Talk:Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Csloat's edit war
As far as I'm concerned csloat, you have demonstrated bad faith and absolute incivility here, and have begun an edit war. I will let other editors opine, but I consider your approach to this whole thing to be inconsistent with the values and policies of wikipedia. Nick obviously knows more about these things than I do, but as far as I can tell something must be done about your reckless approach to editing. All of us have made great efforts to reason with you, and I honestly think you should be ashamed...ASHAMED of your behavior. JrFace 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop accusing me of things I have not done. What have I said that was uncivil?  Where have I shown bad faith?  I think I have been extremely patient in this discussion (a discussion where you began by accusing me of being "malicious," "brutal," "evasive," "coercive," and "disingenuous" until another editor suggested that you were being uncivil).  I have also bent over backwards to see your side, and have agreed to a compromise version of the page that includes the material I found objectionable. Instead of working with the compromise version, you deleted the well sourced and relevant information, you restored claims I have demonstrated were false, and you then accused me of edit warring and bad faith.  I am not sure what it is you think I should be ashamed of here, but I find your approach unnecessarily aggressive and hostile. csloat 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no justification for referring to this as "Csloat's edit war" at all. JrFace reverted Csloat's apparently good-faith edits, and Csloat has reverted back once, while providing apparently reasonable discussion in the edit comments.  JrFace, please stop reverting, and please don't stir the pot with unnecessary accusations of "reckless" or shameful behavior or of edit-warring.  Instead, please give reasons for the changes you want to make to the article.  As far as I can see you have not done this yet. -- Rbellin|Talk 01:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * JrFace, please cool down. We have made progress toward compromise here, and I'd hate to see things backslide. To avoid constant reversions, we ought to draft a version of the disputed section on the talk page that everyone can live with before putting it in the article. And remember this word of caution: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly... do not submit it." Nick Graves 05:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear friend Rbellin,


 * Let me apologize if my reasoning has been anything less than clear. I hope you have read my earlier contributions, but in case you haven't, I will hereby sum up some of the most relevant points that have already been raised.  Hopefully this will serve to clarify any doubts you may have and further the common understanding between us that is so crucial to resolving this matter.


 * Below you will find reasons why a well-intentioned editor such as yourself should be concerned about csloat's version of the article:


 * Undue Weight--In our discussions above, my good friend, we seem to have agreed that the Alexander criticism deserves mention, but not too much weight. That has been covered in such depth that I shan't bore you with my own reformulations of all that has been said.
 * However, let me quote a good authority on the matter: "the speech in question is relatively unimportant in the body of Spivak's work." Do you recognize those words, good friend? Yes?  They are your own!  I imagine you take your words as seriously as I take them.  And taking them seriously, we find that the current edit gives an unrepresentative amount of space to this relatively unimportant work of hers.  Don't you agree?  Has your reasoning changed?  Please, good sir/madam, be clear on this point.
 * The same must be said of csloat's cherry-picked phrase from the Eagleton article. For one, it is not a fair summary of what Eagleton has written and why there was such a harsh reaction to his article in the letters later published by the LRB.  Clearly, Spivak's coruscating intelligence isn't the substance of the criticism that deserves mention here.  We don't want to give undue weight to relatively unimportant points raised in somewhat important articles.  Don't you agree?  Please explain if you don't, as we shan't clarify this matter through reticence, shall we?.


 * POV-- Good sir/madam, I hope you will agree that the article, as written by csloat, does not reflect the NPOV standard that all wiki editors-- especially those of good faith such as yourself-- aspire to.  Do you not agree that a good amount of space is taken up effectively drowning out the criticisms that we, together, have decided to include.  (Sorry, my good man/woman: it's true that you, yourself, have never voiced support for this position.  But silence is hard to interpret.  The majority of editors have taken the time and effort to argue in favor of such inclusion and you have apparently not seen fit to vocally counter these arguments or substantively engage in the debate.  Under these circumstances, I am, perhaps unfairly, assuming that you accept or are willing to cede to the majority position.  Again, please be clear if I am wrong.)
 * The article as currently written seems an attempt to hide Alexander's criticism. My own proposal makes it perfectly clear that Spivak has openly denounced terrorism.  That was the concern that had been raised by editors here.  Csloat's version does not help clarify that point.  Rather, it obscures the whole matter by offering material that is entirely out of place and excessive in this sort of article.  Why would anyone want to do such  a thing?  The mind is a mystery, my good friend, but looking at the totality of the circumstances, including the evolution of this debate, it would seem that such inclusion is an attempt to make the article conform to a certain pro-Spivak POV.  Do you not agree?  Please, a convincing explantion will be necessary if you do not.


 * Literary Style-- I have pointed out that the section, as written by csloat, reads horribly. The article as it is now written is embarrassingly awkward due to its large quotes and clumsy transitions.  Don't you agree?  I assume that you--like I am-- are concerned with offering potential readers of this page a coherent, consistent and easily comprehensible style of writing.


 * Sir/Madam, I shall now expound on why csloat's recent efforts reflect both bad faith and editing warfare:


 * I have mentioned above that clsoat has shown dogged insistence on having the final say on this matter. This, perhaps, wouldn't pose a problem if his final say reflected the concerns that have been explicitly raised by his fellow editors in the course of this debate.
 * I, myself,my dear Rbellin, offered an edit that was summarily mutilated and manhandled by citizen sloat. This needs to be seen in context.  Prior to posting my proposal, it had been presented and reworked on the talk page numerous times.  It reflected and embodied a good amount of input from fellow editors (Again, sorrily, not from you, my good friend, who for unknown reasons--modesty? shyness?-- has not substantively engaged in this recent debate)  The final version presented was a good faith, practical attempt at resolving this ongoing unsettled situation of ours by balancing different concerns and perspectives.


 * Such cannot be said of Mr. sloat's version. He has reworked this painstakingly slow evolution of a proposal into something entirely new that doesn't correspond to anything but his own preferences.  I attempted to follow the presentation that was suggested by Nick Graves.  Sloat, on the other hand, has completely disregarded such proposals, effectively turning his back on the whole debate in favor of his own preferences.  Is that not bad faith, my good friend?  Is that not an insult to those who have made a considerable effort to come to some common understanding though debate?  Is it not also an insult to the whole idea of debate and reaching agreement through reason and consensus?   Wouldn't a minimally respectful person have made his proposals on the talk page-- as I did, numerous times--  before seeing fit to entirely rework the section that has been, by now, so thoroughly debated?  I have clear answers to these questions, my good Rbellin.  Do you not?


 * And let's not forget, dear sir/madam, that the version currently appearing on the page is this version that does not reflect the opinions and concerns raised by the majority of editors in the course of this discussion. Why is this?  Because csloat has insisted on his version and imposed it by force of edit warring.  I suggested to him that he leave my version-- which is clearly more reflective of the group's openly expressed consensus-- until the matter was resolved.  He, almost instantaneously, undid my edit for reasons that are not reflective of group consensus on the matter.  Don't you see this is a sign of bad faith and a failure to give due respect to one's fellow editors?  Honestly, sir/madam, do answer if you disagree.


 * Good friend, I hope this helps clarify things even if it does, as you say, "stir the pot." I hope you can see that I am not stirring things just to amuse myself.  Have you ever tried to cook pasta, soup, or even a mousse, good sir/madam?  Yes?  Then you know that stirring is an important part of the recipe.  It's certainly not something to be feared or avoided.  So please, let's stir and try to keep this broth palatable and prevent any of its bits from sticking and burning!   JrFace 12:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to respond in this level of detail about every small change to the article. Is all this discussion really to do with this change, only?  If so, let me say that the difference between these two versions is a matter of total indifference to me.  On balance I think the current section handles the Eagleton very well, better than rpevious versions, and I disagree that it tries to "hide" Alexander, which I think it now deals with more appropriately (though I'd still favor cutting this entirely).  But Csloat, as far as I can see, has proceeded in the usual Wikipedia fashion, by editing and expanding the article while using edit comments to discuss changes, and JrFace, you have repeatedly reverted and made groundless accusations of violating "consensus".
 * Not every small edit needs to be hashed out in detail on the Talk page beforehand; in fact, you seem to be asking Csloat now, in the name of "good faith," to clear all his/her edits with you before making them. Maybe you ought to work on a few other Wikipedia articles for a while, to see how the editing process generally works. -- Rbellin|Talk 14:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My Good Rbellin,
 * Thank you so for having the time and courtesy to reply to my concerns. From the information included in your response I can only conclude that you do not disagree with my characterization that citizen sloat has demonstrated bad faith in this case.  Let's not confuse ourselves by comparing this edit, which has been such a painfully slow process-- that has required outside intervention for certain arguments to even be considered-- with "other Wikipedia articles."  This is no common edit!  My good sir/madam, you must be aware of that by now, and so I suppose you jest:  what wit! what spirit! (I only wish I could rise to the same level, my good friend; but, alas, God hasn't imbued all of us with such chispa).
 * But joking aside, the debate surrounding the edit in question has been an unusual effort and process for several of us, as you well know. We agree--don't we?-- that Sloat's edit serves to single-handedly undo this long tortuous process that all of us (some less vocally than others, but I don't hold your timidity against you, good Rbellin) have contributed to.  What would become of wikipedia if all editors overrode other editors' input?...or if everyone allowed his/her own preferences to trump the good faith that others have attempted to build?  Have you stopped to imagine that?  I know how much you value truth and clarity, so I believe that it is well worth attempting this act of imagination.  We can, as Spivak has tried to show us how to do, use imagination to further our common goals and understanding.
 * That said, I am somewhat disconcerted by your reference to groundless allegations. I have made a considerable effort to demonstrate and ground my words and positions as clearly as possible.  Have I failed?  Don't laugh, but I actually felt confident that I had explained things clearly.
 * I don't mean to be a pest, but in thinking about this groundlessness issue that you mentioned, I'm honestly not sure which specific points you consider to be ungrounded. In fact, if one were to be cynical--though, of course, there's no room for cynicism here, my good man-- one might even say that your own mention of groundlessness seems, shall we say, ungrounded.  Dear me!  Did I offend you?  I don't mean to push things too far, you know.  Do excuse me.
 * But honestly, dear friend, I don't know how I can lay things out more clearly, for you. Perhaps when you say "groundless" the problem is that you haven't properly understood what I have written.  Please do reread what I have taken such care in writing to you, dear Rbellin.  And if you have the time, please respond with specificity, as generality has plagued this debate from the beginning.  It simply hasn't led us in any truly productive direction.  Don't you agree, my highly esteemed friend?
 * You mentioned that time is a concern for you. If you don't have time for such close reading or to consider details and participate with some degree of specificity in the debate, that is a considerable problem.  I know you have the best of intentions, but if you truly don't have time to properly weigh and consider the matters raised on this page perhaps you should consider withdrawing from this discussion.  It is never a good idea to spread oneself too thin.  One winds up cutting corners on all sides!  And that can't be good either for you or for the editing of this article, can it?  Sorry.  I don't mean to be telling you what to do; just trying to be helpful.  But I really should be closing now.  So for now I bid you adieu.  JrFace 20:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

End of the War

Dear Friends,

In light of the considerable efforts that have been made to come to some common understanding on this page, I think we have all seen-- haven't we?-- that it would be unreasonable for us to aspire to do more than agree to disagree. I have already expressed my concerns for good Rbellin, and his having to spread himself so thin on an intellectual level. Friends, I don't want to have this on my conscience. My feelings for dear Rbellin have led me to reconsider this whole matter and the insanity of possibly endless hostilities.

We have seen that attempts at reconciliation and understanding are often dubious, sometimes leading to increased demands instead of to a true, lasting peace. We all aspire to peace, my friends, but how can we get there? Will reason bring us peace? I think this page has shown us that it most certainly will not. Reason does not exist in a vacuum, but is empowered by our values and what we judge to be most important and essential. So despite the overwhelming good faith of the majority of us on this page, we have seen how our values sometimes lead us to acts of incivility and-- when pushed far enough-- intellectual barbarity.

We all want peace, but it seems we all want it on our own terms. Friends, I hope this page has shown us that such a desire for peace is chimerical, self-undermining, and perhaps even demonstrably false.

Thinking of this sort of bigger picture and the intellectual and emotional strains this struggle has-- and could continue to-- put upon all of us, not just poor Rbellin, I have reconsidered the article as it is currently written. After doing so, I am presently of the opinion that it is less than perfect, but acceptable.

It wouldn't be hard for me to rehash perceived injustices from the history of this debate, get on a moral high horse and gallop away. But dear friends, how can I be sure that this high horse would be headed towards an end to the skirmishes and treachery we have seen? In short, I couldn't-- and thinking of good souls such as Rbellin's and his/her bonhomie, I have been moved to take a step towards peace and away from never-ending conflict. It is with this attitude that, on my part at least, I now declare the war to be over.


 * With Regards,
 * JrFace 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, who knew people could get this worked up over Spivak? Eawonder (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * People who care about modern thought. Unfortunately a certain person appears to be hell bent on inserting references to an academically illiterate article that really does the topic a disservice. I'm not going to weigh into this debate, but for the same reason we don't plaster articles on Marxism with stupid nonsense about "was marx a secret satanist" and all the other nonsense that turns up in the right wing press, we shouldn't try and hang a cornerstone academic based on writing that is factually wrong, non notable , and frankly malicious. And yes, there are probably better things to work on. Duck Monster (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Life
I am a total newbie here, so I hope this is the right place to make these comments. I felt that some information on her life section was missing when I noticed checking her bibliography that she didn't publish anything in 11 years, from 1976 to 1987. What happened in her life then? Did she commit to other things, or what?

Also, in the last sentence of the first paragraph of her work, it says "Spivak recounts how Sati appears colonial archives". What's missing in that sentence? A preposition "in", or what? Plaintexto (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What about her personal life? For example how did an Indian woman end up with the last name "Spivak?"24.139.24.163 (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. 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/20160316234334/http://www.inamori-f.or.jp/laureates/k28_c_gayatri/prf_e.html to http://www.inamori-f.or.jp/laureates/k28_c_gayatri/prf_e.html

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) 16:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)