does or does not go into an article about her. Presumably, if Butler is not notable, the correct thing to do would be to delete this article entirely, not to focus on particular details such as this one (I usually avoid discussing people's motives with them, but since your reasoning appears to be inconsistent, I can hardly avoid this here). As for my motives, you read them quite wrongly. A little thought about the matter should suggest that there are numerous different reasons why someone might want this incident mentioned. I will not discuss different issues with you here. Skoojal (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you refuse to read or understand what I have written that is fine but please do not distort it or put words in my mouth; it is highly annoying. I never said Butler was not notable, as you should know, nor do I particularly care what your motives are. Since you refuse to deal with the actual arguments I made, I assume you are conceding them. csloat (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you do not care what my motives are, you should not have speculated about them. Your main argument seems to be that the exchange is not significant. It is signifcant, because accusations of homophobia can under certain circumstances destroy people's reputations. That one noted writer tries to damage another noted writer's reputation in this way is a fact worth recording. Skoojal (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would once again really appreciate it if you stop putting false words in my mouth. It is disconcerting; it is also extremely uncivil. Thank you. Now, if you would please indicate which source indicates that one noted writer tried to damage another noted writer's reputation, we can proceed from there. The Weakly Standard article you cite does not claim that at all. All we have is a vague summary of an exchange that may have taken place ten years ago at a conference. Lots of silly things get said at conferences; few of them are encyclopedia-worthy. If you can point me to the front-page article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (or, hell, even a letter to the editor there) foregrounding this as an important debate as I suggested earlier, we might have something to talk about; otherwise, it really doesn't matter who called whom a poopy-head. Why are you wasting our time with this nonsense? csloat (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not knowingly put false words in your mouth. You did say that the incident was not significant. I have nothing else to say about this, except that it is inappropriate to continue this discussion while a request for comment has been placed. Skoojal (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) There are 2 related and simple policy issues here. First is sourcing. The Weekly Standard piece is partisan, in fact it is a questionable source (as it is political opinion). Secondly notability is not established by trivial references in a newspaper op-ed. There may also be a BLP issue here, so unless solid, third party, non-partisan sources can be found to verify this and discuss it with some depth it aint notable enough for the encyclopedia--Cailil ^talk 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Most news sources, including mainstream ones, are partisan in one way or another, so I don't find this relevant. That the reference is 'trivial' is just an assertion. Skoojal (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[1] It seems you've added this even though 3 editors have requested that you better demonstrate notability here. I'm afraid I am unconvinced by this source as it is a panel paper presentation - if it were notable this remark could be found in a normal reliable source, like a Jstor or project muse record of a published journal article or book. I'm opening an RFC on this for outside in-put. BLP is a very serious matter for the encyclopedia, please don't take this personally, the addition of contentious material to biographies of living people need to be done with extreme care and in the spirit of "do no harm"--Cailil ^talk 12:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources page indicates that, 'Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed.' The Weekly Standard is a mainstream news organization by most standards. The article does not say Project Muse must be used as a source, but for what it is worth the following http://www.google.com/search?q=%22frederick+crews%22+butler+homophobic&hl=en&safe=off&start=20&sa=N suggests that something may be there (the Muse page is listed at the bottom of the search results). I do not have access to Project Muse, but those who do should be able to check Cailil's claim that it cannot be found there for themselves. As for do no harm, the incident has already been reported, so I am not sure what harm it would do anyone's reputation to mention it in a wikipedia article. Skoojal (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, I didn't claim "it wasn't on project Muse" - your building a strawman there. Also I didn't and never have at any time said that elibraries like Muse or Jstor had to be used as sources - please don't misrepresent my remarks. As it happens I have access to Muse and I was able to find the same piece by Crews there[2]. I also found mention of it in piece by Michael Bauerlein who wrote an apology for Crews' criticism of Freud and for "resisting theory" in general[3] (I haven't found this cited anywhere yet) however the fundamental notability problem is still there. What's notable about 2 academics sniping at each other at a conference - nothing except the Weekly Standard's appropriation of the event to attack Judith Butler. Secondly by definition The Weekly Standard is not mainstream - it's niche, it's a neoconservative paper - let's face it is not the London Times or New York Times or even the Irish Times and it does not have the same or similar reputation for fact checking and accuracy as any of these papers (that doesn't mean these 3 examples are perfect btw). I'm not saying that in every situation the Weekly Standard isn't good enough as a source - I am saying in this case better sources are needed. As regards "do no harm" - see Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism and WP:BLP in general. What Crews says is that Butler made a remark about "community standards" which he claims is code for homophobia - which he claims was a debating tactic to shut his argument down. That's a "contentious claim about a third party" and that's why I opened the RFC. Also as Commodore Sloat requested above could you indicate where this has been noted as an important or significant debate - I'd like to see this. If you can show how this really is notable and significant I wouldn't have a problem ith being in the article 9as long as it was give due weight and recorded neutrally) but Crews history of criticizing theorists from Freud to Showlater makes it look like a run-of-the-mill Fredrick C Crews comment about (another) Freudian he doesn't agree with--Cailil ^talk 14:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW thank you for pointing out that the link to the Weekly Standard was broken below--Cailil ^talk 15:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The article in question is by Mark Bauerlein, not 'Michael Bauerlein.' If indeed it does mention Butler's comments about Crews and Crews's comments about Butler, then surely it does show the incident to be notable. If you could say more about the content of that article for the benefit of those who do not have access to it, that would be helpful. Your account of the exchange is somewhat muddled - it was Crews who apparently mentioned 'community standards' and Butler who then apparently interpreted that as homophobic. There's not much to be said about The Weekly Standard; like it or not, neoconservatism is an important part of the political mainstream in the United States. Skoojal (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - you are right it is Mark Bauerlein (I must have been thinking of Michael Bérubé when I was typing). And yes my synopsis was a little rushed. As Bauerlein outlines it Butler said she "mistrusted [Crews] appeal to community standards" and that Crews had "a desire for respectability". Crews then decides that she accused him of homophobia (that she euated "community standards with homophobic discourse). He then claims she used codewords to infer that he was homophobic in order to shut down his argument.

Bauerlein's piece is about resisting theory and how Crews regards Freudians as blank-pseudo-scientists and how American academia "harbors several headquarters of false or misdirected learning". He does use Butler and Crews as one example. He also uses John Caputo's obituary of Derrida and Crews attacks on Poststructuralism and how he has been frustrated by the American academy. Problem in this case is Bauerlein's piece is an article written about Crews and it incidentally mentioned his spat with Butler - in other words it's not about Butler Versus Crews. The piece might be notable on Crews page for general use in Crews' bio, but unless it is cited by other mainstream articles about this argument between Crews and Butler it may not be good enough. We have no idea about how widely accepted this view is or how widely disputed. Also it would probably constitute OR, and breach WP:UNDUE to use it alone.--Cailil ^talk 20:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it would be fair to note that Bauerlein's position on deconstruction and critical theory in general is relevant. His position being against (ie resisting) theory which is, for better or worse, the global mainstream in academia--Cailil ^talk 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you about most of this. I don't think that it is important that the article is not primarily about Crews's dispute with Butler. Nor do I think there is a need to find other articles citing this one. I doubt that it counts as original research. You may perhaps be right that this incident would be better mentioned in the article about Crews, however. Skoojal (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article not being about Butler or a serious discussion of her conflict with Crews makes it a WP:NOR and a possible WP:COATRACK issue. Skoojal, BLPs and biographies are minefields. One has to be very very clear that rumours and/or minor incidents are recorded in an encyclopedia article when (and only when) they are of encyclopedic value and when they "do no harm." Adding this issue is - as outlined below in the RFC - questionable form a notability, BLP and sourcing perspective. Additionally it would become a coatrack to hang tangential, non-notable criticisms of the subject upon.

The reason I'm being so sticky here is because this is a biography article and there is a responsibility on WP to get its biographies strictly within policy. About WP:NOR "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." My point above is this the Bauerlein article is not about Butler and Crews argument. In fact it's not about Butler - and that's where the problem with using it here is--Cailil ^talk 14:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This debate is over as far as I'm concerned. I effectively conceded a while ago by refraining from further editing the article. I still disagree with some of your arguments, but that no longer has a bearing on the Butler article. Skoojal (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a point of clarification this isn't a debate - it's about site policies and standards for inclusion in biographies of living persons. If this issue is closed I will also close the RFC as comment would be unnecessary--Cailil ^talk 16:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC Judith Butler & Frederick C Crews

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requesting comment from uninvolved users on the above this discussion started by User:Skoojal in order to include contentious information in this BLP article about Judith Butler. After 2 weeks of discussion, 3 editors have asked Skoojal to provide further evidence of the notability of this information. User:Agnaramasi, User:Commodore Sloat and User:Cailil were unconvinced of the notability of the remarks published [4] in a reprint from an op-ed from the neoconservative Weekly Standard (op-ed dated 1999).

On March 8th Skoojal added the same information[5] sourcing it from a conference panel paper given by Crews and published on human-nature.com (paper dated 1998).

In my view these are questionable sources. If Crews' and Butler's argument was notable it would be discussed in reliable third party sources - ie books or journal articles. It would be discussed in a number of different publications, rather than just Crew's own panel paper and an op-ed in a neoconservative paper. Also if it was very notable it might have been discussed in sources more recently than 9 years ago. The relevant policies are:

• WP:N - notability is not established by trivial references - it requires multiple reliable sources dealing with an issue in some depth.
• WP:V - questionable sources are sources that are self-published or 'extremist'. Contentious material contained in questionable sources should not be used on WP and remarks about third parties should not be used on WP.
• WP:BLP - Wikipedia:BLP#Sources "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims."

Please review the sources and the policies as regards whether Skoojal's edit should be added. Please note that this is a discussion and not a !vote. Thank you for your time--Cailil ^talk 12:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC closed see above thread--Cailil ^talk 16:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Viviane Namaste's critique of Butler - "Tragic Misreadings"

Hey people, just a suggestion: why isn't Viviane Namaste's critique of Butler (notably Gender Trouble and Bodies that Matter) included in the critical response to her work? This can be found in her book Invisible Lives: The Erasure of Transsexual and Transgendered People (University of Chicago Press, 2000), or, alternatively, as an earlier article in Brett Beemyn and Mickey Eliason, eds., Queer Studies: A Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Anthology. New York: New York University Press, pp. 183-203.

More info about Invisible Lives here: http://oneofthesethings.blogspot.com/2008/02/namastes-invisible-lives.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.10.173.55 (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why this isn't included; please add it!!--Agnaramasi (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been suggested below that Wikipedia:Criticism and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Criticism and praise provide reasons why it isn't included. Hyacinth (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion: get rid of the 'critical response' section

I suggest that the section 'critical response' be removed. The parts of it that are relevant to Butler's biography should be integrated into the rest of the article. The parts that are not relevant should be deleted. Martha Nussbaum's criticisms of Butler would perhaps be more appropriately placed in the article on Nussbaum. Skoojal (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah and hurray! I wholeheartedly agree with Skoojal here... and thank him/her for thinking so carefully and with an open mind about the proper focus of biographical articles.

I've tried to characterize this on some other talk pages that I know Skoojal has seen, but for other editors: IMO (and per WP:CRIT, etc) what belongs in a biography is (only) facts pertinent to understanding who a given intellectual is, what they did, and to a lesser extent to influence they had on contemporary thinkers. It is pointedly not the job of WP to tell readers whether that thinker is "right" or "wrong", nor even really to give readers "everything they need to judge the correctness." An intellectual certainly has positions on whatever issues, but s/he is not herself those positions, but rather a person who advanced them. There might be some other article on a given intellectual position or concept; that article on the concept might appropriately set its advancers against its refuters. Humans (living or dead), however, are still distinct from the concepts they are most associated with. LotLE×talk 07:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent point Skoojal, I agree also--Cailil ^talk 11:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to follow Wikipedia:Summary style. See Influence of Judith Butler. Hyacinth (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

After discussion at Talk:Influence of Judith Butler's concepts I've been convinced to re-merge. Hyacinth (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's too bad, I liked the refactoring, which pushes the article towards WP:SUMMARY style. See my comments over at the spin-off article. LotLE×talk 03:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Further, I think that it's a mistake to construe the purpose of these Wikipedia articles as merely biographical (hence inappropriate as a venue for the discussion of criticism). In my view, there is a significant difference between articles on historical figures such as Napoleon or George Washington and philosophers like Butler or Kant. For the former, we might reasonable expect a purely biographical account. But one of the main points of interest (if not the main point of interest) in articles on philosophers is representing their philosophical views, in which case notable critical arguments made against these views (and the way they interact with their intellectual peers generally) are of great importance. To leave these out makes it seem as though philosophers lived and worked in intellectual vacuums. --Malaikhanh (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Style

If criticisms are to be integrated into sections on specific works or concepts, where would criticisms of Butler's overall writing style, such as Nussbaum, go? I have a feeling that if placed in the Nussbaum article we would hear the argument that a criticism of Butler's writing style doesn't belong in an article that isn't about Butler. Hyacinth (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the talk page before it's done, but I think it would be OK; it's definitely relevant to Nussbaum's biography. Skoojal (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

How so? Hyacinth (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I share Hyacinth's doubt that one fairly off-hand comment about Butler is all that important to her (Nussbaum's) biography. Nussbaum has written lots of books and articles, and one passing criticism of a contemporary from a vaguely related school of thought doesn't do that much to define or explain Nussbaum. OTOH, I haven't edit Nussbaum's article much or lately, so I'll leave that question to editors over there. LotLE×talk 03:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Biographies are descriptions of things that people did. Nussbaum criticized Butler, thus it forms part of her biography. It was a very widely publicized criticism that significantly affected Nussbbaum's public image. Skoojal (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Martha Nussbaum's biography already notes that she reviewed Butler's work critically, as well as other prominent authors. I don't see the need to go into any further depth. If readers want to see what Nussbaum said they can link to her article. I'm not sure elaborating about how "it was a very widely publicized criticism that significantly affected Nussbbaum's public image" in the way you express it Skoojal would be compatible with WP:DUE - I can find no scholarly sources that talk about it and I would be hesitant to use salon.com in a BLP article--Cailil ^talk 12:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is notability. Did reviewing Butler significantly affect the course of Nussbaum's life? My inclination is not-so-much, but obviously that's up to what reliable sources say; Skoojal suggests the criticism was widely publicized, so maybe the effect was there and more important than my personal hunch. Nussbaum did lots of things that don't belong in the bio per se though: we don't really care about how she furnished her house, or what her favorite restaurant is, or her hobby that she is non-professionally enthusiastic about (stipulating she has such); each of those things might well have occupied more of Nussbaum's life, just measured in chronology. LotLE×talk 17:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The article on Nussbaum briefly describes her criticial reviews of other writers. If all of these criticisms were to be described in more detail, there wouldn't be anything wrong with saying more about what Nussbaum wrote about Butler. Otherwise it might seem like blowing it out of proportion. 'Scholarly sources' not discussing it does not mean it was not important; it attracted all sorts of excited comment. Skoojal (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why Nussbaum's criticisms would be better placed in the article on Nussbaum. Generally, I find that when thinker X makes significant criticisms of thinker Y, this should be noted in the article on Y, because the subject of those criticisms is precisely Y's theories or methodology. A note should be made in the article on X only if the critique launched by X against Y is more or less X's only notable accomplishment, or is otherwise particularly noteworthy (as in the case of, for instance, Elizabeth of Bohemia vis-a-vis Descartes); but this is obviously not the case with Nussbaum. In concurrence with Lulu's above statement, I would say that Nussbaum's review has no particularly significant relationship to (1) her personal life or (2) her work or (3) the reception of her work (it is not as though Nussbaum's main intellectual project is attacking post-structuralist feminists), whereas the review does bear on Butler's work (not just her work, but her most significant and influential work) and the reception of that work. Include a section about the review in Nussbaum's Wikipedia article if you like--I will rarely argue against the inclusion of more information--but it should definitely be here too. Malaikhanh (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Performativity/Digeser

It has been argued above that Digeser's criticism's would go under whichever specific works of Butler's his piece criticizes as well as Performativity#Theoretical criticisms. Correct? Hyacinth (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the criticism section of this article

WP:CRIT says this: 'In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet.' This is sensible, and so are the remarks by Jimbo Wales, which are quoted there: 'And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.'

I know that the Criticism section of this article is currently called the Reception section, but it comes to much the same thing, and most of the same remarks apply. I will refer here to a debate that occured some months ago. I tried to add to the article a mention of a disagreement between Judith Butler and a prominent American literary critic, who suggested that Butler had interpreted one of his comments as homophobic. I tried to do this in a way that was fundamentally flawed, since I did not produce an acceptable source, and in fact I misquoted Butler. I apologise to Judith Butler for this. I should not have added this material to the article, and other editors were right to remove it.

Having said that, however, I do not think that there is any good reason why this disagreement should not be mentioned in the Reception section, at least if there is going to be a Reception section. There is a proper source, Peter Brooks and Alex Woloch's book Whose Freud? The Place of Psychoanalysis in Contemporary Culture, and it could be used to quote both Butler and the person she disagreed with correctly. I hasten to add that I am not going to add this material myself, both because there could be a problem with my doing that, and more importantly because I do not think it would be the right thing to do, since there is perhaps no need for a Reception section at all. Some of its contents consist of things that Martha Nussbaum, Dennis Dutton, Nancy Fraser, Drucilla Cornell, Seyla Benhabib and Susan Bordo have said about Judith Butler, and that material might be better placed in the articles about them than in this one (in some cases, it is already there in some form; I'm not sure what the point of duplicating it here is).

The criticism of Butler by the person I refer to above also in principle belongs in the article about that person, if it belongs anywhere, although obviously I am not going to put it there, and it would not be appropriate for anyone else to do that for a very, very long time. It is neither more nor less inappropriate to this article than is the criticism of Butler by Martha Nussbaum, which includes the word "evil." My point is that the Reception (it amounts to a Criticism) section should be dismantled with some speed, because so long as it is there, someone else might yet decide that it is a good idea to add a mention of the disagreement contained in Whose Freud? to it. Don't wait for that day. Skoojal (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Irregardless of whether or not this article should have a reception section and whether or not troll magnets should be avoided when possible: that something is a potential troll magnet does not make it bad writing. Those are two separate arguments against "Criticism sections" that should not be confused.

Why must we hurry so? Wikipedia:Be bold. Hyacinth (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure cleaning up over a couple years is exactly "hurrying". LotLE×talk 03:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Hyacinth: the case for hurrying is that things which might not seem so important now could well come to seem very important at some time in the future, and at that future date one might find oneself wishing that one had acted sooner. It's not a position I would want to find myself in. If things seem even a little bit inappropriate, or look as though they might conceivably become inappropriate, it's best to deal with the situation before it becomes really troubling. Lulu: I'm not sure I quite understand your point. Skoojal (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue with unencyclopedic criticism sections is not new, nor is it even new to this particular article. I could look through the edit history, but it's definitely been a couple years since I first tried to reign in some excesses of the section on this article. LotLE×talk 09:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to cut back the criticism (sorry, response) section, a good way to start might be to get rid of the comments by Nussbaum and Dutton, the appropriate place for which is in the articles about them. The same applies to the comments by Bordo, Fraser, Cornell, and Benhabib, in my opinion. Much of the other material in that section, including that in the paragraphs that start with 'While Butler’s work, especially the notion of “gender performativity” is far from universally accepted as being an accurate or complete explanation of gender identity...' and 'Butler has been called "one of the superstars of '90s' could be placed instead in earlier parts of the article, such as the introduction (the introduction would be an especially good place for the 'Butler has been called...' part). The remaining material arguably might just as well be deleted. Skoojal (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal if you would like to add something notable to this article why not let us know what it is rather than talking around it? If you are planning to add the same non-notable conversation that may have happened at a conference panel 10 years ago, which you apologized for adding above, please don't bother. Calling it a "reception" instead of a "criticism" does not alleviate the fundamental problem with it, which is that it was completely non-notable and was not commented on by any third party; as I pointed out months ago, if you want to add something about Butler as a notable controversy, please offer evidence that it is a notable controversy. Thanks. csloat (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not planning to add anything at all to the article, least of all about this particular dispute. I was perfectly clear about this, and I don't know why I should have to point it out again. My apology concerned only two points: the fact that I misquoted Butler, and the fact that I tried to add this material to the article about her rather than to the article about the person who made the accusation about her. The issue of notability is irrelevant, by the way, since that does not directly limit the content of articles. I mentioned this only to make a point about the problems involved with criticism sections, even if they aren't called criticism sections. My view is that if Person A makes some kind of scandalous accusation about Person B, it should probably be detailed in the article about Person A, and receive perhaps only a brief mention, or even no mention, in the article about Person B. Skoojal (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're not planning to add this I'm not sure why you brought it up. But since you're not planning to add it, we have no dispute. Have a great day. csloat (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I made it totally clear why I brought it up. Sooner or later, someone else will probably want to add this material. If I had decided that this article was my responsibility, I would get rid of the Criticism/Response section promptly to prevent that, or at least make it less likely. Skoojal (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt anyone else will bring up the great Crews-Butler spat of 1998.... but if they do I am glad to hear that you too will be against including it. Have a great day. csloat (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Heavy sarcasm is a bad way to make points. What Butler thinks about this matter is not on record, but the other party to the disagreement made it clear that he considered the matter important (he wrote that he took it very seriously); his judgment about its importance is much more accurate than yours. Skoojal (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate his judgement with you. As I said, if you are against including that on this page, we are in agreement. csloat (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this discussion still "Concerning the criticism section of this article" or do we need to start a new thread under a new heading? Hyacinth (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is still "concerning the criticism section of this article" as far as I'm concerned. I've suggested above (in my response to Lulu) some ways in which the material in the article could be rearranged. What is your view? Skoojal (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be useful to separate discussion about the section in general from discussions about specific criticisms.

You have argued that the criticism under immediate discussion was important. If this is indeed so you should be able to WP:Cite sources and add this information into an article. If we know that it was important to the critic and you can cite that then it appears it should go in the article about the critic, in this case. Hyacinth (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to focus on discussion about the section in general. Skoojal (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it helpful to do focus discussion by starting new headings for new topics as they come up. That way I can focus on the issue I have been concerned with while other people may continue to discuss the other issues brought up along the way (or not, as they wish). Hyacinth (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Start a new heading or not as you wish. If it helps discussion, fine. Skoojal (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm not sure what to think of Butler's work and its reception. Over the past few hours or so I've been reading a number of comments on Butler's writing style, invited to do so by Butler herself; that is, I became curious about whether or not anyone had commented on her fairly improper disuse of references, footnotes (all under the header of "being subversive", or alternatively, disdaining established practice), and writing style in general, and I have to say I'm shocked. I can't say I've ever encountered a secondary text on an author that actively goes into discussing "reception" in such an ad hominal manner. Sure, one might encounter criticism of arguments or writing style, but I can't say I've ever seen people being refuted before. See, for instance, Judith Butler By Elena Loizidou. (This explicitly mentions Nussbaum's critique, explaining it away as 'legalism') Anyway, regardless of how accurate Nussbaum's critique is when it comes to her analysis of Butler's use of Foucauldian idiom, it is very odd how ideological the discussion surrounding Butler's "rightness or wrongness" is. Sure, Feminism is a political agenda, but it does seem as though Butler has some sort of cult status that goes beyond 'philosophical admiration' (like Wittgenstein enjoyed). And no doubt her libertarian views don't mix very well with an affirmative action agenda, especially because it is at the least unclear what impact "being subversive" has, and whether it's really possible to be subversive on your own, so that it may seem overly optimistic to suggest that discriminated groups should forego legal avenues and rather try to "create a mass movement" (necessary to establish new meanings of words, as words can only change meaning when sufficiently many people use those words differently).

Anyway, also as a response to the "Suggestion: Get Rid of 'Writing Style'" section: even though I'm fairly familiar with the works of Foucault, Althusser, Marx, Heidegger, and Derrida, I frequently get lost in Butler's works when she starts linguistical analyses like the one she gives of Morrison's Blind Woman (Excitable speech, 6-12, esp. 11&12). Oddly, if you skip these pages, the rest of the chapter is very readable (if a bit repetitive). This makes me think (and yes, I'm aware my opinion doesn't count and is very likely to be interpreted as "biased") she puts in sections like this one on purpose, so as to confuse the reader. It is certainly true that passages like these can be explained to me by an "experienced" Butler scholar, but I'm not at all sure they add anything to the text philosophically. As such, I'm inclined to quote Augustine who warns of those who "though loquacious with verbosity, ... have nothing to say", and follow Nussbaum in some of her critique. As such, the "bad writing" award, no matter that it does come from a right-wing-leaning periodical, seems at least somewhat apt.

Secondly, I'm not sure why Nussbaum's critique of Butler would belong in Nussbaum's article, as that would only suggest that Nussbaum is no more than someone who rails against others for a living (like whatshername, the Ayn Rand-like blond woman who likes to appear on Fox News), while she really isn't. If anything, a mention of both Butler's kind of feminism and Nussbaum's critique of it belong in a section on "academic feminism" (or in the feminism in the USA article, or somesuch), as they both represent wholly different takes on what feminism (or in the case of Butler, Queer theory) should be doing, be about or be. In any case, the fact that there is a (recent) secondary source (Loizidou's book) with an entire chapter on "Butler's reception" certainly seems to suggest that criticism of her is not considered non-notable by those who work in her field, or who respond to her work.boombaard (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit: A second source that might be considered would be Geoffrey Galt Harpham, The Character of Criticism (ISBN 0415971330, 2006)Google Books preview) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boombaard (talk • contribs) 12:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The value of criticism

He [sic] only profits from praise who values criticism

— Heinrich Heine

Hyacinth (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing Mention of Paglia? What the heck - remove everything

I see that Lulu of the Lotus Eaters recently removed a mention of Camille Paglia from this article, with the comment, 'Paglia mention is far too vague for any encyclopedic value.' In my opinion, the same remark could equally well be applied to material that has not been removed from the article. As for Butler declining Nussbaum's invitation to debate, I do not think that this is trivial. It's a rather significant and interesting fact. Regarding the wording of the article, I'd like to know what a non-theoretical concept or an atheoretical concept is? Skoojal (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly a bunch more fluff that could stand to go, but the Paglia was particularly clear. "Declined an invitation?!" It seems to be trying to insinuate "because Butler couldn't defend against the charges" or something like that. But maybe it was just "because she was busy that day"... or, frankly, even just "because she felt debating Paglia is a waste of time". Who knows, and who care? ... Butler also once declined an invitation to speak at my school (though she had spoken there other times), and the fact isn't remotely close to biographical interest. LotLE×talk 06:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, I think you mean "because she felt debating Nussbaum is a waste of time", not "because she felt debating Paglia is a waste of time." Nussbaum and Paglia are not the same person. Anyway, it is a highly relevant fact that should be mentioned if there is going to be any coverage of the Butler vs. Nussbaum episode that is more than a sentence long. As for Susan Gubar, 'Gubar comment seems a little weird to me, but is much more philosophical than the stylistic nit-picks, so more encyclopedic' is not really an explanation of why that comment should be here and not in the article on Gubar. The article on Gubar could do with expanding anyway, so why not put it there? Skoojal (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I confused the sections slightly, but the Paglia consisted of "Feminist Camille Paglia has echoed these concerns." Characterizing Paglia as "feminist" is probably contentious already, but the main point is "echoed these concerns" doesn't tell us anything new... if Paglia had some specific point of debate that was presented, that could possibly be non-vague. However, despite your excellent restructuring of the article, it's still weighed down with too much rather fluffy "criticism". Some of it, like Bordo and Fraser seem to get at real philosophical points, but most still reads like schoolyard name-calling. LotLE×talk 06:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw, Gubar's article could definitely use expansion. But her comment on Butler seems to be more about the reception of Butler than really central to Gubar's own biography. Then again, the fact Gubar's article is such a stub enhances the WP:WEIGHT concern: if we had 8 paragraphs on Gubar, an extra sentence mentioning her critique of Butler would fit in the flow, but stuck into one other paragraph, it would suggest that the only thing Gubar had done was write a critique of Butler (which isn't true... I don't know Gubar's work that well, but I've read some of it, and it's interesting). LotLE×talk 06:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My view of this is that if, for whatever reason, the article where something could most appropriately be placed is not ready for it, it should not be placed anywhere. On those grounds, I am again going to remove the mention of Gubar. Skoojal (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this. Honestly. I'm not particularly attached to the Gubar thing; it seems a little funny to me, and I'm not the one who added it. However, of all the various "so-and-so disagrees with Butler", this is the one that, on its face, seems to be most relevant to the actual philosophical debates (well, at least more than most of what's in there). Is there some reasoning behind why you don't want it here? LotLE×talk 06:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In principle, if Person A makes a criticism of Person B, and there are articles about both Person A and Person B, the criticism should be mentioned in the article about Person A. But there I go repeating myself. Skoojal (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh?! Why is all the other stuff in there then? Why the Nussbaum? Why did you argue for keeping the (rather vacant) "Paglia doesn't like her either" thing? For that matter, why the Fraser and all that (which I also think is germane to the actual philosophical issues). I really can't see how what you're arguing for is a consistent editorial stance.

FWIW, I don't really think the principle you state is quite right. Gubar is older than Butler, and basically established her academic reputation before Butler's first book. So it's certainly not the case that Gubar became notable because of her critique of Butler. More generally, with Professors A and B, some comment by A might be relevant to the reception of B's work, often without being particularly central to A's own reputation. I definitely don't like "criticism" sections--nor even criticisms-under-disguise that are sprinkled throughout--that try to create "balance" by mechanically saying something negative for every positive thing. On the other hand academics participate in various "bodies of knowledge", and sometimes a comment about someone else really has more to do with that other thinker. It varies. LotLE×talk 06:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking why I wanted to keep the reference to Butler declining to debate Nussbaum: my reasoning was that if there is going to be proper coverage of Nussbaum's disagreement with Butler, then this had to be mentioned. I didn't really think that mentioning Nussbaum's criticism of Butler here was a good idea at all, but I did think that if it was mentioned, then no relevant information should be left out. However, since you insisted on removing that part, I reduced the mention of Nussbaum down to the barest minimum. If proper coverage of something is not acceptable, then there should really be no coverage. Skoojal (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Get Rid of 'Writing Style'

I mean it. Just delete the whole thing. It wouldn't be a loss. Nussbaum and Dutton's opinions about Butler's writing style belong in the articles about them. Skoojal (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

100% agree. LotLE×talk 08:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nussbaum's analysis of Butler is among the most widely cited critique of her work, and it is not in the least relegated to a critique of the stylistic implications of Butler's work. It is an analysis of Butler--not a development of Nussbaum's own scholarly work--and therefore is relevant to Butler's article. Consider comparable wikipedia articles about major academics/public intellectuals, i.e. Noam Chomsky, Stanley Fish, Camille Paglia, Naomi Wolf, Richard Posner, etc. They all, of course, contain assessments of their work by other notable scholars and critics.

I intend rewrite the summary of Nussbaum's critique into a short, cogent paragraph that more accurately captures the critique she levels, which, as anyone knows who has read it, extends well beyond stylistic implications to examine her inaccurate interpretation of Austin, her bizarre and unfounded legal claims, her inability to distinguish between useful and non-useful directions of subversive acts without an affirmative notion of dignity, etc. Skoojal, please let me know if you're amenable to these suggestions and we'll move from there. Thanks.--208.58.4.141 (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can write (concisely) a description of any philosophical critiques Nussbaum has made of Butler, that would be great. It should still result in the deletion of the absurd "Writing style" subsection, but would fit perfectly with other theoretical critiques... it would be better still if this could actually be distributed into the narrative of Butler's own work, rather than in the WP:CRIT violating separate section. For example, if Nussbaum wrote her critique in year N, it's not really a critique of the book Butler went on to write in N+1 (it may or may not still apply conceptually, but we cannot decide without WP:OR). LotLE×talk 23:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that Nussbaum's criticism of Butler belongs in the article on Nussbaum. Nussbaum's criticism of Butler is part of her work by any non-arbitrary definition of that term (just as is her work on Aristotle, which is also quite properly located in the article on Nussbaum). I have no problem with a detailed description of Nussbaum's criticism of Butler (it should be useful and interesting), but I think this is the wrong article for it. Skoojal (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

While I am not specifically worried about writing style, I do think Nussbaum's critique of Butler's work belongs in this article, specifically the reception section. I can't see why it is supposed to be different from the criticisms of Fraser or Bordo for example. I think it would be useful to have a view of the work from outside the circle of critical theory. I don't see why it should only be included in the article if it is a philosophical critique rather than a critique of the results of Butler's approach. Surely that is an arbitrary constraint to put on editing the article? Similarly, critiques of Butler should appear in the Butler article if they are notable (which this seems to me to be - published by a well known philosopher in a respected periodical). To compare Butler with Aristotle seems a little odd, given the imbalance between their influence and body of work; the Chomsky or Paglia comparisons made by 208.58.4.141 seem more appropriate. Mr-Thomas (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be a segment devoted to Butler's writing style. The Bad Writing Contest incident (and subsequent fallout, including Butler's own response in the New York Times[6] is one of the most prominent, well known things about Butler. If you're worried about notability, consider that are literally entire books[7] which were assembled in response to the question of clarity in Butler's writing.--Malaikhanh (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)