Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Continental/Archive

This is an archive of past discussion. New discussion in this area is being held at WT:PHILO

Introductions

I thought we should probably start with introductions, to get a sense of what people's areas of focus are, since that'll probably help clarify a plan of attack. So, I'll begin. I'm Snowspinner, obviously. I'm finishing up an MA at the University of Chicago this June, and will be beginning a PhD at the University of Illinois at Chicago. My interests are in media theory, and in the formation of identities through media. This involves a lot of work with psychoanalytic theory. I also have an inexplicable fascination with Kant. Snowspinner 04:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, well, introductions... I'm currently a philosophy student, and have become interested in critical theory through Adorno, Russian culture studies, and queer studies mostly. Right now, as in at this very moment, I am putting off writing an essay for a Russian culture class, which I should get back to, so after a couple quick comments... -Seth Mahoney 04:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello then, I'd like to introduce myself. I have been studying English (major), American History and African Studies (minors) at the University of Cologne. I've also been taking a year of Comp. Lit. grad. studies at the University of Rochester in upstate New York, which involved a major theory component. My studies will still take a couple of years (in Germany it takes forever, but you get an MA at the end), but am already very much engulfed in theory. Mainly, I'm interested in PoMo in general - the work of Gilles Deleuze in particular. Also great interest in psychoanalysis, gender and race theory - and postcolonial studies (esp. African postcolonialism).
By the way, the German wiki has been doing a good job with their theory pages. I may translate some of their things into English, especially as I know the terminology well in both languages (yep, I'm also on the 'translation into English' project). Currently I'm looking to translate the article on Slavoj Zizek, which is a German featured article, but that might take a bit. It's l-o-o-o-ng... Pteron 05:56, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is fantastic, about the German -> English translation. On a side note, have you ever wondered about psychoanalytic theory (or whatever its called when you're not doing psychoanalysis on an actual person) and how it seems to put the psychoanalyst in a privileged position of authority with respect to (musical cue: eerie) mysterious knowledge that he can't actually justify (that is, "can't justify the position of authority", not necessarily "can't justify the knowledge")? That is, I guess, to say that right now at least I'm favorable to the criticisms of psychoanalysis that compare it to a priesthood, or at least that I'm favorable to the comparison and don't always think it a criticism. -Seth Mahoney 06:06, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your friendliness, all. I'm not able to devote much time to Wikipedia at the moment, but you seem to be doing good work in any case. I'll contribute as I can, where I can. (I'd prefer to remain, if not exactly anonymous, at least personally obscure, but I'm happy to introduce myself as an academic in the humanities, with interest in literary studies, Marxism, psychoanalysis, deconstruction, science and technology.) -- Rbellin

Hello. I'm a fourth year student at the University of California, Santa Cruz. I'm currently preparing a seminar course in Queer Theory and Star Trek to be offered in the fall. My particular interests are queer theory, cyberculture, and ethical theory. Voyager640 15:18, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a second year English student at the University of Leicester, England. My main area of interest is, unsurprisingly, literary theory. I tend to skew towards Marxist, constructionist, and postmodernist theory. Rje 09:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) Rje

Hi. I'm a Philosophy major, now writing a PhD dissertation in Social Science. I came to critical theory in a rather convoluted way, going through Freud, Nietzsche and early-20th century irrationalism before going on to do some work on Adorno. I'm now branching into critical linguistics; i.e., critical discourse analysis.--Taragui 19:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello, all! I thought I'd join the fray. I'm a second-year undergraduate at Albion College, majoring in English literature and Philosophy. Current interests include poststructuralism and gender studies and current researc seems to be revolving around Jacques Lacan and French feminism. Rachiestar 18:07, 03 April 2005

Hello, I majored in Philosophy at UT about ten years ago and ... Hello? Looks around. Hello? My god, the last introduction was almost two years ago... All the "current Phil majors" have probably graduated and gone on to, well, other things by now. Shivers. Brrr... I'm outta here.

Marxist Theory?

Currently, Marxist Theory is a redirect to Karl Marx. It seems to me like there's enough to say about post-Marx Marxist theory between the Frankfurt School, Gramsci, Althusser, and Jameson to write a spin-off article. Do people agree that this article would be a good idea? Snowspinner 04:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Totally agreed. That redirect is actually kinda weird. Marxist theory doesn't strike me as a term I've heard used in direct reference to Marx, but pretty much exclusively to later work done by other people following in Marx's footsteps (or not). -Seth Mahoney 04:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

100% agreement - to redirect to Marx is utterly insufficient to encompass the work done by Marxists and how much of that not only develops and expands his theory, but also stands in conflict with it. Mergers of Marxism with poststructuralism spring to mind. Pteron 05:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also take a look at Marxist philosophy, before adding specifically philosophical stuff to Marxist theory. -- Rbellin 15:25, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

People and Topics We're Missing

Any suggestions on people and concepts that we're missing would be much desired. I know we've got some gaping holes, but I'm just not thinking of them right now. Snowspinner 04:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We're missing: Juliet Mitchell, Jacqueline Rose, Ihab Hassan, Hortense Spillers, ~~Paul Virilio~~!, ~~Laura Mulvey~~, ~~Teresa de Lauretis~~, Lee Edelman, ~~Luce Irigaray!!!~~, Kobena Mercer...... and that's just a couple off the top of my head - the hole is massive! We've got some work ahead of us. I'll try and get round to making a couple of stubs tomorrow, but I might be a bit busy until next week... Pteron 06:39, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I misspelt Teresa de Lauretis... but the rest are really missing. Pteron 07:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, what about an article on Tel Quel? Pteron 06:42, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have made a good start (I think!) with Paul Virilio although the whole thing needs a copy-edit and check over. Some of the key concepts need filling in etc. etc. --bookgirl 12:41, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah - very nice start! Still needs some work, but at least the groundwork's laid... Pteron 05:15, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The absence of an article on feminist theory is positively embarrassing. -- Rbellin 04:03, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hmn, might you not want to create a KANT entry, focusing on the notion of Critique, then offering links to the philosophy folks' excellent contributions? I think one could argue plausibly that he thought he was doing something new (cf: The Kant-Eberhard Controversy -- I think that's the book...), that what was new was the critical standpoint (as distinguished from dogmatism; §47 in the 3rd Critique?...), and that most people who are engaged in "critical theory" or its various precursors, subsidiaries &c. -- if they are any good -- have deep roots in Kant (e. g., C. S. Peirce, who says he read the 1st Critique daily, as I recall). While one could suggest sort of "proto-Critique" stuff in earlier (especially earlier Modern) philosophers (my pet candidate might be Hobbes, in all those treatises that never seem to be in print when you want to assign them...), it seems to me Kant is the pivot. --Djenner 12:30, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you that Kant provides the turning point, or, at least, that he's the oldest philosopher that can regularly and usefully be cited for theory work... but I think that might be better added to an existing Kant entry, no? Snowspinner 14:36, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

) I haven't been on this site before but I'm wondering what "the Birmingham School" is and so maybe that could be added to your wikiproject?

It seems like there's a gaping hole in the area of myth/archetype criticism. I haven't seen a single section in the critical theory, literary criticism, or the CritTheoryProject page discussing this approach. It seems at the very least there should be some mention along with links to Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung. I haven't noticed any spotlight on interetextualism so much, either, though I noticed a few prominent figures.

--JECompton 00:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Musicology?

Hello all, would all "new musicology" be considered part of critical theory? Regardless, I've written the article on Susan McClary and her article Constructions of Subjectivity in Schubert's Music. I'll let the critical theory experts place msg's and links in appropriate places, but while I'm no expert on musicology I am here for questions. Hyacinth 00:47, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Out of Town

Hey all, I'm out of town and thus afk all weekend. Just wanted to let you know that I haven't abandoned the project at its birth or anything. =) Snowspinner 06:08, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Those boxes

Hi there! I think you should seriously reconsider throwing that {{msg:CriticalTheory}} wherever it pleases you. Although the text in the box is less hijacking now, there is absolutely no official consensus about such boxes in the first place - I checked today everywhere I could think of about it. Just imagine those boxes spread; the article Heteronormativity temporarily already aquired two of them.

So what will happen if those boxes spread? Another box on transgender subjects, maybe, since the box drowns the plain link to List of transgender-related topics? And maybe a box for feminism as well? And of course, intersex needs its own box, too. What then? A page with more boxes than article text.

Right now I can only urge you to use common sense, but I also predict that when a consensus is reached, those boxes (whether yours or others) will have to go anyway. So maybe you should think about a better solution now. Lists of related topics for example work perfectly well, and there's no reason they could not work for this project, too.

And good luck for the rest of your work. -- AlexR 02:44, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I actually tend to agree - the boxes are annoying - people complain about their placement a lot. They might be intended to help our project grow, but they're not making us many friends. An alternative would to put them on talk pages (at the top?). Once we have systematized our subject matter, we can add more specific series boxes that would actually help people find related topics, but for now we shouldn't burden pages with those boxes... Pteron 16:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you simply make a list; most likely nobody will mind if that list has a link to the project as well. And while there is a certain list-o-mania on the Wikipedia, they can be useful. I did that with the List of transgender-related topics, and it works fine. (Except the debate about trans* and drag*, but that problem is inherent in any list). -- AlexR 18:29, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On briefly - one of my Monday projects is going to be to redo the boxes to be series boxes instead of project boxes, which would be more consistant with the rest of Wikipedia (I can think of dozens of articles that have series boxes.) Snowspinner 18:37, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed there are many series boxes on the WP. However, they are about a clearly defined series of articles, like lists of kings or something similar. In those cases, the sequence is obvious. But what is the obvious sequence of critical theorie? And why are you so hell-bent on a box? Just what is wrong with a list, or a general decent article on critical theorie that lets people decide where they want to go next? I thought critical theorie was about empowerment, why do you insist so much in shoving it down people's throat? If they are interested in critical theory, they will prefer a list to some sequence box anyway, and if they are not, annoying them by throwing around obnoxious boxes is not going to convince them to check the articles anyway. -- AlexR 21:10, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Putting a box on a page doesn't control where the user goes, it gives them the option of going somewhere. It isn't cramming something down someone's throat, it is empowering them, if you will, by giving them another option on how to look at a particular article, how to evaluate it, and where to take their reading next. I agree that the notice box for a critical theory page should be put in the talk page like all the other notice boxes, though, but I think that we might do well to pick three or so broad-ranging, well written articles on critical theory and throw them in a box along with a short (one sentence) reference to critical theory for putting on the bottom of a page. -Seth Mahoney 21:53, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, well, but if there is more than one field to which the user might want to go, and one of those fields advertises itself with a box, then the other fields might feel compeled to put up a box as well. As I already mentioned, that could easily lead to half a dozen boxes on a page. And if there is only one box, and the other fields have only links to lists, well, then the box is cramming that field down people's throat. You know, critical theory might be important for you, but maybe some articles are important to other people and fields as well. -- AlexR 22:48, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While I can see that fear, I think that, if it happened, action against boxes would be reasonable. Until it happens, however, I'm not terribly worried. Snowspinner 23:20, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As all the relevant links are on the project page, is there any reason not to have this box only on the talk page? I haven't seen any reason to add anything more than a single link to the list of related topics to the article itself. Angela . 01:03, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

There are also numerous boxes that don't follow linear patterns. Look at articles on any music style, for instance, where every genre has its own box, connecting subgenres etc. Pteron 06:06, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

{{msg:CriticalTheory}} should not be added to articles - it is self-referential and therefore in conflict with Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Boxes should only be navigational aids within the aricle namespace.--Eloquence * 01:56, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Good point, I'm convinced. Hyacinth 03:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The box has been changed. It now looks like this:

{{CriticalTheory}}.

I'll make a new box tomorrow for the project page, and apply it to the talk pages of articles. Snowspinner 23:12, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The LGBT box on Heteronormativity looks great - its out of the way, yet there for handy reference. I'm wondering if there is any way to make out box somehow more like it. I'm thinking, though, that "this is part of the critical theory project" might need a little more explanation than "here are some more LGBT terms you might be interested in". Still though, its got me thinking... -Seth Mahoney 01:52, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I put this box below, next to the "see also" to prevent another box war. It is perfectly pointless, though, content-wise, and the content is debated, too. -- AlexR 21:00, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Its not pointless at all - it helps to consistently link together several related articles. Note that the "see also" section does not offer consistency, nor does it serve the function of linking together several related articles into one broad topic, something that the project is intended to fix. -Seth Mahoney 21:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these links were choosen rather arbitrarily, it does not make any sense, for example, to list "transsexual" and "transgender". Transsexual is part of transgender, and listing it seperately implies either a hirarchy or some basic difference; both is incorrect. Also, other parts of transgender, or related articles, were not mentionend. Neither was the "List of TG-related topics" which would have made a lot more sense. And "intersex" was taken out today, because most intersex people feel that it does not belong there.
Also, I still don't see what advantage a box has over a link at "see also" that leads to a list of articles from a particular field. Boxes are shoving particular fields at the reader, on the expense of other, equally related fields. Also, I don't want to see boxes telling me what is related, I want to learn that form the article, and then a link to a list will do perfectly well, thank you very much. -- AlexR 00:05, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I feel as though the complaint here is against boxes in general. Should series boxes be banned by widespread decree, I would, of course, remove all boxes. But since they are permitted, an argument against boxes as such is somewhat beside the point. I think that the box in question is, at this point, exceptionally discrete and unobtrusive. So I think it's probably a good compromise. Snowspinner 01:25, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused by the replacement of the project box on queer theory with the category box. It seems really confusing to me, and doesn't even mention the project. Am I missing something here? Voyager640 20:35, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article is part of

Sorry, but could you please change that back to "This article is listed on" or whatever you had before. You can NOT go around and claim articles to be "part of" your project, especially since of the articles already written were not written by members of the project, nor with the project in mind. The articles are probably relevant to a number of fields, and it is hijacking the article for your particular field if you claim it to belong to this project so prominently. -- AlexR 21:00, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No one is saying that this or any other article is *exclusively* part of any one project. The purpose of the box is to say, "this is a way of looking at the contents of this article - here's a few links if you want to explore this". There's no hijacking going on here. It can still be edited and read by anyone, project member or not. It can be a member of multiple projects. I'm also involved in the Philosophy WikiProject, and many of the articles included in the project were not written by project members, nor were they written expressely with the project in mind. This does not mean, however, that it is inappropriate to say that these articles are a part of the project, a status they received based on their topics. -Seth Mahoney 21:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Name of the Project

I love that this WikiProject exists, and I think it's pointing things in the right direction in an area of Wikipedia that's caused me some frustration in the past. Thanks for all your efforts. However, I strongly suggest that critical theory is the wrong name for this. "Critical theory" has strong connotations of, and a specific meaning within, the Frankfurt School. The broader meaning captured by this project is roughly synonymous with literary theory and/or Continental philosophy and/or culture theory. Why not pick a more neutral name for the project, like WikiProject Cultural Theory? Then the article on critical theory can go back to representing the specific meaning for Frankfurt-school sociological thought, and we can save much confusion. -- Rbellin 15:33, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Critical Theory is the name most commonly used to describe all different types of approaches used to analyze culture. One could argue if cultural theory wouldn't be a better name, but according to the naming conventions we must stick with the more common term. Continental Philosophy would exclude all the work done in the US, in postcolonial studies etc. while literary theory would exclude the whole field of cultural studies. On the other hand, if you'd like to distinguish Frankfurt School Critical Theory (which really is best found on the Frankfurt School page), how about an article on Kritische Theorie? The German term isn't half as ambiguous. A notice at the top of the Critical Theory page could direct people interested in Kritische Theorie to the appropriate page. Pteron 21:59, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I disagree with Pteron's assertion that "Critical Theory is the name most commonly used to describe all different types of approaches." Even granting this, though (which I believe is factually incorrect), the naming conventions suggest not to use the most common name, but to use the most common unambiguous name. I'd suggest, rather than disambiguating to two pages like critical theory (cultural studies) and critical theory (Frankfurt School), that an unambiguous name -- like cultural theory, or hell, even critical cultural theory, be used instead. Or, and here's a crazy thought, what about "WikiProject Theory"? (As an aside, as the article describes, continental philosophy does not usually exclude work done by U.S. continentalists et al.) -- Rbellin 03:44, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think "theory" is an overly broad term. As has been pointed out several times, there are plenty of other equally good places to list the Frankfurt school information, and the Frankfurt school is the first thing mentioned in the article. I think the matter is handled more than generously towards those interested in the Frankfurt School. But in its current usage, the term doesn't usually refer to the Frankfurt school. And that should be reflected in the article. Snowspinner 06:09, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What about cultural studies as the broader term that includes critical theory, literary theory, etc.? Hyacinth 22:42, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cultural studies is a relatively recent development, and one that is still in many ways associated with popular culture studies (i.e. the Birmingham school). Snowspinner 22:56, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Precisely, and that's what keeps me from wanting to use the term cultural studies for this project. And I don't really like Continental Philosophy, as that's a term applied from the perspective of England, so hardly the one used within the field. If you look through professional resources like the MLA, you'll find the uses of critical theory at least even split between the Frankfurt School use and the general use. More popular sources like google weigh more toward the general use. I have yet to hear what the (featured article) Frankfurt School lacks, necessitating another article on Kritische Theorie. If that article doesn't encompass Kritische Theorie adaquately, it can still be expanded accordingly. Disambiguating Critical Theory is problematic because it is Frankfurt School Critical Theory's hypernym. Isn't the little note I just added at the top of 'Critical Theory' sufficient? (btw. I have no idea how Frankfurt School became a featured article, no chapter headings or pictures... and I did the wikification only after it was on the front page!) Pteron 23:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I think that's sufficient... I've resurrected the older Frankfurt-specific page as critical theory (Frankfurt School), and changed your disambiguation link to point to that. I think the Frankfurt-specific meaning is important enough to merit a short article of its own, apart from the page on the Frankfurt School itself. And, off-topic: 1) the "continental" label is, absolutely, an Anglo-American invention, but it's a label happily embraced by many philosophers, and 2) the Frankfurt School article was, presumably, chosen as a featured article because it's really, really good. Pictures and wiki-links aren't everything, you know. :-) -- Rbellin 03:13, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Mmh, the article may well be great - but still shouldn't have become a featured article until it met Wikipedia standards. Someone should have taken care of that during or before the nomination process - that's all I'm saying... And that, btw, is one of the reasons this Wikiproject is important. Pteron 06:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I have just joined this project. I must say that I too am unhappy about some of the things that 'critical theory' is supposed to cover. By critical theory I too understand essentially the tradition of the Frankfurt School. The thinkers we are concerned with are certainly united in being critical, in doing critique, but not in doing theory. Postmodernists/poststructuralists are generally not theorists, since they deride theory. My feeling is that this heading tends to assimilate French thought to German illegitimately. Sadly, however, I don't really have an alternative name for this. Continental philosophy is ruled out because we are not dealing with phenomenology. Indeed, the problem of naming here seems to me to emanate from the fact that what this project covers does not follow a coherent set of boundaries. It is not all French and German, nor is it all Marxist. It is mostly 20th century, but there's so much of the 20th century here, that I think this project is radically heteroclite. --XmarkX 05:01, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Critical Theory" category

Hi,

doing some recategorisations (as the result of re-reading my former Anthropology text book), I stumbled across the "Critical theory" category, and thought it was not going to work as a Wikipedia category name. See what I did to the category definition (sorry, before knowing there was a specific wikipedia project with the same name). As WikiProject I think the name perfectly viable (and the exact extent of the contours less a problem), but as a category name I suppose it has too many pitfalls.

Just wanted to mention this here, because I think a lot of effort has gone into this already, and do not want to destroy this, but when attaching categories to articles (and to categories) I recategorise till it starts to make sense in my eyes, which somewhere got stuck on this category.

--Francis Schonken 18:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PS - See also User talk:Walden --Francis Schonken 20:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Myth

Please see Talk:Myth for anti-critical theory bias. Hyacinth 19:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just translated the german wikipedia article on Friedrich Pollock. Its only biographical, however. It needs some discussion of his work. Smmurphy 22:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Postmodernity

I think the project is rather dead at this time, but anyone who could contribute to an ongoing discussion in Talk:Postmodernity, where a well-known POV-pusher is attempting to single-handedly control the article would be greatly welcome to do so. Taragüí @ 12:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. The article Critical theory itself looks close to A-class to me, though a few more refs wouldn't hurt, and a picture would brighten it up! Are there any featured articles in this area? Can you suggest some A or decent B-class articles we might use? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 05:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Foucault is, I believe, featured. Phil Sandifer 05:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankfurt School is as well. Jeremy J. Shapiro 05:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, I have added them to our listing. Do you have any other articles you would consider to be close to FA quality? Please keep your suggestions coming, thanks a lot. Walkerma 05:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

totality vs metanarrative

How is adorno's opposition to totalities any different from later postmodernist philosophers' opposition to metanarratives? Thanks.--Urthogie 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slavoj Zizek article getting unbalanced

I know this isn't exactly critical theory as such... but it's sort of in the right ballpark. I reckon a lot of editors here are at least passingly familiar with Zizek. I'm having a bit of a problem over at the Zizek article; minor as such things go, but I think some intervention from some experienced editors here couldn't hurt.

Basically, a few anonymous editors (and a couple named ones) have written a much-too-long "Critiques" section. This section lists rather impressionistic criticisms by rather unimportant (or maybe of minor importance) thinkers. None of the stuff in the "Critique" section is really wrong per se. Some people really did write a few criticisms. But it bumps up against a rather strong "undue weight" problem—both in the number of words in that section as a raw fact, and in the general "who-cares"-ness of the critics and criticisms chosen.

In the past, I've found a similar problem in both the Lacan and Freud articles. A little bit in Adorno too, FWIW. Way too much of biographies of difficult academics get filled up with facile comments by other thinkers whose comments seem to amount to little more than "I don't understand Lacan (Freud/Adorno/Zizek/etc)." For a while there was something in the Lacan article where Chomsky made basically that comment... which is actually fine on Chomsky's part, and was not even a badly phrased comment, but it's hardly of encyclopedic interest when reading about Lacan. Or anti-semite Kevin MacDonald criticizing Adorno as "too Jewish" (which I finally killed from the article). The Zizek critiques are also at a similarly trite level. It's one thing if Negri, or Butler, or Laclau want to take serious issue with Zizek: let's definitely report on that in the bio (albeit concisely); but someone padding their resume after skimming a Zizek book isn't notable for the biography (which basically would include a couple articles by me, in full disclosure mode... but I sure don't want "Mertz" cited in the Zizek bio either).

Please help! All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted something about this on the discussion for critiques of zizek. That article, at best, should be merged with the zizek article proper, and shortened. Its completely ludicrous that bordwell's critiques of zizek are given a full page, while those of his peers (the abovementioned, badiou et al) arent even mentioned. In the absence of any action by any other editors, would it be OK to request that this article be removed/merged into the main zizek article?Jimmyq2305 07:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template for Critical Theory

The WikiProject template for Critical Theory {{CriticalTheory}} is very hard on the eyes, being all italics.

Considering that it is encased in an apricot coloured box and located at the top of the page, I think it is very obvious to the reader already and the italics make me want to NOT read it, which seems to be against the purpose. It would be great if someone could change the template to remove the italics. JenLouise 02:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have just removed the italics. Deleuze 02:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please keep updating your Philosophy/Religion WikiProject article table for articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 05:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 03:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Views and Aid for Gender Studies

Hi, I'm working on the gender studies article and would appreciate some outside opinion on it. It's early days yet, I've had to completely rewrite it for NPOV, clarity and accuracy but it still has a long way to go. Any help would be appreciated.--Cailil 17:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future member?

I'm considering becoming a member of the project, but I'm at a loss as to where I might fit in. My interests lie in Literary criticism and theory, mostly New Historicist. Would I be able to find a niche, here, or is that too specific of an interest? Wrad 03:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New article on Secondary antisemitism

I took the liberty of adding this project's template to a new article on Secondary antisemitism because of the involvement of Adorno and Horkheimer in the elaboration of the concept. Hope this makes sense. Would be pleased to discuss, also the editor who created the article would probably want to be involved in the discussion too. Cheers. Itsmejudith 18:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Text", in the critical theory sense

I was trying to clean up paratext, and started looking for an article on "text" in the sense in which it's used in critical theory. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia doesn't have one. There are lots of links at the disambiguation page text, but none of them seemed to apply precisely. Hermeneutics is at least the right subject, but there's a distinction between the study of texts and texts themselves. I'm not an academic, and have only a passing familiarity with critical theory, but this seemed like a significant omission to me. I don't know how active this WikiProject is, but if anyone's reading this and wants to take on a project, here's one. (I'm not even sure what the best name for such an article would be: text (critical theory), text (literary criticism), text (criticism), or something else?) Anyway: your mission, should you choose to accept it... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea (though I'm not volunteering). I'd vote for a title like text (culture), for breadth's sake, since it's not clear that this meaning of "text" is strictly confined to the aesthetic-critical disciplines. Whoever takes this on should probably start from John Mowitt's book Text: The Genealogy of an Antidisciplinary Object as well as a few tertiary sources. I believe I added this as a reference to the main text article a while back, but it was deleted for some reason like "disambig pages can't have references." -- Rbellin|Talk 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subsuming project under Philosophy

A lot of re-organization has been done over at WP:PHILO recently. I must admit, I haven't paid any attention to this group Critical theory in that process. The WP:PHILO has designated several task forces for the purpose of covering everything appropriate. The project banner provides the option of tracking articles by fields which correspond to the task forces. The Aesthetics, Ethics, and Phil of science projects have already been subsumed to a sub project or task force of WP:PHILO. Each of the task forces benefit from the assessment resources of the whole project. The data for the project is also broken down by task force. A worklist is also created in this process.

I am wondering what the group would prefer to do... Perhaps just rename Marxism to "Critical theory" outright, expand the scope to include both, and insert those options in the banner? I would also like to make a place for the participants in the philosophy roster as the others are organized, etc.

Would the group prefer to combine-with/subsume the Continental Philosophy task force? Perhaps some combination of Critical theory, Continental philosophy, Marxism, Phenomenology would be appropriate for one or two task forces. How should it be organized? Please take a look at how the "Major traditions" are organized.

In addition, the plan is to have a bot automatically tag all the articles in certain designated categories as part of one or more task forces. You can see those categories on the page of each task force under Scope. We will be able to replace all the {{CriticalTheory}} with {{philosophy|critical=yes}} during that process. Currently only Aesthetics, Ethics, Epistemology, and Metaphysics are scheduled for this process.

The goal of the reorganization should be to A) be general enough to cover a significant enough number of articles to merit a task force, B) be specific enough to produce a meaningful worklist for each task force, and C) be a convenient way to organize the content for the editor. This proposal is consistent with several discussions at WP:REFORM.

Some in the group may not fully appreciate this proposal. Please be assured, we have a lot of options and tools for organizing the material. I'm sure we can come up with something. In the case of the Logic project, the Math people were a bit territorial on some issues. They were accommodated by, in some areas, just creating two of everything (math and phil). In other areas there were created united areas joined by transclusions of two separate spaces. Greg Bard 12:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Heidegger

I wrote some articles about Heidegger for the german Wikipedia and would like to contribute here as well, because I have seen that the english article needs some corrections and additional material. But I would need someone who could recheck my grammar and who would look for typos. I asked user Mtevfrog, but he does not seem to log in that often, so I wonder if someone here would like to help me? We would also need some english translations of Heideggers work, so that we could match english translations of Heideggers german terminology. As a native german speake we would have access to the Gesamtausgabe (Heidegger) and could even cite from texts that are not yet translatet into english.

You might want to have a look on the german articles I've written so far:

So is someone here who'd like to do it? The main article (Martin Heidegger) is most important, I think.

Greetings from Berlin -- Tischbeinahe (talk) φιλο 21:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]