Talk:Judith Butler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nonsensical reference for Pope speech. The article itself doesn't give either quotes or further reference. Could someone find a clearer reference or remove the sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.100.172.23 (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


"She is also well known for her difficult prose"[edit]

New user NOTME NEVERME has twice removed the sentence "She is also well known for her difficult prose" from the lead and been twice reverted. I have removed it again. That sentence is both synthesis and original research. If editors want it in the lead, they need to find a source that says she's well-known for her difficult prose, or words to that effect, because the current sources aren't even in the ballpark. (They're rather old, too.) Please note also that NOTME NEVERME explained their edit in a reasonable way both times; new users can't be expected to know the specific policies, guidelines, and alphabet soup to point to. Bishonen | talk 08:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC).

I tried to delete the phrase "She is also well known for her difficult prose" from the initial paragraph, because it seemed to be a twisted interpretation of the two sources at hand. One source is a random 'bad writing contest'. I don't know why how this singular instance translates to 'she is well known for ...'. In the second source, however, the interviewer wants to demonstrate the accessability of her writing, despite of being somehow demanding. here, even more, i don't know how this translates to 'she is well known for ...' That's odd.. One of the newest publications on Judith Butler, Schipper's Political Philosophy of Judith Butler (2014), elaborates at length that Butler's writing style has significatly changed and that it got much more accessible in the past 10 years. So this phrase 'she is well known for ...' seems outdated – if anything referring to her very early books – and not adequate for an inital paragraph. In the paragraph Reception, there is still the sentence: 'Some critics have accused Butler of elitism due to her difficult prose style'. That seems to me a much better place and a better formulation than the above mentioned. (By the way, I'm not a new user, the English wiki's just not my primary playing field...) --NOTME NEVERME (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Oops, please note that NOTME NEVERME posted before I did, see timestamp, and has now moved it down here. I didn't see it up there, sorry. Bishonen | talk 09:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC).
This isssue was brought up at BLPN back in May here. In response to that, I made this edit, back then, adding an additional paragraph of sourced content to the Reception section of body (there already was content about this there, I added more, citing an interview where she talks about it), and restoring a summary of that in the LEAD. And just to say, this is a "sky is blue" thing. As recently as 2013 a writer in the NYT mentioned it as a casual aside on the way to talking about something else. (the reputation is current, not outdated). Butler herself has talked about it (In the source I added) and elsewhere. Her op-ed in the NYT responding to her bad writing prize was also discussed endlessly. And the whole controversy around difficult writing, with Butler's prose as the lead example, was the focus of a 2003 book, Just Being Difficult?: Academic Writing in the Public Arena. (ISBN 9780804747103). There are many, many, many sources on this. It's a discourse she has chosen to use in some of her most important works, and that is what it is. I would be very fine with content as discussed above by NMNM being added to update the story (everything evolves) but it is a bad thing to erase the past and to to not acknowledge that the "difficult writer" reputation is still present and active. Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. The sources that were in the lead were poor. The lead doesn't need to be sourced at all, so in fact it might be better to leave the sourcing to the section below. Also, while the lead needs to be concise, I think the phrasing there was a bit too simplistic. But I'm on the run here, going out of reach of internet access for a day or two, so I won't be responding further for a while. Bishonen | talk 13:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC).
Sure. NMNM do you see what I mean in what i wrote above? Jytdog (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Jytdog, I see what you mean and i fully acknowledge that there has been a (productive) discourse around that topic. I also agree with you that the reputation of being a demanding writer still sticks somehow to JB. But I want to argue that the reduction to the sentence "She is also well known for her difficult prose" neither captures the complexity of the issue nor is it a valid or useful information as far as it is placed without context in the lead. Also, consider the scolarly interview she has conducted with Olson / Worsham im 2000: "I believe it is important that intellectuals with a sense of social responsibility be able to shift registers and to work at various levels, to communicate what they're communicating in various ways. I think I probably do that, both in my writing and in my teaching, but it's always possible to seize upon the more specialized moments of my writing and to say that it is somehow exemplary-and that is unfair." I'm concerned with the tendency that wikipedia is citing sources in which random people expressing their opinions or frustrations and lacking substance. I wish other evidences. I also seek to update the whole JB site, as it seems to me that hardly anyone has caught up with the past 10 years. This ambition includes questioning the public opinion regarding her writing style that seems to have stand still for 25 years.. I'll include the source i mentioned in my previous post, because that seems an important addition to what is alread there. Jytdog, do you see my points? --NOTME NEVERME (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I think updating the artixcle is great. Please know that Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs or using Wikipedia to change anything in the real world (that is advocacy, and see WP:NOTADVOCACY) Butler has a reputation for writing difficult prose (which she gained from having actually written difficult prose) and those are facts that we transmit - we are all about recording "accepted knowledge" here. So please do not try to obscure or downplay that. It is fine to add that some parts of her corpus are written in more accessible prose as long as there are reliable, independent sources that say that, that you can cite. And it would be great to add content updating the article, yes. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I got that.. --NOTME NEVERME (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, so off we go then. how about you do your thing updating the body, including adding whatever kind of content you can find about prose in her more recent writings, and we can consider what to say in the lead about writing style when you are done-ish (the lead will have to be revisited then anyway, per WP:LEAD. no deadline on that, work as you like.. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Regarding citations in the lead, it should be remembered that WP:LEADCITE states that, "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good! However, I won't be able doing the update of the body within the next 4 weeks.. --NOTME NEVERME (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
there are WP:NODEADLINES here. if it gets too long I will probably add the sentence back to the lead, as it does accurately summarize the existing content of the article. Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Gender Trouble [citation needed][edit]

Hi, librarian here taking part in the #1lib1ref event. The sentence under the Gender Trouble section that needs a citation. I was hesitant to add a citation because I'm not clear what needs to be cited. If it's the publication year, it could be found on the title page verso of the book, also linked on the library of congress page: http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip067/2006003260.html. If it's the quote that says "selling over 100,000 copies internationally and in different languages" I couldn't verify this any where, although I don't doubt it. I would suggest taking it out completely and rewording.

New book, maybe interesting for the "reception" section[edit]

New book, maybe interesting for the "reception" section: Queer Theory: The French Response by Bruno Perreau, 2016, Stanford University Press. The Chronicle [1]: "Topics include how French opponents of gay marriage have targeted the gender theories of the American scholar Judith Butler." Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Feminist or queer theorist?[edit]

Butler's most famous work "Gender Trouble" makes the irrationalist/postmodernist claim that gender and the very concept of "women" and "woman" is a social construct. According to Wikipedia's article, "Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women." If the category of women itself is a social construct, as Butler claims, then how one argue for their rights? I would agree that she is a Queer theorist, but third-wave feminism (especially postmodern feminism) is feminist in the same way that Eurocommunism is Communist; it is based on the absolute negation and deconstruction of the subject. To describe Butler as a feminist in an unqualified sense is extremely problematic. Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judith Butler. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)