Talk:Ewa Ziarek

Untitled
Pretty dull. What does dissunsus mean? Who is JUlian PaRK? "Ziarek has written extensively on the idea of slavery from a feminist standpoint, challenging Giorgio Agamben's views on the subject.[5]" SO?? Tell us a bit more please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victuallers (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)‎
 * Dissensus is a fairly commonly idea in philosophy and political theory, and a term occasionally used in other settings, like management. It's listed in the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam Webster, and most other significant dictionaries.  I feel like its meaning is more or less apparent from the context it's used in here, even if it's not exactly the most common term in the world.  Bluntly I find it a bit odd to comment that a stubbish article on a woman philosopher is a bit dull while at the same time requesting a photo. I fully accept that you meant both comments in good faith, but I think that they do say something interesting about the equity issues significantly present in both Wikipedia and philosophy as a field.


 * Would this article ideally have more information? Well, yeah. Most Wikipedia articles would, especially most ones that are a bit stubby.  We should probably have a standalone article on dissensus as a philosophical concept.  Our article on feminist aesthetics should probably contain enough information in it to explain Ziarek's work in that field in detail in an easily intelligible way without having to explain inside Ziarek's article all the work that she is drawing on. We should have an article about agonistic feminism, because it's difficult to explain her contributions to that notable field inside her article when we still lack an article about what the field itself is.  Will we have these and other missing things relevant to Ziarek's work eventually?  I certainly hope so, and intend to help contribute as I can.  We'll probably have them a hell of a lot later than we'll have thoroughly documented every minor distribution of linux, pokemon character, and minor concepts in math though, sadly.


 * As for who Julian Park is... named professorships at universities are almost always named either after a major donor or a major figure in the history of the university. In this situation, it looks like he was the first dean of Arts and Sciences and first University Historian at SUNY Buffalo.  A quick look around suggests he probably meets our notability guidelines in his own right.  But who he is isn't particularly the point: the significance of named professorships is very rarely in the name. Holding a named professorship is generally a mark of a distinguished career, particularly in a field like philosophy where named professorships are few and far between - even more so those held by women.  (There's a reason that holding a named professorship is one of the black and white criteria for meeting WP:ACADEMIC.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your long reply. I wasnt aware that these concepts were so poorly represented. Lets hope they soon are. Obviously Profs of philosophy would like to be known for their ideas (I suggest) rather than their CVs. I did look up dissensus and it was noted as a ubiquitous neologism. I tried to summarise what I read there - but I'm not a philosopher. The more I read about her then the more interested I was - and I got to see that the philosophy of feminism is by no means a done deal. :-) I learnt something Victuallers (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the addition, I'll look it over and tinker with it a bit if anything's up with it. A lot of Ziarek's work really is really really interesting, but Wikipedia currently just lacks so much content related to both feminism and philosophy that it becomes quite hard to explain someone's work in an intelligible even remotely comprehensive way before some other content is built out. To give you an example of what I mean: to make the sentence about Agamben comprehensible to someone without a philosophy background (and a kind of specific one at that,) there would probably have to be at least a paragraph or summing up Agamben's views, then probably two paragraphs summing up Ziarek's engagement with his views, and then another paragraph or two summing up the reception of (and engagement with) Ziarek's engagement with Agamben... and that's just for one aspect of her work (and she's done a lot of other influential work as well. As it stands right now, even Agamben's page doesn't talk about his work on slavery (although his page does look a lot better than many philosophers' pages do.)


 * I definitely do want to eventually have a comprehensive and intelligible set of both bios of notable women philosophers and a lot of the concepts in undercovered fields of philosophy up sooner or later... but that's a bit of a monumental undertaking. I'm making a first pass at bio articles now, and will do a second pass after my first pass is reasonably done.  (I'm tackling the bios instead of the conceptual articles, because I'm hoping to draft USEP classes into helping with the conceptual articles - and generally speaking, people feel that having students write conceptual articles meets their educational goals, but feel iffy about having them do bios from scratch (although having students work to enhance descriptions of someone's work in an already existing bio is more likely to fly.)


 * To give you an idea of the significance of the fact that Ziarek holds a named chair: Rutgers, which has the second best philosophy program in the US, currently has no named chairs. NYU's program - which is the best in the nation- has six named chairs (although they were all endowed by the same person, and only one of which is held by a woman,) as well as another four professorships of similar status (University Professors/Distinguished Professors.) Named chairs are prestigious appointments in any field, but since they are also related to money (a named chair will be funded from a particular endowment, rather than the University's usual budget,) they tend to be a lot more common in fields like economics than philosophy, and among schools like NYU than they are elsewhere. Any named chair in philosophy will have contributed very significantly to their field, and since philosophy as a field has more significant internal gender equity and discrimination issues than any field short of EE/CS, the bar ends up being set higher for women academics to become named chairs - so a woman philosopher holding a named chair is almost certain to have contributed to her field in a very significant way. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Victuallers - I made it a little bit more explicitly clear in the text what a model of dissensus is, and I'll try to dig through at some point in the near future to find a more explicit full description of it. The description that you had copied in to the article didn't quite fit with how it's normally used in philosophy, or with Ziarek's meaning of it. To give you an idea of why it's a little bit difficult to provide a succinct, sourced, nuanced definition of it: when I do a GScholar search for 'dissensus,' more than 22,000 papers since 1962 using the term popped up.  When I'm on an appropriate network to pull the paper I suspect will be best suited for the purpose, I'll go ahead and do so and add it in, as well as adding other stuff in as I can (though I do mostly intend to finish my first round list before significantly improving the ones I've already created.)  As I mentioned on the dyknom, I think I will choose a few people from various fields (including philosophy) where Wikipedia does have enough existing content to explain in good detail what the highlights of their ideas in a way that will be easily intelligible to the average reader without having to build everything from the ground up.  In general, if you'd like to help out with any of the stuff I've been working on, I'd be more than happy to send you a bunch of relevant papers related to their work, and help out with explaining concepts as I can (although, put bluntly, my philosophical background isn't the strongest in the world either, so I occasionally have to consult academic philosophers to understand exactly what a paper is saying, heh.)  Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)