Talk:Judith Butler/Archive 2

Deleted critism
I've removed the criticism section. Lulu is right. Mots of the analytic philosophy articles have no criticism at all. That's fine, too. Since when has it been a rule on Encyclopedias to include criticms. This is one of the typical, NPOV, Wackipedia strictures. Furthermore, the language should not bowdlerized or dumbed down just becasue ignoramuses are unwilling to deal with complex words or sentences. Philosophy is the most abstract sunject on earth, for god's sake. If you don't underatnd it, you have two choice really: work harder to undertand the backhorund material and the context or don't read it. Featured article candidates/Hilary Putnam is being crucified for lacking "criticism" and for being too difficult for Wackipedia. Keep up the good work,LU!! Fuck them all. Hang them all. Put emì up against the wall and shoot 'em!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not opposed to Lacatosias' action. But as I describe above, I think that with this issue of differences in notions of universality added, there is a minimal point to Nussbaum's criticism.  Some of Nussbaum's stuff was indeed the silly complaints about "too many big words", but there was a sliver of real point (one on which I personally would side with anti-essentialism, but I understand the argument).  I guess as a practical matter though, removing the whole section removes the silly parts, rather than invite their expansion.  Btw. I'll go look at Putnam's article.... I imagine you noticed The New Yorker article in which Putnam was quoted (to his own surprise) as stating that WP's article on him was better than the one in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (it was presented to Putnam before describing the process by which it was created).  LotLE × talk  14:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Followup: Oh, I see Lacatosias' himself mentions the New Yorker point in the FAC nomination. Should have followed the link first.  LotLE × talk  14:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Would any of you folks like to step in there. I've worked on the thing tirelessly for about 5 days without sleep and there still holding the thing hostage to considersation of wordiness and what not. I don't know what the devil satisfy some of these people, short of my death. What do you think about the article? Can you support it? Stand up for philosophy!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you need to get some sleep and chill. That is the best help I (or anyone) can give you.  The nature of wikipedia means you shouldn't maintain your ego in your contributions -- they will assuredly be tweaked, overhauled, revised, vandalized. I feel for you (just look at Kmaguir's unjustified/able deletions of my work in this article) but in this case I think you need to reassess your personal investment in the article.--Agnaramasi 04:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Kmaguir has once again reverted without any attempt at discussion or justification back to the previous version which included the criticism section. Not only did he reinstate the criticims, he also thought that he could, without any group agreement, remove Butler from various philosophy/philosopher categories, as well as restore his version of the Excitable Speech section, which I had taken time to clarify, restructure, and shorten.  I am reverting back to Lulu's last edit to undo this rediculous damage.  I also think we should consider finding a way of preventing Kmaguir's continued vandalism of this article. He has disrespected this community enough.--Agnaramasi 07:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you may want to get off your soapbox. Look, lacatosias deleted the criticism section with no explanation as he did it, and no one complained. So people do things that they have to explain later, but I'm not going to add a note on a talk page every time I want to make a change that doesn't fundamentally restructure the article, just to appease those out there who may find it unfortunate with respect to their own political agenda or see the article as there's, and not as the community's. First matter: the Excitable Speech section. You worked on a whole lot, only to get it a whole lot like the previous section (before my revising). I cut out the Delgado reference, a bunch of the gobblty-gook academic language that can be simplified. I just noticed tonight that you worked the article back to your own idea of what it should be, and in fact did not work to make it more simple, and clearer. You deleted my work, I deleted yours. Get over it. Second matter: criticism section. You have yet to raise ONE single solid wikipedia concern with the criticism section. Claim it's not NPOV. Back it up. Claim whatever you want, but show me a wikipedia policy, and not the pseudo-academic simplistic arguments of "Well, some articles have such sections, and some don't, but the ones that do, their sections SUCK"--well, then edit them to make them better. And you've yet to offer better with respect to the criticism section. Criticism of a philosopher does not have to be internal, as in from his or her communities (LGBT or feminist, probably among others, in this case), nor does it have to have to be highly specialized or journal-ready. It's just what people have criticized the philosopher about, which is prominent and has been noticed or, in the case of an academic criticism such as this, published. This is what is done here, with Nussbaum, in an undisputedly popular article that deserves mention as a criticism (I am certainly welcome to other additions of criticism from inside Butler's communities or from outside them). About the categories, no one seems willing to enter into a fundamental debate about what makes a philosopher in the category:philosophers page, or here. There, what it came down to was some people saying that they wanted some specific companies to call people philosophers--and that of course begs the question, why not other companies. This is why the introduction of conservative Christian philosophy, or the like, is particularly apt, and should not be excluded if indeed Butler is included. I do not believe she does philosophy, and is thus not a philosopher, for reasons I have discussed on both pages in quite a bit of detail. My opinion is there. We can continue to talk, we can have edit skirmishes. Or, as some on this page seem particularly fond, we can talk, come to some rational consensus, then abandon it time and time again when the wind blows a particular way. The criticism section STAYS, the Excitable Speech original rewrite STAYS. If you don't like it, join the community for once and talk about it. Here. You will either lose the debate or give ground in it, but I will not continue to let you persist in repeatedly thwarting a rational debate, in which, unlike in Butler's system, one side is wrong, and the other side is right, whether or not we can agree absolutely who is which. -Kmaguir1 08:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ummm.... did you look a few lines higher on this talk page. Lacatosias provided a perfectly fine explanation above.  And I didn't exactly complain, but expressed my tentative agreement with a couple caveats.  Sure looks like discussion to me; especially since it represents a shift in Lacatosias' initial position on the question (which is explained).  LotLE × talk  11:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's really quite simple: Good articles do not have spurious and personalistic criticism sections. Occassionally (but not usually), good academic bios have substantial theoretical criticisms (e.g. Popper).  If you can find something of substance where a "universalist" thinker makes a substantative criticism of Butler qua anti-essentialist, that's wonderful.  I tried to tease out that concept from the Nussbaum thing, but it took some effort to strip out the mostly "Yo mama so ugly" tone of Nussbaum's popular article.  Moreover, even better would be explanations of disagreements within the actual field Butler works in: say from Zizek (or in a different direction, Donna Haraway or our recently departed Iris Young).  My impression is that Kmaguir1 does not strive to make this a good article, but simply one that diss'es Butler—which is while not precisely the opposite goal, but is certainly a very different goal.  LotLE × talk  11:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I said this above, maybe you weren't reading. I do not have to go find an essentialist, I don't have to find a criticism of Butler from within her specific field of feminist philosophy. I can go outside to the Nussbaum critique which is outside her field. And you've yet to show me, again, one wikipedia statement that says that this criticism is out of place, one wikipedia criticism you have with respect to it. And do not break up my comments please. -Kmaguir1 16:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at what the wiki-etiquette says about what you did: "Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow." -Kmaguir1 00:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is debate as to when to apply category:philosophers, it might be worthwhile to bring the community at wikiproject:Philosophy in on the discussion. Maybe together we can come up with some overall guidelines for when to apply the category (for example - was said person, if fairly contemporary, published in philosophy journals?  Have other philosophers responded to their arguments?).  As for criticisms, I'm more inclined to see them on philosophy pages than on philosopher pages (that is, put criticisms of Butler on queer studies or gender studies along with a section on her writing, not on her bio page), but maybe this would be something to involve wikiproject:Philosophy, wikiproject:Gender studies (I think that's the one), wikiproject:Sociology, and, if there is one, a wikiproject involved in biography in on to discuss.  The more positions brought in to the discussion, the more likely we are to find something that works for everyone, I think.  -Smahoney 16:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Excitable Speech section
Background: Kmaguir1 had revised the original long and unwieldly version of that section. He has admitted to not having actually read the book. His revision was mostly simply substituting certain words for others and deleting what he saw as superfluous sentences. The original text remains mostly unchanged. I then revised and substantially rewrote the section. I made it shorter, more graceful, and in my opinion, easier to read and more adequate to Butler's text. I reorganized the section to have a simpler language lead-in paragraph that introdcuces the text, followed by three more technical paragraphis describing Butler's specific arguments. It is better linked up with other articles in Wikipedia and more completely and succinctly fleshes out Butler's ideas. No where in my revision is there "gobblty-gook academic language" as Kmaguir alleges, even though consistently refusing to actually point to the specific sentences he feels are too technical. In fact, in my view, my rewrite is shorter, punchier, and less "academic" than Kmaguir's, which remains quite faithful to the convoluded and awkward original. Can we please decide as a group which we prefer and point to specific parts of my version that remain too technical so I can change them?--Agnaramasi 15:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations and npov
I added the tag, as the article is largely unsourced (although there are frequent references to books, there are no page numbers for specific claims). Please add sources when necessary - if it would help, I'd be happy to go through the article and add tags to show what sorts of claims need citations.

Additionally, there's no reason given (unless its embedded in one of the discussions above, which I don't care to read through) for the addition of the npov tag. Why is it there? -Smahoney 16:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you add the citation needed tags?  And I will try to find page numbers.--Agnaramasi 17:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. As a rule of thumb, direct quotes should always be cited, as should paraphases of quotes.  If it says something like, "Butler argues" or "here Butler concludes", that's a good sign that there should be a reference.  Thanks for taking the time to fix this!  -Smahoney 20:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I will try to fix Gender Trouble and Giving an Account of Oneself first, as I am most familiar with those texts, and wrote those sections. It may take me awhile (a week or so) to cite all these things simply because I have to go through the texts and find the specific page numbers, which takes time.
 * But I'm not sure that all these citations are really needed. I don't see other philosophy wikipedia articles that heavily cited, and I'm not sure that all the citations are totally necessary. For example, the article on Sein und Zeit is largely unreferenced. Generally, the arguments described correspond to theories Butler elaborates either in the corresponding book as a whole or in a partcular section of her book.  But if you read the book, you will find the arguments described in the article (at least in the sections I wrote on Gender Trouble and Giving an Account of Oneself).--Agnaramasi 21:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your efforts. For the record, that other articles, philosophy or not, are uncited doesn't mean that this one shouldn't be.  See WP:CITE, WP:NOR, and  Common knowledge.  -Smahoney 22:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

By and large, the addition of the NPOV tag is due to their reverts, and their reverts are due to the fact that they can't abide by their article including criticism of the philosopher in question--notable criticism, that of the bad writing contest, and the Nussbaum piece in TNR. Without that criticism, all that's left is a lot of POV language that aligns itself with the philosopher by adopting her language, largely sans citation, and not by explaining it in the common English language (which is, again, one the criticisms)--and thus, there is little balance in the article. The criticism I added and took time to write is of course valid, and it belongs on this page. THis article at present is not written from a NEUTRAL point of view, it's written, particulafly in the summaries of her works, from the point of view of the typical bitter gay-rights feminist kid-club that considers her so much a disciple that the slightest academic criticism about her, it'd be like putting Jesus on the Judaism page as criticism. -Kmaguir1 16:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To lulu: Do not change edit my comments on this talk page either by bolding or separating them. The latter is against stated Wiki-etiquette policy. And we've yet to come to the table on the Nussbaum criticism. My "door is open", so to speak. If you don't want to talk, then I'm going to edit, as this encyclopedia is for editors, and I will revert when I see fit in accordance with Wikipedia policy. You have also been advised that you are not supposed to use pop-ups to revert for content changes. Period. -Kmaguir1 05:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sifting through the bitterness and cynicism I'm seeing here, I see two issues you'd like addressed:
 * 1. You want the bad writing criticism included.
 * 2. You want overviews of her philosophy cited and translated into the vernacular.
 * Does that about sum it up? -Smahoney 20:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The way Butler's ideas are presented were already "simplified". Kmaguir consistently claims that they are still too technical, but he also consistently refuses to point to those specific sentences that are a problem so we can collaborate on fixing them.--Agnaramasi 21:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Moreover, all the homophobic and sophmoric name-calling like his above comment hardly adds weight to his alleged claims. It seems to be some weird idea that he needs to "expose the homosexual conspiracy" or similar foolishness... in any case, nothing that has anything whatsoever to do with Butler as a thinker.  LotLE × talk  21:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't gay-baiting in the slightest. She is a gay-rights feminist. That's not name-calling: that's just an accurate description of some of the things she believes in, something of the things she identifies with while spurning identity-talk. You need to get a grip--I don't think there's a gay conspiracy. I think there's some people (namely you and Agnaramasi) who are suspiciously unwilling to allow criticism of your pet thinker. Sorry, go write a book saying how much you love her--criticism sections are valid, they've always been valid, and  you can't show me a single Wikipedia policy which would move the criticism section out, just your own feelings about which criticisms suck and which don't. I'm 22--I'm not going away. You can edit my additions, as you know, as was just done, in fact. Other than that, you have no Wikipedia justification for blanking out my work. -Kmaguir1 21:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sifting through the bitterness and cynicism I'm seeing here, I see two issues you'd like addressed:
 * 1. You want the bad writing criticism included.
 * 2. You want overviews of her philosophy cited and translated into the vernacular.
 * Does that about sum it up? -Smahoney 22:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I want the bad writing criticism included, as well as the Nussbaum criticism. On balance both are important, but the Nussbaum criticism more academic. But yes, other than that, what you describe is what I would like. -Kmaguir1 00:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In order to facilitate number 2 above, would you be willing to copy and paste any examples you see in the article of phrases you feel need said translation? -Smahoney 08:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would, although, they're in the edit history. Just look at what Agnaramasi changed over time, or more expediently, look at my recent revision of the Excitable Speech section that got reverted. Give me a bit, I'll get you a link. -Kmaguir1 05:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you assume your version of the Excitable Speech section is obviously easier to read than mine. I think mine reads easier, is more consise, and less awkward.  Lulu agrees with that assessment.  We need you to point to specific parts of my text that you think are too techical.  Otherwsie, we can't improve the article.--Agnaramasi 14:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Major edits coming, major edits!
Some major edits and some additions coming. Edit as you wish, be respectful of me, do not blank me out. There ya go. -Kmaguir1 07:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, saying she made "major" contributions is EXTRAORDINARILY POV. She made contributions. Leave it at that. It isn't like a campaign chest, where someone gave Bush/Cheney MAJOR contributions--that's subjective, but can be agreed on. You can't say with any degree of certainty, or certainly any sources, whether or not her contributions are "major"--if you can, show the source. Secondly, I deleted the Judy! stuff because it was not sourced and was irrelevant. And yes, I added back the Nussbaum as you continue to not engage in meaningful conversation on that section. You can't deny my edits based on your predictions. Isn't it funny, that for one minute, approximately one minute, the world was deprived of knowing about Judith Butler's Undoing Gender just because you were judgmental, slothful and not paying attention? -Kmaguir1 07:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was paying quite a bit of attention to trying to fix the mess you created in the article. You're right that it took me over a minute to fix it. In fact, I've wasted quite a lot of time if you count the many destructive edits by you I've had to try to correct.  LotLE × talk  14:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Care to fill us in on your plans? This is supposedly a group effort.--Agnaramasi 14:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Judy! and poking fun
I don't have the journal, but I have trouble imagining such a thing doesn't poke a little fun, just given its title. Nonethless, Anthony Krupp is definitely right to remove that characterization. Saying exactly what is ironic, and to what degree, is too OR-ish; and it's superfluous to mention. LotLE × talk 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Am swamped in real life, so if I haven't returned with a reading of the fanzine within a week, please just leave a reminder on my talk page. As I recall (from my last reading of it in 1994), it was a real fanzine, more scary in its seriousness than poking fun in its irony. At least, that's how I remember it read. I remember someone telling me that once the first and I think only issue came out, Butler wrote to the author of the 'zine, saying something like "Please stop." Will return with a better verdict.--Anthony Krupp 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe they were just more deadpan in their committment to irony than you were willing to follow :-). Pastiche is blank parody, y'know.


 * Hmmm.... google seems to tell me that Jameson coined this, that seems so... wrong! I could have sworn it was more a Lyotard thing. Oh well, off to go enjoy my senility.  LotLE × talk  20:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't remember where, but I do remember reading something about how Judith disapproved of the zine. I don't think that the zine was merely blind adoration (though I'm sure she doesn't approve of doting sycophants), it seemed there may have been a tinge of maliciousness...--Agnaramasi 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The zine had two issues, and it quite obviously poked fun at academic celebrity in general; treating MLA like the Oscars and so forth. It was hilarious, IMHO, but Judith Butler did not think so. She sent a cease and desist to the author. The author had actually read Butler's work in a class taught by a former lawyer, who helped her deal with the cease and desist letter. Lingua Franca published a comment on the zine and Judith Butler wrote an angry respionse, calling the zine's stories "fully conjectured and debased speculations," and saying the zine was "homophobic." (Its author, by the way, is lesbian). Butler charged Lingua Franca with "anti-intellectual aggression" for publishing about the zine. Lingua Franca (appropriately, in my mind) treated the zine as campy fun, and the author responded to Butler on that matter; she called the zine "one undergraduate's satirical take on academic celebrity" in her response. The exchange is reprinted in the second issue of Judy! (under the heading "Judy reads Judy!) along with the handwritten speculation (unfounded?): "Is it true that Judy B. has pressured Routledge into never advertising in L.F. again? Dragon-Lady!"--csloat 20:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and "pastiche is blank parody" comes from Jameson's "Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism" in New Left Review 1984, if memory serves. I believe the article is republished in his book with the same title.--csloat 20:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah... on reflecting a bit more, it started to come into focus why the comment really did make sense as originating with Jameson. Maybe one of my rare moments of lucidity.  Still, I would retort to Commodore Sloat that 'syncophancy' is a perfectly fine English word, which the The American Heritage(r) Concise Dictionary of the English Language,

Third Edition. Copyright (c) 1992 Houghton Mifflin Company defines as:

sycophancy; pl. sycophancies. The fawning behavior of a sycophant; servile flattery.


 * It has a plural even. And my moment of lucidity extends to recalling the Joan Jett line: "I'm sick of hanging 'round with stupid sycophants".  LotLE × talk  22:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

One more PS here - I think it's unfair to say there was any maliciousness in the zine itself or on the part of the author. I also wouldn't say there is any sycophancy (hell that's not a word, is it?). It's clearly parody and clearly a joke, but I am pretty sure the author fully expected Butler to find the whole thing amusing and vaguely flattering. I guess she found it a little stalker-esque, but that speaks more to Butler becoming uncomfortably aware of her own celebrity status rather than any ill motives of the author, who was, as I recall (having been at Iowa at the time), quite devastated by Butler's negative reaction.--csloat 21:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I just found my edition of Judy! At the bottom left is this text: "Vol. 1, Number 1, SPRING FEVER 1993." Csloat has already anticipated more or less what I was going to say: that at least this first number (I haven't seen the second one) seemed to be intended as a harmless bit of fun. It seems to fetishize Butler, but also promised to examine "the next wave of homo-icons in forthcoming issues. Who will it be. Honey, I'm not sure I can wait. Also in next issue dirty pictures of Julia Kristeva. Promises, promises." (No pagination.) For whatever it's worth, the final page of the 'zine quotes Butler saying "I felt alienation because they were dancing around to women's music and I really couldn't stand it" (Artforum November 1992), then follows with a large scrawl: "DON'T BE ALIENATED -- READ JUDY." Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Undoing Gender section
I'm worried about some of the sentences in the second paragraph. I hope to get group input to remove or improve the following sentences:
 * "In other sections, Butler claims that identity is an often-overlooked question." This seems just idiotic, given that Butler's whole career has been based on the relentless problematization of identity categories.  Is there a specific part in Undoing Gender where she actually says that identity is "often-overlooked"?
 * "She wants people to understand how the self is constructed, and by this, bring the self to a renewed understanding of itself, aware of its own vulnerability as an effect of Foucaultian discursive power." This seems vague, obvious, and kind of redundent given that it has already been elaborated at length in the sections on Gender Trouble, Giving an Account of Oneself, and Excitable Speech, in the context of her specic claims and arguments to which she applies this Foucaultian insight in those books. In what specific context, section, or argument in Undoing Gender does she invoke the "subject as an effect of discourse" line? If this is just a general point, its redundant.
 * "Following sociologist Pierre Macheray, Butler claims that "action is the site of social intervention," in that reality or action is not for the individual subject to confer, but is socially conferred upon the individual subject (in the very constitution of the subject)." I find this sentence exceedingly unclear (despite my efforts to clean it up). What does "action is the site of social intervention" mean in the context of the argument in which Butler deploys it?  Why does "action" become "reality or action" in the subsequent clause? How does this relate to the previous sentence? Perhaps we should break this up into a few sentences to flesh out what Butler might be arguing?
 * "She writes that "sex outside of marriage may open us up to a ... [better] idea of community," thus showing her support for open marriage." This is just totally out of context, doesn't add anything. I doubt Butler "supports" marriage of any kind, let alone "open marriage." If this is to be included, it must absolutely be anchored within the context of the larger section in which it appears. Perhaps the section on queer kinship? Also--this quote must be accompanied by a page citation.
 * "Drawing from Hegel and Nietzsche, Butler recasts being as becoming, and deploying Levinas, as 'becoming the other.'" This is not only unclear, but also philosophically specious. It doesn't make any sense on its own (or rather it can be taken to mean almost anything), and shuold be elaborated. Otherwise its too general and unclear to be useful here.
 * "These explorations, intertwined with the political presuppositions and nature of the book itself, constitute Butler's main aims." I already deleted this because Kmaguir1's analysis of her "political presuppositions" counts as original research that isn't relevent here.--Agnaramasi 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Update -- my above concerns with those specific sentences haven't been addressed, so until they are, I am removing them from the article, and reworking the Undoing Gender section to indicate that it only deals with one of the book's sections (on inter-sexuality), not the whole book or Butler's argument as a whole.--Agnaramasi 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not having chimed in on this. Your comments all seem sensible, Agnoramasi; unfortunately, I have not read Undoing Gender, so can't say what it actually says.  LotLE × talk  15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It really isn't our responsibility to improve Kmaguir1's unclear and dubious edits. I asked him how he might improve those sentences based on my feedback, and he hasn't responded. Until then, it should be removed because it doesn't add to the article at all.--Agnaramasi 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord, can someone please compare this section to the David Reimer article on wikipedia? The previous wording of this section had it that Reimer's "sex could not be medically determined at birth due to a botched circumcision." According to David Reimer, Reimer was born a boy and then reassigned a gender identity after the circumcision was botched at eight months. My question: is this something Butler got wrong, or something the person who wrote the summary of her book got wrong? In any case, this needs to be addressed.--Anthony Krupp 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The text that you are referring to was originally written by Kmaguir1 and later made comprehensible and readable by me. But I haven't read the book its supposedly referring to.   This is obviously Kmaguir1's mistake, not Butler's.  Perhaps we should consider removing the paragraph because it doesn't seem very accurate or credible.--Agnaramasi 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a mistake I made in writing it. It could have been solved simply by substracting the words "at birth". I don't know if that was done. I merely want to present the controversy on "his" sex. Clearly, the anti-essentialist Butlerites do not want to say that sex is natural, so he/she was never a male, except by his/her autonomous choice to be so according to Butler, the autonomous choice he/she doesn't get to make because of politics and scientific power determining his/her choice. You can see that Miss Butler is a MISTRESS of logic. -Kmaguir1 00:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You obviously don't read Butler carefully enough to be trusted writing summaries of her ideas on wikipedia if you are reading Butler's theory of performativity as claiming "the subject constructs its sex/gender through autonomous choice". There is no radical will driving performativity. The subject is formed in and throuhgh the performance: this is the sense in Gender Trouble, in which Butler appropriates Nietzsche's insight from On the Genealogy of Morality that "there is no doer behind the deed" and "the deed is all there is".  I also advise you to read this article more closely too.  If you did, you might see in the Gender Trouble section a few sentences about regulative discourse that coerces through discpline the bodily enactments that constitute subjects as essentially sexed/gendered.  I also refer you to the section on Bodies that Matter, especially the quotation from Butler herself, which directly dispels (and responds to) your "autonomous choice" misreading.--Agnaramasi 00:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Kmaguir1, three questions: (1) if you got that wrong, what else did you get wrong in your summary? Was it neglect or wilful misrepresentation on your part? I am increasingly less willing to assume good faith, but am still trying. (2) How do you know what Butlerites want to say about Reimer? and (3) Why would that be relevant to a summary of what Butler actually says about Reimer? This is an encyclopedia. I'm going to do something I rarely do (perhaps have never done) on wikipedia, and use the command form: This is an encyclopedia. Start acting like an editor of one.--Anthony Krupp 03:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Am still waiting for an answer to these three questions.--Anthony Krupp 15:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like answers are forthcoming.--Anthony Krupp 20:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess some of us need to read that book then. Meanwhile, here's the text I just cut from the article:

In Undoing Gender, Butler clarifies previous positions while moving her critique of gender, sex, and sexuality in new directions. More topical in approach than her previous books, Undoing Gender collects Butler's thoughts on issues ranging from the incest taboo to queer kinship structures, and from the the issue of intersex to the limits of being human.

In her discussion of intersex, Butler comments on the case of David Reimer, a person whose sex was reassigned from male to female after a botched circumcision at eight months. Reimer was "made" female by doctors, but later in life identified as "really" male, and ultimately committed suicide. Butler refers to Reimer with the pronoun ‘he’, out of respect for Reimer's self-identification as male and in opposition to the doctors’ determination of Reimer's sex/gender as female. Butler attacks Reimer's doctors, John Money and Milton Diamond, for what she views as their financial and medical exploitation of Reimer's condition. She also criticizes the intentions of journalist and author John Colapinto, who wrote a book on Reimer, despite the fact that he received no financial benefit from his work. She posits that the determination of Reimer's sex/gender as an infant -- the intervention in which Reimer's "penis was ablated" -- was carried out by a medical discourse enforcing binary sex/gender on Reimer as a prerequisite for recognizing Reimer as human. Butler argues that the solution to Reimer's "problem" did not lie in medicine trying to "fix" Reimer, but rather in the formation of Reimer's identity through cultural processes which would recognize Reimer as a person who was neither “male” nor “female,” outside of binary sex/gender entirely. This connects with Butler's larger project of "undoing" those "frameworks of intelligibility" that violently decide in advance who counts as human, in a bid to do justice to those whom they exclude, such as Reimer. .

--Anthony Krupp 20:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the entire section, pending someone reading that book and reporting on it accurately.--Anthony Krupp 03:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Two questions/suggestions
First, has anyone read and thought about this title: Butler Matters: Judith Butler's Impact on Feminist and Queer Studies eds. Margaret Sonser Breen and Warren J. Blumenfeld (Ashgate 2005)?

Second, does anyone want to start a section on articles she's published? That would be a good thing to follow the section listing her published books.

To avoid duplication, I retitled so that the list is called "Books" while the first section, with summaries and such, is called "Major Works." I'm not wedded to that particular solution, if someone has a better one, but not duplicating section titles seemed like a good idea. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 21:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism/Nussbaum
It's good that the Nussbaum article is linked here (so that we don't have to take one editor's word for it). I've just read through it and attempted a rewrite of the paragraph. I would invite others to read the Nussbaum article and tweak it. Keep in mind that this should be one short paragraph in one "criticism" section in an article about Judith Butler. That is, please don't try to approach the length of Nussbaum's actual article in the summary thereof... I've tried to list the most salient points without getting bogged down in details (She reads Austin wrong because...). The main point of Nussbaum's critique, I think after reading it once, is that Butler's take on power and subversion leads to quietism and merely symbolic resistance rather than real resistance. This makes more sense when understood as part of a general critique on third-wave feminism, French postmodernism, and what in the 80s was called "theory."--Anthony Krupp 12:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Has Butler commented on this Nussbaum piece? If so, mention could be made at the end of the paragraph.--Anthony Krupp 12:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your attempts are definitely an improvement over the purely ad hominem material that Kmaguir1 repeatedly inserts (despite having already been blocked once, short term, for this exact 3RR edit). As well as not understanding Butler at all, Kmaguir1 also doesn't actually understand Nussbaum, but simply tries to extract disconnected clauses that seem insulting to Butler.  Nonetheless the length of even Anthony Krupp's improvement was still strongly undue weight.  I've trimmed it down again, keeping some of Anthony Krupp's good wording; I think shortening further would be better though.  LotLE × talk  13:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I approve of the edits to my revision. It's interesting: once I read the Nussbaum piece, I actually saw several things there that I thought worth discussion. Although her pathos of realism seems to call her own academic work into question, with the possible exception of the two weeks she spends in India each year. (How many women are fed from her book sales?) Mostly, though, she seemed to be asking a third-wave feminist why she isn't first- or second-wave. Not much room for debate there.--Anthony Krupp 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah... Nussbaum's points, where they are actually philosophical, seem remarkably non-specific to Butler in particular. Word-for-word, pretty much everything Nussbaum suggests as criticism applies equally to pretty much anything pomo-ish. I've tried to provide that context with an adjective or two in my modification.  LotLE × talk  15:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Kmaguir1's vandalism
Okay everyone, Kmaguire's latest edits definitely are in bad-faith and constitute vandalism. How do we proceed to have him suspended from editing, i.e. damaging, this article any further? The endless reverts are wasting all our time and compromising any efforts to actually improve the article.--Agnaramasi 03:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It might help that Kmaguir1 has now begun sock-puppet editing as User:Truthseekers (over at Michel Foucault). Hopefully, some admin will act on this to alleviate the harm that Kmaguir1 is causing.  LotLE × talk  06:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey I'm not sock-puppetting. That's ridiculous. I am me. That's it. I'm going to obey by the rules, and that's the way I work. What would an admin castigate? The fact that I had a friend? -Kmaguir1 07:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the fact you have a "friend" who performs only the same edits that you are near to 3RR violation on, only on the same articles, and never at quite the same time as you edit. And who uses the same idosyncracies of phrasing, pushes the same agenda, creates a username based on your comments, and monitors any mention of you on administrative pages.  It's a very close friend you have in that mirror by your desk, I think.  LotLE × talk  07:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As we are being rational, let's get to the facts that won't matter for the sockpuppeting people who you brought into this. I was upset you went and screwed with the Foucault page. Those comments had been there for the longest time, one person objected, I gave him a citation, it died down. You had no right to do that, any more right than I had to start messing with the Butler page. There's a pendulum, and you upset me, and after my three edits were up, I called my friend, explained the situation, went to his computer about 1/8 a mile down the road at the university, he registered on wikipedia, and then he started making edits. I am not him. He is a real person, and if you ask him stuff about himself,he'll perhaps answer it. I'm trying to rack my brain for evidence of this. However, on the suspected sock puppets page, there are two comments within a minute of each other--because we were of two separate volitions--he is a real person, I am a real person. There's no proof to this charge at all, and it's insulting, frankly--basically to tell another human being (Truth) that he is me--it's ludicrous, it's technocratic. -Kmaguir1 07:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First, your friend is a meatpuppet, which is a species of sockpuppet, and equally disruptive. Hopefully an admin will stop you both from continued disruptive behavior.


 * Now, assuming you are serious about your edits here and on the Foucault page, let me say this: please read Foucault, or Butler. Then read some scholars' work on these authors.  Don't just skim a hit piece that you found in a magazine like New Republic or New Criterion looking for overtly critical claims written by people with a political agenda and without scholarly credentials.  There are plenty of articles critical of Foucault and Butler available in scholarly journals written by people who actually understand what they're talking about.  Roger Kimball has no scholarly credentials; he is a shill.  Martha Nussbaum is a much better source - she is in fact a scholar - but her review of Judith Butler is not a scholarly essay, and I doubt it would survive peer review in a scholarly journal whose editors are familiar with Butler's work.  Her analysis of Butler is clearly written for a popular audience likely to be sympathetic to charges of "obscurantism." Your summary of Nussbaum's article is particularly weak.  The focus on the charge that Butler practices "rhetoric" is odd.  It's not that it is false; it's that it is not really a charge against her -- after all, Butler is a professor in a Department of Rhetoric.  The claim that Butler is just trying to make herself look important is not notable in any way.  Butler is an academic philosopher trained in Hegelian methods -- that kind of work is always difficult to understand.  (For a law professor to accuse a philosopher of being "obscurantist," by the way, is a pot accusing a kettle of boiling water.  Every field has its own jargon and "secret handshakes).  The claim that her work "collaborates with evil" is particularly unhelpful.--csloat 10:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the bottom line is that Kmaguir1's edits in which he inserts random meaningless sentences in a not-so-subtle Sokal-inspired attempt to "make a point" about the density of Butler's prose are inherently in bad faith and constitute vandalism by all definitions. I'm not willing to "discuss" the article with this user anymore, now after he has resorted to pathetic vandalism. Unless he his banned, his vandalism will continue. So we need to ignore him and have him banned ASAP.--Agnaramasi 14:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

--Agnaramasi 17:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Playing well with others
This is taken from WP:CONSENSUS:

"Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. (e.g. insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus...)

It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Nearly every editor believes that his (or her) position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may also be reasonable. But Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. ...

The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of well-meaning editors with a knowledge of Wikipedia's basic policies to the issue by one of the methods of dispute resolution, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. Enlarging the pool will prevent the railroading of articles by a dedicated few. Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken."

Several of us recently worked to improve the Nussbaum criticism paragraph, and that was a sign of consensus at work. But when the same poorly written paragraph gets reinserted over and over again by one editor (in one edit in addition to the other paragraph!!!), this shows total disregard for consensus and profound disrespect for the persons who are trying to work together here. It demonstrates a profound lack of charity, by the way, which was a Christian virtue, last time I checked. In any case: does someone think we should proceed with formal dispute resolution? If anyone knows how, please institute it.--Anthony Krupp 13:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have sought counsel and have since posted a request for an administrator to take a look at this page and examine several of our edit histories. I assume that an administrator can either (1) take an appopriate action, whatever that may be, and/or (2) advise us on how to proceed as a group. Meanwhile, is someone reading Butler's latest book so as to write a summary of it that we can trust? :) Am busy with Locke myself for the time being. Back to that now, --Anthony Krupp 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm currently tied up with Derrida. My next tasks for this article, though, are to reference my summary of Giving an Account of Oneself, to better explain Butler's normative claims about social critique in relation to Adorno's Minima Moralia, and to read Excitable Speech and clean up and reference its section here.--Agnaramasi 17:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Safe summary of Undoing Gender
I indeed also do not trust Kmaguir1's summary. But I do think it's better to give readers something rather than nothing. In pursuit of that, here's what the publisher's blurb says:

"Undoing Gender constitutes Judith Butler's recent reflections on gender and sexuality, focusing on new kinship, psychoanalysis and the incest taboo, transgender, intersex, diagnostic categories, social violence, and the tasks of social transformation. In terms that draw from feminist and queer theory, Butler considers the norms that govern--and fail to govern--gender and sexuality as they relate to the constraints on recognizable personhood. The book constitutes a reconsideration of her earlier view on gender performativity from Gender Trouble. In this work, the critique of gender norms is clearly situated within the framework of human persistence and survival. And to 'do' one's gender in certain ways sometimes implies 'undoing' dominant notions of personhood. She writes about the 'New Gender Politics' that has emerged in recent years, a combination of movements concerned with transgender, transsexuality, intersex, and their complex relations to feminist and queer theory."

A number of Amazon reviews mention that she discusses Reimer. The top few claim Butler simplifies and distorts the case, which I'm actually rather willing to believe given its widespread misreporting. But in any case, the fact Reimer is discussed seems clear enough. I think something that sticks to a paraphrase of what the publisher says isn't too bad, pending a knowledgeable editor giving a better description. LotLE × talk 03:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I took a class on it; I'm knowledgable--I made a mistake on the Reimer case with the "born as", which could have been changed with two words, as I indeed did, and then it got deleted. Other than that, everything in the summary was fine. You can't deal with the fact I CAN objectively deal with issues and you CAN'T, because you don't have objective truth, believe in it, try to write it. And that's the truth, the verifiable, objective truth, that belongs on Wikipedia. -Kmaguir1 03:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you drunk?--Agnaramasi 03:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's slander. I have not had anything to drink. First of all, I don't have to be an academic to edit on Wikipedia--although I am a Masters student in philosophy--that's (a Masters) better than the vast portion of the world. So, the criticism that I have to be an academic to edit this article, well frankly, you my Marxist friends, it's bourgeois. Uneducated people, even if I were that, should be able to make edits, and more educated people fix their edits--but not fix as in delete their perspective or cut out their work, like my perfectly fine Undoing Gender stuff. It's snobbery, really. But I want to avoid personal attacks here, as you just called me a drunk, which is an ultimate personal attack. Let's just stick to the rules of Wikipedia, and I'm not going anywhere. If you want to go above and beyondd the rules to address all of my concerns with this profoundly POV and Butler-o-phile article, then we again, can open discussions. However, like all postmoderns, you don't want to debate, because you can lose--you just want to spread the messages you are politically vested in. Don't use Wikipedia for that. -Kmaguir1 04:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -Kmaguir1 04:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish I were drunk. Seriously: is it possible for us to stay on topic? Let's make a deal: editor one will abandon his crusade to crush the postmodern infidel, including speculating endlessly on what his imagined others think (I CAN blah blah blah and you CAN'T blah blah blah), and will instead just edit responsibly and comment on CONTENT, not on other users, real and imagined. And editor two will not speculate whether our possibly Calvinist non-drinking 22-year old colleague is drunk or not, but instead will also focus on CONTENT. This is at least the last time I will refer to any users on this page. Can we all stop disrupting wikipedia and like get a life or something?--Anthony Krupp 04:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, nicely put. I often feel the same way.  -Smahoney 04:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone summarize?
I have been invited to take a look into this dispute. Can someone, briefly explain what the dispute is about? (one short comment per "side" would do) Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just about Kmaguir1's entire edit history has been devoted to disrupting this article, out of an apparent dislike of Butler (mostly, it appears, as a matter of simple homophobia; maybe a small measure of distaste for "pomo" as well). Well, also he made a short trip into a similar disruption of Michel Foucault.  The disruption includes:
 * Insertion of out-of-context comments from other sources to compose insults of Butler.
 * Adding outright gibberish that contains "Butlerian" words, fancying himself a new hoaxing Sokal, I suppose. Not quite the gibberish of "monkey-on-keyboard" (which would be vandalism per se), but rather the sort that people do to make fun of an unfamiliar discourse/discipline.
 * Repeatedly violating 3RR to insert anti-consensus material.
 * Creating a sock-puppet User:Truthseekers to try to evade 3RR block.
 * Adding a contentious and poorly written book summary: though that seems more about poor writing ability and worse reading comprehension than about disruption per se.
 * Overall, Kmaguir1 is an editor we would be a lot better off without—not one edit he has made has made any article better rather than worse. But it's more at the level of "seriously annoying" than blockable vandalism... which makes it trickier to deal with (and far too common on WP :-.  LotLE × talk  21:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks LoLTe. I would like to hear what Kmaguir1 has to say. In particular, Kmaguir1: Can you confirm that User:Truthseekers is you, without resorting to a checkuser? ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 22:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Kmaguir1 has confirmed above that Truthseekers is a meatpuppet, not a sock. This is the edit in which he admits to it; the puppet Truthseeker also acknowledged as much on the Foucault talk page.--csloat 23:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read that, but from a first impression, these two users are either the same person, or they share a common background as they use similar same gramatical constructs, unusual words such as "agreeance" (that is considered obsolete and a bastardization of "agreement", btw), etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've heard that same song about: "It's not me, it's just my good friend" enough times from other editors that I remain pretty confident that this is a "man in the mirror" type of friend. There are enough idiosyncracies of writing tone that I'm pretty sure it's in sock- rather than meat-puppet territory (not that either is appropriate).  His rapid insistence that we should check the IP address seems like a "protesteth too much" sort of thing... I think young Mr. Maguire found either another computer (maybe a cafe or a school location), or figured out how to use a proxy or SSH tunnel, and wanted to show off this capability.


 * The one doubt in my mind hinges on the fact that only "Truthseekers" seems unable to spell "ridiculous", though "Kmaguir1" uses the word often too. But perhaps it's just haste, or too much time around slashdot :-).  LotLE × talk  00:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Let us wait and hear from him (them). Shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are the attacks still occuring based on spelling mistakes and word useage? I see that they are. I'm happy to note that my edit history has been convienently neglected. Bias continues. Tata -Truthseekers 04:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Spelling and word usage are being discussed to determine if you are a sock or a meat puppet.--Anthony Krupp 12:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think they're probably two different users. My guess would be that they're both grad students in the department of philosophy at the University of Memphis. I think I even know who one of them is. But sock- or meatpuppet, this second user's life on wikipedia began to support Kmaguir1's editing agenda, so if there is guilt by association, so be it. But if an administrator determines that they are separate persons, thus according to Locke deserving separate fates based on their individual actions (See Essay on Humane Understanding, Book Two), I would support a block (a week? a month? or is the consensus that it should be indefinite barring a conversion experience?) on Kmaguir1 and a notice to Truthseekers, whose very recent edits on RPGs seem innocuous. As a new user (if he is one), I think we could cut him a break, welcome him, and refer him to WP guidelines. Anyway, my two cents.--Anthony Krupp 12:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It does not appear that young Mr. Maguire is a philosophy grad student at U.Memphis (he's claimed to be an M.A. student, but did not say which school AFAIK). See: http://philosophy.memphis.edu/Graduate%20Students%20Spring%202005.htm.  None of the students seem to have the name "Truthseekers", but perhaps that's not surprising.  LotLE × talk  18:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's quite conceivable you're right, Anthony Krupp. There is an odd thing about peas-in-a-pod grad students in philosophy.  There was a disrupter at the Zizek article a while back who suddenly grew "a close friend" to continue his identical changes; and made identical claims to Truthseekers about an independent identity.  I actually still don't believe that other person(s), nor am I persuaded on young Mr.Maguire; but both cases are possible.  In support, during my own philosophy doctorate there was this pair of analytic philosophers (in training) who were likewise "separated at birth": exactly the same interests, exactly the same speech patterns, even looked similar... despite having come from different undergrad schools in different cities.


 * In any case, by Truthseekers own description, after "Kmaguir1" had made 3 revisions to the Foucault article, and with a consciousness of 3RR blocking, he walked over to "Truthseekers" home/office/whatever and requested the other user join. Then Truthseekers first edit was to restore exactly the same (homophobic) edit introduced by Kmaguir1 (and repeat the revert several more times... i.e. 3 times exactly under the new account).  Even assuming separate skins, that's precisely what the term "meat puppet" means (not absence of volition, but collusion to perform an action otherwise prohibited).  Still, I agree with the Lockean point about separate fates; and the blocks/warning you suggest seem proportionate... unless checkuser actually confirms my belief, that is.  LotLE × talk  17:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

All of my edits are "recent edits". The fact that I created my account and immediatly edited to support a fact that Kmaquir1 and myself agreed on is irrelevant and gives no reason for punitive action on myself or him. Wikipedia does not have a period of time you must spend before posting, but rather, you are allowed and encouraged to begin editing immediatly. You all see what you want to see, and dismiss the easiest explaination in leui these complicated theories that have no way of being supported by anything other than POV and hearsay. -Truthseekers 14:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would argue that as a new editor, we should all assume good faith and help you understand how this project works and how your contrubutions can help the project. I have placed some pointers in your talk page that may assist you. Just note that the concerns raised by editors above are valid concerns that you ought to consider. In this respect, I would specifically refer you to What Wikipedia is not. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi's assessment and also welcome Truthseekers to wikipedia. Assuming as I do that he is a different person from Kmaguir1, I will only hold Truthseekers responsible for his own edits. As I said, many of his initial edits were disruptive, but as a new user, he can be forgiven for this. Jossi has officially welcomed him on his talk page and referred him to wikipedia guidelines, etc. Hopefully Truthseekers will read them and take them to heart.
 * So, Jossi, what do you think about Kmaguir1: not a new user, repeatedly told about wikipedia policies, repeatedly ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and arguably WP:CIVILITY?--Anthony Krupp 15:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One way to look at this would be, give Kmaguir1 a second chance. He has received unambiguos feedback from many editors, and hopefully he will take these seriously. As we all know, there are many ways that the community can enforce its policies as it pertains to protecting the project from disruption. Kmaguir1 may want to take that into consideration, and participate usefully rather than eventually ending up perma-blocked, a very probable result of continued disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * After dealing with him for the last few weeks on this page, I have to say that I doubt very much Kmaguir1 will ever "contribute" positively to this article or to this community as a whole. His edits, where he inserted nonsensical sentences with homophobic and anti-feminist undertones parodying what he understands to be Butler's "impenetrable" style, have unequivocally constituted vandalism. The edits in question can be seen here and here.  We should not expect him to "change" his ways nor welcome him into this community.  He is a destructive, resentful troll and I'm sicking of cleaning up his messes.--Agnaramasi 17:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, Agna... you're a Butler fan--you know how important parody and parodic gestures are. -Kmaguir1 20:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

PROLEGOMENA TO ANY FUTURE EDITS

 * Lulu’s charges/words are in italics, my responses are in either bold or plain print. Note: DO NOT, per Wikipedia policy, break this comment up.

• Insertion of out-of-context comments from other sources to compose insults of Butler. • ''Adding outright gibberish that contains "Butlerian" words, fancying himself a new hoaxing Sokal, I suppose. Not quite the gibberish of "monkey-on-keyboard" (which would be vandalism per se), but rather the sort that people do to make fun of an unfamiliar discourse/discipline.''

I will not respond to these two charges at length—what she calls ‘out of context comments from other sources’ has been germane or in the context of a good faith effort to remain germane, even though the philosopher’s work is not germane to much. Lulu’s charges of gibberish were really an attempt to exegete logical conclusions of Judith Butler’s work, either by adding more common language, or putting the complexity of it into context—which, yes, may look it absurd, which isn’t vandalism per se or vandalism at all. If I am wrong about them, these conclusions, these elaborations, she or anyone else is right to correct them. If they’re simplistic, she can correct them. But to suggest that it’s willful—it is in the sense that it’s willfully trying to make the sections conform to the results of Butler’s thoughts or the thoughts themselves, then yes, it is willful. I get a little exasperated behind people just claiming “disruption”, over and over again. Well, who decides what disruption is? The two edits Agna cites here, they’re things I honestly believe are either true theoretical statements about the philosophy (in Butler’s jargon), or more practical applications, like the “why can’t he be a she”, which integrates Butler’s point in a larger pop culture context, or the misogyny in the Bible stuff, which is of course a natural example in that context. Anyone who read my original Undoing Gender section (which has been cut to shreds, unjustifiably) knows that I have an intention for this page that is separable from politics—why would I spend my good time doing that, or doing this, if I didn’t want to elaborate on what Butler really thinks. They can’t provide an answer for that—hint, hint, they don’t have one.

• Repeatedly violating 3RR to insert anti-consensus material. This is wholly untrue. As a new member, I violated 3RR after being warned; but without an edit after I had been warned, I was blocked—so much for a ‘true warning’. I responded to the administrator about the 3RR block, to no avail. I reported, correctly, that Lulu had violated 3RR at this time, and an administrator, with very few words, denied my claim. The recent 3rr block is laughable, as there were only two reverts on the list for the block that I had done and had been real reverts (1 and 2 were not real reverts by any estimation, and 5 was done by User:truthseekers). I want an apology for this latest block—it was predicated on a lie, and it is technically baseless. I maintain this: Lulu categorically went outside the lines to edit the Michel Foucault article, and thus, she precipitated an edit war that was much larger than edit battles, which were duly done on the Butler page. Thus, reading the Butler history does nothing, and is irrelevant. Everything you need to know to make whatever determination you need to make is on the Foucault page, and the entire conversation going on here should go on there. None of these people were contributors in the interim on the Foucault page (between the time I made the edits, one can only guess, 3-4 weeks ago, and now). They’re user-hopping. She didn’t like what I said in the Butler article, so she maintains a suspicion. She has leveled the charge that I am homophobic, quite baselessly (if I show on a page that a homosexual philosopher is speculated by his boyfriend to have knowingly infected others, is that homophobic, or just matter of fact reporting from a credible source... if I say on a talk page that someone’s a part of a gay-rights kid-club, that’s not homophobic either—it may be Ephebiphobia, though—I mean, it doesn’t even show that I necessarily object to gay rights, nevermind showing that I’m homophobic). User:Agnaramasi slandered me with a charge of drunkenness, out of the blue. On the source, they want you to believe that the person who published the Kimball article was not credible. Why? Because he says things about Foucault which make him look morally ambiguous, says the faculty ‘queri’ed, hence my use of the word “in’quiry” and not “formal inquiry” or anything like that, which is a total red herring—I just simply used a variation on the same root word. This is ridiculous in that Foucault himself would WANT to look morally ambiguous. But I won’t go into content. They think they have a right to label those ignorant who reject the philosophy they’ve devoted their lives to. They don’t. I am not a professor, I am a student. But wikipedia is for all users, and I know enough to make edits, edits based on credible info. If they think the Kimball article is a smear job, they can think that—it is credible, it is verifiable. So let’s not pretend we can excuse Foucault’s actions. That’s not our role. Our role is, in a biography of his life, to state the facts of his life! And if the faculty queries him about a serious ethical violation, that bears mentioning as an ‘inquiry’, as in, to inquire, as they did of him, as we know from the source. Whether or not it was formal, who knows—that wouldn’t be sourced. It’s really not questionable that it is germane, which is why this withstood scrutiny until people hopped on my edits, what I was doing. It’s almost flattering, but has gotten a little annoying.

• Creating a sock-puppet User:Truthseekers to try to evade 3RR block. This is a blatant lie. Here is what transpired. I called up my friend after the Foucault edits, went down to where he was working, and he had already logged on, created an account. He loves wikipedia—he’s editing all over the place. Here is what occurred: he edited the page, reading my arguments, agreeing with them on balance because of theirs’ stupidity. This does not even make him a meatpuppet—he understands the situation, and agrees with me, he can disagree with me. His support has been invaluable! I mean, he can log on here, at my apartment (he’s logged in here, this IP address, before). He can’t be a sockpuppet because he’s a real person (just look at his edits, the language, etc.), and he can’t be a meatpuppet because I haven’t manipulated him in any sense, and he will disagree when he will. However, your evidence can decide otherwise—you can believe whatever you’d like to believe, but he’s not a temporary figure—he’ll continue to edit, just like I will, probably to bring truth to these philosophical agape-articles, but also to express our different opinions on a variety of issues. He is not a grad student, nor a philosophy student, as has been speculated—and yet how amazing still he’s able to see sense behind my edits. And when this occurs, the previous blocks, and everything associated with it, will seem foolish. I am particularly worried about this 3RR rule, and everything associated with it. You’re blocking people before they get a chance to respond, and you don’t care how they respond, and that’s unfortunate. Where’s the accountability? I want you to show me the regulation that says what I did was wrong on the 3rr rule or the socketpuppet rule, and not instead, precisely what is good for the Wikipedia community—bringing in our friends, family, neighbors, coworkers, and everyone into the community. Are you going to begrudge a daughter bringing her father in on an article on the Powerpuff girls, to help??? Does that constitute bias—maybe he really thinks the Powerpuff girls are not “all that”, like his daughter, and thus wants to attack them, and maybe make his own edits??? Sorry for the sarcasm, but you can see my point. If Wikipedia is not open to people we know, then it is a closed community, one only designed for those editors far off in space, not editing things that have an impact on the community of the world on the whole. In summary, I am thoroughly outraged by the charges of sock-puppetry and/or meat-puppetry (I disagree with Krupp’s definition, among others’, of the latter, and see not much definition to the claim on the Wikipedia page, nor do I agree with no volition/collusion argument, but even so, there was no collusion), and I want everyone, even Lulu, to tell me what I can do to show that I am not Truthseekers. You tell me to do something—as long as it protects my identity and his, I’m fine. This doesn’t adversely affect the community, on the contrary, it helps it, by exchanging new and challenging ideas in a free and open fashion, and building consensus, a word I hear a lot from Lulu—but now people are making edits for their own consensus. And you have two opposing consensi, mine which will only grow, theirs which seems more set. You have to go out and make more consensus, and that is what I am here to do. I put to the people of this that in actuality, they do not want consensus, but merely to discuss what they know. That is not wikipedia—it’s not mere demonstration of knowledge. And so their ‘purported consensus’ is based on discussion tangential to the actual points, and not on anything qualitative or quantitative—you don’t need a degree to know that “query” about giving an assistantship to a lover, that’s germane to the bio of a person—when they include the bio, they open the door, and no, we are not to criticize the life of a philosopher, or any subject on wikipedia, instead, we merely put the facts of their life up on the page sometimes, verifiable, objective facts, and let the people decide if those verifiable, objective facts, are of their own concern in their own personal quest for knowledge. They want THEIR verifiable, THEIR objective (which would of course be subjective). Some people engage in eruditic discussion on talk pages, which has no relevance to any edit or proposed edit, and thus, can only serve the purpose of inflating their already over-fed egos, over-fed by the establishment, by the groups of people telling them their whole lives how marginalized they are. That’s their politics—Wikipedia isn’t about politics. The more you make Wikipedia about politics (and let me tell you, cutting out the faculty inquiry comment is as political as it gets; they’re not cutting out that he was at Clermont-Ferrand), the worse Wikipedia gets, because the less open to community it is—that’s why the George W. Bush article is always locked. I entitled this ‘prolegomena to any future edits’, in that, my proposal is this, and simply this: that 1) it may be difficult to dispense with politics in the articles on thinkers (sometimes written by those who follow those thinkers) who claim that everything, every single thing, related back to politics, but also that 2) it still needs to be dispensed with, and that my edits on all pages constitute this. If you don’t want billions of people knowing that Foucault’s faculty queried him as to his giving his lover an assistantship, then complain to him in séance form—don’t complain to me, or Kimball. And yes, you can say it’s irrelevant. But look at all their criticisms. Not many words about it not being relevant, entering into a discussion on that. They just want it off, because it must be untrue, because they don’t believe in objective truth (see Judith Butler), and so truth is what they make it (see both Butler and Foucault, the latter of whom wrestled with whether or not rape, yes, rape, should be criminalized). So, maybe we need a comment on the rape page about whether or not it should be decriminalized from Foucault’s perspective—they’re welcome to do that. Criticism is a fact—I do not think they realize this. They’re doing the same things the philosophers they’re defending did, and all of that politics, all of that bitter vitriol, it has no place on an encyclopedia. Give us objective truth of these people, or give us none at all. If you want a renewed subjectivity, do it elsewhere. What I discuss here, the query, his lover stating that he may have knowingly infected men in San Fran with AIDS, that’s objective truth; not just is it verifiable, it’s veridical. Don’t try to make the truth. Do not make your truth the truth for billions—let the sources make the truth. Go to the link. Grow up. Maybe read some Hume. Have a beer—but not as many as Agnamarasi would have me having. And then, just deal... •Adding a contentious and poorly written book summary: though that seems more about poor writing ability and worse reading comprehension than about disruption per se. Well, if it’s contentious, add to it or subtract from it so it fits.


 * Actually, on this narrow point I agree. If you look at the edit history, you'll see that Anthony Krupp removed the badly written section on Undoing Gender a couple times, and I tried to restore a less badly written version correspondingly.  Which is exactly how negotiation of content should work, FWIW.  While your description was poorly written, I concur that "something is better than nothing"... and what we've winnowed it down to is vague, but not entirely useless.  LotLE × talk  18:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

''Overall, Kmaguir1 is an editor we would be a lot better off without—not one edit he has made has made any article better rather than worse. But it's more at the level of "seriously annoying" than blockable vandalism... which makes it trickier to deal with (and far too common on WP :-. LotLE×talk 21:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)''

I can make edits without your permission. I am accountable to the community for doing so; they can make any edit they want. I swear on my life that truthseekers is him, and not me.. If that means anything on the Internet, great. I swear that he exists, that he created the account, he edited of his own volition, without collusion, and that evidence in the past and in the future bears and will bear that out. I am particularly amused that LotLe now argues, fantastically, that there needs to be no volitional question, only a question of collusion—and again, I think I’ve assailed this with not just the “Powerpuff Girls” example, but the general sense behind the fact that they themselves “colluded” as I did, from their perspective (I’m not claiming I did), my calling in THEIR friends, those on THEIR side, to make reverts to the page. I violated no rules on the Foucault page, not a single one, especially not a 3RR rule, and am disturbed my response had to wait for that ban to expire.


 * You might want to look up the word "collusion". What you describe above about the phone call, walk to his office, encouraging a specific edit, etc. is about as exact a match to the word "collusion" as you can find in life. Or in WP context, it's what's called meat-puppetry.  Not that I believe the non-identity of the person behind the two accounts, but even if it were true, your story is one of something explicitly prohibited.  LotLE × talk  18:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not say 'encouraging a specific edit', you're putting words in my mouth--in fact, I encouraged nothing, certainly nothing specific. You need to be more careful about that. -Kmaguir1 19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What I would like
I disagree with the fact that they can pick whoever they want to arbitrate, usually. That’s not fair—even though I do not doubt anyone’s integrity or honesty, they make the complaints, and they get the people to whom they make the complaints. Many of these are the marionette in this respect.

I would like an apology from the admin who blocked me for the 3rr—I don’t see any justification for that on the pages made available to me. It was arbitrary, capricious, one-sided, and most regrettably, unchangeable, and prevented me from getting my message out here. Of course, all the previous offenses should be discounted as aggravating factors for the future, as they both are baseless, for reasons described above, but I am comfortable if they are not discounted as such, as long as people are a little more cautious about such actions in the future.


 * Which one(s)? In any case, if you keep it up, like I told you, the next block will certainly be for longer. I suppose that's ultimately the frustratingly slow process... you misbehave and disrupt for a while, and after a while the latest block stretches to six months or something, hence eventually fixing the problem.  Of course I wish admins would escalate the blocks a lot faster; but it's hard for people unfamiliar with a specific content area to recognize the full extent of the bad faith involved in the actions.  It would be easier, of course, if you outright wrote "penis, penis, penis" a thousand times over the content.[*]


 * [*] Which reminds me of my favorite Judy anecdote (I wasn't there, but folks I know were): After a talk hereabouts (Western Mass), Butler went out to dinner with some local folks, including Tom Wartenberg of Mount Holyoke College.  Tom (so it is told) said: "The problem, Judy, is that (in your analysis) you do not admit (the place of) The Phallus"; Judy replied: "No Tom, that's precisely the point, I don't admit the phallus!"


 * ... thanks, I'll be here all week :-). LotLE × talk  18:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like an apology from Lulu, for all of her troubles that she has caused (myriad of types, but mostly, 1) quoting me incorrectly, 2) quoting Kimball as such--both of those on an admin page, for goodness’ sake, 3) breaking apart my messages, 4) editing content by popups, all in contravention with Wiki policy), and specifically, for the accusation that Truthseekers is a sockpuppet (she should apologize to him for that, as well). In lieu of an apology now, I request in advance the apology she will have to make in the future to maintain respect in the community—well then and again, no one has held her accountable so far, so... For her false accusation of sockpuppetry, when it can be proved by a preponderance of the evidence (hopefully as soon as possible), I think she should be penalized and chastised by an admin of the community for false accusations, and not allowed to back down as she has already started to. Moreover, I must be able to freely edit without constant fear of reprisal.

I would like an apology from Agnaramasi, or whatever her name is, for questioning my sobriety in total contravention with the policy here on personal attacks, as well as, again, for misquoting the Foucault article itself in a revert justification on the history page. Also, she has claimed Truthseekers is a sockpuppet as well—apologies are due all around.

I would like an apology from User:Csloat, for misquoting the Foucault article itself in a revert justification on the history page.

The model for this encyclopedia should be Mr. Gradgrind’s from Dickens’ Hard Times.

-Kmaguir1 18:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Lulu's comments, which she, against Wikipedia policy and my explicit request, she inserted in my discussion:
 * I'm not apologizing to you. I know your agenda.  You edit in bad faith. You've explicitly vandalized the article, which I've shown above.  I'm so sick of cleaning up your messes. You shouldn't even be allowed to post here.  I hope you are insulted for whatever reason; maybe you will go away.--Agnaramasi 21:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Jossi proposal
Kmaguir1, here is my proposal. As I am completely neutral on this subject, why don't you go ahead and make an edit, and let me give you some feedback on your edit from a neutral perspective. What say you? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

On the Foucault? I would be glad to make an edit on the Foucault page. -Kmaguir1 19:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, anywhere. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. I'll make an edit, but it'll be reverted as soon as I make it (Lulu). -Kmaguir1 19:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This edit will be virtually identical to the edit I made about a month ago, that no one had problems with, that was questioned for its source, which I supplied then and will supply now. -Kmaguir1 19:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit made. -Kmaguir1 19:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Kmaguir1's edit at Michel Foucault. Questions
Some questions about your use of The perversions of Michel Foucault by Roger Kimball as a source for the article on Focault:
 * Is Mr. Kimball a notable authority on Foucault?
 * Is "The New Criterion" website a reliable source as per WP:RS ?
 * Has this speculation by Daniel Defert, been reported on any reliable sources?
 * Why don't you use The Passion of Michel Foucault, by James Miller instead?

≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ... copying Jossi's questions to Foucault page, where relevant expertise presumably exists. LotLE × talk


 * I will answer all these questions in due time, and until then, I will not revert that page. -Kmaguir1 20:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But see, the problem is, ask them, they do not actually dispute that their was such a query, so from my perspective, their concern is not WP:RS. I don't think they're disputing the faculty queried Foucault about it. The Miller book, I don't see it anywhere around Memphis, not in my library at the university, not in the shelby county public library system. But I will continue to work on this.-Kmaguir1 20:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the spirit... Rather than engage in revert wars and flaming, provide reliables sources and assure editors that the addition is worthy of the article and not an irrelevant factoid for Foucault's biography. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, don't judge too soon--even if I can't find the Miller book, I can still answer well the first three. See below my comment on what is called an 'insignificant factoid'.-Kmaguir1 20:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Meat and potatoe
It looks like young Mr. Maguire indeed does claim to be at U.Memphis, despite its grad student page not showing him. See: http://profiles.yahoo.com/saufque. I suppose one way (if it mattered) for the young Messrs to show their non-identity would be to tell us that "Truthseekers" was likewise some individual Google likes to tell us about. Of course, Meat Puppets, while certainly a most-excellent band, are not allowed here on the internets either. LotLE × talk 19:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no, no. You accused sockpuppetry. Prove those charges. No discussion of meatpuppetry is merited until we've disposed of the sockpuppetry charge. So talk about how you think he's a sockpuppet, and prove that, or give up on it. You can't backslide as you have already begun to. Y ou said sockpuppet, hold to sockpuppet, and show that. You won't be able to show it, because it's not true, but you have to do that, or the investigation into sockpuppetry should be dropped, and you should be forced to apologize for labelling another user as a sockpuppet, which he most certainly is not. You can't just keep back sliding, or slip-slidin', if you're a Paul Simon fan. You have to be held acccountable. You said sockpuppet. So prove sockpuppet. Keep talking about it, show it. Or drop it, and hopefully, you face consequences for false accusations. -Kmaguir1 19:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, done. The evidence on the sock puppet report page is pretty conclusory, IMO.  LotLE × talk  19:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry is a subset of sockpuppetry. It's not up to you what the wikipedia rules are. And you should apologize for ignoring WP:CONSENSUS. That's a rule here.--Anthony Krupp 19:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus
"At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus." From WP:CONSENSUS. -Kmaguir1 20:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You and your friend may constitute just such a group.--Anthony Krupp 20:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You and yours as well. -Kmaguir1 20:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * More importantly here, all the editors who think Kmaguir1's semi-vandalism is utter rubbish have been on Wikipedia a long time, with little or no prior contact among us. Before trying to combat the disruption, I've never previously worked with Commodore Sloat, or DanB DanD, or Agnaramasi, or Lacatosias; I think I've vaguely encountered Anthony Krupp elsewhere.  I have happened to work with Jossi a good bit in completely unrelated areas; but it wasn't me who requested his input here.  I've also worked with Sethmahoney productively on some different topics, but again, I did not solicit his input here.  In contrast, even supposing Truthseekers to be a distinct human being from Kmaguir1, the former was by his description a close friend who was asked to create an account to edit specific pages with specific content.  When everyone else thinks you're dead wrong, supposing a cabal is not the only, nor the most parsimonious, explanation.  LotLE × talk  22:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You know the admin--I don't know any admins. Wherefore art thou, politburo? -Kmaguir1 03:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Kmaguir1, but please note that WP:CONSENSUS also says that "insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus". ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I mean, we can get Talmudic with this--it's not insignificant, as I explain above: the bio opens the door. You do a bio of Hitler, you're going to get criticism, you do a bio of George W. Bush, you're going to get criticism. I would argue that I could not, all things being equal, insert a similar comment on the Butler page--that is, I could not say those same things, because there is no bio there on the Butler page, and thus, its presence would constitute an insignificant factoid. But on the Foucault page, they open the door to a fair treatment of his life with a well-written bio. -Kmaguir1 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And I have to go to work now, so remarks will be very delayed from now on. -Kmaguir1 20:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your "the door is open" argument is not useful. The issue at hand should be focused solely on this: Is it encyclopedic? And to answer that question we shall use WP content policies and not our ideas about what is encyclopedic: Is it verifiable? Was it published by a reliable source (or better, more than oine source? Is the viewpoint significant? Can it be attributed to a notable/reliable author? Is it a sigificant aspect of this person's life and pertinent to his notability? etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no. You wanted me to answer the four questions--it should go on the page regardless, but now these other standards are coming up. I don't think the viewpoint of Judith Butler herself is significant, and by that logic, there shouldn't even be an article--so those you cite here, they're flexible. I think I will try to stick with your previous framework. -Kmaguir1 03:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Correction. Kmaguir1 states: "I don't think the viewpoint of Judith Butler herself is significant, and by that logic". This statement fails to understand the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It is not whether Kmaguir1 thinks X, it is whether verifiable notable sources think so.--Anthony Krupp 12:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine. Start an AfD and see how it goes for you.--csloat 03:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A "fair treatment of his life with a well-written bio" is not what you are advocating, Kmaguir1. You are advocating insignificant third- and fourth-hand smears from a source with no expertise on this issue.  I've specifically refuted the significance of both points you want included here on the Talk:Foucault page, and you have not responded to those points.  The case is closed.  The only issue left is your meatpuppetry, which is also to be discouraged here.--csloat 22:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Charge of vandalism
I think the issue of vandalism should be more fully addressed. I think I can demonstrate instances where Kmaguir1 actually vandalized the article. As I wrote before, Kmaguir randomly "inserted nonsensical sentences with homophobic and anti-feminist undertones parodying what he understands to be Butler's 'impenetrable' style" here and here. His defense from this charge is that these "contributions" were really (1) " things I honestly believe are either true theoretical statements about the philosophy (in Butler’s jargon), or more practical applications" and also (2) "an attempt to exegete logical conclusions of Judith Butler’s work, either by adding more common language, or putting the complexity of it into context." Even if we accept Kmaguir1's claim that these "contributions" were the result of his meditations on the "logical conclusions" and "practical applications" of Butler's work, no matter how misguided and silly, they would still constitute original research and are inappropriate. But, even further, I doubt very much that his intentions were good at all, and that his "contributions" were actually in bad faith and constitute vandalism. I want to try to demonstrate this by calling Kmaguir1 to account for some of his statements in terms of his above defense. In what ways then are the following additions either "logical conclusions" or "practical applications" of Butler's ideas and not a (malicious) attempt to parody her style to make a (malicious) point?
 * "Undeterminedness as to-be-determinedness draws on Heidegger's Mitsein concept of Being-in-the-world as a function of the world itself, determined not as of yet but to be determined as uncontrolling to the marginalized individual who cannot manage autonomousness."
 * "[Discursive] control being analogous to domestic abuse analogies of feminist theories in the late 20th century" -->anti-feminist wierdness coming through here
 * "This [illocutionary] force is very similar to a Newtonian speech claim, one of absolute space in which relative space is not possible"
 * "Hate speech is performativity as the performative-in-the-world: the Erfahrung over the Erlebnis as lived-experience--thus its form of discourse remains primitive."
 * "Intelligibility is only intelligible to the masses--an individual's intelligibility is determined by the framing discourse, which mandates frameworks of power in which intelligibility is rationally given to those of the same intelligence."
 * "My 'I' is not 'I' when I am abstracted from the 'I' by the 'I' who is not me but who becomes me."
 * "The opacity is not opaqueness, but remains in the open space of the scene."

I doubt very much that Kmaguir1 can make sense of his own "contributions" -- precisely becuase they were nonsensical vandalism in bad-faith all along.--Agnaramasi 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Butler herself advocates that we make parodic gestures, and thus, even if it were parody, it is line with the way we should interpret the entire world, and that would presumably include wikipedia. As for your larger allegations, I believe these assessments, again, to be in line with natural conclusions from the work, and thus are not vandalism. I have been accused of being a "Sokal". The problem with that is two-fold: 1) My actions are completely different from Sokal's in that his were designed to make the actual jargon conflatable with the pretend jargon, and 2) Sokal was very, very right to do what he did--almost one might say, heroic. Of course, he wasn't writing for an encyclopedia, and so it is not my role to make nonsense look like nonsense--it already looks enough like that without me. I believe my comments added to the porphyry, and are not vandalism at all--they're in fact evident conclusions I drew, and I may have been mistaken, and I'm glad if I was, that someone was there to correct me. I have no interest in adding them back if they're objectively wrong, which it looks, the community thinks they are (and they are objective claims). I only want to revert material that is being kept from the world as a result of a subjective political framework, where there is no other possible conclusion about what is right and true. -Kmaguir1 03:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine. These are not nonsense, they are "evident conclusions" you drew.  Now explain them.  Just a list, one by one, explain in plain English what the hell you're talking about.  Seriously.  Start with #1, "Undeterminedness as to-be-determinedness draws on Heidegger's Mitsein concept of Being-in-the-world as a function of the world itself, determined not as of yet but to be determined as uncontrolling to the marginalized individual who cannot manage autonomousness."  Have you read Heidegger?  I hope so, because some of us have.  Having read Austin several times myself I am especially interested in your explanation of #3, "This [illocutionary] force is very similar to a Newtonian speech claim, one of absolute space in which relative space is not possible".--csloat 03:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't explain a priori conclusions (and yes, these are logical conclusions, that is, of logic, and fit Hume's standards as a relation of ideas)--do you want me to try to explain why 2+2=4? Oh, I forgot, y'all continental people only paid enough attention to analytic philosophy to Quineanly dump the a priori/a posteriori dichotomy.-Kmaguir1 04:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A simple interpretation of each conclusion would be fine. Extra points if you explain the logic that got you to that conclusion if you insist, but I just want to see some evidence that you even have a clue what you are talking about.--csloat 04:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. Big error. It is not the role of a wikipedia user to interpret! Merely to present facts! I believe these things to be factual, a priori, and as such, true by virtue of themselves. -Kmaguir1 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's nothing more to say here; it's clear this user is trolling.--csloat 08:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Question to any administrator: the behavior on the Talk page itself signals intent to disrupt wikipedia to make a point. (One example: citing one interpretation of what Butler says to justify ignoring wikipedia rules, as though that would justify ignoring wikipedia rules.) This is also consistent with most of Kmaguir1's editing history. At what point can action be taken against him, per WP:POINT?--Anthony Krupp 12:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: Kmaguir1 has hinted that these "contributions" were actually parody and is unable to explain how any of them are the "logical conclusions" or "practical applications" of Butler's philosophy, as he claimed. The reason he will not is because he cannot. They are vandalism, pure and simple. This proof of Kmaguir1's past vandalism should be all any admin needs to justify taking action against Kmaguir1 to prevent his future disruption of the article.--Agnaramasi 14:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Anthony, I am about to have a stroke. Why did you add back 'essentialist'. I deleted it, it's profoundly POV, not accurate, not necessary--one can just say ethics. Again, '''I do not have to explain every edit I make on an edit page. Until people on this page realize that, you will not gain any respect from me. How about I revert all of your simple, minor edits to the page, or all pages on Wikipedia, using the justification that you just gave. You have to keep your principles, and abide by them. I am fed up with this.'''-Kmaguir1 16:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Kmaguir1 now has ten days to think about things, as he's been blocked for that long. Two other accounts have been blocked indefinitely. About Nussbaum: I would be willing to discuss the term 'essentialist' with any reasonable editor. Kmaguir1 has lost credit in my eyes. If after the 10-day block he shows himself to understand the process of consensus, I will be willing to discuss things with him again. Evidence that I once was willing to do so: my editing of his Nussbaum paragraph, which I inserted into the Butler page on a few occasions (rather than just deleting it). My suggestion to Kmaguir1 was to list a short "edit summary" when an edit is made. It's common courtesy here.--Anthony Krupp 16:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "How about I revert all of your simple, minor edits to the page, or all pages on Wikipedia..." Doing so will get a user blocked for a long time.--Anthony Krupp 17:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that she believes in universal normative principles is enough. We don't need to say essentialist per se. Essentialism is implicit in any claims of universality.--Agnaramasi 18:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Category stew
Bearcat's new addition highlighted what a mess this article's categories are getting to be. I think part of the problem is the unwieldy category system, with dozens of just barely semanticly distinct categories to cover the same topics. This seem particularly grevious in regards to LGBT-ish stuff, though issues of profession and nationality come close. So as of right now, Butler is:


 * 20th century philosophers
 * 21st century philosophers
 * LGBT philosophers
 * Lesbian writers
 * Queer writers
 * LGBT writers from the United States
 * Jewish philosophers
 * American philosophers
 * Jewish American writers

Am I the only one who finds this overlap a bit redundant, and to repeat itself, and to contain the same concepts multiple times, and to express overlap redundantly, and also to contain redundancy? :-).

This even leaves out the bits about "philosophy of sexuality" and "queer theory". Those two are probably a bit redundant with each other, but in principle there is no particular connection between whether someone is queer, and whether they do queer theory... so I don't think the theoretical focus is redundant with the identity. LotLE × talk 07:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)